Social research question and justification:
A research topic I would like to investigate is how one’s social class affects their level of environmental concern. This is an important question because it has yielded mixed results in the past (Dunlap and Jones, 2002). Early difficulties arose when environmental concern was not clearly defined. Perceptions about what the environment is varied dramatically among those being surveyed, as did the factors that measured concern. Some of the first studies on the issue left the definition of “environmental” open to the respondent, while what qualified as concern depended on different measurements. Some polled for behavior that indicated concern, while others polled for cognitive expression or attitudes about the environment (Dunlap and Jones, 2002). This resulted in an extremely complex literature on the subject.
My proposal attempts to reduce these definitions by simplifying concern into two types: behavioral vs. expressed. I chose these types because most of the previous research has approached concern with measurements that unintentionally favor one class having higher concern than the other. I intend to show how these types categorize concern into different aspects of it that determine one’s level of concern. If there is a clear answer to how class affects environmental concern, the results could help researchers further understand this important topic.
Synthesized literature review:
There is now more evidence to suggest that levels of concern vary, depending on the way it is measured. When the level of concern is measured by actions taken, the result tends to favor the upper class (Briger, 2019; Fairbrother, 2013; Kennedy and Givens, 2019). Conversely, Gifford and Nilsson (2014) found that when it is measured by expressed concern- the opinions of the individual, who may or may not have the means to act- the result shifts to the lower class having more concern. Formulating a research design that better defines concern by splitting it into these two types should lead to better results.
Results from Briger’s study (2019) suggest that people in the upper class are more willing to spend money to protect the environment. Yet upper class people have more means to act on concern compared to lower class people. Carfagna et al (2014) found that lower class people who would act are disadvantaged by income, cultural capital, and education- traditional staples of upper class living.
Several social factors explain this apparent conditioning of class to the level or type of concern. An important one in the United States is suburbanization (Szasz, 2007), where people of color and low income are institutionally sorted into living conditions that make them less aware of the environment despite being at higher risk of experiencing pollution. In the 1950s, suburbanization led to high cultural capital being allocated to the suburbs, which predominantly became settled by white middle-and-upper class people, who reaped the benefits in better quality education than their former neighbors in the cities. As a result, the suburbanized elite were better able to grasp the effects of global environmental damage than those in the cities they had left behind. They were also safer from environmental harm (Szasz, 2007) because a disproportionate amount of people left in the cities were poorly paid workers living close to industries that pollute the environment.
Another factor in the U.S. is working conditions (Obach, 2021), where low wage workers whose jobs are threatened by environmental policies move to organize against them. While most worker unions support environmental protection, others such as the United Mine Workers (Orbach, 2021), oppose reform to protect the jobs of its members. With reform, the displacement of jobs from old industries to new would follow; thus, one could understand why such blue collars workers feel threatened by it. Movements that organize against environmental protection, such as unions and the capitalists who manage the companies they represent, are fueled by conservative elites, who consistently show a low level of concern in developed countries (Nawrotski, 2012)- countries that tend to be associated with the Global North.
Social identity (Briger, 2019) also plays a part in shaping differences in concern among classes, especially in the context of the pro-environmental upper-class. Briger (2019) found two types of effects in his research that amplify concern in the upper class: the elevator and amplifier effects. The elevator effect strengthens concern in countries where social identities are more prevalent. Individuals are more likely to feel part of communal, national, and world groups in these countries, which contributes to their awareness of global environmental conflict. He also found an amplifier effect- when participation in these groups reinforces environmental concern due to shared values and common goals. Individuals who did not feel connected to communal and national groups, let alone the world in general, were less likely to show high levels of environmental concern.
Carfagna et al (2014) argue that the upper-class is conditioned to having higher levels of concern by identifying with an eco-habitus that is only available to those with high cultural capital (HCC). Cultural capital promotes a stratified society by making certain privileges inaccessible, such as quality of education, stye of clothing, and the ability to purchase environmentally friendly goods. This leads to what they call an “emerging eco-habitus”, wherein environmental action only seems accessible to those with HCC. On the other end of the spectrum, exposure to degradation has a large effect on the likelihood of concern (Franzen and Meyer, 2010), indicating the Global South- more typically “lower-class” from a global perspective- has higher levels of concern than studies whose focus is on the U.S. or Europe would suggest. Proximity to degradation likewise has a similar effect (Gifford and Nilsson, 2014). Their study most strengthens the idea that class conditions concern, for it found that those who live closer to degradation, who are usually poor and less educated, show more concern for the environment, albeit on a local level.
