Right-wing populism and attitudes towards environmental issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Ðàçìåùåíî íà http://www.allbest.ru/

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY

HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

HSE Saint-Petersburg School of Social Sciences and Area Studies

Smirnov Ivan Dmitrievich

Thesis in the field of study `Political Science'

Student of Group No. 163 (`Political Science and World Politics' degree programme)

Right-wing populism and attitudes towards environmental issues in Central and Eastern Europe

Reviewer

A.V. Gilev

Saint-Petersburg, 2020

Abstract

The provided work is aimed at considering factors that influence public attitudes towards environmental issues in Central and Eastern European states, and specifically the correlates of environmental skeptic position. Based on an in-depth literature review, an attempt is made to consider possible approaches to studying the factors shaping public attitudes towards importance of the environmental issues, such as environmental pollution, climate change perception and climate activism. The empirical part of the work represents the analysis of the selected social, economic, and political factors, such as support for right-wing populists, on the basis of the European Value Study survey 2017 data.

Àííîòàöèÿ

Ïðåäñòàâëåííàÿ ðàáîòà íàïðàâëåíà íà ðàññìîòðåíèå ôàêòîðîâ, êîòîðûå îêàçûâàþò âëèÿíèå íà îòíîøåíèå îáùåñòâåííîñòè ê ïðîáëåìàì îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäû â ãîñóäàðñòâàõ Öåíòðàëüíîé è Âîñòî÷íîé Åâðîïû, è, â ÷àñòíîñòè, íà âûðàæåíèå ñêåïòèöèçìà â îòíîøåíèè ýêîëîãè÷åñêèõ âîïðîñîâ. Íà îñíîâå äåòàëüíîãî îáçîðà ëèòåðàòóðû ñäåëàíà ïîïûòêà ðàññìîòðåòü âîçìîæíûå ïîäõîäû ê èçó÷åíèþ ôàêòîðîâ, ôîðìèðóþùèõ îòíîøåíèå îáùåñòâåííîñòè ê âàæíîñòè ýêîëîãè÷åñêèõ ïðîáëåì, òàêèõ êàê çàãðÿçíåíèå îêðóæàþùåé ñðåäû, âîñïðèÿòèå èçìåíåíèÿ êëèìàòà è ýêîëîãè÷åñêîãî àêòèâèçìà. Ýìïèðè÷åñêàÿ ÷àñòü ðàáîòû ïðåäñòàâëÿåò ñîáîé àíàëèç âëèÿíèÿ âûáðàííûõ ñîöèàëüíûõ, ýêîíîìè÷åñêèõ è ïîëèòè÷åñêèõ ïðåäèêòîðîâ, òàêèõ êàê “ïîääåðæêà ïðàâûõ ïîïóëèñòîâ”, íà âûøåóêàçàííûé ýêîëîãè÷åñêèé ñêåïòèöèçì, îñíîâûâàÿñü íà äàííûõ îïðîñà Åâðîïåéñêîãî èññëåäîâàíèÿ öåííîñòåé çà 2017 ãîä.

Content

Introduction

1. Predictors of the public attitudes towards environment and their change

1.1 Operationalization

1.2 Social and economic ground of the environmental attitudes

1.2.1 Age

1.2.2 Sex

1.2.3 Place of residence

1.2.4 Education

1.3 Values and economic determinants

1.4 Political and ideological determinants

2. Environmental attitudes in the CEE context

3. The regression analysis of social, economic, and political factors

3.1 Data and variables

3.2 Method

3.3 Results

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The recent trends show that the issues of climate change and environmental protection have becoming more and more politicized nowadays. Mccright, Aaron M., Riley E. Dunlap, and Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt. 2015. “Political Ideology and Views about Climate Change in the European Union.” Environmental Politics 25 (2): 338-58. Simultaneously, considering the importance of the environmental issues within the societies worldwide from the historic perspective, it seems that climate change, the protection of the environment and the transformation of patterns of the environmental behavior of the individuals were mostly in demand in the Western European societies until recently. Marquart-Pyatt, Sandra T. 2012. “Contextual Influences on Environmental Concerns Cross-Nationally: A Multilevel Investigation.” Social Science Research 41 (5): 1085-99. As scholars noted, “the publics still had very limited understanding of climate change, particular in identifying its anthropogenic causes, while public concern for climate change continued to lag behind other environmental problems, especially water and air pollution”. Shwom, Rachael L., Aaron M. Mccright, Steven R. Brechin, Riley E. Dunlap, Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt, and Lawrence C. Hamilton. 2015. “Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Climate Change and Society, 271: Brechin, Steven R. 2003. "Comparative Public Opinion And Knowledge On Global Climatic Change And The Kyoto Protocol: The US Versus The World?". International Journal Of Sociology And Social Policy 23 (10): 106_134. Alongside with misunderstanding, economic, and political difficulties that emerged during post-communist development of states in Central and Eastern Europe also contributed to the low environmental issue salience among population, which was skeptical towards climate change. Such presupposition was continually proposed by many experts and scholars and was derived statistically. For instance, Round 8 of European Social Survey 2017 report concludes, that “in general, engagement with climate change and support for low-carbon energy appears weaker in Central and Eastern Europe”. Poortinga, Wouter, et al. 2018. "European attitudes to climate change and energy. Topline results from Round 8 of the European Social Survey", 15.

