Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effects of information and state of residence on climate change policy preferences

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Discerning the general public’s support of climate change policies is a significant part of understanding the political and social dynamics of mitigating climate change. National level surveys are a useful tool for furthering this understanding but present multiple challenges, two of which are addressed in this paper. The first challenge is that the U.S. public’s limited knowledge of climate change issues requires that information is provided in the survey, and that the content of this information is thought to be critical in eliciting accurate responses. Second, the use of national surveys may mask regional and state differences that result from the distribution of predicted climate change impacts and varying social contexts. We explore these issues by assessing the impacts of (a) the provision of information on climate change impacts at different scales (national and regional) and (b) the respondent’s state of residence (Michigan or Virginia) on climate change policy support. We found a modest relationship between state of residence and policy support, with Michigan residents less likely to support climate change mitigation policies than residents of Virginia. The provision of information on the regional versus national level of predicted impacts of climate change did not influence climate change policy support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansuategi A (2003) Economic growth and transboundary pollution in Europe: an empirical analysis. Environ Resour Econ 26:305–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Solow R, Leamer EE et al (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58:4601–4614

    Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K, Bolin B, Costanza R et al (1995) Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268:520–521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk RA, Fovell RG (1999) Public perceptions of climate change: a willingness to pay assessment. Climatic Change 41:413–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk RA, Schulman D (1995) Public perceptions of global warming. Climate Change 29:1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berrens RP, Bohara AK, Jenkins-Smith HC et al (2004) Information and effort in contingent valuation surveys: application to global climate change using national Internet samples. J Environ Econ Manag 47:331–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blomquist GC, Whitehead JC (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource Energy Econ 20:179–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bord RJ, O’Connor RE, Fischer A (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Underst Sci 9(3):205–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bostrom A, Read D, Morgan MG, Smuts T (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Survey results of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14:971–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brechin SR (2003) Comparative public opinion and knowledge on global climatic change and the Kyoto Protocol: the U.S. versus the world. Int J Sociol Soc Pol 23:106–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brechin SR, Kempton W (1994) Global environmentalism: a challenge to the post material thesis? Soc Sci Quart 75:245–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ Change 10:109–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dear M (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J Am Plann Assoc 58:288–291

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Stern PC (1995) Toward realistic models of individual choice. J Socio Econ 24:261–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Dolsak N, Stern PC (2001) The drama of the commons. In: Ostrom E, Dietz T, Dolsak N et al (eds) The drama of the commons. National Academy Press, Washington D.C, pp 3–35

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rur Soc 72:185–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet surveys. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Christenson JA, Carpenter EH, Brooks RM (1974) Increasing mail questionnaire response: a four state comparison. Am Sociol Rev 39:744–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap RE (1998) Lay perceptions of global risk—public views of global warming in cross-national context. Int Sociol 13:473–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap R, Mertig A (1997) Global environmental concern: an anomaly for postmaterialism. Soc Sci Quart 78:24–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterling DR (1999) Development of regional climate scenarios using a downscaling approach. Climatic Change 41:615–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher A, Abler D, Barron E, et al (2000) Preparing for a changing climate: The potential consequences of climate variability and change. A report of the Mid-Atlantic regional assessment team. Penn State University

  • Freudenburg WR (1991) Rural–urban differences in environmental concern: a closer look. Sociol Inq 61:167–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannon B (1987) The discounting of concern. In: Pillet G, Murota T (eds) Environmental economics. Leimgruber, Geneva, pp 227–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry AD (2000) Public perceptions of global warming. Hum Ecol Rev 7:25–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn J, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 14:226–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hoehn J, Randall A (2002) The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resource Energy Econ 24:13–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holman IP, Rounsevell MDA, Shackley S et al (2005) A regional, multi-sectoral and integrated assessment of the impacts of climate and socio-economic change in the UK: Part I. Methodology. Climatic Change 71:9–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Polit Sci Polit 28:57–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R (2004) A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Quart 68(1):94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kempton W (1991) Public understanding of global warming. Soc Natur Resour 4:331–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77:45–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mangione TW (1998) Mail surveys. In: Bickman L, Rog D (eds) Handbook of applied social research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 399–428

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels T, Axelrod LJ, Slovic P (1996) Perceived ecological risks of global change. Global Environ Chang 6:159–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKelvey RD, Zavoina W (1975) A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol 4:103–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller TI, Kobayashi MM, Caldwell E et al (2002) Citizen surveys on the web. General population surveys of community opinion. Soc Sci Comput Rev 20(2):124–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro A, Hanley ND (1999) Information, uncertainty, and contingent valuation. In: Bateman IJ, Willis KG (eds) Valuing environmental preferences: Theory and practice of the contingent valuation method in the US, EU, and developing countries. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) (2000) Climate change impacts on the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19:461–471

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Yarnal B, Wiefek N (2002) Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Soc Sci Quart 83:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrings C, Hannon B (2001) An introduction to spatial discounting. J Regional Sci 41:23–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan MG et al (1994) What do people know about global climate change?: Survey results of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14:971–982

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiermeier Q (2003) Climate panel to seize political hot potatoes. Nature 421:879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Settersten RA Jr (1999) Lives in time and place. The problems and promises in developmental science. Baywood, Amityville

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK (1997) Pricing what is priceless: A status report on non-market valuation of Environmental resources. Int Yearbook Environ Resour Econ 8:156–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith VK, Desvouges WH (1986) Averting behavior, does it exist? Econ Lett 20:291–296

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sousounis PJ, Bisanz JM (Eds.) (2000) Preparing for a changing climate Great Lakes: A summary by the Great Lakes Regional Assessment Group for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. US EPA

  • Swoboda WJ, Muhlberger N, Weitkunat R, Schneeweiß S (1997) Internet surveys by direct mailing: An innovative way of collecting data. Soc Sci Comput Rev 15(3):242–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000) Tables DP-2 (Profile of selected social characteristics: 2000) and DP-3 (Profile of selected economic characteristics: 2000), Geographic Areas: Michigan and Virginia. Washington DC. http://factfinder.census.gov/

  • Uyeki ES, Holland LJ (2000) Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? Am Behav Sci 43:646–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental Science and Policy Program, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 274 Giltner Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48864, USA

    Rachael Shwom & Thomas Dietz

  2. Environmental Science and Policy Program, Michigan State University, 274 Giltner Hall, East Lansing, MI, 48864, USA

    Amy Dan

Authors
  1. Rachael Shwom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amy Dan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Dietz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachael Shwom.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shwom, R., Dan, A. & Dietz, T. The effects of information and state of residence on climate change policy preferences. Climatic Change 90, 343–358 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9428-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9428-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation