A VESTED INTEREST APPROACH TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES IN THE STATE OF OHIO DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University BY Peter Abdul Ndoinje Karim-Sesay, B.A, M.A. The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee Professor William Flinn, Adviser Approved by Professor Joseph F. Donnermeyer, Adviser ___________________________ Professor Jeff Sharp Advisers Rural Sociology Graduate Program ABSTRACT The current diversity in the rural population of America creates problems for the proper interpretation of attitudes towards agriculture and related environmental issues. Most previous sociological studies of perceptions or attitudes about agriculture and the environment have been largely descriptive and have attempted to distinguish varying perceptions based on rural and urban residence alone. No major studies have attempted to examine the place of vested interest and social distance in understanding these attitudes. This dissertation goes beyond mere descriptive analysis of empirical data, by evoking the middle-range conception of Robert K. Merton, which incorporates both a theoretical dialogue and empirical evidence to analyze varying attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues. Based on a vested interest approach, this study draws from functionalist and conflict theories as well as rational choice and exchange theory. The data used in this study is derived from a 2002 statewide survey of 4031 Ohio households. The results of this study suggest that residence, social connections and social -i i - activities play an important role in the formation of perceptions and attitudes about agriculture and related environmental issues. In this study, age and social activities are the strongest predictors of vested interest. However, although the statistical results have not explained great proportions of variance, the study provides a framework for further studies based on a vested interest approach. There is a need for further exploration of the concepts involved in vested interest. Future studies might benefit from incorporating general values orientation such as agrarianism and consumerism, in order to restore the role of consumption in agricultural production. -ii i - DEDICATED TO ALL THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF THE SENSELESS WAR IN SIERRA LEONE -iv - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of a major work like this could only have been completed with team effort, co-ordination and co-corporation. I am therefore very grateful for all those who have contributed to this effort and I want to take this opportunity to thank you all from the bottom of my heart. To my advisers, William Flinn and Joe Donnermeyer, I will forever remain humbled by your patience, judgment, and expertise. Thank you for supporting my efforts and making my graduate school experience a wonderful one. Your guidance and encouragement both within and outside academia are in part responsible for this successful outcome. I would also like to express my appreciation and gratitude to my committee member Dr. Jeff Sharp. Thank you for your constructive criticisms and vital inputs and guidance. Thank you for accommodating me in your busy schedule and providing guidance throughout the period of this research. I want to say a special thanks to my wife Waithera Karim-Sesay for your love and affection during these trying times but most importantly, for your wonderful insights and critique throughout my doctoral studies. Without you this dissertation would never have been completed. -v - There are many great people I have had the opportunity to work with during my period of study here at Ohio State and I want to say thanks to Dr. Donald Thomas, Dr. Cathy Rakowsky, and Dr. Linda Lobao for their invaluable support of my efforts. I would also like to thank Cheryl Dingus of the statistics department for greatly helping out with the analysis of this data. Your contribution toward the successful outcome of this study is immeasurable. A number of others in the department have contributed significantly towards making my graduate school experience worthwhile: Jackie Grueser, Marjorie Dellinger, Terry Osterman, Greta Wyrick, and Sam McCarter. Thanks for all the help provided and with so much love. Finally, I would like to extend gratitude to my parents for believing in the value of education and indeed supporting my educational efforts throughout the period of my life. I thank you mum and dad for believing in me and making me believe that ignorance is more expensive than education. -v i - VITA Born Bo, Sierra Leone October, 1995…………………………………………...B.A. (Social Science) Sociology and Environmental Science, University of Botswana. March, 2000………………………..……………….…. M.A. (International development) Ohio University. 2000-2001………………………………………..……..Tutor (Ohio State University) Fall 2004…………………………………………………Adjunct Professor Columbus State Community College 2001-2004…………………………………….