Besides, environmental skepticism was promoted publicly by several populist politicians across the CEE states. For instance, Czech Republic Prime Minister Andrej Babis claimed the climate skeptical position and noted that he does not understand the position of the EU authorities towards the plans for the reduction of the level of environmental pollution via the EU 2050 Green Plan: “Why should the Czech Republic decide 31 years ahead of time what will happen with the environment in 2050?”. According to the Guardian columnists, another CEE state leader - Viktor Orban also commented environmental issues in a populist manner: “Orbán has shied away from pure denial of climate science but has on repeated occasions suggested the green movement is being used as a cover for liberal, globalist designs”. Besides, Hungarian leader repeatedly note that the environmentalism represents a topic which represents neither interest not importance Ibid.. The fact of existence of such a trend on climate skepticism in Central and East Europe states is also supported by the survey, conducted by the European Commission in 2017: while in Hungary 42% of citizens stated the climate change as a serious threat to the EU, only 27% of Poles perceived it as a global problem, while the indicator for Czechs was even lower and accounted for 22%. These two indicators are the lowest results in European Union, according to Eurobarometer. Ibid. Moreover, one of the most prominent results which proves the thesis about climate skepticism and low level of environmental concern could be seen in Bulgaria, where the public concern towards environment demonstrated 5% drop in comparison with 2018 level - now only 10% of the Bulgarian population perceive climate change as a serious threat to the country.

Two years later the situation has changed, and the opposite trend has emerged, which presupposes the significant increase in popularity of the environmental issues among the population of the Central and Eastern European states. Within the afore-mentioned region, the wave of climate-based protests and climate activism has been most clearly noticed in Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary. As several experts noticed, “Since early 2019, the Czech Republic has witnessed a remarkable surge in climate activism, unparalleled in the past decades of passivity and denial”. The strikes devoted to the climate change subsequently transformed into the entire climate movement, which has becoming more and more politicized. Relatively similar situation can be observed in both Hungarian and Polish societies. In turn, in the latter the climate-change activism has been existed for many years and recent spread of environmental activity of citizens within the Poland is connected primarily with the rapid growth of food prices as a result of worsening droughts - the direct result of climate change. Meanwhile, during the series of ecological strikes citizens across Hungary “shouted demands to the country's politicians to take the climate emergency seriously”, which, expectedly, were met by the state authorities headed by Victor Orban with harsh criticism. However, despite the increase in political mobilization in several CEE states, the social polls have still demonstrated the low level of the support for environmental protection and, specifically, the willingness of the individuals to act. Poortinga, Wouter, et al. 2018. "European attitudes to climate change and energy. Topline results from Round 8 of the European Social Survey", 15.

In accordance with that, the number of legitimate questions arises: what affected public attitudes towards environment? Which factors shapes climate skeptic position of the population in CEE states? Who is more concerned with climate change issues and pursue pro-ecological position?

Within the academic subfield the scholars' opinion on that subject has been divided. In turn, McCright noted that sex, age, education, and access to the information shapes the attitudes of population in terms of environmental protection and climate change. Mccright, Aaron M., Riley E. Dunlap, and Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt. 2015. “Political Ideology and Views about Climate Change in the European Union.” Environmental Politics 25 (2): 338-58. However, as scholar further concluded, “the e?ects of these same variables are weaker and less consistent in the former Communist subgroup than in Western European states”. Ibid. 341. Another explanation was proposed by Mildenberger and Leiserowitz, who emphasized economic security as one of the dominant factors explaining people's growing concern with environmental problems. Mildenberger, Matto, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2017. “Public Opinion on Climate Change: Is There an Economy-Environment Tradeoff?” Environmental Politics 26 (5): 801-24. Nevertheless, according to Rohrschneider and Miles, in Central and Eastern Europe “many citizens (and political elites) stressed economic issues in the initial years after the transitions - a gap between West and East that persists today”. Rohrschneider, Robert, Matthew Miles, and Mark Peffley. 2015. “The Structure and Sources of Global Environmental Attitudes.” The Civic Culture Transformed: 622-623. Due to the enormous amount of economic problems within the region during the post-communist transition and even after the help from the side of the European Union institutions, the significance of environmental issues seems lesser for the CEE citizens than for the population of prosperous Western Europe. Ibid.

Therefore, the research question of this paper would be the following: `Which factors influence public attitudes towards environmental issues in CEE states?'

