IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/envirc/v8y1990i4p379-393.html

Consensus and Dissension among Contemporary Environmental Activists: Preservationists and Conservationists in the US and Canadian Context

Author

Listed:
  • B S Steel

    (Department of Political Science, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309, USA)

  • M A E Steger

    (Department of Political Science, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011, USA)

  • N P Lovrich

    (Division of Governmental Studies and Services, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA)

  • J C Pierce

    (College of Arts and Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA)

Abstract

The longstanding conservationist versus preservationist perspective among environmentalists is investigated among contemporary environmental group members in Michigan and Ontario. Based upon survey data, it is clear that this dissension continues to exist among contemporary environmental activists. Moreover, a number of background characteristics, use preferences for public lands, and political and environmental belief constructs effectively predict conservationist and preservationist orientations. The Canadians in the study were more likely to have preservationist orientations when compared with Americans, and the self-identified behavior of these Canadian activists tended to be more protective of natural resources than their US counterparts. It is argued that such cross-national differences are a likely consequence of differing features of the US and Canadian political cultures.

Suggested Citation

  • B S Steel & M A E Steger & N P Lovrich & J C Pierce, 1990. "Consensus and Dissension among Contemporary Environmental Activists: Preservationists and Conservationists in the US and Canadian Context," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 8(4), pages 379-393, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:8:y:1990:i:4:p:379-393
    DOI: 10.1068/c080379
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1068/c080379
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1068/c080379?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rothman, Stanley & Lichter, S. Robert, 1987. "Elite Ideology and Risk Perception in Nuclear Energy Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(2), pages 383-404, June.
    2. repec:cup:apsrev:v:65:y:1971:i:04:p:991-1017_13 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    2. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    3. Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Carol L. Silva & Matthew C. Nowlin & Grant deLozier, 2011. "Reversing Nuclear Opposition: Evolving Public Acceptance of a Permanent Nuclear Waste Disposal Facility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 629-644, April.
    4. Stroup Richard L., 1996. "Property Rights, Justice and Efficient Environmental Policy," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2-3), pages 211-238, June.
    5. Mark K. McBeth & Megan Warnement Wrobel & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "Political ideology and nuclear energy: Perception, proximity, and trust," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(1), pages 88-118, January.
    6. Blamey, Russell K., 1998. "Decisiveness, attitude expression and symbolic responses in contingent valuation surveys," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 577-601, March.
    7. Sjöberg, Lennart, 2004. "Gene Technology in the eyes of the public and experts. Moral opinions, attitudes and risk perception," SSE/EFI Working Paper Series in Business Administration 2004:7, Stockholm School of Economics, revised 11 May 2005.
    8. Carol L. Silva & Hank C. Jenkins‐Smith & Richard P. Barke, 2007. "Reconciling Scientists' Beliefs about Radiation Risks and Social Norms: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 755-773, June.
    9. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.
    10. Daniel J. Fiorino, 1989. "Technical and Democratic Values in Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(3), pages 293-299, September.
    11. Toby Bolsen & James N. Druckman & Fay Lomax Cook, 2015. "Citizens’, Scientists’, and Policy Advisors’ Beliefs about Global Warming," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 271-295, March.
    12. Chenggang Zhang & Jingbo Fan, 2013. "A Study of the Perception of Health Risks among College Students in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-17, May.
    13. Grace Dehner & Mark K. McBeth & Rae Moss & Irene van Woerden, 2023. "A Zero-Carbon Nuclear Energy Future? Lessons Learned from Perceptions of Climate Change and Nuclear Waste," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-16, February.
    14. Vladimir M. Cvetković & Adem Öcal & Yuliya Lyamzina & Eric K. Noji & Neda Nikolić & Goran Milošević, 2021. "Nuclear Power Risk Perception in Serbia: Fear of Exposure to Radiation vs. Social Benefits," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, April.
    15. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    16. Elizabeth Nichols & Aaron Wildavsky, 1988. "Regulating By the Numbers," Evaluation Review, , vol. 12(5), pages 528-546, October.
    17. Yuichi Ishimura & Kenji Takeuchi & Fredrik Carlsson, 2021. "Why do municipalities accept disaster waste? Evidence from the great east Japan earthquake," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 23(2), pages 275-308, April.
    18. Swain, Ritwik & Truelove, Verity & Rakotonirainy, Andry & Kaye, Sherrie-Anne, 2023. "A comparison of the views of experts and the public on automated vehicles technologies and societal implications," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    19. Jessica E. Boscarino, 2019. "From Three Mile Island to Fukushima: the impact of analogy on attitudes toward nuclear power," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 21-42, March.
    20. Jacqueline CK Lam & Victor OK Li & David M. Reiner & Yang Han & Shan Shan Wang, 2018. "Trust in Government and Effective Nuclear Safety Governance in Great Britain," Working Papers EPRG 1811, Energy Policy Research Group, Cambridge Judge Business School, University of Cambridge.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:envirc:v:8:y:1990:i:4:p:379-393. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.