Of Global Concern: Results of the Health of the Planet Survey.

RESULTS OF THE HEALTH OF THE PLANET SURVEY

Conventional wisdom has long held that concern about environmental quality is limited primarily to residents of wealthy, industrialized nations. Residents of the poorer, nonindustrialized nations are assumed to be too preoccupied with economic and physical survival to be concemed about environmental problems.[1] Not only has this assumption been widely held, but it has also been supported by social science analyses of environmentalism.

In accounting for the development of green parties and public support for environmental protection, political scientists typically argue that environmentalism stems from the emergence of "postmaterialist values."[2] Such values, it is argued, have resulted from World War II affluence in the industrialized tions and represent a growing emphasis on quality of life over economic welfare among generations that take the latter for granted. Similarly, sociologists have viewed environmentalism as an exemplar of the new social movements--including the peace, antinuclear, and feminist movements--that have arisen within the wealthy, industrialized societies and that pursue lifestyle and quality-of-life goals rather than economic interests.[3] Finally, economists widely regard environmental quality as a "luxury good" that is likely to be of concern only to those who do not have to worry about food, housing, and economic survival.[4] Because the emergence of postmaterialist values and the new social movements that espouse them are presumably dependent upon widespread, sustained affluence, it follows that most residents of the economically poor, nonindustrialized nations should view environmental quality as a luxury they cannot yet afford.[5]

The early emergence of environmentalism and green parties in the industrialized world (primarily in North America and Europe) lends support to the above perspectives,[6] as did the wary reaction of nonindustrialized nations to the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm.[7] However, the more enthusiastic participation of such nations in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment Development in Rio de Janeiro--a follow-up to the 1972 conference--and the gradual emergence of environmental activism in many nonindustrialized nations clearly pose challenges to conventional wisdom.[8] It could be argued, however, that these phenomena are atypical and represent only the responses of government elites or tiny portions of the residents of poorer nations. In other words, conventional wisdom regarding differences in environmental concern between rich and poor nations might hold true at the level of the general public.

Existing surveys of public opinion toward environmental issues provide little insight into this issue because they tend to be confined to North America, Europe, and Japan.[9] Indeed, little is known about the general public's views of environmental issues in nonindustrialized nations. Filling this void was a major goal of an international survey of public opinion about the environment sponsored by the George H. Gallup International Institute. Conducted in 24 nations and covering a wide range of geographical regions and economic levels, Gallup's "Health of the Planet" survey was the largest environmental opinion survey ever conducted. Results of the survey allow for an in-depth examination of possible differences in citizens' views of environmental issues among both rich and poor nations.

Survey Methodology

The Health of the Planet (HOP) survey was coordinated by the George H. Gallup International Institute and conducted by members of the worldwide network of Gallup affiliates. The selection of countries was dependent upon the existence of a Gallup affiliate or willing partner in each country and the availability of adequate funding.[10] Two dozen nations were included, but poorer, less economically developed nations (especially African nations) are underrepresented. The intent, however, was not to conduct a survey whose results could be generalized to the entire world (an unrealistic goal); rather, the goal was to survey citizens in a wide range of nations varied in both geographic location and level of economic development, and thereby go beyond existing multinational surveys that have been limited primarily to Europe and North America. The survey was reasonably successful in this respect, as it covered a greater number and wider range of nations than have ever been included in an environmental survey (see Table 1).[11]

The affiliates were responsible for translating the questionnaire into the appropriate language(s) for their nations, and then the Gallup International Institute had them "back-translated" into English to ensure comparability. The surveys were conducted via face-to-face, in-home interviews, thus minimizing problems of illiteracy, and were all completed during the first quarter of 1992. Nationally, representative samples were used in all nations but India, where rural areas and regions experiencing terrorism were underrepresented (and thus caution must be used in generalizing the results to the nation as a whole). Sample sizes ranged from a low of 770 in Finland to nearly 5,000 in India, and most were within the 1,000 to 1,500 range. The samples, therefore, yielded results that should have margins of error of approximately 3 percent of the entire national populations.[12]

The 24 nations included in the survey include 11 classified as high income nations by the World Bank on the basis of per-capita gross national product (GNP) and 13 covering the remaining categories of high-medium, low-medium, and low income nations.[13] To facilitate comparisons across nations, the results are presented here grouped in two sets of a dozen nations each, labeled "industrialized nations" and "developing nations." (Portugal was classified among the industrialized nations, even though it ranks just below South Korea--the wealthiest of the developing nations in the survey--in per-capita GNP because of Portugal's geographical proximity and cultural similarity to other European nations in the survey.) Comparing citizens' views of environmental issues across these two sets of nations should provide a reasonable test of the popular notion that public concern for environmental quality is much stronger among the wealthy, industrialized nations than among their less economically developed counterparts.[14]

The HOP survey included a wide range of questions dealing with perceptions of the seriousness of environmental problems and support for environmental protection. This article, however, will discuss only the responses to those questions that are particularly relevant to testing conventional wisdom about differences between residents of the wealthy nations and those of the poorer ones. The existence of frequent large variations within the two sets of nations will be downplayed in the interest of brevity, but the variations are evident in the figures detailing the survey's results.

The Importance of Environmental Problems

The environment competes with many other problems for public attention, and it has been argued in the United States that, although the U.S. public expresses pro-environmental opinions when given the opportunity to do so, environmental problems are not considered terribly important. In other words, it has been suggested that the environment is not a "salient" issue, one that is on people's minds and is a high priority to them. Salience is often measured by asking people open-ended questions about the "most serious problem(s)" facing their nation, and problems that are volunteered most frequently are judged to be the most salient.[15] To obtain an indicator of the salience of environmental problems, the HOP survey began with the question--before respondents were aware of the survey's particular emphasis on environmental issues--"What do you think is the most important problem facing our nation today?" The percentages of people that volunteered some type of environmental problem are shown in Figure 1.

