Using an industry survey data source, this study evaluates which institutions and entities are considered by the United States population to be more trustworthy to protect the environment. The results indicate there is not a singular institution or entity that is overwhelmingly trusted by the public to protect the environment. Indeed, a significant portion of the population trusts no one to protect the environment. Level of education and race are the most consistent explanatory factors for what influences trust. Additionally, generation, partisan affiliation, and regional location also provide keen insights for variation in trust levels.The findings suggest a lack of trust among the American population that should be alarming for developing robust responses to environmental problems.
CitrinJ., & Samantha LuksS.2001. Political trust revisited: Déjà vu all over again? In J.R. Hibbing, E. Theiss-Morse, & J.H. Kuklinkski (Eds.). What is it about government that Americans dislike? (pp. 9-27). Cambridge University Press.
3.
CitrinJ., & StokerL. (2018). Political trust in a cynical age. Annual Review of Political Science, 21, 49-70.
4.
CookT.E., & GronkeP. (2005). The skeptical American: Revisiting the meanings of trust in government institutions. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 784-804.
5.
CooperC.A., Gibbs KnottsH., & BrennanK.M. (2008). The importance of trust in government for public administration: The case of zoning. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 459-468.
6.
DietzT., DanA., & ShwomR. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185-214.
7.
ElazarD.J. (1972). American federalism: A view from the States. Crowell.
8.
FairbrotherM. (2016). Trust and public support for environmental protection in diverse national contexts. Sociological Science, 3, 359-382.
GroothuisP.A., & MillerG. (1997). The role of social distrust in risk-benefit analysis: A study of the siting of a hazardous waste disposal facility. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 15(3), 241-257.
11.
HakhverdianA., & MayneQ. (2012). Institutional trust, education, and corruption: A micro-macro interactive approach. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 739-750.
12.
HetheringtonM.J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. The American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791-808.
13.
HetheringtonM.J. (2004). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton University Press.
14.
HetheringtonM.J., & HusserJ.A. (2012). How trust matters: The changing political relevance of political trust. American Journal of Political Science, 56(2), 312-325.
15.
HetheringtonM.J., & RudolphT.J. (2008). Priming, performance, and the dynamics of political trust. The Journal of Politics, 70(2), 498-512.
JonesN. (2010). Investigating the influence of social costs and benefits of environmental policies through social capital theory. Policy Sciences, 43(3), 229-244.
18.
JonesN., SophoulisC.M., IosifidesT., BotetzagiasI., & EvagelinosK. (2009). The influence of social capital on environmental policy instruments. Environmental Politics, 18(4), 595-611.
19.
JonesR.E., & CarterL.F. (1994). Concern for the environment among Black Americans: An assessment of common assumptions. Social Science Quarterly, 75(3), 560-579.
20.
KlyzaC.M., & SousaD.J. (2013). American environmental policy: Beyond gridlock. MIT Press.
21.
KoniskyD.M., MilyoJ., & RichardsonL.E. (2008). Environmental policy attitudes: Issues, geographical scale, and political trust. Social Science Quarterly, 89(5), 1066-1084.
22.
KoniskyD.M., & WoodsN.D. (2012). Measuring state environmental policy. Review of Policy Research, 29(4), 544-569.
23.
LiuX., VedlitzA., & ShiL. (2014). Examining the determinants of public environmental concern: Evidence from national public surveys. Environmental Science & Policy, 39, 77-94.
24.
MaciasT., & WilliamsK. (2016). Know your neighbors, save the planet: Social capital and the wedge of pro-environmental outcomes. Environment and Behavior, 48(3), 391-420.
25.
Marquart-PyattS.T. (2016). Environmental trust: A cross-region and cross-country study. Society & Natural Resources, 29(9), 1032-1048.
26.
McMillanM., HobanT.J., CliffordW.B., & BrantM.R. (1997). Social and demographic influences on environmental attitudes. Southern Rural Sociology, 13(1), 89-107.
OppS.M., MosierS.L, & OsgoodJ.L. (2018). Performance measurement in sustainability programs: Lessons from American cities. With Mark W. Davis. Routledge.
29.
OppS.M., & SaundersK.L. (2013). Pillar talk: Local sustainability initiatives and policies in the United States—Finding evidence of the “three E's”: Economic development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Affairs Review, 49(5), 678-717.
30.
PearsonA.R., SchuldtJ.P., Romero-CanyansR., BallewM.T., & Larson-KornarD. (2018). Diverse segments of the US public underestimate the environmental concerns of minority and low-income Americans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(49), 12429-12434.
31.
PetersR.G., CovelloV.T., & McCallumD.B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 43-54.
32.
PetersonD.A., SaundersK.L., McClugS.D, & MillerJ.M. (2016). Macrointerest: The public as attentive Gods of vengeance but lazy Gods of Reward (with Apologies to V.O. Key). Work. Pap., May 26.
PriestH., BonfadelliH., & RusanenM. (2003). The “Trust Gap” hypothesis: Predicting support for biotechnology across national cultures as a function of trust in actors. Risk Analysis, 23(4), 751-766.
35.
RosenstoneS.J., & HansenM. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. MacMillan.
36.
RudolphT.J. (2017). Political trust as a heuristic. In S. Zmerli & W.G. van der Meer (Eds.), Handbook on Political Trust (pp. 197-211). Edward Elgar.
37.
RudolphT.J., & EvansJ. (2005). Political trust, ideology, and public support for government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 660-671.
38.
ScheberleD. (2004). Federalism and environmental policy: Trust and the politics of implementation, revised and updated. Georgetown University Press.
39.
SchlozJ.T., & LubelM. (1998). Trust and taxpaying: Testing the heuristic approach to collective action. American Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 398-417.
40.
SharkanskyI. (1969). The utility of Elazar's political culture: A research note. Polity, 2(1), 68-83.
SmithJ.W., LeahyJ.E, AndersonD.H., & DavenportM.A. (2013). Community/Agency trust and public involvement in resource planning. Society & Natural Resources, 26(4), 452-471.
43.
TaniguchiH., & MarshallG.A. (2018). Trust, political orientation, and environmental behavior. Environmental Politics, 27(5), 385-410.
44.
UlsanerE. (2002). The Moral Foundations of Social Trust. Cambridge University Press.
45.
WilkesR., & WuC. (2018). Trust and minority groups. In E. M. Uslaner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social and political trust (pp. 231-250). Oxford University Press.
46.
XiaoC., & McCrightA.M. (2015). Gender differences in environmental concern: Revisiting the institutional trust hypothesis in the USA. Environment and Behavior, 47(1), 17-37.