…………Graduate Teaching and Research Associate. The Ohio State University 2003-2004……………………………………………….Fellow of the Ohio State Teaching Enhancement Program FIELDS OF STUDY Environmental Science Sociology Rural Sociology International Development Social Change and Development African Development MAJOR FIELD………………………………………….Rural Sociology -v ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ..ii Dedication¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ..iv Acknowledgments¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .¼ ¼ ¼ .v Vita¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .¼ ¼ vii List of Tables¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .¼ ¼ .¼ x List of Figures¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ xi Chapters: 1. Introduction¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .¼ 1 1.1 Research Objectives.¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .4 1.2 Justification for Study¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ...........6 1.3 Definition of Terms¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ...7 2. Review of Literature...¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .8 2.1 The Middle-range Model of Vested Interest¼ ¼ ..¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 8 2.2 The Role of Sociological Theory¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ..........12 2.3 Exchange and Rational Choice Theories ¼ ¼ ¼ ...¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ..................15 2.4 Critique of Rational Choice and Exchange Theories¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 20 2.5 Relevance of the Theoretical Framework¼ ..................¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .. .22 2.6 The Origins of Agricultural Research in the US¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ...........23 2.7 The Sociology of Agriculture¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ................25 2.8 A New Explanation of Agriculture in the US.¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .......................28 2.9 Recent Empirical Evidence in the US¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 31 2.9.1 The Alabama Study¼ ¼ ¼ ..¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ..32 2.9.2 The North Carolina Study¼ ..¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .34 2.9.3 The Attitudinal Surveys of Pennsylvania¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ 34 2.9.4 National Survey of Food, Farming and the Environment¼ ¼ .......35 2.10 Environmental Review¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .36 2.11 Research Questions¼ ¼ ¼ .¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .41 2.12 Research Hypothesis¼ ¼ .¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ .¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ..43 2.13 Model Summary¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ¼ ...44 -vi ii - 3. Research Methodology… … … … … … … ..… … … … … … ..… … … … … … … … … … 46 3.1 Method of Data Collection… … … … ...… … … … … … … … … … … … … … .46 3.2 Sampling Method… … … … … … … … … ...… … … … … … … … ..… … … … .46 3.3 Operationalizing the Independent Variables… … … … … … … … … … … .… 47 3.3.1 Demographic Variables… … … … … … … .… … … … … … .… … … 48 3.3.2 Vested Interest Variables… … … … … .… … ...… … … … … … … … 52 3.4 Operationalizing the Dependent Variables… … … … … … … … … … … … … 53 3.4.1 Preservation of Scenic Quality of Rural Places… … … … … … … ..53 3.4.2 Agricultural Attitudes.… … … .… … … … … … … … … … … … … ...56 3.4.3 Trust of Farmer… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...56 3.4.4 Environmental Concern… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...57 4. Results… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… … … … … … 67 4.1 Results of the Bivariate Correlation Analysis… … … .… … … … … .… … .… .68 4.1.1 Correlates of Preservation of Scenic Quality Variable… ..… … … ..68 4.1.2 Correlates of Agricultural Attitudes Variable… … … … … .… … .....71 4.1.3 Correlates of Environmental Concern … … … … … … … … … .… … 72 4.1.4 Correlates of Trust of Farmer… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ...73 4.1.5 Correlates of Farmer’s Sensitivity to Non-farm Neighbors… .… … 74 4.1.6 Correlates of Environmental Regulation of farming… … … … … … 76 4.2 Results of the Multivariate Analysis… … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..… .78 4.2.1 Regression Model for Preservation of Scenic Quality… … … … .… 78 4.2.2 Regression Model for Agricultural Attitudes… … … … … … .… … ..81 4.2.3 Regression Model for Environmental Concern … … … … … … … ...83 4.2.4 Regression Model for Trust of Farmers … … … … … … … … … … ..86 4.2.5 Regression of Farmer’s Sensitivity to Non-farm neighbors… … … .87 4.2.6 Regression of Environmental Regulation of Farming… … … … ......89 5. Discussion of Findings and Results… … … … … .… … … ..… … … … … … … … … … … 91 5.1 The Vested Interest Hypothesis… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .… .92 5.1.1 Residence..… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … 92 5.1.2 Social Connection … … … … … … … …