In the United States, economic problems, such as unemployment and inflation, and international tensions, such as wars and the threat of nuclear war, tend to dominate responses to such questions, and seldom have more than 10 percent of respondents volunteered environmental problems.[16] Indeed, very few problems consistently reach the 10 percent level because "most serious problem" responses are volatile and vary with media and policymaking attention. Consequently, only small fractions of the publics in the industrialized nations were expected to volunteer environmental problems, and hardly any were expected to do so in the developing nations. The expectations were wrong.

Although economic problems are the most frequently volunteered problems in most (22 out of 24) nations, environmental problems are prominently mentioned in many of them, as shown in Figure 1. In 16 of the 24 countries, environmental problems are among the top three most frequently mentioned national problems. Among the industrialized nations, the percentages volunteering environmental problems as their nation's most serious problem ranged from a low of 3 percent in Great Britain to an amazing high of 39 percent in the Netherlands and Ireland (although, in the latter country, respondents had been clued about the survey's interest in environmental issues at the outset, likely biasing the responses to this item).[17] Even more surprising is that substantial percentages of respondents in several of the developing nations volunteered environmental problems: 9 percent or more did so in 6 developing countries.

Although environmental problems are more likely to be volunteered in the industrialized nations (showing up among the top three mentions in 10 industrialized countries, compared to 6 of the developing nations), it is significant that they are mentioned frequently in several of the developing nations and are at least detectable in all of them (the one percent in Nigeria, Poland, and Hungary matches levels often reported in the United States during the 1970s and 1980s). This suggests that environmental issues have penetrated the public agendas of all of the nations in the survey and have become very salient in most of the industrialized nations and in several of the developing nations. Despite the enormous range of problems facing developing nations, it is clear that environmental quality has become a major issue in many of them.

Another way in which survey researchers try to measure the relative importance of an issue is to ask about it in the context of other issues,[18] which was done in the second question. Again before respondents were aware of the survey's special focus on the environment, researchers read them "a fist of issues and problems currently facing many countries," including hunger and homelessness, crime and violence, poor health care, high cost of living, and prejudice and discrimination, along with the environment. Respondents were asked to rate the seriousness of each of these issues in their nations. The percentages of people rating environmental issues as "very sefious" are shown in Figure 2.

Strikingly, environmental quality is widely seen as a serious problem throughout the countries and as more serious among residents of the developing nations than among those of the industrialized countries. Not surprisingly, however, residents of the developing nations are more likely to rate all of the problems as very serious than are their counterparts in the industrialized world. The low rating given to the environment in countries like the Netherlands stems from the fact that few of the problems are rated as very serious there. In fact, despite their overall lower ratings in the industrialized nations, environmental problems are among the three (out of six) most likely to be rated as "very serious" in eight of the industrialized nations compared to only three of the developing nations.

It is debatable whether the absolute percentages rating environmental problems as "very sefious" in their nations or the ranking of those percentages relative to those for the other five problems is the better measure of "environmental concern." It is also beside the point in the present context because the results indicate that public concern over environmental problems is widespread and certainly not limited primarily to the industrialized nations in the survey.

This conclusion is bolstered by responses to another question, asked after researchers had informed respondents of the survey's particular interest in environmental issues. Employing a standard indicator of environmental concern, researchers asked respondents directly, "How concerned are you personally about environmental problems?" The results for this question are the most surprising yet reported, both because of the exceptionally high levels of environmental concern reported throughout most of the nations and because the reported levels of concern tend to be higher in the developing than in the industrialized nations (see Figure 3). Majorities in 21 of the 24 nations report at least a fair amount of concern about environmental problems; and in 10 of the developing countriesas compared to only 7 of the industrialized countries--70 percent or more report this degree of concern. (The low level of concern reported in Poland likely stems from the question being poorly translated as "How much attention do you give to environmental problems?" which was discovered after the fact.) The percentages reporting "a great deal" of concern follow the same pattern and are especially high in some of the poorest nations--Nigeria, the Philippines, Brazil, and Mexico.[19]

The results in Figure 3 contradict the conventional wisdom that citizens of the industrialized nations are more concerned about such problems than are those of the developing nations. Combined with the results of the first two survey questions, they suggest that conventional wisdom is in need of revision. Although the patterns vary somewhat depending on the question asked, overall, it seems fair to say, there is little difference in reported levels of environmental concern between the people of poor, less economically developed nations and those of the richer, highly industrialized nations.

Ratings of Environmental Quality

To get a sense of why people around the world are so concerned about environmental problems, the researchers asked them to rate the quality of the environment at the national, local, and world levels. This question also served as a transition to the specifically environmental focus of the questionnaire (it was asked immediately prior to the one in Figure 3) and as a means of clarifying exactly what was meant by environment. After defining environment as "your surroundings--both the natural environment--the air, water, land, and plants and animals--as well as buildings, streets, and the like," researchers asked respondents to "rate the quality of the environment" for their nation, then for their local community, and finally for the world as a whole. The results for all three ratings are shown in Figure 4 on page 12, where the percentages saying "very bad" or "fairly bad" are reported.

A number of patterns in the ratings of the three levels of environment are worth noting. First, consistent with prior findings, respondents are generally more likely to rate their nation's environment negatively than they are their local community's environment (with Turkey and Finland the only exceptions).[20] They are also more likely to see the world's environment as worse than their nation's, with six exceptions. In the three Eastern European nations (Russia, Hungary, and Poland), Nigeria, India, and the increasingly industrialized South Korea, a higher proportion of respondents gave their nation's environment a poor rating than gave the world's environment such a rating. In the remainder of the countries (with the exception of Turkey and Finland, as noted above), the more distant the environment, the more negatively it was rated.

