Other determinants of the demand for environmental quality

Quite obviously, income level is not the only relevant household or individual variable influencing environmental policy choices. Other determinants have been examined and several hypotheses have been considered. We list here the most frequently quoted in the literature.

1.2.1 The education hypothesis

Educational attainment is generally considered an important determinant of environmental preferences and, more generally, of the demand for public goods. More educated people may be more concerned about environmental quality since they are more informed about risks and more aware of the consequences of exposure to pollution for their own health and of the social costs of environmental degradation (Kahn, 2002).

Education is also an important determinant of patience, or it may simply reveal greater patience by those who extended their schooling (Becker and Mulligan, 1997; Thalmann, 2004). Given that environmental preservation is often characterized by immediate costs and future benefits, increased patience is likely to translate into greater support for environmental quality.

1.2.2 The age hypothesis

Another demographic indicator of concern for environmental quality is age. Its effect remains however controversial.

On the one hand, the age hypothesis states that young people are more concerned about environmental quality and more willing to support environmental protection programs or laws (Van Liere et Dunlap, 1980). Its theoretical underpinnings rest on what Malkis and Grasmick (1977) called age-group differences, i.e. differences associated with the ageing process, which presumably can be

outgrown. They argue that the younger are presumed to be less integrated in the dominant social order and are thus more likely to support substantial changes in traditional values, habitual behaviors and existing institutions. In this regard, the young are seen as more idealistic and less materialistic (Inglehart, 1990). In addition, the Mannheim’s (1990) theory of generation⁴ leads to expect that continued exposure to alarming information on environmental deterioration and disasters (Chernobyl, Bhopal accidents) left an indelible imprint on many young people⁵. The elderly may care less for the environment since they have less to loose from environmental degradation and may give greater priority to economic stability having endured the Great Depression and World War II (Kanagy et al., 1994 cited by Kahn, 2002). The middle-aged groups may also offer less support to environmental actions since they support the largest share of the tax burden associated with government regulation and may be more cynical about the government’s effectiveness in solving environmental externalities.

Identically, the seniors are on fixed incomes and may be especially unsupportive of the tax increases associated with environmental preservation. In this setting, we expect that the younger citizens more readily accept pro-environmental ideology and offer a larger support to actions favorable to environmental quality enhancement.

On the other hand, Kahn (2002) states that older people may support environmental preservation as a form of capital stock sustainability in order to leave a legacy. They may also be more prone to environmental action since they often particularly suffer from the degraded health conditions caused by noise, air and water pollution⁶. Furthermore, seniors may support environmental quality preservation because they are likely to have more leisure time to enjoy its recreational benefits. Young people are also more exposed to unemployment risk and may therefore be opposed to environmental legislation that may deteriorate their job opportunities (Thalmann, 2004).

1.2.3 The political hypothesis

The political preferences of citizens are also an important determinant of their voting behavior. Three reasons are usually advanced for expecting a split among the traditional left-right partisan division on environmental policies. First, business and industry leaders oppose environmental protection policies because of the abatement costs such legislation involves. Second, the traditional right wing parties counter environmental reforms since they entail an extension of government activities and size.

Finally, conservatives also resist environmental reforms, as environmental protection policies require innovative actions and a rupture with the traditional governmental behavior.

A cursory glance at the programs of political parties in Europe reveals that leftist parties are more prone to support environmental policies than right-wing parties and business organizations. However, this statement is not obvious since some environmental measures may place a disproportionate burden on the constituencies of left-of-center parties. Energy taxation has been criticised because of its regressivity (OECD, 1994; Thalmann, 2004). However, the distributive impacts of environmental

4 This theory states that historical events occurring at the crucial adolescent and young adulthood phases of the life cycle can permanently affect an individual throughout his existence.

5 This commitment to environmental action will not disappear with age.

6 This might be another version of the « differential-exposure » theory: people facing objective environmental problems are more concerned about environmental quality (see 1.2.4).

taxation appear heavily dependent on the exoneration measures, tax rates, the type of fuels concerned and the income measures used (Pearson and Smith, 1991; Poterba, 1991; Shah and Larsen, 1992). In Switzerland, the taxes on non-renewable fuels proposed in September 2000 were criticised for redistributive reasons. The leftist parties nevertheless support the initiatives.

1.2.4 The urban-rural hypothesis

The rural-urban split may also have an impact on the citizen’s degree of environmental concern.

Tremblay and Dunlap (1978) offer two possible explanations for urban-rural differences in support for environmental protection⁷. The first one, called the differential-exposure theory or challenge-response model (Inglehart, 1995), considers that urban residents are more prone to support environmental legislation since they are exposed to greater pollution. This explanation assumes that the place of residence is an indicator of objective physical conditions and that exposure to poor environmental conditions leads to environmental concern.

The second explanation, named the extractive-community theory, rests on occupational differences between rural and urban communities, with residence acting as a proxy for extractive/non-extractive activities. It suggests that rural residents will place their economic interest above environmental protection, since they are involved mainly in extractive occupations such as farming, logging and mining. Thus, because of their heavier dependence on the free access and use of the natural environment, rural residents may be less prone to accept environmental regulations (Salka, 2001).

Both explanations may be challenged. Several scholars suggest that urban-rural differences are not as stark anymore. People may in fact vote “with their feet” and choose to reside in a rural area in order to enjoy a cleaner environment. In this situation, people sharing the greater concern for environmental quality may be located in rural pristine areas and stimulate environmental action (Fortman and Kussel, 1990). Their locational choice is motivated by the high quality of life in those areas rather than by the resource-related jobs found there. This may be especially the case when traveling time between the cities and the countryside is small (as in Switzerland). Furthermore, recent evidence has shown that rural areas are more economically diverse than expected and the once dominant extractive industries have shrunk (Bennet and McBeth, 1998)⁸. Finally, Salka (2001) also suggests that rural environmental support may be strong according to some specific environmental issues. It seems indeed that the issues rural residents do care about are simply different from those concerning urban areas.

1.2.5 The gender hypothesis

Most empirical works examining the determinants of preferences for environmental quality include a variable capturing gender. However, they have often overlooked the theoretical presumptions according to its effect (Loomis and Lee, 2002).

Peterson and Merchant (1986) argue that women feel more concerned about the environment since females, in their role as mother and nurturer, and nature have been linked historically. Identically, men

7 For an in-depth review of those explanations, see Salka (2001)

8 In Switzerland, the importance of the primary sector has been declining over the last few decades. In 1999, agricultural production accounted for only 1.5% of gross domestic product and less than 4.5% of total employment.

may feel less concerned about environmental quality than about jobs and economic wealth since they are usually held responsible for the fulfillment of the familial needs (Passino and Lounsburry, 1976).

The previous arguments rest on a traditional image of the social role of men and women and we could not imagine other reasons why men and women may value differently the costs and benefits linked to environmental preservation. Gender may rather act as a proxy capturing other characteristics like the variation in professional status, education level, occupations or leisure activities between sexes. We therefore expect that gender has no effect on voting behavior when we appropriately control for other relevant variables.