As climate change impacts increase in frequency and magnitude, policies, and actions to promote climate change adaptation are critical to reduce negative consequences to infrastructure and society. Despite the urgency of adaptation, there have been few systematic efforts to understand the dynamics of public support for adaptation efforts at the local level in the U.S., partly because of the context- and location-specific nature of many adaptation actions. In this paper we use novel survey data to identify the role of demographics, extreme weather experience, awareness of climate change adaptation, risk perceptions, and perceived efficacy in predicting general support for local climate adaptation policy. We utilize a large national sample of U.S. adults (N = 37,088) collected over 12 waves between 2019 and 2022. We find that risk perceptions, beliefs about global warming, awareness of climate change adaptation, and perceived efficacy of local governments are key drivers of support for local adaptation policy. We provide policymakers, educators, and communicators with key guidelines for enhancing public support for adaptation policies. These insights are critical to expanding climate adaptation efforts and policy implementation at the local and national levels in the U.S.
Political conflicts about energy and climate change policies often have local implications, yet little is known about local public opinion towards these policies. Here, we estimate support towards 26 climate change mitigation policies for 402 German counties and for up to four points of time using multilevel regression and poststratification. We find that local support for climate policies varies by up to 60 percentage points across German counties with large disparities between the rural and urban population. While support for the expansion of wind power plants and solar power plants have converged over the last years, attitudes on the phase-out of coal power have polarized across regions. Using a spatial panel analysis, we find that support for the expansion of wind and solar plants correlate with the actual development of solar and wind capacities in these regions. Moreover, the spread of climate policy opinion is strongly determined by spatial diffusion as change in one region positively influences the trajectory of policy opinion among its neighbors.
more » « less- Award ID(s):
- 1753082
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10420304
- Publisher / Repository:
- IOP Publishing
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Environmental Research Letters
- Volume:
- 18
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 1748-9326
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: Article No. 064046
- Size(s):
- Article No. 064046
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Abstract -
Abstract Pluralistic ignorance—a shared misperception of how others think or behave—poses a challenge to collective action on problems like climate change. Using a representative sample of Americans (
N = 6119), we examine whether Americans accurately perceive national concern about climate change and support for mitigating policies. We find a form of pluralistic ignorance that we describe as afalse social reality : a near universal perception of public opinion that is the opposite of true public sentiment. Specifically, 80–90% of Americans underestimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern. While 66–80% Americans support these policies, Americans estimate the prevalence to only be between 37–43% on average. Thus, supporters of climate policies outnumber opponents two to one, while Americans falsely perceive nearly the opposite to be true. Further, Americans in every state and every assessed demographic underestimate support across all polices tested. Preliminary evidence suggests three sources of these misperceptions: (i) consistent with a false consensus effect, respondents who support these policies less (conservatives) underestimate support by a greater degree; controlling for one’s own personal politics, (ii) exposure to more conservative local norms and (iii) consuming conservative news correspond to greater misperceptions. -
Psychological scientists have the expertise—and arguably an obligation—to help understand the political polarization that impedes enactment of climate policy. Many explanations emphasize Republican skepticism about climate change. Yet results from national panel studies in 2014 and 2016 indicate that most Republicans believe in climate change, if not as strongly as Democrats. Political polarization over climate policy does not simply reflect that Democrats and Republicans disagree about climate change but that Democrats and Republicans disagree with each other. The results of a national panel experiment and of in-depth interviews with four former members of Congress suggest that Democrats and Republicans—both ordinary citizens and policymakers—support policies from their own party and reactively devalue policies from the opposing party. These partisan evaluations occur both for policies historically associated with liberal principles and politicians (cap-and-trade) and for policies associated with conservative principles and politicians (revenue-neutral carbon tax). People also exaggerate how much other Democrats and Republicans are swayed by partisanship. This foments false norms of partisan opposition that, in turn, influence people’s personal policy support. Correcting misperceived norms of opposition and decoupling policy evaluation from identity concerns would help overcome these seemingly insurmountable barriers to bipartisan support for climate policy.
-
Abstract California must adapt to increasing wildfire activity concurrent with climate change and expanding housing development in fire-prone areas. Recent decades have seen record-breaking fire activity, economic costs, and human health impacts. Residents more frequently face home evacuations, prolonged periods of unhealthy air quality, and power shut-offs. Understanding how these experiences influence support for risk mitigation policies is essential to inform action on climate and fire adaptation. To better understand linkages between experience and policy support, we surveyed California residents (
n = 645) about their wildfire-related experiences, risk perceptions, and support for 18 wildfire risk mitigation policies. To assess how the relationship between policy support and wildfire experience is modulated by preexisting worldviews, we measured the extent to which respondents are motivated by individualistic or communitarian values as proposed in the cultural theory of risk. We surveyed residents across a gradient of wildfire impacts, spatially stratifying residences based on wildland-urban-interface type and proximity to large 2020 wildfires. Support was generally high for most policies, though most respondents opposed incorporating future risk into insurance rates and coverage. Policy support models showed that communitarian worldviews were more consistently associated with greater support for diverse wildfire mitigation policies than were measures of recent experience with wildfire. These results suggest that California residents within our sample regions already support many wildfire risk mitigation strategies, and preexisting societal beliefs are a stronger predictor of these views than personal experiences with wildfire. Policy-makers can utilize this understanding to focus on crafting policies and messaging that resonates with individualistic values. -
Abstract The United States is experiencing growing impacts of climate change but currently receives a limited policy response from its national leadership. Within this policy void, many state governments are stepping up and taking action on adaptation planning. Yet we know little about why some states adopt State Adaptation Plans (SAPs), while others do not. This article investigates factors that predict the emergence of SAPs, both in terms of policy adoption and policy intensity (goal ambitiousness). Applying the diffusion of innovation theory, I consider the relative influence of internal state characteristics, regional pressures, and test for conditional effects between government ideologies and severity of the problem. The results show interesting differences between predictors that influence policy adoption and ambitiousness. States are more motivated to adopt a policy when faced with greater climate vulnerability, have more liberal citizenry, and where governments have crossed policy hurdles by previously passing mitigation plans. The intensity of policies and goal setting, moreover, is more likely to be driven by interest group politics and diffuse through policy learning or sharing information among neighboring states in Environmental Protection Agency regions. These findings support an emerging scholarship that uses more complex dependent variables in policy analysis. These variables have the potential to differentiate symbolic from substantive policies and capture finer information about predictors of importance.