Notable differences also exist between the environmental ratings of citizens of the industrialized nations and those of the developing nations. Overall, those residing in the industrialized nations are much less likely to rate their community environments negatively than are those living in the developing nations. In eight of the developing nations, more than 40 percent of those surveyed rate their community environments negatively, while the highest figure for an industrialized nation is 31 percent (in Japan). A similar pattern holds for ratings of the national environment: majorities in eight of the developing countries rate their national environments negatively, while this is true only of Japan among the industrialized nations.

A different pattern emerges in ratings of the world's environment. In all 12 of the industrialized nations, two-thirds or more of the respondents rate the world environment negatively, while this is the case in "only" 6 of the developing nations (although majorities rate the world environment negatively in 9 of the latter). In general, however, there is less difference between the industrialized and developing nations in ratings of the world environment than in ratings of national and community environments. This pattern probably reflects the fact that perceptions of worldwide environmental quality are heavily shaped by the media, which is somewhat standardized around the world, while perceptions of national and especially local environments are shaped relatively more by first-hand experiences.[21]

The ratings of community and national environments correspond to the general images of variation in environmental quality across these nations. The local and national environments are rated as "very" or "fairly" bad most frequently by respondents in the three Eastern European nations and South Korea, which are known to be heavily polluted, and least frequently by respondents in the three Scandinavian nations and Ireland, all of which have reputations for clean environments.[22] Such patterns support the general validity of the survey's findings and thus lend support to the prior, unexpected findings on citizen concern about environmental quality.

The ratings of environmental quality also provide insight into the probable evolution of the current widespread international concern about environmental quality. In some nations, particularly those that have suffered severe levels of environmental degradation, the national and even community environments are seen as being in bad condition. In other countries, the local and national environments are viewed positively, but the global environment is not. This implies that the high levels of environmental concern reported earlier likely have multiple sources, including first-hand observation of or experience with environmental deterioration and information about distant and imperceptible problems, such as ozone depletion. The former seems more probable within the poorer nations, and the latter more so within the richer nations. That environmental problems may range from local to global and that people living in areas with good environments are aware that many others do not have likely served to generate worldwide concern.

Environmental Problems as Health Threats

At the time of the 1972 Stockholm conference, environmental problems were often viewed as mainly aesthetic issues or threats to the beauty of nature. In fact, this perception probably accounted for the cool reception given to environmental protection by the developing nations at that time.[23] In the past two decades, however, there has been a growing awareness that environmental problems pose threats to human health, and this realization appears to have contributed to the rising concern about environmental deterioration observed in the United States and Europe.[24] To determine if poor environmental conditions are viewed as health threats in other nations and whether this perception varies between the industrialized and developing countries, researchers asked respondents to indicate "how much, if at all, you believe environmental problems now affect your health?" They were then asked if it affected their health 10 years ago, and if they thought it would "affect the health of your children and grandchildren--say over the next 25 years." The results for these three questions are shown in Figure 5 on page 14, where the two sets of nations are each ranked according to the percentages saying that environmental problems affected their health either "a great deal" or "a fair amount" 10 years ago.

The most striking feature of the results is the strong increase in reported health effects over time. Although majorities in only 4 nations report having experienced significant health effects 10 years ago, majorities in 16 nations report present health effects. Furthermore, majorities in all 24 countries believe that environmental problems will affect the health of their children and grandchildren over the next 25 years. In fact, in 19 countries, more than 70 percent believe this, which indicates that perception of environmental problems as a health threat--especially for the next generation--has become commonplace around the world. Residents of developing nations are a bit more likely to report health effects 10 years ago and much more likely to do so at present than residents of industrialized countries. Majorities in 11 developing nations (all except Uruguay) say their health is now being affected by environmental problems at least a fair amount, compared to majorities in "only" 5 of the industrialized nations. The figures are especially high in Russia, Poland, and South Korea, three of the most polluted nations in the survey, and quite low in the Scandinavian countries and Japan. There is less difference between the two sets of nations in perceived health effects 25 years from now, as large majorities in most countries think that the health of their children and grandchildren will be affected by environmental problems. However, this perception is somewhat stronger in the developing nations.

Overall, then, residents of the poorer nations-which often suffer from poor water quality and high levels of urban air pollution--are much more likely to see their health as being negatively affected by environmental problems at present. When the focus is on perceived health impacts 25 years from now, majorities in all nations believe that future generations will be affected (the discrepancy between perceptions of current and future conditions is especially large in several industrialized nations). This belief helps explain the surprisingly high levels of concern about environmental quality among residents of all types of nations. Environmental problems are no longer viewed as just a threat to quality of life and, thus, as primarily of concern to postmaterialists but are considered a fundamental threat to human welfare. This threat is especially great in poor nations, where people often depend directly on the immediate environment for sustenance (food, water, fuel, and building materials) and environmental degradation therefore threatens their very survival.[25]

Environmental Protection and Economics

Despite the increasing emphasis being placed on the goal of sustainable development, or the achievement of economic growth without environmental deterioration, environmental protection is still widely viewed as often conflicting with economic growth.[26] Although aware of the potential shortcomings of questions that put the environment and economy in opposition, researchers nonetheless included a couple of questions that forced respondents to make tradeoffs between the two. Such questions are relevant to policymaking because they deal with a topic that in theory should most clearly differentiate residents of poor countries from those of wealthy ones. Indeed, it could be argued that, although the poor may be as concerned about their environment as the rich, poor people should of necessity be less willing to make any economic sacrifices needed to protect the environment.

