Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The research explores the manner in which perception and definition shape legislative environmental attitudes. The central hypothesis is that a legislator's perceptual orientation of air pollution predicts his policy position. A survey of Florida state legislators revealed two competing formulations of air pollution. One saw pollution as essentially a question of economics. The second saw pollution as a health and environmental issue. Scales were constructed to measure each of these dimensions. It was found that those legislators scoring high on the health and environmental dimension: (1) were less receptive to environmental deterioration, (2) found present controls less adequate, (3) saw a wider and more beneficial scope of social outcomes, (4) prosecuted their claims more vigorously, even in the face of opposition from constituents, and (5) advocated an expanded governmental approach to the problem. Those policy actors with an economic orientation to air pollution functioned as polar opposites in each instance. In addition, it was found that air pollution stances were not easily transferable to other environmental issues such as water pollution or natural resource conservation.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

CALVERT, J. W. (1978) "The social and ideological bases of support for environmental legislation." Presented at the Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Los Angeles, March 16-18.

CLAUSEN, A. R. (1973) How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin's.

CONVERSE, P. E. (1964) "The nature of belief systems in mass publics," pp. 201-261 in D. Apter (ed.) Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press.

CONSTANTINI, E. and K. HAUF (1972) "Environmental concern and LakeTahoe: a study of elite perceptions, backgrounds, and attitudes." Environment and Behavior 4: 209-242.

DUNLAP, R. E. and D. A. DILLMAN (1976) "Decline in public support for environmental protection: evidence from a 1970-1974 panel study." Rural Sociology 41: 382-390.

HAGEVIK, G. H. (1970) Decision-Making in Air Pollution Control. New York: Praeger.

INGRAM, H. (1979) "The legislator's dilemma: responding to voters' preferences on energy environment issues." Presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 20-22.

INGRAM, H. (1978) "The political rationality of innovation: the clean air act amendments of 1970," pp. 12-67 in A. F. Friedlaender (ed.) Approaches to Controlling Air Pollution. Cambridge: MIT Press.

JARRETT, S. R. (1972) "How the states stack up in pollution control: manpower, money and legislative mandate." Industrial Development 14: 2-6.

10.

JONES, C. O. (1977) An Introduction to the Study of Public Policy. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.

11.

JONES, C. O. (1975) Clean Air. Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press.

12.

KRAFT, M. E. (1971) "Political science, ecology and political change: congressional attitudes toward the environment." Presented at the meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September 6-1 1.

13.

MATTHEWS, D. R. and J. A. STIMSON (1975) Yeas and Nays: Normal Decision Making In the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: John Wiley.

14.

MAZMANIAN, D. A. and P. A. SABATIER (1978) "A comparison of five decision making models: the effects of needs, constituency preference, staff, personal attitudes and citizen participation on the decisions of the California Coastal Commissioners." Presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 20-22.

15.

MILBRATH, L. (1978) "Using environmental beliefs and perceptions to predict trade-offs and choices among water quality plan alternatives." Presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, New York, September 2-4.

16.

NAGEL, S. S. [ed.] (1974) Environmental Politics. New York: Praeger.

17.

USLANER, E. M. and R. E. WEBER (1977) Patterns of Decision Making in State Legislatures. New York: Praeger.

Policy Orientations and Environmental Regulation

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References