IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v76y2017icp82-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public support for carrot, stick, and no-government water quality policies

Author

Listed:
  • Rissman, Adena R.
  • Kohl, Patrice A.
  • Wardropper, Chloe B.

Abstract

Public support for environmental policy provides an important foundation for democratic governance. Numerous policy innovations may improve nonpoint source pollution, but little research has examined which types of individuals are likely to support various runoff reduction policies. We conducted a household mail survey of 1136 residents in southern Wisconsin. In general, residents were more likely to support water quality policies if they were communitarians, egalitarians, concerned about water pollution, and perceived water quality as poor. The majority of respondents somewhat to strongly supported all of the seven proposed water quality policies, but opposed relying on voluntary action without government involvement on farms. Residents had higher support for incentives and market-based approaches (carrot policies) than regulation and taxes (stick policies). A more complicated pattern emerged in within-subject comparisons of residents’ views of carrot and stick approaches. Stick approaches polarized respondents by decreasing support among people with individualistic worldviews, while slightly increasing support among people with communitarian worldviews. Residents with an agricultural occupation were more likely to support voluntary, non-governmental approaches for reducing agricultural runoff, and were also more likely to support regulation for reducing urban lawn runoff. This research highlights the dominant role of cultural worldviews and the secondary roles of water pollution concern, perceived water quality, and self-interest in explaining support for diverse policies to reduce nonpoint source pollution.

Suggested Citation

  • Rissman, Adena R. & Kohl, Patrice A. & Wardropper, Chloe B., 2017. "Public support for carrot, stick, and no-government water quality policies," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 82-89.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:76:y:2017:i:c:p:82-89
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.012
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116307407
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.012?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sarah P. Church & Kristin M. Floress & Jessica D. Ulrich-Schad & Chloe B. Wardropper & Pranay Ranjan & Weston M. Eaton & Stephen Gasteyer & Adena Rissman, 2021. "How water quality improvement efforts influence urban–agricultural relationships," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(2), pages 481-498, June.
    2. Ngo, Vu Minh & Van Nguyen, Phuc & Nguyen, Huan Huu & Thi Tram, Huong Xuan & Hoang, Long Cuu, 2023. "Governance and monetary policy impacts on public acceptance of CBDC adoption," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Diriye, Abdishakur W. & Jama, Osman M. & Diriye, Jama Warsame & Abdi, Abdulhakim M., 2022. "Public preference for sustainable land use policies – Empirical results from multinomial logit model analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:76:y:2017:i:c:p:82-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.