The first question that posed the "environment-versus-economy" tradeoff at the societal level was one frequently used in the United States.[27] The respondents were asked whether "protecting the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of slowing down economic growth," or whether "economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent." (Volunteered responses of "both equally" were also coded and exceeded 10 percent in 17 nations.) Surprisingly, the percentages choosing environmental protection exceed those choosing economic growth in every nation except Nigeria, and majorities choose environmental protection in all but Nigeria, India, and Turkey (see Figure 6). Environmental protection is endorsed by pluralities in the latter two--only 31 percent in India and 17 percent in Turkey choose economic growth--and the remainders are split between "equal priority" and either "don't know" or "no answer." Even more surprising is the fact that there is not a major difference between the industrialized and the developing nations in relative emphasis on environmental protection over economic growth. The widespread assumption that residents of poor nations are willing to accept environmental degradation in return for economic growth is not supported by these results. Overall, citizens of the developing nations are only slightly less enthusiastic in their support for environmental protection at the expense of economic growth (should that be necessary).

The next question turned from the societal to the personal level, asking respondents if they would be willing to pay higher prices so that industry could better protect the environment.[28] In view of the enormous differences in per-capita income levels across the 24 nations,[29] dramatic differences were expected between residents of the rich and poor countries in willingness to pay for environmental protection. Again, the results came as a surprise. Consistent with prior evidence of worldwide concern about the environment, majorities in 17 nations and pluralities in 4 nations say they are willing to pay higher prices (see Figure 7). In only three nations--Nigeria, the Philippines, and Japan--do pluralities say they are not willing to pay higher prices (the percentages saying "not sure" or "don't know" are often sizable).

Although residents of the industrialized nations are clearly more likely to say they are willing to pay higher prices for environmental protection than are residents of the developing nations, the differences are not as large as one might expect in view of the much larger variation in the "ability" to pay and in residents' relative impact on the environment.[30] The results of this question and the prior one suggest that, even when it comes to tradeoffs between environmental protection and economic welfare, citizens of the poorer, nonindustrialized nations are not that much less supportive of environmental quality than are their counterparts in the wealthier, industrialized nations. Policies that avoid the economy-environment tradeoff by pursuing economic growth that is ecologically sustainable and especially policies calling for equitable contributions toward environmental protection from residents of rich and poor countries should receive even stronger support within the developing nations.

The Role of Citizen Action

Individuals can, of course, do much more to protect the environment than pay higher prices, and the current worldwide attention to environmental quality has been stimulated in large part by citizen activism--ranging from international campaigns such as those waged by Greenpeace and other large organizations to local grassroots efforts. Although environmental activism has been widespread in the United States, it has been argued that a key factor preventing U.S. citizens from taking more action is that the environment is widely viewed as an institutional problem;[31] that is, environmental problems are seen as being caused by one institution--business--and their solutions are thought to rest with another institution--government--leaving little role for individual citizens. To examine the prevalence of such a perception internationally, researchers asked respondents about who "should have the primary responsibility for protecting the environment in [their] nation-the government, business and industry, or individual citizens and citizens groups."

Majorities in seven nations and pluralities in another eight said that government has the primary responsibility to protect the environment. In only four countries--Poland, Korea, the Netherlands, and Finland--did pluralities assign primary responsibility to business and industry. In the remaining five nations of Chile, Mexico, Uruguay, Brazil, and Switzerland, primary responsiility was assigned by pluralities to citizens and citizens groups (see Figure 8). It is apparent that this response is somewhat more likely in the developing than in the industrialized nations and is especially pronounced among the Latin American nations. This pattern would be more distinct were it not for the abnormally low levels of responsibility assigned to citizens in Russia and Poland, which could reflect the low levels of citizen efficacy in these formerly totalitarian nations.

A subsequent question dealt more directly with the perceived efficacy of citizen action, as researchers asked, "How much effect can individual citizens and citizens groups have on solving our environmental problems?" The percentages responding "a great deal" are shown in Figure 9, and the pattern of results is parallel to those in Figure 8. Overall, residents of the developing nations are more likely than their counterparts in the industrialized nations to think that citizens can play an effective role in solving environmental problems, with the three Eastern European nations being striking exceptions.

Together, the results of these two questions suggest that viewing environmental quality as a problem to be solved by institutions is more prevalent in the wealthier countries. Residents of the developing nations are somewhat more likely to think that citizens should be responsible for environmental protection and are even more likely to think that citizen action can be effective in this regard. In part, this divergence may stem from perceived differences in the ability of governments to protect the environment,, but it may also reflect the growing reliance on citizen action to achieve environmental protection within poorer nations.[32] Although these results seem to predict a continuing heavy emphasis on the efforts of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to protect environmental quality in the developing nations, the vulnerability of citizen action to political repression in nondemocratic countries will continue to pose a severe challenge to these efforts.[33]

Analyzing the Results

The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the results of the Health of the Planet survey is that conventional wisdom is wrong about the existence of major differences in levels of environmental concern between citizens of rich and poor nations. Environmental problems are salient and important issues in both wealthy and poor nations, and residents of poor nations express as much concern about environmental quality as do those living in wealthy nations. In part, this unexpected finding may stem from the fact that people living in the poorer nations are more likely to see their local and national environments as being in poor condition and their health as being negatively affected by these conditions than are their counterparts in the wealthy nations. Even when it comes to environment-versus-economic tradeoffs, little difference exists between those living in the wealthy, industrialized nations and those in the developing nations: Both give strong endorsement to environmental protection. Finally, residents of the poorer nations are more likely to assign responsibility for environmental protection to citizens and to have a greater sense of efficacy in citizen action.

