Environmentalism, norms, and identity

Although environmental justice emerged as a research area in the 1970s, those facing environmental risk had analyzed their problems and mobilized for redress long before that time (1, 2). In the United States, ample research shows that the marginalized and the less affluent are more exposed to environmental threats than others. Pearson et al. (3) offer analyses that link the environmental justice literature to environmental social psychology and, in doing so, raise important issues for both research and engagement.Pearson et al.’s (3) analysis provides insight into the environmental concerns of those most at risk. They replicate long-standing findings that in the United States, Asians, blacks, and Latinos all have higher levels of concern for the environment than whites, even when other aspects of position in the social structure (age, gender, income, etc.) are controlled. This greater concern contrasts with the relative dearth of minorities in environmental organizations and agencies and in the environmental sciences (4).Many factors contribute to the disparity between level of concern and engagement. Pearson et al. (3) offer an important insight: the environmental belief paradox. In a US national survey, they find that Asians, blacks, and Latinos are more environmentally concerned than whites, but they perceive their communities as less concerned than whites. The same patterns exist for those with lower incomes: they perceive themselves as less concerned than they actually are. The finding is robust; it applies to both environmental concern and identification as an environmentalist. It also holds when the issue is framed as general environmentalism or concern with climate change.The environmental belief paradox forms a bridge between the environmental justice literature and work in environmental … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: tdietzvt{at}gmail.com. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1