Besides, according to Rohrschneider, Miles and Peffley, the existed literature on the considered subject contains several fundamental problems.Rohrschneider, Robert, Matthew Miles, and Mark Peffley. 2015. “The Structure and Sources of Global Environmental Attitudes.” The Civic Culture Transformed: 193-212. In particular, “virtually all studies considering public attitudes towards environmental issues assume that the in?uence of country variables, such as af?uence, on environmental attitudes is simple, additive, and direct. But the theoretical arguments in the literature often emphasize the mediating in?uence of national context, not just its direct in?uence”. Ibid. 197. Scholars also emphasize the absence of the unified methodological approach for studying environmental issues, while the majority of the existing attempts to develop the methodology is accompanied by a huge number of inaccuracies and problems. Ibid. 204. Thus, alongside with high social significance of the investigated issue, the listed scientific problems make the consideration of public attitudes towards climate issues in CEE states relevant and logically substantiated.

So, what factors affect the public attitudes of the population towards environmental problems there? What role does the political factors play, such as ideological self-orientation and political party preferences? What role does populism play in shaping environmental attitudes of the CEE citizens? All of that constitute the research puzzle of this work.

Hence, the goal of this research is to consider factors that influenced public attitudes towards environmental issues in Central and Eastern European states to understand which of them shapes climate skepticism on the individual level within the considered region.

In terms of this research we apply statistic methodology and logistic regression as a method of the research, which is aimed to “estimate the probability that an event will occur or that a patient will have a particular outcome using information or characteristics that are thought to be related to or influence such events” and “can show which of the various factors being assessed has the strongest association with an outcome and provides a measure of the magnitude of the potential influence”. Meurer, William J., and Juliana Tolles. 2017. “Logistic Regression Diagnostics.” Jama 317 (10): 1068-1069. In our research the outcome for an estimation is the adherence of skeptic position towards environmental issues among the general publics with the use of different factors noted in the work previously. An opinion of the ordinary CEE states citizens would be used as unit of analysis.

The data for the regression analysis is collected from the open sources, predominantly from the European Value Survey (2017). The data for the individual level predictors is used directly on the basis of the EVS Survey answers of the respondents and the information from the Manifesto Project, while the data for potential predictors, which may affect the individual-level predictors in terms of the national political and economic differences is collected from the World Bank and Freedom House.

Finally, in order to achieve the stated goal, it is necessary to solve the following research tasks:

1) To review the literature devoted to the theoretical explanations of environmental attitudes of the individuals across the world and specifically in CEE case to figure out factors that may affect the formation of public attitudes towards environmental issues in the latter, to operationalize the key concepts that would be used in this research and set the hypotheses.

2) To describe an empirical data, collected from the EVS Survey 2017 dataset, implement variables, and characterize them for the further analysis.

3) To analyze the data to test the defined hypotheses.

4) To interpret the collected results of the analysis and make the corresponding conclusions.

1. Predictors of the public attitudes towards environment and their change

This chapter is focused on an in-depth analysis of existing theoretical literature on the topic of various factors that shape public attitude towards environmental issues. The first part is devoted to the listing and analyzing the key predictors of ecologic concern, in particular - social and economic. The second part of the section is aimed at considering political factors, the importance of which for explaining environmental attitudes, specifically climate skepticism, was examined in various single case and cross-national studies.

1.1 Operationalization

In order to consider the factors, which shape public attitudes towards environment, we should initially note the definition for the `environmental attitudes', through the prism of which we would try to highlight those factors and explain the existing links between them in detail. The opinion of the population towards environment has been a complex issue, which consists of and covers different aspects, is stipulated by a set of factors, and, afterwards, could be changed over time. Shwom, Rachael L., Aaron M. Mccright, Steven R. Brechin, Riley E. Dunlap, Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt, and Lawrence C. Hamilton. 2015. “Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Climate Change and Society: 269_99. The academic community provides us with plenty of definitions for environmental concern, the majority of which, however, could be characterized as `narrow' and incomplete. Franzen and Meyer were among those who determined environmental concern in the most precise way: “Environmental concern is defined as the awareness or insight of individuals that the natural state of the environment is threatened through resource overuse and pollution by humans”. Franzen, Axel, and Reto Meyer. 2010. "Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000." European sociological review 26 (2): 220. Thus, in terms of that work we would imply that definition, which, by the way, should be accompanied by the clarification of Rachel Shwom and her colleagues, who claim that “public opinion on environmental issues includes beliefs, attitudes, policy support, and behavioral intentions of people and groups within a particular geographic location towards climate change, water and air pollution”. Shwom, Rachael L., Aaron M. Mccright, Steven R. Brechin, Riley E. Dunlap, Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt, and Lawrence C. Hamilton. 2015. “Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Climate Change and Society: 270-271.