Givens and Jorgensen (2011) also found that exposure to degradation universally increases concern, no matter the class. They show how the treadmill of production, a theory that describes pollution and waste as a cyclical consequence of industrial capitalism (Myers, 2021), inevitability leads to increased concern due to the degradation it causes. An important implication here is that since the Global South is experiencing degradation at higher rates than the Global North, higher concern should currently be expected there, which would support the findings of Franzen and Mayer (2010).
As the century moves forward and global warming continues, further degradation should be expected, leading to large upheavals in social dynamics that affect class structure. Wallace-Wells (2019) predicts a refugee crisis as the Global South becomes too inhospitable to live in. He also predicts that the eventual costs of doing nothing to combat climate change will far outweigh the costs of doing things now. All classes will likely show increasing concern as temperatures rise, degradation continues, pollution gets worse, and economies suffer. Critically, he expects the poor to suffer most from the coming crisis, forcing a more dramatic rise in concern among the lower class.
Environmental concern is an increasingly important matter facing our world today. The more we know about how class structure influences levels of concern, the more we can do to change public perceptions about the environment. Ideally, the results from this research would inspire solutions that elevate concern among all classes, not just the ones showing more of it. Because of the mixed results in past research, it may seem like class has little to no effect on environmental concern, which would only validate the findings of Bruger (2019) and Nawrotski (2012). However, most research suggests that the ways in which concern is measured are what is most contributing to this. The studies in which willingness to pay was the only factor (Fairbrother, 2013; Kennedy and Givens, 2019) suffer from having a narrow view of what concern is. Environmental concern needs to include multiple elements, not just willingness to pay, because the response unfairly favors people who have the means to act. The expressions, opinions, and interpretations of the lower class should matter when evaluating concern, whether their point of view is local or global. The literature provides so many contexts of concern that it would be hard to choose one that represents a full authority on the matter. Furthermore, we have seen that many social parameters can affect one’s level of concern, such as cultural capital and education for the higher class, and the presence of degradation for the lower. Conversely, lower presence of degradation for the upper class (Szasz, 2007) and lower education levels for the lower class (Carfagna et al., 2014) can have negative influences. Each class has parameters that influence concern in varying degrees, which would explain the lack of consistency, even today. However, with unprecedented rising temperatures and increasing degradation globally (Wallace-Wells, 2019), one can assume that levels of concern are surely rising to unprecedented levels.
Hypotheses:
To reconcile these issues, I intend to show how two types of concern vary between class levels in the United States. In previous research, behavioral concern correlated more strongly with HCC and education level, while expressed concern correlated more highly with the presence of degradation. I will use data from a survey to show how expressed concern is usually a function of local degradation near lower class citizens, whereas behavioral concern appears more in those with higher income and education. My prediction is that those with higher education and income will show more active concern by engaging in more behaviors to prevent environmental harm, while those with lower education and income will show more expressed concern.
Five variables:
The first variable in my survey will be a measure of social class, the independent variable. This is not necessarily one’s wealth status, but the class they identify with as well. Surveying for one’s class identity makes it more consistent with previous literature, particularly as it pertains to social identity. However, since most people identify with the middle class, asking for their annual income should give a clearer picture of their true status. The way I will measure this is by asking which social class the individual identifies with, and their income level.
The second variable in my survey will be education level, one of the extraneous variables. Here only one response is needed: the highest level of education completed. I intend to use this as reinforcer of HCC.
The third variable in my survey will be the presence of degradation in the local community, another extraneous variable. Respondents will be asked what threats directly influence their lives (i.e. landfills, factories, incinerators, waste facilities, traffic levels). A point will be given for each threat in the local vicinity. Higher scores will indicate a higher presence of degradation.
