As globalisation continues, heated debates over immigrants’ environmental behaviours in the U.S. have been prominent in recent years. While research has generally focused on the association between political affiliation and pro-environmental values, only a few studies have specifically explored immigrants’ pro-environmental values in the U.S. Utilizing a pooled dataset spanning 3 years (2017, 2020, and 2022) from the Cooperative Election Study and employing a multilevel model, we empirically tested three hypotheses regarding immigrants’ pro-environmental attitudes: the globalization hypothesis, the prosperity hypothesis, and the political socialization hypothesis. Our results supported all three hypotheses. On average, immigrants exhibited higher environmental scores than the native-born population. In addition, we identified generational differences, with the first-generation immigrants showing the highest environmental scores, while the second-generation immigrants fell between the first-generation and the native-born. Compared to the native-born population, party affiliation played a smaller role in immigrants’ formation of pro-environmental values. Democratic immigrants tended to be less pro-environment than democratic locals, while Republican immigrants were more pro-environment than Republican locals.
AbalansaSEl MahradBIcelyJ, et al. (2021) Electronic waste, an environmental problem exported to developing countries: the GOOD, the BAD and the UGLY. Sustainability13(9): 5302.
2.
AlbaRNeeV (2009) Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
3.
AndersonJABlahnaDJDeborahChavezJ (2000) Fern gathering on the San Bernardino national forest: cultural versus commercial values among Korean and Japanese participants. Society & Natural Resources13(8): 747–762.
4.
Aoyagi-UsuiMHenkVKuribayashiA, et al. (2003) Pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors: an international comparison. Human Ecology Review10(1): 23–31.
5.
ArbuckleMBKoniskyDM (2015) The role of religion in environmental attitudes. Social Science Quarterly96(5): 1244–1263.
6.
BensonDJordanASmithL (2013) Is environmental management really more collaborative? A comparative analysis of putative ‘paradigm shifts’ in Europe, Australia, and the United States. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space45(7): 1695–1712.
7.
Blanchet-CohenNReillyRC (2017) Immigrant children promoting environmental care: enhancing learning, agency and integration through culturally-responsive environmental education. Environmental Education Research23(4): 553–572.
8.
BohrJ (2014) Public views on the dangers and importance of climate change: predicting climate change beliefs in the United States through income moderated by party identification. Climatic Change126(1): 217–227.
9.
BorjasGJ (2011) Heaven’s Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
BoswellCD’AmatoG (2012) Transnationalism or assimilation. In: Immigration and Social Systems: Collected Essays of Michael Bommes. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press, 107–124.
11.
BrechinSRKemptonW (1994) Global environmentalism: a challenge to the postmaterialism thesis?Social Science Quarterly75(2): 245–269.
12.
BrownM (2019) Yi ethnomycology: wild mushroom knowledge and use in Yunnan, China. Journal of Ethnobiology39(1): 131–157.
13.
CainBEKiewietDRUhlanerCJ (1991) The acquisition of partisanship by latinos and asian Americans. American Journal of Political Science35(2): 390–422.
14.
CattonWRDunlapRE (1980) A new ecological paradigm for post-exuberant sociology. American Behavioral Scientist24(1): 15–47.
15.
ChaffeeSHNassCIYangS-M (1990) The bridging role of television in immigrant political socialization. Human Communication Research17(2): 266–288.
16.
ChuiTWLCurtisJELambertRD (1991) Immigrant background and political participation: examining generational patterns. Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers Canadiens de Sociologie16: 375–396.
17.
DengJWalkerGJSwinnertonG (2006) A comparison of environmental values and attitudes between Chinese in Canada and anglo-Canadians. Environment and Behavior38(1): 22–47.
18.
DeNicolaESubramaniamPR (2014) Environmental attitudes and political partisanship. Public Health128(5): 404–409.
19.
DinesenPTAndersenRF (2022) The (re) socialization of participatory political culture: immigrants’ political participation between their contemporary country and their ancestral country. Political Geography98: 102650.
20.
DunlapREGallupGHGallupAM (1993) Of global concern: results of the health of the planet survey. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development35(9): 7–39.
21.
DunlapREXiaoCMcCrightAM (2001) Politics and environment in America: partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism. Environmental Politics10(4): 23–48.
22.
EdwardsAR (2005) The Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift. Gabriola, BC: New Society Publishers.
23.
ElliottESeldonBJRegensJL (1997) Political and economic determinants of individuals» support for environmental spending. Journal of Environmental Management51(1): 15–27.
24.
FelicianoC (2005) Educational selectivity in U.S. immigration: how do immigrants compare to those left behind?Demography42(1): 131–152.
25.
FelicianoC (2020) Immigrant selectivity effects on health, labor market, and educational outcomes. Annual Review of Sociology46: 315–334.
26.
FerrisDHaydukRRichardsA, et al. (2020) Noncitizen voting rights in the global era: a literature review and analysis. Journal of International Migration and Integration21(3): 949–971.