1.2 Social and economic ground of the environmental attitudes

Turning to the in-depth literature review, it is worth noting that the topic of environmentalism itself represents a relatively well-studied academic subfield. However, as Huber fairly noted, it seems that majority of works concerning public attitudes towards environmental issues is devoted to the case of the United States due to the initial growth of the public concern and politicization of environmental issues there since 1960-s. Huber, Robert A. 2020. “The Role of Populist Attitudes in Explaining Climate Change Skepticism and Support for Environmental Protection.” Environmental Politics: 1-24. Besides, Shwom et. al. pointed out that the academic literature on the topic of environmental attitudes of mass public was predominantly considered through psychological prism, while authors “regularly emphasizing what individuals think about climate change as if an atomistic mind produces opinions on climate change in an asocial vacuum”. Shwom, Rachael L. et. al., “Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Climate Change and Society: 269. However, we could not ignore the importance of the U.S.- based studies, which afterwards formed the basis for future research on the environmental preferences of the general publics in other states around the world.

One of the earliest significant attempts to reveal predictors of environmental attitudes in terms of the US context was conducted by Dunlap and Liere. Liere, Kent D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (2): 180. Based on previous research made in the mentioned subfield Malkis, Allan, and Harold G. Grasmick. 1977. "Support for the ideology of the environmental movement: Tests of alternative hypotheses." Western Sociological Review 8 (1): 25-47. Tremblay, Kenneth R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. "Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality: A replication and extension." Rural sociology 43 (3): 474. Murdock, Steve H., and Eldon C. Schriner. 1977. "Social and Economic Determinants of the Level of Support for Environmental Protection and Economic Growth in a Rural Population." , scholars highlighted 5 predictors of environmental attitudes of the US population, namely: age, social class, sex, political division, and the place of residence. Liere, Kent D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (2): 180. Further, those predictors were highlighted, tested, and supplemented with several other outside the United States in plenty of cross-national studies, some of which were devoted to the case of Western and Eastern European countries. Mccright, Aaron M., Riley E. Dunlap, and Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt. 2015. “Political Ideology and Views about Climate Change in the European Union.” Environmental Politics 25 (2): 338-58. Also, despite the fact, that several researchers emphasize ambiguity of some of the mentioned correlates of environmental concern due to the low level or even absence of consistency, other scholars found statistical significance of those predictors in plenty of conducted studies. Shwom, Rachael L. et. al., “Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Climate Change and Society: 269. Therefore, in terms of this paper, we should consider them more thoroughly.

1.2.1 Age

The general assumption of scholars that lies behind the age impact on environmental concern hypothesis is that the representatives of young generations more often pay attention to environmental issues and adhere pro-ecological position in comparison with the elder ones. The explanation for that was provided by Van Liere and Dunlop, who argue that “since solutions to environmental problems often are viewed as threatening the existing social order, possibly requiring substantial changes in traditional values, habitual behaviors, and existing institutions, it is logical to expect youth to support environmental reform and accept pro-environmental ideologies more readily than their elders”. Liere, Kent D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (2): 183: Hornback, Kenneth Elmer. 1974. Orbits of opinion: The role of age in the environmental movement's attentive public, 1968-1972. Michigan State University. Department of Sociology. Nevertheless, the consistency of age as a predictor of the environmental concern, according to scholars, has been arguable. Despite the fact, that the early U.S studies stated that the age represents a “consistent correlate according to several longitudinal research” Hornback, Kenneth. Elmer. 1974. Op. Cit. 127., several further works established only moderate negative connection between the age and the environmental attitudes of people. Van Liere, K., and R. Dunlap. 1978. "Environmental concern: Consistency among its dimensions, conceptualizations and empirical correlates." Annual Meeting of the Pacific Sociological Association, Spokane, Washington. In addition, Wood and Veditz, based on 2007 data, found that the age has no impact on the public concern of American citizens towards environmental issues. Wood, B. Dan, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2007. “Issue Definition, Information Processing, and the Politics of Global Warming.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (3): 552-68. Same conclusions were made by their colleagues in 2008 Kellstedt, Paul M., Sammy Zahran, and Arnold Vedlitz. 2008. “Personal Efficacy, the Information Environment, and Attitudes Toward Global Warming and Climate Change in the United States.” Risk Analysis 28 (1): 113-26 and 2009. Malka, Ariel, Jon A. Krosnick, and Gary Langer. 2009. “The Association of Knowledge with Concern About Global Warming: Trusted Information Sources Shape Public Thinking.” Risk Analysis 29 (5): 633_47.

