Abstract
The increasing social consciousness about the causes and consequences of climate change has not led to a correspondingly high support for concrete mitigation or adaptation policies. Thus, more research is needed about the factors influencing citizen’s support for such climate change policies. In this study, we explore the effects on Spaniards’ support for one mitigation policy (car policy) and one adaptation policy (water policy) of five attitudinal factors: government response efficacy beliefs, people’s feeling of responsibility to mitigate climate change, personal self-efficacy beliefs, people’s disposition to resist change and psychological distance from climate change. We use data from an online survey implemented in the Netquest opt-in panel in Spain (N = 2290). We use structural equation modelling to control for spurious effects and test the fit of the model. Moreover, estimates are corrected for measurement errors. The results reveal that the most important factor affecting Spaniards’ support for both mitigation and adaptation policies is the perceived government response efficacy. Furthermore, we identified relevant differences regarding the importance of the above-mentioned five attitudinal factors depending on the climate change policy studied. More precisely, while government response efficacy and people’s feeling of responsibility to mitigate climate change have a direct effect on support for both policies, personal self-efficacy and people’s resistance to change only affect support for the mitigation policy directly. On the contrary, psychological distance to climate change only has a direct effect on support for the adaptation policy. Our results provide new insights into the causal mechanisms behind citizens’ support for climate change policies.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Appendix A for a more detailed description of both policies.
The questionnaire also included an experiment which is analysed in a different paper.
Analyses with latent variables were also performed, but the models did not converge into a proper solution.
4Predictions and full coding information are available at www.sqp.upf.edu, in the study “Environment.”
References
Alwin DF (2007). Margins of error: a study of reliability in survey measurement (Vol. 547). John Wiley & Sons
Andrews FM (1984) Construct validity and error components of survey measures: a structural modelling approach. Public opinion quarterly 48(2):409–442. https://doi.org/10.1086/268840
Babbie ER (2012) The practice of social research. Cengage Learning
Bandura A (2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspect Psychol Sci 1(2):164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bandura A (1994) Self-efficacy. In: Ramachaudran VS (ed) Encyclopedia of human behaviour, 4. Academic Press, New York, pp 71–81
Bateman TS, O’Connor K (2016) Felt responsibility and climate engagement: distinguishing adaptation from mitigation. Glob Environ Chang 41:206–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.11.001
Belaïd F (2017) Untangling the complexity of the direct and indirect determinants of the residential energy consumption in France: quantitative analysis using a structural equation modeling approach. Energy Policy 110:246–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2017.08.027
Belaid F, Garcia T (2016) Understanding the spectrum of residential energy-saving behaviours: French evidence using disaggregated data. Energy Econ 57:204–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.05.006
Belaïd F, Joumni H (2020) Behavioral attitudes towards energy saving: empirical evidence from France. Energy Policy 140:111406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2020.111406
Belaïd F, Roubaud D, Galariotis E (2019) Features of residential energy consumption: evidence from France using an innovative multilevel modelling approach. Energy Policy 125:277–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.11.007
Bosch, O.J., Revilla, M., & Paura, E. (2018). “Do millennials differ in terms of survey participation?” International journal of market research, 61(4): 359-365. First Published Online December 4, 2018 https://doi.org/10.1177/1470785318815567
Bostrom A, Hayes AL, Crosman KM (2019) Efficacy, action, and support for reducing climate change risks. Risk Anal 39(4):805–828. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13210
Bradley GL, Babutsidze Z, Chai A, Reser JP (2020) The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: a two nation study. J Environ Psychol 68:101410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101410
Centre for Sociological Research (2018) Barómetro de Noviembre 2018.Retrieved from: http://www.cis.es/cis/export/sites/default/-Archivos/Marginales/3220_3239/3231/es3231mar.pdf
Couper MP, Antoun C, Mavletova A (2017) Mobile web surveys: a total survey error perspective. In: Biemer P, Eckman S, Edwards B, de Leeuw E, Kreuter F, Lyberg L, Tucker C, West B (eds) Total survey error in practice. Wiley, New York, NY, pp 133–154
Domínguez F, Labandeira X, Loureiro M (2011) Políticas contra o cambio climático e preferencias sociais en Galicia e en España. Revista Galega de Economía 20(1):33–52 Retrieved from: http://www.usc.es/econo/RGE/Vol20_1/galego/art2g.pdf