27.
FranzenAMeyerR (2010) Environmental attitudes in cross-national perspective: a multilevel analysis of the ISSP 1993 and 2000. European Sociological Review26(2): 219–234.
28.
GerberASHuberGA (2010) Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science54(1): 153–173.
29.
GimpelJGLayJC (2008) Political socialization and reactions to immigration-related diversity in rural America. Rural Sociology73(2): 180–204.
30.
GordonMM (1964) Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
31.
GrayJWhyteICurryP (2018) Ecocentrism: What it means and what it implies. The Ecological Citizen1(2): 130–131.
32.
HajnalZRiveraMU (2014) Immigration, latinos, and white partisan politics: the new democratic defection. American Journal of Political Science58(4): 773–789.
33.
HawleyG (2011) Political threat and immigration: party identification, demographic context, and immigration policy preference. Social Science Quarterly92(2): 404–422.
34.
HeadLKlockerNAguirre-BielschowskyI (2019) Environmental values, knowledge and behaviour: contributions of an emergent literature on the role of ethnicity and migration. Progress in Human Geography43(3): 397–415.
35.
HsiehC-tLiuB-c (1983) The pursuance of better quality of life: in the long run, better quality of social life is the most important factor in migration. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology42(4): 431–440.
36.
HunterLM (2000) A comparison of the environmental attitudes, concern, and behaviors of native-born and foreign-born US residents. Population and Environment21: 565–580.
37.
HunterLMNawrotzkiR (2016) Migration and the environment. In: International Handbook of Migration and Population Distribution. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 465–484.
38.
InglehartR (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. PS: Political Science & Politics28(1): 57–72.
39.
InglehartR (1997) Modernization, postmodernization and changing perceptions of risk. International Review of Sociology7(3): 449–459.
40.
International Trade Administration (2021) China Urban Rail Transit Market. Washington, DC: International Trade Administration.
41.
JohnsonCYBowkerJMBergstromJC, et al. (2004) Wilderness values in America: does immigrant status or ethnicity matter?Society & Natural Resources17(7): 611–628.
42.
Karthick RamakrishnanS (2004) Second-generation immigrants? The “2.5 generation” in the United States. Social Science Quarterly85(2): 380–399.
43.
KoniskyDM (2008). Public attitudes on the environment. Report 04–2008. Retrieved [Feb 29, 2024], fromUniversity of Missouri Columbia, Institute of Public Policy Web site: https://www.truman.missouri.edu/ipp/
44.
KoubiVBöhmeltTSpilkerG, et al. (2018) The determinants of environmental migrants’ conflict perception. International Organization72(4): 905–936.
45.
KoubiVNguyenQSpilkerG, et al. (2021) Environmental migrants and social-movement participation. Journal of Peace Research58(1): 18–32.
46.
LaphamSJ (1993) We the American--: Foreign Born. Washington, DC: US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau.
47.
LeeC (2009) Sociological theories of immigration: pathways to integration for U.S. immigrants. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment19(6): 730–744.
48.
LeonardHJMorellD (1981) Emergence of environmental concern in developing countries: a political perspective. Stanford Journal of International Law17: 281.
49.
LeungCRiceJ (2002) Comparison of Chinese-Australian and Anglo-Australian environmental attitudes and behavior. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal30(3): 251–262.
50.
LoK (2014) Urban carbon governance and the transition toward low-carbon urbanism: review of a global phenomenon. Carbon Management5(3): 269–283.
51.
LovelockBJellumCThompsonA, et al. (2013) Could immigrants care less about the environment? A comparison of the environmental values of immigrant and native-born New Zealanders. Society & Natural Resources26(4): 402–419.
52.
MaG (2019) Similar or different? A comparison of environmental behaviors of US-born whites and Chinese immigrants. Journal of International Migration and Integration20(4): 1203–1223.
53.
MacGregorSWalkerCKatz-GerroT (2019) ‘It’s what I’ve always done’: continuity and change in the household sustainability practices of Somali immigrants in the UK. Geoforum107: 143–153.
54.
MaciasT (2016) Ecological assimilation: race, ethnicity, and the inverted gap of environmental concern. Society & Natural Resources29(1): 3–19.
55.
MaslowAH (1954) The instinctoid nature of basic needs. Journal of Personality22: 326–347.
56.
MasonL (2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
MasseyDSPrenKA (2012) Unintended consequences of US immigration policy: explaining the post-1965 surge from Latin America. Population and Development Review38(1): 1–29.
58.
MirabelliMCEbeltSDamonSA (2020) Air quality index and air quality awareness among adults in the United States. Environmental Research183: 109185.
59.
PálssonG (2003) Human-environmental relations: orientalism, paternalism and communalism. In: Nature and Society. London, UK: Routledge, 73–91.
60.
ParaskevopoulosSKorfiatisKJPantisJD (2003) Social exclusion as constraint for the development of environmentally friendly attitudes. Society & Natural Resources16(9): 759–774.
