國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
52
Table 5
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Environmental Risk Perception and Policy Support at the Individual Level
Risk perception Policy Support Block 1: Demographics
Age －.07*** .01
Male .01 .02*
Education .11*** .11***
Incremental R2 (%) 2.7*** 1.4***
Block 2: Personal values
Self-transcendence .15*** .23***
Self-enhancement .10*** .00
Incremental R2 (%) 3.7*** 5.6***
Block 3: Risk perception
General risk perception .07***
Incremental R2 (%) 0.5***
Total R2 (%) 6.4*** 7.4***
Note:
(1) *p < .05 **p < .01 ***p < .001
(2) Independent variables were entered into the model according to their assumed causal order.
RQ1 investigated whether relations between personal values and environmental risk perception will vary across risks associated with different geographical scales (local vs global risks). Results suggested that the public across nations do have a tendency to exaggerate global environmental problems but deny the seriousness of threats to their own countries or communities (see Table 6). Also, both self-transcendence and self-enhancement values have conditional effects on risk perception, depending on how far the risks are from the individuals (see Table 7).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Table 6
Global and Local Risk Perception across Nations
Country N Global Local G > L
All 15355 3.30 2.71 *
Brazil 1500 3.53 2.88 *
Bulgaria 1001 3.44 2.37 *
China 2015 2.81 2.16 *
Taiwan 1227 3.48 2.25 *
India 2001 2.91 3.09
Norway 1025 3.57 1.78 *
South Africa 2988 3.10 3.09
Sweden 1003 3.59 1.51 *
Turkey 1346 3.77 3.45 *
U.S. 1249 3.34 2.82 *
Note.
(1) The numerals in the first column are the main scores for individual risk ratings of three global environmental problems (i.e., global warming, loss of biodiversity, pollution of oceans) on a 4-point scale.
(2) The numerals in the second column are the main scores for individual risk ratings of three local environmental problems (i.e., poor water quality, poor air quality, poor sanitation) on a 4-point scale.
(3) The table represents results from paired-samples T Test. India is the only country in which local environmental problems are judged as more serious than global environmental ones. Risk
perception of global environmental problems are not significantly different from that of locak ones in South Africa.
‧
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Environmental Risk Perception and Policy Support across Geographical Scales
Global Local Support
Block 1: Demographics
Age －.02 －.10*** －.00
Male .00 .00 .02
Education .16*** －.07*** .08***
Incremental R2 (%) 3.0*** 2.2*** 1.4***
Block 2: Personal values
Self-transcendence .23*** .02* .20***
Self-enhancement －.05*** .17*** .03**
Incremental R2 (%) 4.9*** 3.0*** 5.4***
Block 3: Risk perception
Global -- -- .16***
(2) Independent variables were entered into the model according to their assumed causal order.
Specifically, while self-transcendence values were found to increase both global and local risk perception, this positive impact seems to be far more pronounced for geographically broader hazards that affect all humanity and other life forms (β=.23, p<.001) than directly exposed local threats that have rather limited scope of influence (β=.02, p<.05). Similarly, self-enhancement values also have different effects on public perception of global risks as opposed to local ones. According to the results, people who attribute more importance to their own interests tend to perceive lower risks for geographically distant and broader issues (β=－.05, p<.001). However, for local environmental problems, people holding self-enhancement values are more likely to judge these local threats as more serious than those downplaying the same values (β=.17, p<.001).
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
RQ2 further asked whether relations between environmental risk perception and policy support will be different across risks with different scales. Findings provided evidence supporting the conditional influences of risk perception on policy support (see Table 7). After controlling for socio-demographics and value differences, global risk perception was found positively related to policy support ( β =.16, p<.001), while local risk perception was negatively related (β =－.04, p<.001).
The stronger positive association between global risk perception and policy support seems generalizable across nations. Separate regressions based on national samples demonstrated that local risk perception was significantly related to policy support only in two countries out of ten (India and Norway)2 (see Table 8).