The fourth variable in my survey will be behavioral concern, one of the dependent variables. This will be the first dimension in measuring concern. It will be a measure of the level of action taken in response to expressed concern. Actions taken include willingness to pay, type of transportation, and donations to environmental causes. Respondents will be asked a series of questions to generate an index of their level of active concern These questions will involve Likert scales that determine their index level.
The fifth variable in my survey will be expressed concern, the second dependent variable. This will be the second dimension in measuring concern. It will be a measure of the level of concern that the individual perceives but is not necessarily acted upon. Likert scales will also be used in this segment to evaluate levels of expressed concern in areas like air pollution, water pollution, loss of biodiversity, and climate change.
Sampling design:
My sample should use random probability to ensure there is a fair balance of people from multiple backgrounds being represented. The method I will use to sample will be a questionnaire because it is cheap, easily structured, and can generate a lot of data from many geographical locations. A questionnaire also helps to conceal any embarrassment from the respondent, as opposed to an interview, which might potentially alter their responses.
The process of randomization (sampling frame) I intend to use is simple stratified sampling. This is because my population should fall into distinct strata of social class that need to be compared. Each stratum should be equally represented by using a randomized sample from each class in equal proportions. The unit of analysis should be individuals in the U.S., using data obtained from the U.S. Census.
Since household income is a private subject, I do not expect to find much data on it for specific individuals. Likely, I would have to survey rich, poor, and middle-class neighborhoods based on geographical data from the census. Door-to-door solicitation or mailing the questionnaires would be the best route in that regard. Yet solicitation would be limited to local neighborhoods, resulting in coverage error, so mail is the better option among the two. Since it can be expensive and slow to send and receive mail, e-mailing the surveys would be an even better option. However, I would need to find a data source that lists email along with income, which does not seem practical. A practical and most efficient option for reducing coverage error would be to invite people on the Internet to fill out the survey. The risk with that is the potential to get a limited response from a particular class, which defeats the purpose of using a stratified sampling frame. To limit the influence of these issues, I will use a combination of mail and Internet data for the survey.
Research method:
I will need to use a qualitative research method with surveys because determining environmental concern is not easily quantifiable. The opinions and experiences of others as they relate to the environment can better be measured by interpretive analysis than numerical analysis. That is why I have proposed Likert scales and indexes in my survey to represent the categorical outcomes of most variablew. The only variables that will have quantitative data are ones measuring class (income) and the level of local degradation (measured by count). Yet even degradation is qualitative to some degree, as the judgment of whether or not something is environmentally harmful to their neighborhood can be subjective.
To some degree I will be using an archival method, as the process for collecting data will involve information from the U.S. Census. This will only be used indirectly though, to find areas where each class can be fairly represented. None of the results in the survey will reflect actual census data.
An evaluation method would not be suitable because there is no known organization that tracks the information I am seeking. Likewise, field surveys and experimental methods would not be suitable to the project, as it can be difficult to classify people based on appearances alone. If I were to judge the level of one’s concern based on their actions and their public appearance, I would need to make personal assumptions about them, such as their class, education level, and living conditions. This could critically alter the data in my project; and as you well know, assumptions have no place in science.
Some of the limitations of surveys is that they tend to be more costly and take more time than other methods. That is why they typically need more funding to complete. One reason for this is the possibility of a low return on survey responses. If I were to mail out a hundred surveys and only receive twenty responses, I would not have enough data to carry out the experiment. Surveys can also be vulnerable to bias, in that some people provide answers based on what they want to believe: or what they want others to believe about them.
Remedies for these limitations are to carefully word questions in ways that elicit accurate responses for data. The more concrete my statements are, the better. Vague questions that leave it up for the surveyor to decide how to answer are detrimental to the project. Also, making sure my selections do not overlap will ensure that my data remains consistent. Finally, keeping my questions simple and appealing will attract a larger audience to respond. Using too much academic jargon may have the effect of deterring people from responding, particularly if they are in a hurry or do not know much about the subject.
I believe I have addressed these concerns in the proposed survey below.
Survey questions:
What social class do you most identify with? Upper, upper-middle, middle, lower-middle, or lower.