Nevertheless, moving away from the U.S. case, it is worth noting that number of other single-case studies placed `age' among significant and consistent correlates of environmental concern, which was proved statistically. For instance, Harring and Sohlberg found the statistical significance of `age' as a predictor in a research devoted to Swedish population Harring, Niklas, and Jacob Sohlberg. 2016. “The Varying Effects of Left-Right Ideology on Support for the Environment: Evidence from a Swedish Survey Experiment.” Environmental Politics 26 (2): 278-300., while it was also found in the case studies of AustraliaTranter, Bruce. 2011. “Political Divisions over Climate Change and Environmental Issues in Australia.” Environmental Politics 20 (1): 78_96., Canada, and Turkey. Sarigöllü, Emine. 2008. “A Cross-Country Exploration of Environmental Attitudes.” Environment and Behavior 41 (3): 365-86. Aside from single-country studies, several cross-national analyses also revealed the existence of solid relationship between age and the character of environmental attitudes. Franzen and Meyer, based on International Social Survey Project data for 1993 and 2000 found that age is negatively related to the environmental concern. Franzen, Axel, and Reto Meyer. 2010. "Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000." European sociological review 26 (2): 219-234. Scholars also noted, that considering public attitudes towards environment, the role of `cohort' and `age' effects should be taken into consideration. In turn, the former takes it roots from 1970-s, where the salience of environmental issue was high both among the scholars and the mass public. The `cohort' effect also presupposes that in regards with mentioned period, those who was born 10-20 years before the growth of the general concern in 70-s paid more attention to the environmental problems than those, who was born earlier. Ibid. 226. In addition, Franzen and Meyer argued that age effect regarding environmental concern could be the similar with its connection to `voluntary political activity': “levels of political activity are usually found to be highest during middle age, while teenagers and the elderly are found to be more focused on private as opposed to public concerns”. Ibid. 222. Kvaloy et al., extending the previous cross-national research, provide the same conclusions and connect the existing relationship between age and public environmental attitudes with the replacement of old cohorts with new ones, which are more informed, educated and thus took more pro-ecological position. Kvaløy, Berit, Henning Finseraas, and Ola Listhaug. 2012. “The Publics' Concern for Global Warming: A Cross-National Study of 47 Countries.” Journal of Peace Research 49 (1): 11-22.

1.2.2 Sex

While the early works related to the studying of the connection between sex and environmental concern revealed only `modest positive associations' Shwom, Rachael L. et. al., “Public Opinion on Climate Change.” Climate Change and Society: 269., through time strong relationship between two considered aspects was established, and several recent studies prove this statement. Zelezny et. al. argues that comparing men and women in their attitudes towards environment and climate change problems, the latter show higher average level of concern. Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 2015: 261: Zelezny, Lynnette C., Poh-Pheng Chua, and Christina Aldrich. 2000. “New Ways of Thinking about Environmentalism: Elaborating on Gender Differences in Environmentalism.” Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 447-448. Such conclusions were also made by Brody et. al, who were considering climate change risk perception among the U.S population Brody, Samuel D., et al. 2008. "Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States." Environment and behavior 40 (1): 72-95., and their colleagues O'Connor, Bard, and Fisher, who studied risks, beliefs and perception of environmental problems as threats in the same U.S context. O'Connor, Robert E., Richard J. Bard, and Ann Fisher. 1999. “Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change.” Risk Analysis 19 (3): 461-71. In addition, according to McCright, Dunlap and Xiao's research, “women report beliefs more consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change than do men”.Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 279: Mccright, Aaron M., Riley E. Dunlap, and Chenyang Xiao. 2013. “Perceived Scientific Agreement and Support for Government Action on Climate Change in the USA.” Climatic Change 119 (2): 516 One more research provides us with the evidence that women, in contrary to men, took significant part in `grassroots mobilizations' devoted to the environmental problems. Tranter, Bruce. 2011. Op. Cit. 80: Soule, Sarah A. 2007. “Diffusion Processes within and across Movements.” The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements: 299-300.

Within the academic subfield, an attempt was made to explain the provided evidence through the theoretical perspective. In turn, the `gender socialization theory', initially developed in regards to the U.S context, but further implied in a plenty of cross-national and single-case studies of European countries, offers one of the most detailed explanation to the above-mentioned connection between age and environmental concern. Scholars argue that gender expectations, values, norms, and objectives, connected with the personal perception of `femininity' and `masculinity' shapes person's attitudes towards environment. Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015 Op. Cit. 279 For instance, as Shwom et. al. noted, “boys learn that masculinity means being competitive, independent, and unemotional and entails objectively exerting mastery and control over other people and things; girls learn that femininity means being compassionate, cooperative, and empathetic and entails connecting with other people and expressing concern about their well-being”. Ibid. Therefore, difference in identity represents an explanatory factor for women to be more concerned about the environment than men, and conversely, which is rooted in `masculinity' and `femininity' identity and its perception. Ibid.

