Negative income effect on perception of long-term environmental risk

Highlights

• This research is based on a cross-national social survey involving 36 countries.

• Results show that environmental concern does not increase with income.

• People's perception of environmental risks is negatively related to their income level.

• Higher-income individuals rate environmental problems as relatively less dangerous.

• People facing higher risks are potentially less able to afford risk reduction support.

Abstract

The notion that people with higher income are more concerned about environmental problems is deeply entrenched in economics and some other disciplines. Studies have shown a positive income effect on the intention to pay for environmental improvement. Perception of environmental risk, however, follows a different pattern of variation. This paper demonstrates a negative income effect, using data extracted from a cross-national social survey involving 36 countries. An inverse relationship is observed between people's reported income and their perception of long-term environmental risks associated with climate change, genetic modification of crops and the use of nuclear power. Lower-income individuals see the potential environmental consequences of these human interventions as extremely dangerous—more so than the higher-income ones. Richer people are relatively less concerned about the long-term environmental risks. A possible explanation is that material insecurity reinforces the feeling of risk and danger. People living under more difficult economic situation are more vulnerable and see greater danger. A key implication of these findings is that concern does not follow the ability to pay. People facing higher environmental risks are potentially less able to afford risk reduction support despite that they are likely to be in greater need for it.

Introduction

The notion that people's concern about the environment increases with income is deeply entrenched in economics and some other disciplines. It is most notably articulated by Lawrence Summers, then Chief Economist for the World Bank, in a leaked internal memo making a controversial claim that poor countries are ‘under-polluted’ and the demand for a clean environment is low among poor people (Guha and Martinez-Alier, 1997). Summer's opinion is consistent with the conventional assumption in mainstream environmental economics that improving environmental quality and avoiding environmental damage are a ‘luxury’ good. McConnell (1997, p. 395), for instance, is convinced that “households with higher incomes will pay more for reductions in risk”.

Riley Dunlap laments the regrettable tendencies among some sociologists for reinforcing the conventional economic assumption (Dunlap and Mertig, 1995, Dunlap and York, 2008). His criticisms target at the sociologist Ronald Inglehart, 1977, Inglehart, 1990 theory of post-materialism. This influential theoretical account posits that members of advanced industrial societies are more concerned about environmental problems due to a gradual shift in people's values to higher-order, post-materialist desires as societies develop and accumulate a certain level of wealth. On the other hand, poor people struggle to satisfy basic needs and could afford no more to care about environmental issues. There is no shortage of empirical evidence supporting this view (Diekmann and Franzen, 1999, Franzen and Meyer, 2010, Scott and Willits, 1994, Shen and Saijo, 2008, Smyth et al., 2008).

However, a growing body of counter-evidence has called into question the post-materialist assumption. Other national and cross-national surveys have shown that environmental concern does not increase, or even declines with income (Baldassare and Katz, 1992, Brechin, 1999, Dunlap and Mertig, 1995, Knight and Messer, 2012, Lima et al., 2005, Marquart-Pyatt, 2008, Sandvik, 2008, Sjöberg, 2000). On long-term environmental issues, such as climate change, the most advanced industrial economies do not appear to be particularly keen on, if not skeptical toward undertaking aggressive actions for reducing such risks (Dunlap and York, 2008). Among these countries are Australia (Hanson, 2010, Lo, 2014, The Climate Institute, 2012), Norway (Norgaard, 2006, Norgaard, 2011), and the United States (Leiserowitz, 2005, The Pew Research Center, 2009). Higher levels of concern about long-term environmental change are not always found in the wealthier societies.

Understanding environmental concern in terms of risk or danger is one way to reconcile the competing arguments raised by sociologists, notably Inglehart and Dunlap. The strength of motivation to avoid potential environmental damage is a function of risk attitude and likely to decline with one's economic ability. Economists have long argued that at higher levels of wealth and income, individuals tend to be risk averse and become less willing to make commitment to risk mitigation (Halek and Eisenhauer, 2001, Guiso and Paiella, 2008). This implies that poorer communities and countries are less likely to take risk and more keen on engaging in risk mitigation activities. As Dunlap and others have suggested, these communities and countries should be more concerned about the environment—more accurately, the danger of environmental change.

Although income raises people's intention to pay for environmental amenities, it may have a non-positive or even negative effect on risk-based environmental concern. This paper draws a distinction between these two concepts. Identifying the negative income effect will have important implications for designing market-based policy approach, particularly the use of risk-pricing instruments, such as flood or climate insurance (Botzen et al., 2009, Chobotová, 2013, Lo, 2013a). Prices select those households who are able to pay, but insuring might be relatively less important for the wealthier, who are more self-sufficient and have greater capacity for coping and recovering, than those who cannot afford but are more vulnerable to the impending crisis. If danger declines with income, then unsubsidized price-based solutions might unduly displace the poorer public who live at higher risks and select the wealthier at lower risks. Unlike environmental amenities, the potential major ‘consumer’ of risk reduction efforts is likely to be the economically deprived, rather than the rich. The role and design of market mechanisms warrant careful consideration in this light.

This paper aims to demonstrate the negative income effect on environmental risk perception. The core argument is supported by the results of a cross-national social survey involving 36 countries worldwide. Using basic statistical techniques, this study identifies the direction in which people's income and the perception of long-term environmental risks are related to each other. The next section further elaborates on the theoretical distinction between intention to act and risk perception. Research methods are then described, followed by an analysis and discussion of the survey data.