What is your annual income? Over $100,000, $70,000-$99,999, $50,000-$69,999, $30,00-$49,999, Under $30,000
What is the highest level of education you have completed? Less than high school, high school diploma, some college, Associates degree, Bachelor’s degree, post-bachelor’s degree, technical degree or certificate.
Which of the following are in or near your neighborhood? Check all that apply. Landfill, sewage, factory, incinerator, toxic waste facility, high vehicle traffic, airplane traffic, poor water quality, other environmental threats (please specify).
For the active concern index:
Do you pay for green consumption? If so, check all that apply. Reusable bags, products with energy labels, solar power, wind power, products with electric motors, organic/local food, other (please specify).
Do you own an electric vehicle or hybrid?
Do you donate to environmental causes? If yes, how much do you donate per year?
For the expressed concern index:
Would you donate part of your income if you were certain the money would be used to help the environment? Very likely/likely/not likely/very unlikely.
Would you agree to an increase in taxes if the extra money were used to prevent environmental degradation? Very likely/likely/not likely/very unlikely.
How strongly do you feel that air pollution is a serious issue? Very strongly/strongly/neutral/not very strongly/not strongly at all.
How strongly do you feel that water pollution is a serious issue? Very strongly/strongly/neutral/not very strongly/not strongly at all.
How strongly do you feel that the loss of biodiversity is a serious issue? Very strongly/strongly/neutral/not very strongly/not strongly at all.
How strongly do you feel that global warming is a serious issue? Very strongly/strongly/neutral/not very strongly/not strongly at all.
Bibliography:
Briger, Steven A. 2019. “Social Identity and Environmental Concern: The Importance of Contextual Effects.” Environment and Behavior 51(7):828-855
Carfagna, Lindsey B., Emilie A. Dubois, Fitzmaurice Connor, Monique Y. Ouimette, Juliet B. Schor, Margaret Willis, and Thomas Laidley. 2014. “An Emerging Eco-habitus: The Reconfiguration of High Cultural Capital Practices among Ethical Consumers.” Journal of Consumer Culture 14(2):158–78.
Dunlap, Riley E. and Robert Emmet Jones. 2002. “Environmental Concern: Conceptual and Measurement Issues.” Pp. 482–524 in Handbook of Environmental Sociology, edited by Riley E. Dunlap and William Michelson. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press
Fairbrother, M. (2013). Rich people, poor people, and environmental concern: Evidence across nations and time. European Sociological Review, 29, 910-922. doi:10.1093/esr/jcs068
Franzen, A., & Meyer, R. (2010). Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review, 26, 219-234. doi:10.1093/esr/jcp018
Gifford, R., & Nilsson, A. (2014). Personal and social factors that influence proenvironmental concern and behaviour: A review. International Journal of Psychology, 49, 141-157. doi:10.1002/ijop.12034
Givens, Jennifer E. and Andrew K. Jorgenson. 2011. “The Effects of Affluence, Economic Development, and Environmental Degradation on Environmental Concern: A Multilevel Analysis.” Organization and Environment 24(1):74–91
Kennedy, Emily H. and Jennifer E. Givens. 2019. “Eco-Habitus or Eco-Powerlessness: Examining Environmental Concern across Social Class.” Sociological Perspectives 62(25):646-667.
Myers, Justin Sean. 2021. “Theories in Environmental Sociology”. Pp. 28-56 in Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology. 3rd Ed, edited by Kenneth A. Gould and Tammy L. Lewis. New York: Oxford University Press
Nawrotzki, R. J. (2012). The politics of environmental concern: A cross-national analysis. Organization & Environment, 25, 286-307. doi:10.1177/1086026612456535
Obach, Brian A. 2021. “Labor and the Environment.” Pp. 310-328 in Twenty Lessons in Environmental Sociology. 3rd Ed, edited by Kenneth A. Gould and Tammy L. Lewis. New York: Oxford University Press
Szasz, Andrew. 2007. Shopping Our Way to Safety: How We Changed from Protecting the Environment to Protecting Ourselves. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Wallace-Wells, David. 2019. The Uninhabitable Earth. New York: Random House
No comments:
Post a Comment