Although surprising, these findings are consistent with the enthusiastic participation of nations from all economic strata in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and especially with the high level of citizen participation via NGOs at the nongovernmental Global Forum held in conjunction with the conference. NGOs from developing nations were particularly active at the Global Forum, and the survey's results suggest that environmentalism within these nations is likely to continue to be driven by local, grassroots efforts--in contrast to the major roles played by green parties and large, national organizations in Europe and North America. Of course, the results also suggest that efforts to protect the environment will continue to draw widespread public support throughout the world.

Conventional wisdom about social affairs is often proven wrong by research, especially research that focuses on previously unexamined assumptions, as in the present case. But what makes the survey's results so interesting is that they also call into question widely held theoretical perspectives throughout the social sciences about the sources of environmentalism and environmental concern. The idea that environmental quality is a luxury affordable only by those who have enough economic security to pursue quality-of-life goals is inconsistent with the high levels of public concern for environmental problems found in many developing nations. Although the survey probably would have indicated greater differences had it been possible to conduct surveys in nations facing desperate situations--such as Ethiopia, Somalia, and Bangladeshcountries like Nigeria, India, and the Philippines are nonetheless poor countries by any reasonable standard.

In part, the findings of strong environmental concern throughout the 24 nations may reflect the fact that environmental quality is no longer seen as a postmaterialist value and that environmental degradation is increasingly recognized as a direct threat to human health and welfare. Indeed, protecting one's family from environmental hazards seems to be joining the provision of food, clothing, and shelter as a basic human goal. But in part, the results of the survey may also reflect the fact that social science analyses of environmentalism--which have focused primarily on industrialized nations--have downplayed the role of direct human experience with environmental degradation, which is especially noticeable at the local levels in the poorer nations.[34] These analyses have also largely ignored the growing credibility of the core tenet of an environmental worldview: the inability of the Earth to cope with the increasing scale of human impact.[35] Personal experience, combined with increased awareness of the global impact of human activities, has likely made people around the world begin to recognize that their welfare is inextricably related to that of the environment. High levels of environmental awareness and concern throughout the world, especially in the nonindustrialized countries, may stem more from worldwide emergence of this ecological perspective than from the growth of postmaterialist values within affluent nations.[36]

Whatever their origins, the high levels of citizen concern for environmental quality documented in the Health of the Planet survey will come as welcome news to those eager to further efforts to protect the global environment. Despite the fact that translating environmental concern into action, whether at the individual or governmental level, is always problematic[37]--and will be especially so at the international level--the existence of such concern seems a requisite for effective action. That strong public concern for environmental protection exists throughout the world, including regions where it was assumed to be absent, is important news.

NOTES

[1] For an exemplary statement, see W. Beckerman, Two Cheers for the Affluent Society (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1974), 89.

[2] See, for example, F. Muller-Rommel, ed., New Politics in Western Europe: The Rise and Success of Green Parties and Alternative Lists (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1989).

[3] See, for example, F. H, Buttel, "Environmentalization: Origins, Processes, and Implications for Rural Social Change," Rural Sociology 57 (1992):1-27. For a discussion of the fink between the postmaterialist and new social movements' perspectives, see R. Inglehart, Culture Shift in Advanced Industrial Society (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1990), chapter 11.

[4] See, for example, W. J. Baumol and W. E. Oates, Economics, Environmental Policy, and the Quality of Life (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1979), chapters 12 and 13.

[5] For complementary perspectives, see T. O'Riordan, Environmentalism (London: Pion, 1976), 19-27; and S. R. Brechin and W. Kempton, "Global Environmentalism: A Challenge to the Postmaterialism Thesis?" Social Science Quarterly (forthcoming).

[6] See ibid.; and W. Rudig, "Green Party Politics Around the World," Environment, October 1991, 6.

[7] Founex Report, "Environment and Development," International Conciliation, no. 586 (January 1982).

[8] On the participation of developing nations at Rio, see P. M. Haas, M. A. Levy, and E. A. Parson, "Appraising the Earth Summit: How Should We Judge UNCED's Success?" Environment, October 1992, 6; and E. Enge and R. 1. Malkenes, "Non-Governmental Organizations at UNCED: Another Successful Failure?" in H. 0. Bergesen and G. Parmann, eds., Green Globe Yearbook 1993 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). On international environmentalism, see J. McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise: The Global Environmental Movement (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1991), chapter 8; and A. Durning, "Mobilizing at the Grassroots," in L. R. Brown et al., State of the World 1989 (New York: Norton, 1989), 154-73.

[9] See, for example, Commission of the European Communities, The Europeans and Their Environment in 1986 (Brussels: CEC, 1986); United Nations Environment Programme, The Public and Environment: The State of the Environment--1988 (Nairobi: UNEP, 1988); and The Roper Organization, Inc., Environmental Behavior, North America: Canada, Mexico, United States (New York: Roper, 1992).

[10] Grants were received from the governments of Norway and the United States; the Audubon Society; the Teresa and H. John Heinz III Foundation; the Winslow Foundation; the World Wide Fund for Nature, International; Distribuidora Chilectra Metropolitana, S.A.; the Life Insurance Corporation of India; the East Asiatic Company, Ltd.; Novo Nordisk A/S; Bacardi y Compania, S.A.; Federal Office of Environment, Forest and Landscape (Switzerland); and ASIC/Swiss Society of Consulting Engineers.

[11] The most comprehensive effort prior to Gallup's Health of the Planet survey was a 16-nation survey conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for UNEP in 1988 and 1989. However, in most of the nations included in that study, the samples were quite small (ranging from 300 to 600), resulting in large sampling errors. Furthermore, in the nonindustrialized nations, the samples were typically limited to residents of large urban areas, and consequently the results cannot be generalized to the adult populations of those nations. See Louis Harris and Associates, Inc., Public and Leadership Attitudes to the Environment in Four Continents (New York: Louis Harris and Associates, 1989).