2 The strong negative association found within the Norwegian public between perceived local risks and environmental policy support might stem from their ambiguous feelings toward their country both as the major polluter and custodian of the environment. For more details, please see: Norway and the environment: Binge and purge (2009, January 22). The Economist. Retrieved from
http://www.economist.com/node/12970769
‧
The Role of Global Risk Perception and Local Risk Perception in Shaping Policy Support across Nations
Country Global Local G/L Correlation
All .21*** －.07 .23***
(2) All numerals in the first two columns are standardized beta.
(3) G/L correlation provides Pearson’s r for the relations between global and local risk perception.
(4) The numerals in parenthesis show the ranking of a given society’s objective environmental quality, ranging from 1 (the best environmental quality) to 5 (the worst environmental quality).
Overall, regressions at the individual level demonstrated that the associations among values, risk perception, and policy support are greatly influenced by the geographical proximity of the risk. However, as individuals are always imbedded in concrete social contexts, support for environmental protection will be driven in part by forces at the aggregate. As a consequence, in the next section, a society’s cultural orientations and development level will be examined as potential country-level influences shaping public risk perception and policy support.
Country-level Influences Direct Effects
RQ3 and RQ4 explored the way cultural orientations and development levels
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
may influence people’s environmental risk perception (RQ3) and policy support (RQ4). What’s more, the effects of cultural orientations and development levels are explored with risks to the world and risks to one’s community being considered separately.
Results suggested that people cultivated in other-oriented cultures are more sensitive to environmental risks compared to those from self-oriented ones. This holds true both for global (β =.25, p<.001) and local environmental issues (β =.26, p<.001).
However, despite higher risk concerns, people in other-oriented cultures tend to show lower willingness to support environmental policies via taxpaying behavior (β =－.16, p<.001) (see Table 9).
In addition to cultural value emphases, a country’s development level also has a significant influence on how members of that society assess and respond to
environmental threats. Specifically, contrary to the popular belief that public
environmental concerns increase as societies develop, evidence obtained in this study shows that such positive effect only holds for broader environmental issues such as global warming or loss of biodiversity (β=.24, p<.001). For local issues specific to one's own country or community, a given society’s level of development was found to negatively influence its members’ risk judgments (β =－.29, p<.001). Perceiving lower impending risks, citizens in developed countries tend to report lower willingness to support environmental policies and regulation at their own cost (β =
－.04, p<.001) (see Table 9).
‧
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Environmental Risk Perception and Policy Support Based on Individual Attributes and Country-level Factors
Risk perception
Block 2: Personal values
Self-transcendence －.21*** －.06*** － .19***
Self-enhancement －.01*** －.03*** － .04***
Incremental R2 (%) 4.4*** －0.3*** 5.7***
Block 3: Risk perception
Global -- -- － .21***
(2) Development and cultural orientation are country-level variables. All members of a country are given the same scores.
Cross-level Moderation: Value-Perception Relations
As presented previously, the model at the individual level suggested that self-transcendence values positively influence people’s risk perception of both global and local environmental issues. In contrast, self-enhancement values lower risk concerns for global threats but raise concerns for local risks.
Expanding on these findings, RQ5 investigated whether the link between
‧
value priorities and risk perception observed at the individual level will vary across societies with different cultural emphases and development levels. Results are presented in Table 10.
Table 10
Block 2: Personal values
Incremental R2 (%) 1 4.4*** 1 0.3*** 5.7***
Block 3: Risk perception
Incremental R2 (%) --- -- 3.1***
(1) All interaction terms were entered in a single step as the last block in the model.
(2) The numerals presented here refer to before-entry beta.
(3) ST refers to self-transcendence values. SE refers to self-enhancement values. “Culture” refers to the degree to which a given society promote other-oriented values over self-directed concerns based on Schwartz’s nation scores (2005), with higher scores representing increased emphases on other-orientation. “Development” refers to a given society’s level of development based on the Human Development Index (2005).
Significant cross-level interactions were observed for all interaction terms except for two circumstances. The nature of interactions was further demonstrated