The research reported here examines the relationship between risk perceptions and willingness to address climate change. The data are a national sample of 1225 mail surveys that include measures of risk perceptions and knowledge tied to climate change, support for voluntary and government actions to address the problem, general environmental beliefs, and demographic variables. Risk perceptions matter in predicting behavioral intentions. Risk perceptions are not a surrogate for general environmental beliefs, but have their own power to account for behavioral intentions. There are four secondary conclusions. First, behavioral intentions regarding climate change are complex and intriguing. People are neither "nonbelievers" who will take no initiatives themselves and oppose all government efforts, nor are they "believers" who promise both to make personal efforts and to vote for every government proposal that promises to address climate change. Second, there are separate demographic sources for voluntary actions compared with voting intentions. Third, recognizing the causes of global warming is a powerful predictor of behavioral intentions independent from believing that climate change will happen and have bad consequences. Finally, the success of the risk perception variables to account for behavioral intentions should encourage greater attention to risk perceptions as independent variables. Risk perceptions and knowledge, however, share the stage with general environmental beliefs and demographic characteristics. Although related, risk perceptions, knowledge, and general environmental beliefs are somewhat independent predictors of behavioral intentions.
In a survey of 1,218 Americans, the key determinant of behavioral intentions to address global warming is a correct understanding of the causes of global warming. Knowing what causes climate change, and what does not, is the most powerful predictor of both stated intentions to take voluntary actions and to vote on hypothetical referenda to enact new government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Identifying bogus causes (e.g., insecticides) correlates with the belief that the globe will warm, but is only weakly related to voluntary actions and not at all related to support for government policies. General pro-environmental beliefs and perceptions that global warming poses serious threats to society also help to explain behavioral intentions. The explanatory power of an air pollution framework is substantial in bivariate analyses, but has little explanatory power in multivariate analyses that include knowledge, risk perceptions, and general environmental beliefs. Translating public concern for global warming into effective action requires real knowledge. General environmental concern or concern for the negative effects of air pollution appear not to motivate people to support programs designed to control global warming.
Objective. We examine cognitive, economic, and partisan heuristic theories of why some people express support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Methods. Data come from a mail survey of 623 residents of central Pennsylvania, a region in which mitigation costs exceed potential benefits from slowing the rate of global warming. Results. Ordinary least squares analysis shows that people who can accurately identify the causes of climate change and who expect bad consequences from climate change are likely to support both government anti‐fossil fuel initiatives and voluntary actions. Economic circumstances and anxieties are not important predictors, but the belief that environmental protection efforts do not threaten jobs for people like the respondent, limit personal freedoms, and hurt the economy is a strong predictor. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support government efforts to reduce emissions. Conclusions. Cognitive explanations of support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are more powerful than economic or partisan heuristic ones. People want to reduce emissions if they understand the causes of climate change, if they perceive substantial risks from climate change if average surface temperatures increase, and if they think climate change mitigation policies will not cost them their jobs.
This paper assesses the potential impacts of climate change on the mid-Atlantic coastal (MAC) region of the United States. In order of increasing uncertainty, it is projected that sea level, temperature and streamflow will increase in the MAC region in response to higher levels of atmospheric CO 2 . A case study for Delaware based on digital elevation models suggests that, by the end of the 21st century, 1.6% of its land area and 21% of its wetlands will be lost to an encroaching sea. Sea-level rise will also result in higher storm surges, causing 100 yr floods to occur 3 or 4 times more frequently by the end of the 21st century. Increased accretion in coastal wetlands, however, which may occur in response to increases in CO 2 , temperature, and streamflow, could mitigate some of the flooding effect of sea-level rise. Warming alone will result in northward displacements of some mobile estuarine species and will exacerbate the already low summer oxygen levels in mid-Atlantic estuaries because of increased oxygen demand and decreased oxygen solubility. Streamflow increases could substantially degrade water quality, with significant negative consequences for submerged aquatic vegetation and birds. Though climate change may have some positive impacts on the MAC region, such as increased coastal tourism due to warming and some ecological benefits from less-frequent harsh winters, most impacts are expected to be negative. Policies designed to minimize adverse ecological impacts of human activities on coastal ecosystems in the mid-Atlantic, such as decreases in nutrient loading of watersheds, could help mitigate some of the risks associated with future climate variability and change in this region.
A before-stimulus-after quasi-experimental design is used to assess the factors relating to risk perceptions of a hazardous waste site. First, a pretest obtains measures of attitudes and beliefs about hazardous waste and waste sites. Second, a detailed hypothetical "Superfund" scenario, including a complex cleanup plan, is introduced. Finally, indices of health risk estimates, trust, knowledge, and other pertinent beliefs are obtained. Levels of concern, both before and after cleanup, are the dependent variables. Independent variables include risk management options, health risk estimates, trust, and five sociodemographic characteristics. Concern is extremely high prior to cleanup and moderately high after cleanup. Concern is a clear function of health risk estimates. Toxic chemicals from waste sites are viewed as a major cause of multiple health problems, especially cancers. Accurate health risk estimates moderate fears and are linked to levels of education. Education, however, does not explain concern. Trust is a major factor explaining concern and health risk estimates. The implications of these findings for risk communication is discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.