[12] For sample sizes, see R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

[13] World Bank, World Development Report 1992 (Washington, D.C.: World Bank, 1992), 218-19. Because figures for Russia were unavailable in the 1992 report, that nation's classification was determined by figures provided by the Institute of Sociology at the Russian Academy of Sciences.

[14] For responses to all questions and full frequency distributions covering all response categories for each question, see Dunlap, Gallup, and Gallup, note 12 above.

[15] R. E. Dunlap, "Public Opinion and Environmental Policy," in J. P. Lester, ed., Environmental Politics and Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1989), 98, 121-30.

[16] "Most serious problem" questions that ask for the two or three most important problems sometimes yield higher results. See R. E. Dunlap and R. Scarce, "The Polls-Poll Trends: Environmental Problems and Protection," Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (1991):651-72.

[17] In Ireland, the HOP questions were included in a larger questionnaire, and environment was mentioned in a transition from the other questions.

[18] Dunlap, note 15 above, pages 124-28.

[19] The exceptionally high level of environmental concern recorded in Nigeria may stem from the fact that the last Saturday of every month is devoted to "national environmental sanitation day," during which sewage systems, homes, and local environments are cleaned up. Local cleanup efforts are enforced by the government and encouraged by voluntary associations and industries, and widespread participation in them may underlie the high level of environmental concern reported by Nigerians. the high levels in Mexico are consistent with surveys cited in S. P. Mumme, "Clearing the Air: Environmental Reform in Mexico," Environment, December 1991, 6.

[20] A. W. Murch, "Public Concern for Environmental Pollution," Public Opinion Quarterly 35 (1971):102-08.

[21] This pattern is reinforced by responses to two other questions in the survey. Residents of the developing nations are much more likely to rate a list of six local community environmental problems (for example, water quality, air Pollution, and sewage) as very serious than are their counterparts in the industrialized nations. However, the latter are only a little more likely to rate a list of seven global environmental problems (for example, loss of rain forest, ozone depletion, and climate change) as very serious than are those living in the developing nations. See Dunlap, Gallup, and Gallup, note 12 above, tables 5 and 6.

[22] On Eastern Europe, see H. F. French, "Restoring the East European and Soviet Environments," in L. R. Brown et al., State of the World 1991 (New York: Norton, 1991), 93-112. For information on indicators of environmental quality for all nations in the HOP, see World Resources Institute, World Resources: 1990-91 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990).

[23] See, for example, Founex Report, note 7 above.

[24] See Dunlap and Scarce, note 16 above; and R. E. Dunlap, "Trends in Public Opinion Toward Environmental Issues: 1965-1990," in R. E. Dunlap and A. G. Mertig, eds., American Environmentalism: The U.S. Environmental Movement, 1970-1990 (Washington, D.C.: Taylor and Francis, 1992), 89-116.

[25] See, for example, Durning, note 8 above.

[26] For analyses of the ambiguities surrounding the concept of sustainable development, see, for example, S. M. Lele, "Sustainable Development: A Critical Review," World Development 19 (1991):607-21; and M. Redclift, "The Meaning of Sustainable Development," Geoform 23 (1992):395-403.

[27] See Dunlap and Scarce, note 16 above, page 668.

[28] This item has also been used in the United States. See Dunlap and Scarce, note 16 above, page 669.

[29] For example, 1990 per-capita gross national product ranges from a low of $290 in Nigeria to a high of $32,680 in Switzerland. See World Bank, note 13 above.

[30] It has been estimated, for example, that the environmental impact of the average U.S. resident is 35 times that of the average resident of India. See P. R. Ehrlich and A. H. Ehrlich, The Population Explosion (New York: Touchstone, 1990), 134. 31. See R. E. Dunlap, "Public Opinion in the 1980s: Clear Consensus, Ambiguous Commitment," Environment, October 1991, 10.

[32] See Enge and Malkenes, note 8 above; and Durning, note 8 above.

[33] Increased democracy, in turn, will probably depend on reductions in economic inequalities (especially land tenure). Therefore, at least some advocates of sustainable development emphasize the pursuit of environmental protection, political democracy, and socioeconomic equity as interdependent goals (see, for example, Lele, note 26 above; and Redclift, note 26 above). For examples of repression of environmental activists, by no means confined to developing nations, see D. Day, The Environmental Wars (New York: Ballantine Books, 1989).

[34] See, for example, Buttel, note 3 above.

[35] For insightful analyses of the emergence of an ecological worldview in modem societies, see D. Oates, Earth Rising: Ecological Belief in an Age of Science (Corvallis, Oreg.: Oregon State University Press, 1989); and L. K. Caldwell, Between Two Worlds. Science, the Environmental Movement and Policy Choice (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992). This worldview has been given enormous credibility by the growing scientific consensus on the reality--if not the specifics--of human-induced global environmental change. See, for example, P. C. Stem, 0. R. Young, and D. Druckman, eds., Global Environmental Change: Understanding the Human Dimensions (Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, 1992).

[36] On the measurement of public adherence to an ecological perspective, see R. E. Dunlap et a]., "Measuring Endorsement of an Ecological Worldview: A Revised NEP Scale" (Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Pennsylvania State University, State College, August 1993). On the relative impacts of postmaterialist values and adherence to an ecological worldview on environmentalism in North America, see M. E. Steger, J. C. Pierce, B. S. Steel, and N. P. Lovrich, "Political Culture, Postmaterial Values, and the New Environmental Paradigm: A Comparative Analysis of Canada and the United States," Political Behavior 11 (1989):233-54.

[37] See, for example, O'Riordan, note 5 above, chapter 6; and Dunlap, note 31 above, pages 32-36.