1.2.3 Place of residence

Place of residence, according to scholars could also be considered as an important correlate of environmental concern among the population. In turn, Van Liere and Dunlop emphasized that “urban residents are more likely to be environmentally concerned than rural residents” Liere, Kent D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. “The Social Bases of Environmental Concern: A Review of Hypotheses, Explanations and Empirical Evidence.” Public Opinion Quarterly 44 (2): 184., while there are several explanations for such an assumption. The most obvious explanation presumes that urban residents are more environmentally concerned due to the higher average level of environmental pollution, existing in the urban areas in comparison with rural. Ibid. Another argument in favor of the above-mentioned thesis is the influence of rural culture and high level of `extractive occupations' among non-urban area residents, which together lead to the lower level of concern towards environmental issues, such as pollution or climate change. Ibid. Finally, researchers insisted that economic aspect should be also taken into consideration, as there is a prevalence of economic concern over environmental one, which could be found in rural areas, small villages, and towns. Liere, Kent. D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. Op. Cit. 185-186. Therefore, the place of residence is directly connected with the level of environmental concern among the residents themselves. Ibid. In addition, the place of residence could be determined as a consistent and statistically significant correlate to the level of environmental concern in the situation when the latter is related to the “environmental problems of local character” Tremblay, Kenneth R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. "Rural-urban residence and concern with environmental quality: A replication and extension." Rural sociology 43 (3): 474., according to Tremblay and Dunlop. Nevertheless, despite the fact, that Van Liere and Dunlop found statistical demonstration of the mentioned hypothesis, the scholars also argue that “the relationship between residence and environmental concern may depend on the indicator of environmental concern being examined”. Liere, Kent. D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. Op. Cit. 185-186. Moreover, Shwom et al. noted that residence should not be considered as a consistent correlate of public attitudes towards environment due to the fact, that “variation in this characteristic is not regularly associated with variation in climate change views”. Shwom, Rachael L. et al.2015. Op. Cit. 270.

1.2.4 Education

Although scholars found inconsistency of the education as a predictor for environmental concern among the population, especially in regards of global warming as one of the most serious environmental problems Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 261., several other studies conducted in later time periods provide us with the opposite evidence. For instance, McCright and Dunlop noted that “gmcrreater education increases the likelihood of believing that global warming has already begun, but it has no effect on peoples' belief about the primary cause of recent warming” Mccright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movements Counter-Claims.” Social Problems 47 (4): 506, while Shwom et. al found statistical significance of education as a correlate of environmental attitudes of mass public. Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 265: De Bardeleben, Joan. 1997. Environmental consciousness and economic development: Some East-West comparisons. Shades of green: environmental attitudes in Canada and around the world: 150. Besides, Franzen and Meyer share the same point of view in terms of their cross-national research. They stated that “those with a high level of education are more likely to perceive global warming as serious although people may not be able to directly perceive processes such as resource over use, energy consumption, and CO2 emission, environmental concern should also depend on the belief or knowledge that these processes are taking place”. Franzen, Axel, and Reto Meyer. 2010. "Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000." European sociological review 26 (2): 229. And, as education provides people with the sufficient level of knowledge about the exact object or phenomena, it represents one of the important predictors of how people perceive environmental problems and reflects their attitude towards environment in general. Besides, positive connection was found by several other scholars, not only towards environmental concern, but towards the support for the set of environmental policies in particular. O'Connor, Robert E., Richard J. Bard, and Ann Fisher. 1999. “Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change.” Risk Analysis 19 (3): 461-71.

1.3 Values and economic determinants

Talking about values and their connection to environmental attitudes of individuals, we should note two significant theories, namely: `post-materialist values' theory by Inglehart Inglehart R. Public support for environmental protection: Objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies //PS: Political Science & Politics, 1995. Vol. 28. ¹. 1. and `values-beliefs-norms' theory by Stern and Dietz. Stern, Paul C., et al. 1999. "A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism." Human ecology review: 81-97. While the former is mostly devoted to the economic explanation of environmental concern, the latter is focused on individual's personal values and norms, that stipulate his/her environmental attitudes and behavior, so, we would briefly consider it first.

In accordance with Stern and Dietz's theory, the perception on environment and environmental problems as threats represents a complex mechanism, which is constituted by values, norms and beliefs: “values influence general beliefs about the environment, which in turn shape beliefs about the consequences of environmental change on what is valued, while these specific beliefs about the threat to objects valued then affect perceptions about the ability to reduce those threats, which in turn influences norms about taking action”. Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 281-282: Stern, Paul C., et al. 1999. "A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism." Human ecology review: 84. Afterwards, several scholars found statistical evidence for the above-mentioned argument, and stated that people with altruistic and traditional values, due to those values have certain image of the environment and world around them, which, in turn affects their secondary beliefs, and, afterwards “the realization of the consequences of climate change, which are then associated with support for policies to reduce GHG emissions”. Ibid.

