LAB MEMBERS TREASURE MCMAHAN, MATCH KAY, ANDREW HAYES |
Figure 1 contains the average/standard deviation results. Figures 2.1-2.3 below graphically represent the responses to the World Values Survey variable we selected. The variable we selected is V81: "Protecting the Environment Vs. Economic Growth". In accordance with the Capitalocene, our alternative hypothesis was "lower income nations tend to prioritize economic growth over environmental protection". Our null hypothesis was "there is no relationship between income group and prioritization of environmental protection or economic growth". |
Figures 2.1 and 2.2 depict the responses to this question in Rwanda (low income) and Nigeria (lower-middle income). These responses demonstrate that individuals living in countries considered "low income" are more concerned with economic growth than environmental protection overall. Of the 974 individuals surveyed in Rwanda, 338 of them chose protecting environment and 636 chose economic growth. Of the 1,744 individuals surveyed in Nigeria, 619 of them chose protecting the environment and 1,125 chose economic growth.
Figure 2.3 depicts the responses to this question in Uruguay (high income). These responses reveal that individuals living in countries with higher income value environmental protection over economic growth overall. Of the 908 individuals surveyed in Uruguay, 642 of them chose protecting environment and 266 chose economic growth. |
The p values (probability that the null hypothesis is true) for Uruguay vs. Rwanda and Nigeria Vs. Rwanda are statistically significant, because P is less than 0.05, which supports our alternative hypothesis. The large p value between Nigeria and Rwanda supports our null hypothesis, that there is no relationship between income group and prioritization of environmental protection. |
Discussion
The p value for Rwanda and Nigeria supports our null hypothesis, that there is no relationship between income group and prioritization of environmental protection. This makes logical sense, because Nigeria is in a higher income group (lower-middle) than Rwanda (lower). Because this data supports our null hypothesis, there is no obvious correlation between income range and level of concern for environmental protection. At first glance, this rejects the Capitalocene. However, the income levels of Rwanda and Nigeria are both low according to the World Bank. If there was a large p value between Rwanda and Uruguay, then the Capitalocene and the theory that lower income ranges (industrializing nations) do not prioritize environmental protection would be rejected. However, to the close relationship of income groups in both Rwanda and Nigeria, the Capitalocene may still be supported.
Our inquiry into the validity of the Capitalocene thus far has disproved the Capitalocene. This is the first data we have found that supports the the theory that industrializing societies prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, thus challenging our previous results. The discrepancy in the amount of responses between the countries we examined may reflect the size of these populations, however we would need more research to confirm this. Perhaps the WVS is more prevalent in some countries than in others. The different sample sizes may be a limitation of our results. Furthermore, the World Bank does have a distinguished middle income, instead they used lower-middle and upper-middle, which makes it difficult to accurately address the spectrum of incomes. In the future, I would also examine survey results from an upper-middle income country, which may allow for more accurate results.
Overall, assessing the Capitalocene using country level data is more effective that using global data. However, narrowing the focus by country illuminates further questions. For example, some countries that are considered low-income use more renewable energy than high-income countries, we would need to do more research to qualify the prioritization of environmental protection in low-income countries.
Our inquiry into the validity of the Capitalocene thus far has disproved the Capitalocene. This is the first data we have found that supports the the theory that industrializing societies prioritize economic growth over environmental protection, thus challenging our previous results. The discrepancy in the amount of responses between the countries we examined may reflect the size of these populations, however we would need more research to confirm this. Perhaps the WVS is more prevalent in some countries than in others. The different sample sizes may be a limitation of our results. Furthermore, the World Bank does have a distinguished middle income, instead they used lower-middle and upper-middle, which makes it difficult to accurately address the spectrum of incomes. In the future, I would also examine survey results from an upper-middle income country, which may allow for more accurate results.
Overall, assessing the Capitalocene using country level data is more effective that using global data. However, narrowing the focus by country illuminates further questions. For example, some countries that are considered low-income use more renewable energy than high-income countries, we would need to do more research to qualify the prioritization of environmental protection in low-income countries.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.
Treasure McMahan
I am an Environmental Studies and Sociology/Anthropology double major at Lewis & Clark College. This blog page is where I will post my lab write-ups for ENVS 220 "Environmental Analysis"
Archives
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018