Drews S, van den Bergh J CJM (2015) What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies. Clim Pol. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1058240
El País (2019) El 59% de los españoles pide medidas “muy urgentes” contra el calentamiento. El País, pp:26–27 Retrieved from: https://elpais.com/sociedad/2019/12/06/actualidad/1575623466_788676.html
Fuller JB, Marler LE, Hester K (2006) Promoting felt responsibility for constructive change and proactive behavior: exploring aspects of an elaborated model of work design. J Organ Behav 27(8):1089–1120. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.408
García de Jalón SG, Iglesias A, Quiroga S, Bardají I (2013) Exploring public support for climate change adaptation policies in the Mediterranean region: a case study in southern Spain. Environ Sci Pol 29:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.010
García Lucea J (2006) Experiencia de Ahorro de Agua en la ciudad de Zaragoza. In: Congreso Nacional del Medio Ambiente. del Desarrollo Sostenible, Cumbre Retrieved from: http://www.conama8.conama.org/conama8/index.php
Gifford R (2011) The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am Psychol 66(4):290–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023566
Gómez Martín MB, Armesto López XA, Cors Iglesias M (2017) Percepción del cambio climático y respuestas locales de adaptación: El caso del turismo rural. Cuadernos de Turismo 39:287–310. https://doi.org/10.6018/turismo.39.290571
Hanemann M, Labandeira X, & Loureiro ML (2011) Public preferences for climate change policies: evidence from Spain. FEDEA, Working Papers 2011-06. Retrieved from: http://documentos.fedea.net/pubs/dt/2011/dt-2011-06.pdf
Jansson J, Rezvani Z (2019) Public responses to an environmental transport policy in Sweden: differentiating between acceptance and support for conventional and alternative fuel vehicles. Energy Res Soc Sci 48:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.09.009
Jöreskog KG, Sörbom D (1996) LISREL 8: user’s reference guide. Scientific Software International, Chicago
Kyselá E, Ščasný M, Zvěřinová I (2019) Attitudes toward climate change mitigation policies: a review of measures and a construct of policy attitudes. Clim Pol 19(7):878–892. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1611534
Krosnick JA, MacInnis B (2013) Does the American public support legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Daedalus 142(1):26–39. https://doi.org/10.1162/DAED_a_00183
Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim Chang 77(1–2):45–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9
La Moncloa (2019). Anteproyecto de Ley de Cambio Climático. Retrieved from: https://www.lamoncloa.gob.es/consejodeministros/Paginas/enlaces/220219-proyecto.aspx [Accessed: 19 December 2019]
Martínez-Paz JM, Almansa-Sáez C, Perni-Llorente A (2011) Energía eléctrica procedente de fuentes renovables: Percepción social y disposición al pago. Estudios de Economía Aplicada 29(2):539–560 Retrieved from: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=3739211
McDonald RI, Chai HY, Newell BR (2015) Personal experience and the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change: an integrative review. J Environ Psychol 44:109–118 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2015.10.003
Meira Cartea, P. A., Arto Blanco, M., Heras Hernández, F., Iglesias da Cunha, L., Lorenzo Castiñeiras, J. J., & Montero Souto, P. (2013). La respuesta de la sociedad española ante el cambio climático. Fundación Mapfre. Retrieved from: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/ceneam/recursos/mini-portales-tematicos/La%20sociedad%20ante%20el%20cambio%20clim%C3%A1tico%202013_tcm30-70533.pdf
Ministry for the Ecologic Transition. (2019). Report on the National Inventory of Emissions to the Atmosphere (series 1990–2017). Retrieved from: https://www.miteco.gob.es/es/calidad-y-evaluacion-ambiental/temas/sistema-espanol-de-inventario-sei-/es2019-unfccc_nir_tcm30-496176.pdf
Moreno Rodríguez, J.M (2005). A preliminary assessment of the impacts in Spain due to the effects of climate change. Ministerio de Medio Ambiente. Retrieved from: https://www.miteco.gob.es/en/cambio-climatico/temas/impactos-vulnerabilidad-y-adaptacion/Full%20report_tcm38-178514.pdf
Northrop FSC (1947) The logic of the sciences and the humanities. New york: World Publishing Company
Oltra C, Solà R, Sala R, Prades A, Gamero N (2009) Cambio climático: Percepciones y discursos públicos. Prisma Social: Revista de Investigación Social 2:1–23 Retrieved from: http://www.academia.edu/17407537/cambio_clim%C3%A1tico_percepciones_y_discursos_p%C3%BAblicos
Piderit SK (2000) Rethinking resistance and recognizing ambivalence: a multidimensional view of attitudes toward an organizational change. Acad Manag Rev 25(4):783–794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP (2003) “Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies” (PDF). J Appl Psychol 88(5):879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Revilla, M. (2017). “Analyzing the survey characteristics, participation, and evaluation across 186 surveys in an online opt-in panel in Spain”. Methods, data, analyses, 11(2): 135-162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12758/mda.2017.02