One of the first attempts to consider environmental concern from the economic point of view were made by American scholars in the middle of the 1970-s. In their review of socio-economic predictors of environmental concern, Van Liere and Dunlop, for instance, studied public environmental attitudes through the prism of the `social class' hypothesis. Liere, Kent. D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. Op. Cit. 180-185. They argued, that person's social class, which is stipulated by his/her economic welfare has an impact of the level of the environmental concern, as people, who are not burdened with the necessity to solve their economic problems pay more attention to the problems, related to the environment, which is related to the hierarchy of needs theory, developed by Abraham Maslow. Liere, Kent. D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. Op. Cit. 183: Maslow, Abraham Harold. 1981. Motivation and personality. Prabhat Prakashan. Scholars also find an explanation for the mentioned assumption in the high level of the political and social activity of those, who already have no problems with the satisfaction of basic needs - middle and upper classes of American society, which were concerned with social problems and ecological ones were included in the existed social agenda of those times. Ibid. Van Liere and Dunlop's thesis was implied in several modern studies and was developed into several concepts, for instance, the concept of `economic security', noted by Mildenberger and Leiserowitz. Mildenberger, Matto, and Anthony Leiserowitz. 2017. “Public Opinion on Climate Change: Is There an Economy-Environment Tradeoff?” Environmental Politics 26 (5): 801-24. Authors pointed out, that the “environmental policy preferences decline during economic downturns as individuals prioritize short-term economic needs over future environmental security”. Ibid. 813. Therefore, the improvement of the short-term economic conditions may reshape the perception of long-term environmental risks within the society Shum, Robert Y. 2012. “Effects of Economic Recession and Local Weather on Climate Change Attitudes.” Climate Policy 12 (1): 38_49. . Moreover, Singer suggested that the periods of economic insecurity are accompanied by the prevailing of economic needs over social, which seems precise and logical. Singer, Matthew M. 2010. “Who Says `It's the Economy'? Cross-National and Cross-Individual Variation in the Salience of Economic Performance.” Comparative Political Studies 44 (3): 284-312. However, “empirically, scholars have traced an inverse correlation between national economic strength and public commitment to environmental action”. Guber, Deborah Lynn. 2003. The grassroots of a green revolution: Polling America on the environment. MIT Press: 15. skepticism environmental pollution climate

Scholars' `social class' assumption also found its logical continuation in the `postmaterialist values' theory, formulated and developed by Ronald Inglehart in 1995, who implied economic argument regarding environmental attitudes and behavior beyond the U.S. case. Inglehart, Ronald. 1995. “Public Support for Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Values in 43 Societies.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28(1): 1-57. Based on the World Value Survey data Inglehart tested a hypothesis, which presumed that the population of developing states pay less attention towards environmental problems due to the prevalence of materialist values in their societies in comparison with the developed countries. Ibid. He argued, that “as societies become more affluent, their members are less pre-occupied with the economic struggle for survival and are free to pursue post-materialistic goals, such as political freedom, individual self-fulfillment, and environmental protection”. Franzen, Axel, and Dominikus Vogl. 2013. “Two Decades of Measuring Environmental Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of 33 Countries.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 64. However, the received evidence did not completely confirm his hypothesis, which presumed “positive correlation between prosperity and environmental concern” Ibid., as several developing states demonstrated high level of ecological concern among the population despite their lower level of wealthiness in contrary to Western developed states. Further, Inglehart developed his argument in accordance with his previous mixed findings and formulated the so-called `objective problems and subjective values' assumption, that includes two aspects of different character, that could be considered as explanatory for the concern of people with the environmental problems. In turn, he offered two different explanations for environmental concerns, one of which correspond to the populations of economically developed states, and other - for the populations of developing. In the former, the pro-ecological position among citizens was stipulated with the acceptance and further prevalence of post-materialist values, which included environmental protection and was possible due to the high level of economic development, while in latter the high level of environmental concern was connected with natural reasons, such as high level of environmental pollution that presents a serious threat to the population's health. Ibid.

The above-mentioned research by Inglehart further received ambiguous feedback from the representatives of the academic community. Firstly, Inglehart's hypotheses received mixed evidence in several studies. Dunlap, Riley E., and Angela G. Mertig. 1997. "Global environmental concern: An anomaly for postmaterialism." Social Science Quarterly 78 (1): 24-29. Besides, author's theory of `post-materialist values' was challenged in further studies, one of which was conducted by Dunlop and Mertig. Ibid. In particular, scholars oppose the `new ecologic paradigm' to Inglehart's arguments, argue that environmental concern has `global' character, while its' existence among the population is not restricted by the wealth of the state. Ibid. Simultaneously, Dunlap and York noted that Inglehart's extended argument on `objective problems and subjective values' has been highly arguable due to its' simplistic and non-falsifiable character. Dunlap, Riley E., and Richard York. 2008. “The Globalization of Environmental Concern and The Limits of The Postmaterialist Values Explanation: Evidence from Four Multinational Surveys.” The Sociological Quarterly 49 (3): 529_63.

However, Inglehart's ideas, despite harsh criticism from the side of the scholars, partially formed the basis of the `affluence' hypothesis, developed by Franzen and Meyer. In the core of the authors' argument lies the idea that the environmental quality represents a public good, which is directly connected to the personal's income and so, is in high demand when the income is high: “as income increases, budget constraints shift upwards, which allows both for an increase in consumption in general and a higher investment in environmental quality”. Franzen, Axel, and Reto Meyer. 2010. "Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: A multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000." European sociological review 26 (2): 222.

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the attempt to explain environmental attitudes of people in economic terms through `post-materialist values' concept could not be defined as an absolute success, several works demonstrate the existence of connection between environmental attitudes of mass public and distinct economic factors, such as GDP per capita, income and unemployment rate.