61.
PasselJS (2011) Demography of immigrant youth: past, present, and future. The Future of Children2(1): 19–41.
62.
PfefferMJStycosJM (2002) Immigrant environmental behaviors in New York city. Social Science Quarterly83(1): 64–81.
PoortingaWStegLVlekC (2004) Values, environmental concern, and environmental behavior: a study into household energy use. Environment and Behavior36(1): 70–93.
65.
PortesARumbautRG (2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
66.
PotochnickSStegmaierM (2020) Latino political participation by citizenship status and immigrant generation. Social Science Quarterly101(2): 527–544.
67.
PriovashiniCMallickB (2022) A bibliometric review on the drivers of environmental migration. Ambio51(1): 241–252.
68.
RamirezJ (2022) Mechanisms of Political Socialization: The Development of Political Identities Among First and Second-Generation Latinx Immigrant Americans. New York, NY: Columbia University.
69.
Rowland-SheaJDoshiS (2021) The Extremist Campaign to Blame Immigrants for U.S. Environmental Problems. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
70.
ScheidelADel BeneDLiuJ, et al. (2020) Environmental conflicts and defenders: a global overview. Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions63: 102104.
71.
SchelhasJ (2002) Race, ethnicity, and natural resources in the United States: a review. Natural Resources Journal42(4): 723–763.
72.
SchultzPWUnipanJBGambaRJ (2000) Acculturation and ecological worldview among Latino Americans. The Journal of Environmental Education31(2): 22–27.
73.
ScruggsLBenegalS (2012) Declining public concern about climate change: can we blame the great recession?Global Environmental Change22(2): 505–515.
74.
ShaoSTianZFanM (2018) Do the rich have stronger willingness to pay for environmental protection? New evidence from a survey in China. World Development105: 83–94.
75.
SintovNDAbou-GhalioumVWhiteLV, et al. (2020) The partisan politics of low-carbon transport: why democrats are more likely to adopt electric vehicles than Republicans in the United States. Energy Research & Social Science68: 101576.
76.
SqualliJ (2009) Immigration and environmental emissions: a US county-level analysis. Population and Environment30(6): 247–260.
77.
SqualliJ (2021) Disentangling the relationship between immigration and environmental emissions. Population and Environment43(1): 1–21.
78.
StegLVlekC (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. Journal of Environmental Psychology29(3): 309–317.
79.
StephenASchaffnerBFSamL (2021) Cooperative Election Study, 2020: Common Content. [Computer File] Release 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University [Producer]. https://cces.gov.harvard.edu
80.
SunBFongE (2021) Immigrant entrepreneurship in Hong Kong. In: Immigrant Entrepreneurship in Cities. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 67–96.
81.
SunSBFongE (2022) The role of human capital, race, gender, and culture on immigrant entrepreneurship in Hong Kong. Journal of Small Business and Entrepreneurship34(4): 363–396.
82.
SunSBZhaoXLiuM, et al. (2023) Immigrants as natural supporters? Cross-nation analysis with a multilevel mixed-effects model. Political Psychology1–5.
83.
SunSZhaoXZhangG (2023) Shouting “chin min yau lok”(stop at the front) in a minibus: transportation assimilation among immigrants in Hong Kong. International Journal of Population Studies9(1): 0386.
84.
TakahashiB (2023) Latin American immigrants and the environment: acculturation, information sources, and place. Local Environment29(3): 1–15.
85.
ThorntonJ (2000) Beyond risk: an ecological paradigm to prevent global chemical pollution. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health6(4): 318–380.
86.
TranterB (2014) Social and political influences on environmentalism in Australia. Journal of Sociology50(3): 331–348.
87.
UhlanerCJGarciaFC (1998) Foundations of latino party identification: learning, ethnicity and demographic factors among Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans and Anglos in the United States. 1–28.
88.
UnsworthKLFieldingKS (2014) It’s political: how the salience of one’s political identity changes climate change beliefs and policy support. Global Environmental Change27: 131–137.
89.
WeberEU (2010) What shapes perceptions of climate change?WIREs Climate Change1(3): 332–342.
90.
WelterlinALaRueRH (2007) Serving the needs of immigrant families of children with autism. Disability & Society22(7): 747–760.
91.
WhiteSNevitteNBlaisA, et al. (2008) The political resocialization of immigrants: resistance or lifelong learning?Political Research Quarterly61(2): 268–281.
92.
WuFTangGSunW (2018) Exploring ‘new generation’employees’ green tactics in environmental protection in China. Asia Pacific Business Review24(4): 510–527.
YeeG (2016) Speaking as a settler Chinese woman in Aotearoa New Zealand: an’utterly charming picture of oriental womanhood. Hecate42(1): 7–30.
95.
ZhuLXuP (2015) The politics of welfare exclusion: immigration and disparity in medicaid coverage. Policy Studies Journal43(4): 456–483.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
