Climatic Change

, 90:343 | Cite as

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

  • Rachael ShwomEmail author
  • Amy Dan
  • Thomas Dietz


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.


Climate Change Contingent Valuation Policy Support Environmental Kuznets Curve Climate Change Policy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ansuategi A (2003) Economic growth and transboundary pollution in Europe: an empirical analysis. Environ Resour Econ 26:305–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow K, Solow R, Leamer EE et al (1993) Report of the NOAA Panel on Contingent Valuation. Federal Register 58:4601–4614Google Scholar
  3. Arrow K, Bolin B, Costanza R et al (1995) Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Science 268:520–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berk RA, Fovell RG (1999) Public perceptions of climate change: a willingness to pay assessment. Climatic Change 41:413–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berk RA, Schulman D (1995) Public perceptions of global warming. Climate Change 29:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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 47:331–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blomquist GC, Whitehead JC (1998) Resource quality information and validity of willingness to pay in contingent valuation. Resource Energy Econ 20:179–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):205–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bostrom A, Read D, Morgan MG, Smuts T (1994) What do people know about global climate change? Survey results of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14:971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 23:106–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brechin SR, Kempton W (1994) Global environmentalism: a challenge to the post material thesis? Soc Sci Quart 75:245–269Google Scholar
  12. Cash DW, Moser SC (2000) Linking global and local scales: designing dynamic assessment and management processes. Global Environ Change 10:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dear M (1992) Understanding and overcoming the NIMBY syndrome. J Am Plann Assoc 58:288–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dietz T, Stern PC (1995) Toward realistic models of individual choice. J Socio Econ 24:261–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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 3–35Google Scholar
  16. Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rur Soc 72:185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dillman DA (2000) Mail and Internet surveys. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillman DA, Christenson JA, Carpenter EH, Brooks RM (1974) Increasing mail questionnaire response: a four state comparison. Am Sociol Rev 39:744–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunlap RE (1998) Lay perceptions of global risk—public views of global warming in cross-national context. Int Sociol 13:473–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dunlap R, Mertig A (1997) Global environmental concern: an anomaly for postmaterialism. Soc Sci Quart 78:24–29Google Scholar
  21. Easterling DR (1999) Development of regional climate scenarios using a downscaling approach. Climatic Change 41:615–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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 UniversityGoogle Scholar
  23. Freudenburg WR (1991) Rural–urban differences in environmental concern: a closer look. Sociol Inq 61:167–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hannon B (1987) The discounting of concern. In: Pillet G, Murota T (eds) Environmental economics. Leimgruber, Geneva, pp 227–241Google Scholar
  25. Henry AD (2000) Public perceptions of global warming. Hum Ecol Rev 7:25–30Google Scholar
  26. Hoehn J, Randall A (1987) A satisfactory benefit cost indicator from contingent valuation. J Environ Econ Manag 14:226–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hoehn J, Randall A (2002) The effect of resource quality information on resource injury perceptions and contingent values. Resource Energy Econ 24:13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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 71:9–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Inglehart R (1995) Public support for environmental protection: objective problems and subjective values in 43 societies. Polit Sci Polit 28:57–72Google Scholar
  30. Kaplowitz MD, Hadlock TD, Levine R (2004) A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin Quart 68(1):94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kempton W (1991) Public understanding of global warming. Soc Natur Resour 4:331–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77:45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Maddala GS (1983) Limited-dependent and qualitative variables in econometrics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. Mangione TW (1998) Mail surveys. In: Bickman L, Rog D (eds) Handbook of applied social research methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 399–428Google Scholar
  35. McDaniels T, Axelrod LJ, Slovic P (1996) Perceived ecological risks of global change. Global Environ Chang 6:159–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McKelvey RD, Zavoina W (1975) A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. J Math Sociol 4:103–120Google Scholar
  37. 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):124–136Google Scholar
  38. 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 YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST) (2000) Climate change impacts on the United States. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19:461–471Google Scholar
  41. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Yarnal B, Wiefek N (2002) Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Soc Sci Quart 83:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perrings C, Hannon B (2001) An introduction to spatial discounting. J Regional Sci 41:23–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Read D, Bostrom A, Morgan MG et al (1994) What do people know about global climate change?: Survey results of educated laypeople. Risk Anal 14:971–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schiermeier Q (2003) Climate panel to seize political hot potatoes. Nature 421:879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Settersten RA Jr (1999) Lives in time and place. The problems and promises in developmental science. Baywood, AmityvilleGoogle Scholar
  46. Smith VK (1997) Pricing what is priceless: A status report on non-market valuation of Environmental resources. Int Yearbook Environ Resour Econ 8:156–204Google Scholar
  47. Smith VK, Desvouges WH (1986) Averting behavior, does it exist? Econ Lett 20:291–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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 EPAGoogle Scholar
  49. 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):242–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.
  51. Uyeki ES, Holland LJ (2000) Diffusion of pro-environment attitudes? Am Behav Sci 43:646–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Science and Policy Program, Department of SociologyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Science and Policy ProgramMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations