Policy attributes, perceived impacts, and climate change policy preferences
There are broad differences in popularity amongst different policies designed to address climate change. Across two studies, we explore systematic preferences across three policy attributes: 1) who is targeted: business versus individuals, 2) what is targeted: energy supply versus energy demand, and...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of environmental psychology 2021-10, Vol.77, p.101673, Article 101673 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | There are broad differences in popularity amongst different policies designed to address climate change. Across two studies, we explore systematic preferences across three policy attributes: 1) who is targeted: business versus individuals, 2) what is targeted: energy supply versus energy demand, and 3) how change is motivated: incentives versus disincentives. Additionally, in Study 2, we examine whether perceptions of policy impacts along the three pillars of sustainability (environment, economic, and social) can explain the effect of these policy attributes on the lay public's policy preferences. First, participants preferred policies that a) attempt to change the energy supply by changing the source of energy (e.g., more renewable energy) over policies that attempt to reduce the demand by reducing energy use (e.g., encourage energy efficiency). Second, participants preferred policies using incentives over policies using disincentives, especially when considering policies that targeted individuals (vs. businesses). The latter suggests that participants were more tolerant of the use of disincentives for businesses than individuals. Participants' expectations about policy consequences explained these patterns of preferences: Preferred types of policies were expected to have the most environmental benefits (suggesting that the policies would be effective) and the most net-positive economic and social impacts.
•Participants preferred policies designed to change the source of electrical energy over policies intended to reduce energy demand (i.e., reduce the amount of energy used).•Participants preferred policies that used incentives over disincentives, especially when policies targeted individuals.•Participants only preferred targeting businesses over individuals when the policy used disincentives.•The above patterns of effects could be accounted for by anticipated impacts of policies on the environment, the economy, and society). |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0272-4944 1522-9610 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.jenvp.2021.101673 |