Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 249–263 | Cite as

Trust and environmental activism across regions and countries

  • Sandra T. Marquart-PyattEmail author


In recent decades, research reveals that environmental activism has declined globally and identifies distinctive regional patterns and possible national trends. Improving our understanding of what shapes environmental activism is important for comparative social science scholarship. This study addresses this challenge through investigation of a model of environmental activism that includes environmental trust along with a core set of predictors from previous scholarly work. Comparisons are conducted both across regions and countries using structural equation modeling with latent variables and a unique set of items only available in the 2000 International Social Survey Program data. Although important similarities are revealed across regions, results also show unanticipated effects. In addition, findings for 22 countries individually reveal intriguing patterning. Analyses both by region and by country advance our collective understanding of the predictors shaping environmental activism and provide fruitful avenues for future study.


Environmental trust Environmental activism Cross-national Structural equation modeling 


  1. Allison P (2002) Missing Data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber B (1983) The Logic and Limits of Trust. NJ: Rutgers. University PressGoogle Scholar
  3. Bollen K (1989) Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley & Sons, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brechin S (1999) Objective problems, subjective values, and global environmentalism: evaluating the Postmaterialist argument and challenging a new explanation. Soc Sci Q 84(4):793–809Google Scholar
  5. Chaisty P, Whitefield S (2015) Attitudes towards the environment: are post-communist societies (still) different? Environmental Politics 24(4):598–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheung G, Rensvold R (2002) Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 9(2):233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Citrin J, Stoker L (2018) Political Trust in a Cynical age. Annual Review of Political Science 21(1):49–70. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dalton RJ (2004) Democratic challenges, democratic choices: the erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dalton R (2015) Waxing or waning? The changing patterns of environmental activism. Environmental Politics 24(4):530–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Delhey J, Newton K, Welzel C (2011) How general is trust in ‘most people?’ Solving the radius of trust problem. Am Sociol Rev 76(5):786–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz T, Stern P, Guagnano G (1998) Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environ Behav 30(4):450–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dietz T, Fitzgerald A, Shwom R (2005) Environmental Values. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:335–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlap, R. (2012) Environmental Concern. In Ritzer G (ed) The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Globalization, pp 1–4. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Dunlap R, York R (2008) The globalization of environmental concern and the limits of the Postmaterialist values explanation: evidence from four multinational surveys. Sociol Q 49(3):529–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fairbrother M (2016) Trust and public support for environmental protection in diverse national contexts. Sociological Science 3:359–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairbrother M. (2017) Environmental attitudes and the politics of distrust. Sociol Compass doi:, 11
  17. Fishbein M, Ajzen I (2010) Predicting and changing behavior: the reasoned action approach. Psychology Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Fligner MA, Policello GE (1981) Robust rank procedures for the Behrens-fisher problem. J Am Stat Assoc 76:162–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Franzen A, Vogl D (2013) Two decades of measuring environmental attitudes: a comparative analysis of 33 countries. Glob Environ Chang 23(5):1001–1008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Freymeyer R, Johnson B (2010) A cross-cultural investigation of factors influencing environmental actions. Sociol Spectr 30(2):184–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fukuyama F (1995) Trust: the social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Hadler M (2013) Environmental behaviors in transatlantic view: public and private actions in the United States, Canada, Germany, and the Czech Republic, 1993-2010. Int J Sociol 43(4):87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hadler M (2016) Individual action, world society, and environmental change: 1993–2010. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 3:341–374Google Scholar
  24. Hadler M, Haller M (2011) Global activism and nationally driven recycling: the influence of world society and national contexts on public and private environmental behavior. Int Sociol 26:315–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hadler M, Haller M (2013) A shift from public to private environmental behavior: findings from Hadler and Haller (2011) revisited and extended. Int Sociol 28(4):484–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hadler M, Wohlkönig P (2012) Environmental behaviours in the Czech Republic, Austria, and Germany between 1993 and 2010. Macro-level trends and individual level determinants compared. Czech Sociological Review 48(3):467–492Google Scholar
  27. Haller M, Hadler M (2008) Dispositions to act in favor of the environment: fatalism and readiness to make sacrifices in cross-National Perspective. Sociol Forum 23(2):281–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hardin R (2002) Trust and trustworthiness. Russell sage, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Harring N (2013) Understanding the effects of corruption and political trust on willingness to make economic sacrifices for environmental protection in a cross-national perspective. Soc Sci Q 94(3):660–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harring N (2016) Reward or punish? Understanding preferences toward economic or regulatory instruments in a cross-National Perspective. Political Studies 64(3):573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hetherington M (2005) Why trust matters: declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1999) Nonparametric statistical methods, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. International Social Survey Program INTERNATIONAL SOCIAL SURVEY PROGRAM (ISSP), 1985–2000 [CD-ROM]. Cologne, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung an der Universitaet zu Koeln [producer], 2003. Cologne, Germany: Zentralarchiv fuer Empirische Sozialforschung/Ann Arbor, MI:Inter-university Consortium for Political and Soc Res [distributors], 2003Google Scholar
  34. ISSP Research Group (2012): International Social Survey Programme: Environment III - ISSP 2010. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5500 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:
  35. Levi M, Stoker L (2000) Political trust and trustworthiness. Annual Review of Political Science 3:475–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marquart-Pyatt S (2008) Are there similar influences on environmental concern?: comparing industrialized countries. Soc Sci Q 89(5):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marquart-Pyatt S (2012) Explaining environmental activism across countries. Soc Nat Resour 25(7):683–699CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marquart-Pyatt S (2013) Environmental concern in international and cross-National Context: insights and challenges for future research. Int J Sociol 43(4):1–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. PytlikZillig LM, Kimbrough CD (2016) Consensus on Conceptualizations and definitions of trust: are We There Yet? Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Trust 17–47Google Scholar
  40. van der Meer, T. W. G. (2017) Political trust and the ‘crisis of democracy’. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics doi:
  41. Milfont T, Fischer R (2010) Testing measurement invariance across groups: applications in cross-cultural research. International Journal of Psychological Research 3:111–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mishler W, Rose R (1997) Trust, distrust and skepticism. J Polit 59(2):418–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mishler W, Rose R (2001) What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative Political Studies 34(1):30–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Norris P (2011) Democratic deficit: Critical citizens revisited. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Olofsson A, Ohman S (2006) General beliefs and environmental concern: transatlantic comparisons. Environ Behav 38:768–790CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Oreg S, Katz-Gerro T (2006) Predicting pro-environmental behavior cross-nationally: values, the theory of planned behavior and value-belief norm theory. Environ Behav 38:462–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pisano I, Lubell M (2015) Environmental behavior in cross-National Perspective: a multilevel analysis of 30 countries. Environ Behav:1–28Google Scholar
  48. Robbins BG (2016) What is trust? A multidisciplinary review, critique, and synthesis. Sociol Compass 10(10):972–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Siegrist M, Cvetkovich G (2000) Perceptions of hazards: the role of social trust and knowledge. Risk Anal 20(5):713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stern P (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56:407–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stolle D (2002) Trusting strangers: the concept of generalized Trust in Perspective. Austrian Journal of Political Science 31:397–412Google Scholar
  52. Uslaner E (2002) The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. West S, Taylor A, Wu W (2012) Model Fit and Model Selection in Struct Equ Model. In: Hoyle RH (ed) Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp 209–231Google Scholar
  54. Zmerli S, van der Meer T (2017) Handbook on Political Trust. Edward Elgar Publishers, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations