Causal thinking and support for climate change policies: International survey findings |
| |
| Authors: | Ann Bostrom Robert E. O’Connor Gisela Böhm Daniel Hanss Otto Bodi Frida Ekström Pradipta Halder Sven Jeschke Birgit Mack Mei Qu Lynn Rosentrater Anethe Sandve Ingrid Sælensminde |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, P.O. Box 353055, Seattle, WA 98195-3055, USA;2. Decision, Risk and Management Science Program, Division of Social and Economic Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 995N, Arlington, VA 22230, USA;3. Faculty of Psychology, University of Bergen, Christiesgt. 12, 5015 Bergen, Norway;4. Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, University of Graz, Leechgasse 25, 8010 Graz, Austria;5. Western Norway Research Institute/Vestlandsforsking, Postboks 163, 6851 Sogndal, Norway;6. School of Forest Sciences, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box-111 (Yliopistokatu 7), 80101 Joensuu, Finland;7. Department of Political Science, University of Innsbruck, Universitaetsstrasse 15, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria;8. Institute of Social Sciences V, Research Unit Risk and Sustainability, University of Stuttgart, Seidenstr. 36, 70174 Stuttgart, Germany;9. Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1096 Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway;10. Norwegian School of Hotel Management, Faculty of Social Science, University of Stavanger, 4036 Stavanger, Norway |
| |
| Abstract: | Few comparative international studies describe the climate change policies people are willing to support and the reasons for their support of different policies. Using survey data from 664 economics and business undergraduates in Austria, Bangladesh, Finland, Germany, Norway, and the United States, we explore how perceived risk characteristics and mental models of climate change influence support for policy alternatives. General green policies such as funding research on renewable technologies and planting trees were the overwhelmingly most popular policy alternatives. Around half the students support carbon reduction policies such as requiring higher car fuel efficiency and increasing taxes on fossil fuels. Least popular were engineering alternatives such as fertilizing the oceans and replacing fossil fuels with nuclear power. Variations among nations are generally small. Support for different policy alternatives corresponds with different causal thinking. Those who hold a pollution model of the causes of climate change, tend to blame environmental harms (e.g., air pollution from toxic chemicals), see general green policy alternatives as effective, and support general green policies. Support of carbon reduction strategies is associated with seeing carbon emissions as the cause and reducing carbon emissions as effective solutions. Support of engineering solutions increases with identifying volcanoes among causes and regarding engineering solutions as effective. Although these international students agree that climate change is a threatening problem, their causal thinking correlates with support for different mitigative policy actions, with the most popular ones not necessarily the most effective. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
