Search this site:

Environmental Attitudes and Values by Social and Demographic Characteristics

Area of residence—Three groups were sampled: urban (n = 804), near urban (n = 459), and rural (n = 160). With one exception, there were no significant differences between the three groups in rating the four objects (wood products, clean air, scenic beauty, and heritage). The single exception was that rural residents rated scenic beauty as a more important object of public forests than did near-urban residents. There were no significant differences between the three groups in their attitudes toward the environment. Overall, results suggest that where people live in the South (in an urban or rural area) is not related to their values of forests or attitudes toward the environment.

Intergenerational differences—Three age groups (generations) were measured: < 24 years (n = 201), 25 to 49 years (n = 699), and 50+ years (n = 501). Ages of respondents ranged from 16 to 94 years old. Overall, age influenced public values toward forests and environmental attitudes. In evaluating private forests, the youngest generation (16 to 24 years) placed significantly less importance on wood products and significantly more on scenic beauty than did the oldest generation (50+ years). For public forests, the youngest generation valued scenic beauty significantly higher than did the oldest generation. Younger people were significantly more likely than older people to believe (1) that we are spending too little to protect the environment, and (2) that environmental laws have not gone far enough. There were no significant differences between the three age groups on the modified NEP scale. Overall, however, younger people tended to have more biocentric values in regard to forests than did older people.

Length of residency—Length of residency was measured by asking respondents to specify the number of years that they had lived where they are (range from 0 to 87 years, mean = 18.92 years). There were no significant correlations between length of residency and (1) valuation of public or private forests or (2) environmental attitudes.

Land ownership—Respondents were asked to indicate if they or their spouse owned any rural tract of 10 acres or more. Almost one-fifth (18.6 percent, n = 202) reported that they owned such a tract. With one exception, there were no significant differences between rural landowners and nonlandowners regarding forest values. The exception was that landowners rated wood products as a more important object of private forests than did nonlandowners. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the two groups in attitudes toward the environment. Overall, results suggest that land ownership has relatively little bearing on southern residents’ valuation of forests or attitudes toward the environment.

Gender—Women (n = 829) exhibited significantly stronger proenvironmental attitudes (as measured by the modified NEP) than men and were more likely than men to believe that (1) we had spent too little on the environment and (2) laws and regulations had not gone far enough. Men valued private forests for wood production significantly more than did women, while women valued public forests for scenic beauty significantly more than did men. Overall, women demonstrated more biocentric values and proenvironmental attitudes than men.

Race—Overall, there were minor differences between whites (n = 1162) and nonwhites (n = 203) in forest values and environmental attitudes. Nonwhites placed significantly higher importance on wood production and clean air values of public forests than whites, but whites rated public forests as more important for scenic values than did nonwhites.

Regions within the South—Of the 9 ecological divisions within the South (Rudis 1999), only 5 divisions had a sample size of greater than 30 respondents: Hot Continental (n = 273), Subtropical (inland) (n = 484), Subtropical (coastal) (n = 113), Prairie (n = 144), and Temperate Steppe (n = 91). For this reason, no further analysis was conducted.