In particular, the research provided by Franzen and Vogl demonstrates the existence of positive relationship between the purchasing power adjusted GDP per capita (PPP) and the environmental concern of the population. Franzen, Axel, and Dominikus Vogl. 2013. “Two Decades of Measuring Environmental Attitudes: A Comparative Analysis of 33 Countries.” Global Environmental Change 23 (5): 66. After calculation of individual's average income, scholars found that it also represents a statistically significant predictor of people's concern with ecological problems. Ibid. Besides, the same results were presented by the other group of scholars, who, alongside with GDP's impact, established that there is a negative relationship between environmental public concern and unemployment rate. Brulle, Robert J., Jason Carmichael, and J. Craig Jenkins. 2012. "Shifting Public Opinion On Climate Change: An Empirical Assessment Of Factors Influencing Concern Over Climate Change In The U.S., 2002-2010". Climatic Change 114 (2): 169-188. The latter thesis was also proved by Scruggs and Benegal Scruggs, Lyle, and Salil Benegal. 2012. “Declining Public Concern about Climate Change: Can We Blame the Great Recession?” Global Environmental Change 22 (2): 505-15., and Shum, who, in turn, claimed that “the GDP per capita and quarterly economic growth both are positively related to the percentage of respondents in an EU country who are very worried about climate change”. Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 284: Shum, Robert Y. 2012. “Effects of Economic Recession and Local Weather on Climate Change Attitudes.” Climate Policy 12 (1): 36.

1.4 Political and ideological determinants

Now we will. Explaining the environmental attitudes from the political perspective, the emphasis of scholars was made predominantly on two factors, namely: ideological orientation and party preferences. Both left-right self-identification of individuals and their political orientation was firstly examined on the U.S. general publics. As the plenty of works on environmental concern in the U.S demonstrate, there is a consistent connection between right-left ideological divide and the environmental attitudes of individuals, which has been statistically proven since 1970-s - the time of active politicization of public environmental concern in the United States. Liere, Kent. D. Van, and Riley E. Dunlap. 1980. Op. Cit. 187. Scholars argue that Liberals are more concerned with environmental problems, while Conservatives adhere more climate skeptic position, which further has even transformed into the movement of climate change - denialism that promotes the idea, that there is a lack of connection between human activity and the global warming. Mccright, Aaron M., Riley E. Dunlap, and Sandra T. Marquart-Pyatt. 2015. “Political Ideology and Views about Climate Change in the European Union.” Environmental Politics 25 (2): 350. On the basis of this thesis, McCright and Dunlop subsequently formulated the `conservative white male effect', in accordance with which “conservative white males are more likely to deny the reality and seriousness of climate change than others in the general public”. Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 281: Mccright, Aaron M., and Riley E. Dunlap. 2000. “Challenging Global Warming as a Social Problem: An Analysis of the Conservative Movements Counter-Claims.” Social Problems 47 (4): 504-506. The same finding was made in regards of party preferences - while Democrats show high level of personal concern with environmental problems, the Republicans demonstrate lower level of environmental concern and higher level of skepticism towards environmental problems and their overall importance. As an explanation for this phenomenon, researchers emphasized the fact that environmental protection is contrary to the core beliefs and values ??of conservatives and republicans. Shwom, Rachael L. et al. 2015. Op. Cit. 280. In particular, Shwom et al claims that “environmental protection often entails government intervention into markets and restrictions on property rights, challenging conservative and Republican values, but is consistent with liberals 'and Democrats' view that protecting collective welfare is a proper role of government”. Ibid. In addition, researchers argue that the conservative values ??of Republicans who prioritize the free market and stable economic growth forms the dominant socio-economic paradigm, and therefore following it makes it impossible to support environmental protection, as these are two things that contradict each other at the level of values ??and priorities. Ibid.

Despite the fact, that several scholars define the political and ideological polarization in the United States as an `outlier', in the European context the connection between the party preferences of people and their position on environmental issues actually corresponded to the same logic that is present in the case of the USA. In particular, Rohrschneider and Miles, considering the above relationship from a historical perspective, note that many conservative right-wing parties simply ignored environmental issues that were not widely discussed at the beginning of the second half of the twentieth century. Rohrschneider, Robert, Matthew Miles, and Mark Peffley. 2015. “The Structure and Sources of Global Environmental Attitudes.” The Civic Culture Transformed, 620-621. The Social Democrats in Germany, whom the authors cite as an example, hoped that a little attention to environmental issues would be temporary and, in the long run, would be completely nullified. Ibid. A skeptical attitude to environmental issues, as in the United States, was due to value contradictions, especially those related to the economy and views on the role of the state in its regulation. However, since in reality public attention to the problems of the need to protect the environment only grew over the years, representatives of left-wing ideological views took advantage of the situation by integrating environmentalism into their party line and making it one of the main components of their political agenda. Rohrschneider, Robert, Matthew Miles, and Mark Peffley. 2015. “The Structure and Sources of Global Environmental Attitudes.” The Civic Culture Transformed: 620.