TABLE 1 NATIONS INCLUDED IN THE HEALTH OF THE PLANET SURVEY Sample Region/Nation Size Survey Organization North America Canada 1,011 Gallup Canada, Toronto United States 1,032 The Gallup Organization, Princeton, N.J. Latin America Brazil 1,414 Instituto Gallup De Opiniao Publica, Sao Paulo Chile 1,000 Gallup Chile S.A., Santiago Mexico 1,502 IMOP S.A. de C.V., Gallup Mexico, Mexico City Uruguay 800 Gallup Uruguay, Montevideo East Asia Japan 1,434 Nippon Research Center, Ltd., Tokyo South Korea 1,500 Korea Survey (Gallup Polls), Ltd., Seoul Philippines 1,000 Asia Research Organization, Inc., Manila Other Asia India 4,984 Indian Institute of Public Opinion, New Delhi Turkey 1,000 Piar Marketing Research Co., Ltd., Istanbul Eastern Europe Hungary 1,000 Gallup Hungary, Ltd., Budapest Poland 989 Demoskop, Warsaw[a] Russia 964 Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow Scandinavia Denmark 1,019 Gallup-Denmark, Copenhagen Finland 770 Suomen Gallup Oy, Helsinki Norway 991 Norsk Gallup lnstitutt A/S, Oslo Other Europe Germany[b] 1,048 EMNID-Institut GmbH & Co., Bielefeld Great Britain 1,105 Social Surveys (Gallup Poll), Ltd., London Ireland 928 Irish Marketing Surveys, Ltd., Dublin Netherlands 1,011 NIPO, Amsterdam Portugal 1,000 NORMA, Lisbon Switzerland 1,011 ISOPUBLIC, Zurich Africa Nigeria 1,195 Research and Marketing Services, Ltd., Lagos [a] not a Gallup affiliate. [b] Does not include the former East Germany. SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"What do you think is the most important problem facing our nation today?"

FIGURE 1. Percentages of respondents volunteering that environmental problems are the most important problem facing their nation.

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS Ireland 39 Netherlands 39 Finland 28 Portugal 25 Switzerland 20 Denmark 13 Japan 12 United States 11 Canada 10 Germany 9 Norway 7 Great Britain 3 DEVELOPING NATIONS Mexico 29 India 21 Chile 20 Turkey 18 South Korea 9 Russia 9 Uruguay 3 Brazil 2 Philippines 2 Nigeria 1 Poland 1 Hungary 1 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"I'm going to read a list of issues and problems currently facing many countries. For each one, please tell me how serious a problem you consider it to be in our nation--very serious, somewhat serious, not very serious, or not at all serious?"

FIGURE 2. Percentages of respondents who say that environmental problems are a "very serious" issue in their nation.

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS Germany 67 Switzerland 63 Canada 53 United States 51 Portugal 51 Japan 42 Norway 40 Great Britain 36 Ireland 32 Netherlands 27 Denmark 26 Finland 21 DEVELOPING NATIONS South Korea 67 Poland 66 Mexico 66 Russia 62 Turkey 61 Chile 56 Hungary 52 India 51 Brazil 50 Nigeria 45 Uruguay 44 Philippines 37 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"How concerned are you personally about environmental problems--would you say a great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or not at all?"

FIGURE 3. Percentages of respondents who say they are personally concerned about the environment a "great deal" or a "fair amount."

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS GREAT DEAL FAIR AMOUNT Portugal 46 90 Canada 37 89 United States 38 85 Great Britain 28 81 Norway 18 77 Ireland 22 73 Netherlands 16 71 Japan 23 66 Germany 14 63 Finland 16 63 Denmark 12 53 Switzerland 12 42 DEVELOPING NATIONS GREAT DEAL FAIR AMOUNT Philippines 55 94 Nigeria 71 87 Mexico 50 83 Uruguay 38 82 Brazil 53 80 South Korea 22 80 Hungary 32 79 Russia 41 78 India 34 77 Chile 30 70 Turkey 12 40 Poland 4 25 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"Overall, how would you rate the quality of the environent (a.) in our nation, (b.) here in your local community, (c.) of the world as a whole? Very good, fairly good, fairly bad, or very bad?"

FIGURE 4. Percentages of respondents who rate the quality of their environments as "very" or "fairly" bad.

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS COMMUNITY NATION WORLD Japan 31 52 73 Portugal 30 39 75 United States 28 45 66 Great Britain 27 36 76 Netherlands 24 45 84 Germany 22 42 86 Switzerland 21 27 86 Canada 18 28 79 Finland 13 13 73 Denmark 12 18 92 Ireland 10 14 73 Norway 10 12 88 DEVELOPING NATIONS COMMUNITY NATION WORLD Poland 71 88 73 Russia 69 88 66 South Korea 57 74 65 Hungary 48 72 71 India 44 52 42 Turkey 44 42 45 Chile 41 68 88 Brazil 41 49 64 Nigeria 34 38 24 Mexico 31 56 70 Philippines 28 52 58 Uruguay 28 37 74 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"How much, if at all, do you believe environmental problems (a.) now affect your health, (b.) affected your health in the past-say 10 years ago, (c.) will affect the health of our children and grandchildren--say over the next 25 years? A great deal, a fair amount, not very much, or not at all?"

FIGURE 5. Percentages of respondents who say that environmental problems affect their health "a great deal" or "a fair amount."

