An official website of the United States government
We evaluated whether teaching the public about the “critical zone”–the Earth’s outer skin, critical to all life— via a digital serious game can affect adults’ systems thinking about the environment and support policies to protect the environment. An experiment (N = 152) compared the effects of playing “CZ Investigator” versus viewing a static website on systems thinking about the Food-Energy-Water (FEW) nexus and support for relevant public policies. The serious game had the strongest effects on our outcomes of interest for those participants with less past science education. For these individuals, the serious game, relative to the static website, increased perceptions of the strength of interconnections across food, energy, and water systems ( p < .01) and support for policies that regulated human impacts on the environment ( p < .01). Mediation analysis revealed that increases in systems thinking explain increases in policy support. This group of users also indicated that the game was easier, more enjoyable, and more effective for learning than the website. Mediation analyses also revealed that perceived learning effectiveness was a stronger mediator than ease and enjoyment effects of the game on systems thinking and policy support. These results are valuable for environmental education because understanding interconnections within complex systems is vital for solving environmental problems, particularly for learners with less background in science.
more »
« less
Emotions and policy information predicting water-quality policy support
The public acknowledges the importance of water quality, and threats to water quality can provoke strong emotional responses. Despite this, the public often resists policies protecting water quality. Research with 349 US residents demonstrated that (1) emotions about specific water policies were more predictive of policy support than emotions about water quality and (2) hope about water policies was a particularly strong predictor of water policy support. In both between-person and within-person analyses, water-policy hope was a stronger predictor of water-policy support than water-policy anxiety, anger, and neutral affect–although these other emotions were related to water-policy support. These findings among water-policy emotions replicated results from a Pilot study with 148 US undergraduate students. The main study also demonstrated that water-policy support increased when policy descriptions explained how policies would improve water quality via hydro systems, and it did so by increasing feelings of water-policy hope. This research suggests that a full range of affective reactions to water policy and water quality should be considered when motivating support for policies protecting water quality.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2129402
- PAR ID:
- 10552855
- Publisher / Repository:
- Elsevier
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Environmental Psychology
- Volume:
- 98
- Issue:
- C
- ISSN:
- 0272-4944
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 102385
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Water policies Hope Anxiety Anger Neutral affect Process information
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Abstract Growing global food demands place major strains on water resources, including quality impairments and increased water scarcity. Drawing on the largely separate bodies of literature on externalities and technological innovation, this article develops a dynamic framework to explore the long‐term impacts of alternative policy approaches to the agricultural impacts on water resources. Environmental policies, which focus on correcting environmental externalities, lead to an overall gain because costs to farmers are more than offset by reduced environmental damages. Technology policies, which direct public investments into agricultural eco‐innovations, lead to benefits for farmers as well as the environment. Joint implementation of both types of policies leads to the largest overall gain. In principle, a technology policy alone could have greater environmental benefits than an environmental policy alone. This outcome is most likely in cases where the productivity effect of new technology is large and the cost of research is low. Recommendations for research managersAs an alternative to traditional environmental policy, investments in research can provide win–win solutions that benefit the environment and agricultural producers.Conceivably, eco‐innovations could lead to environmental conditions that are better than those achieved by environmental policy alone.Adding research investments to existing environmental policy would lead to further improvements in environmental quality while also benefitting farmers.Unlike environmental policies that are perceived to impose costs on agriculture, technology policies impart benefits to farmers and are less likely to face political opposition from industry.Technology policies are likely to be the most effective when eco‐innovation leads to technologies that meaningfully reduce environmental impacts and also raise farm productivity.more » « less
-
The Affect Heuristic-Cultural Cognition Theory (AH-CCT) model and the Solution Aversion-based (SA) model both suggest affect, meaning feelings or discrete emotions about a target, mediates associations between ‘culture,’ such as political ideology or cultural biases, and risk responses, such as risk perceptions, protective behaviours, and supportive attitudes towards protective policy. However, the models differ respectively by defining negative affect as directed towards the hazard (‘hazard affect’) or a specific behaviour or policy response (‘solution aversion,’ negative affect about a proposed risk reduction method). We compare these models with longitudinal mediation analysis of U.S. COVID-19 survey data (n = 866 in smallest-sample wave). Solution aversion accounted for more associations of culture with risk perceptions, such as personal risk, collective risk, and risk severity; behaviour and behavioural intentions, regarding mask wearing, avoiding large public gatherings, and vaccination; and support for risk mitigation policies, regarding mask mandates, public gathering bans, and vaccination mandates. Statistically significant direct effects were rare and were mainly for egalitarian cultural bias; indirect effects occurred for egalitarians, political conservatives, and individualists. Implications for further research on risk responses are discussed relative to limited previous work on these affect-mediation models.more » « less
-
Perennial grasslands, including prairie and pasture, have declined with tremendous environmental and social costs. This decline reflects unequal policy support for grasslands and managed grazing compared to row crops. To create a resource for community partners and decision-makers, we reviewed and analyzed the policy tools and implementation capacity that supports and constrains grasslands and managed grazing in the U.S. Upper Midwest. Risk reduction subsidies for corn and soybeans far outpace the support for pasture. Some states lost their statewide grazing specialist when the federal Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative lapsed. The United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service support for lands with prescribed grazing practices declined after 2005 but remained relatively steady 2010–2020. These results reveal the policy disadvantage for grasslands and managed grazing in comparison with row crop agriculture for milk and meat production. Grassland and grazing policies have an important nexus with water quality, biodiversity, carbon and outdoor recreation policy. Socially just transitions to well-managed, grazed grasslands require equity-oriented interventions that support community needs. We synthesized recommendations for national and state policy that farmers and other grazing professionals assert would support perennial grasslands and grazing, including changes in insurance, conservation programs, supply chains, land access, and fair labor. These policies would provide critical support for grass-based agriculture and prairies that we hope will help build soil, retain nutrients, reduce flooding and enhance biodiversity while providing healthy food, jobs, and communities.more » « less
-
Many policies were put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States to manage the negative impact of the coronavirus. Limiting severe illness and death was one important objective of these policies, but it is widely acknowledged by public health ethicists that pandemic policies needed to consider other factors. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with 38 people across 17 states who participated in the state-level COVID-19 pandemic policy process, we examine how those actors recounted their engagement with four different objectives over the course of the pandemic: protecting public health with respect to COVID-19 (which we refer to as pathogen-focused disease prevention), protecting the economy, promoting the public’s broader health and wellbeing, and preserving and restoring individual freedoms. We describe the different ways that pathogen-focused disease prevention was thought to have conflicted with, or to have been coherent with, the other three policy objectives over the course of the pandemic. In tracing the shifting relationships between objectives, we highlight four reasons put forward by the participants for why policy changes occurred throughout the pandemic: a change on the part of decisionmaker(s) regarding the perceived acceptability of the negative effects of a policy on one or more policy objectives; a change in the epistemic context; a change in the ‘tools in the toolbox’; and a change in the public’s attitudes that affected the feasibility of a policy. We conclude by considering the ethical implications of the shifting relationships that were described between objectives over the course of the pandemic.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2024.102385