Revilla M, Toninelli D & Ochoa C (2016) Personal computers vs. Smartphones in answering web surveys: does the device make a difference? Survey Practice. 9 (3). http://hdl.handle.net/10446/77026
Sacchi S, Riva P, Aceto A (2016) Myopic about climate change: cognitive style, psychological distance, and environmentalism. J Exp Soc Psychol 65:68–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.03.006
Saris, W. E. (2013). The prediction of question quality: the SQP 2.0 software. In B. Kleiner, I. Renschler, B. Wernli, P. Farago, & D. Joye (Eds.), Understanding research infrastructures in the social sciences (Chap. 6, pp. 135–144). Zurich: Seismo Press
Saris WE, Gallhofer IN (2014) Design, evaluation, and analysis of questionnaires for survey research. John Wiley & Sons
Saris, W. E.; Oberski, D. L.; Revilla, M. A.; Zavala-Rojas, D.; Lilleoja, L.; Gallhofer, I. N.; Gruner, T. (2011). The development of the program SQP 2.0 for the prediction of the quality of survey questions. Retrieved from: http://hdl.handle.net/10230/28334
Saris WE, Revilla M (2016) Correction for measurement errors in survey research: necessary and possible. Social Indicators Research 127(3):1005–1020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-015-1002-x
Saris WE, Satorra A, Van der Veld WM (2009) Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Struct Equ Model 16(4):561–582
Saris WE, van de Putte B, Maas K, Seip H (1988) Variation in response functions: observed and created. In: Saris WE (ed) Variation in response functions: a source of measurement error in attitude research. SRF, Amsterdam
Schuldt JP, Rickard LN, Yang ZJ (2018) Does reduced psychological distance increase climate engagement? On the limits of localizing climate change. J Environ Psychol 55:147–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.02.001
Sheppard D (2011) Social solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation: cross cultural lessons from Denmark to the United States. Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology, and Society 4(1):67–91
Singh AS, Zwickle A, Bruskotter JT, Wilson R (2017) The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environ Sci Pol 73:93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011
Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 32(6):957–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x
Steg L, Vlek C (2009) Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: an integrative review and research agenda. J Environ Psychol 29(3):309–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004
Stenhouse N (2015) Powerful feelings: extending the extended parallel processing model to collective action on climate change (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://mars.gmu.edu/handle/1920/9851
Stern PC (2000) Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behaviour. J Soc Issues 56(3):407–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00175
Stoll-Kleemann S, O’Riordan T, Jaeger CC (2001) The psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures: evidence from Swiss focus groups. Glob Environ Chang 11(2):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0959-3780(00)00061-3
Trope Y, Liberman N (2010) Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol Rev 117(2):440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963
Ung M, Luginaah I, Chuenpagdee R, Campbell G (2016) Perceived self-efficacy and adaptation to climate change in coastal Cambodia. Climate 4(1):1. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010001
Van der Veld, W. M., Saris, W. E., & Satorra, A. (2008). JRule 3.0: user’s Guide. http://www.vanderveld.nl/JRule
Wan C, Shen GQ, Choi S (2017) A review on political factors influencing public support for urban environmental policy. Environ Sci Pol 75:70–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.005
Wang S, Hurlstone MJ, Leviston Z, Walker I, Lawrence C (2019) Climate change from a distance: an analysis of construal level and psychological distance from climate change. Front Psychol 10:230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00230
Wilbanks TJ, Leiby P, Perlack R, Ensminger JT, Wright SB (2007) Toward an integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 12(5):713–725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-007-9095-4
Witte K (1992) Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Communications Monographs 59(4):329–349. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759209376276
Yohe GW (2001) Mitigative capacity--the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Clim Chang 49(3):247–262. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010677916703
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
ESM 1
(DOCX 869 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rubio Juan, M., Revilla, M. Support for mitigation and adaptation climate change policies: effects of five attitudinal factors. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 26, 28 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09964-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09964-3