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS 10 YEARS AGO NOW IN 25 YEARS Germany 61 71 85 United States 45 67 83 Portugal 39 73 85 Great Britain 27 53 82 Canada 25 52 87 Ireland 21 42 73 Switzerland 20 28 64 Norway 17 27 77 Netherlands 17 35 67 Japan 15 23 71 Denmark 11 14 64 Finland 10 21 78 DEVELOPING NATIONS 10 YEARS AGO NOW IN 25 YEARS Russia 65 89 79 Poland 59 80 81 Philippines 50 72 81 Nigeria 49 76 62 India 40 74 82 Turkey 31 63 78 Uruguay 26 47 74 Hungary 24 55 56 Mexico 23 68 89 Brazil 18 51 79 Chile 13 56 92 South Korea 10 77 85 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"With which of these statements about the environment and the economy do you most agree: protecting the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of slowing down economic growth, [or] economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent?"

FIGURE 6. Percentages of respondents who choose protecting the environment over economic growth.

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS Denmark 77 Germany 73 Finland 72 Norway 72 Canada 67 Ireland 65 Switzerland 62 United States 58 Netherlands 58 Japan 57 Great Britain 56 Portugal 53 DEVELOPING NATIONS Mexico 71 Brazil 71 Uruguay 64 Chile 64 South Korea 63 Philippines 59 Poland 58 Russia 56 Hungary 53 India 43 Turkey 43 Nigeria 30 Note: Volunteered responses of "should be given equal priority" were also coded. SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"Increased efforts by business and industry to improve environmental quality might lead to higher prices for the things you buy. Would you be willing to pay higher prices so that industry could better protect the environment or not?"

FIGURE 7. Percentages of respondents who say they are willing to pay higher prices to protect the environment.

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS Denmark 78 Norway 72 Great Britain 70 Switzerland 70 Netherlands 65 United States 65 Canada 61 Portugal 61 Ireland 60 Germany 59 Finland 53 Japan 31 DEVELOPING NATIONS South Korea 71 Chile 64 Mexico 59 India 56 Uruguay 54 Brazil 53 Hungary 49 Poland 49 Turkey 44 Russia 39 Philippines 30 Nigeria 28 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"Which one of these do you believe should have the primary responsibility for protecting the environment in our nation--the government, business and industry, or individual citizens and citizens groups?"

FIGURE 8. Percentages of respondents who say citizens should have primary responsibility for environmental protection.

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS Switzerland 35 Portugal 32 United States 29 Germany 25 Denmark 24 Netherlands 23 Canada 23 Ireland 19 Norway 17 Japan 16 Finland 13 Great Britain 12 DEVELOPING NATIONS Brazil 60 Mexico 43 Philippines 43 Uruguay 43 Chile 38 India 34 South Korea 28 Hungary 25 Turkey 24 Nigeria 22 Poland 9 Russia 9 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

"In your opinion, how much of an effect can individual citizens and citizens groups have on solving our environmental problems?"

FIGURE 9. Percentages of respondents who say individuals and citizens groups can have "a great deal" of effect on solving environmental problems.

INDUSTRIALIZED NATIONS Ireland 43 Norway 43 Canada 43 United States 38 Switzerland 36 Portugal 35 Great Britain 29 Denmark 22 Finland 19 Netherlands 17 Germany 13 Japan 11 DEVELOPING NATIONS Mexico 59 Nigeria 59 Philippines 57 Turkey 52 South Korea 48 Chile 46 Brazil 46 Uruguay 41 India 39 Russia 17 Poland 17 Hungary 9 SOURCE: R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup International Institute, 1993).

PHOTO: Children painting a wall (STILL PICTURES--MARK EDWARDS)

PHOTO: Butterfly

PHOTO: People protest illegal logging in Ormoc City, the Philippines, where flash floods caused by deforestation have killed more than 8,000 people, mostly in poor shanty towns. (STILL PICTURES--NIGEL DICKINSON)

By Riley E. Dunlap , George H. Gallup, Jr. and Alec M. Gallup

RILEY E. DUNLAP is a professor of sociology and rural sociology at Washington State University in Pullman, Washington, and Gallup Fellow in Environment at the George H. Gallup International Institute in Princeton, New Jersey

GEORGE H. GALLUP, JR., is chairman of the George H. Gallup International Institute

ALEC M. GALLUP is cochairman of The Gallup Organization.

In addition to the questions on perceptions of the seriousness of environmental problems and support for environmental protection reported in this article, several questions in the Health of the Planet survey focused on the international dimensions of environmental problems. Again, the HOP findings were surprising, as they revealed less disagreement between residents of the industrialized nations and the developing nations than is widely assumed to exist on these issues (based, in part, on conflicts between these two sets of nations at the Earth Summit).

For example, when asked who is "more responsible for today's environmental problems in the world?" people in the rich and poor nations do not give highly polarized responses. Residents of the industrialized nations tend to recognize their greater contribution to these problems, while residents of the developing nations acknowledge a share of the blame.

When asked specifically about the major cause of environmental problems within developing nations, people living in those nations are nearly as likely to assign responsibility to overpopulation in these countries as are residents of the industrialized nations. Similarly, there is not much difference between residents of the two sets of countries in the degree of blame placed on "consumption of the world's resources by industrialized countries."

Concerning actions that industrialized nations could take to help developing countries protect their environment, providing educational information receives strongest support, followed by technological assistance. Cancellation of foreign debt is the only action on which substantial divergence appears, as residents of the developing nations are--not surprisingly--more supportive of it than are residents of the industrialized nations.

Majorities of citizens in both industrialized and developing nations support the establishment of an international agency designed to solve global environmental problems, although, in all but one country, citizens are more likely to favor their nation contributing money to the agency than granting authority over national policy to it. Residents of the developing nations are only slightly less favorable toward such an agency than are those living in the industrialized nations.[1]

[1] Complete results for these questions are reported in R. E. Dunlap, G. H. Gallup, Jr., and A. M. Gallup, Health of the Planet (Princeton, N.J.: George H. Gallup international institute, 1993).