IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v137y2017icp56-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Exploring Citizen Support for Different Types of Climate Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Rhodes, Ekaterina
  • Axsen, Jonn
  • Jaccard, Mark

Abstract

Citizen support for climate policies is considered an important criterion in climate policy-making. While there is a growing body of literature exploring factors of citizen support, most studies tend to use climate policy support as an aggregate variable, overlooking differences in support for different climate policy types. This study examines citizen support for several market-based, regulatory, and voluntary climate policies using survey data collected from a representative sample of Canadian citizens (n=1306). Specifically, the research objectives are to (1) assess citizen support for different types of climate policies, (2) identify the key factors associated with citizen support for different policy types, and (3) explore heterogeneity across respondents based on policy support patterns. Results indicate that most regulatory and voluntary policies receive high levels of support (83–90% of respondents), while a carbon tax receives the highest levels of opposition (47%). Regression analysis identifies several factors associated with citizen support, including values, trust, and household features. However, only a few factors are consistently associated with support across policy types, including being concerned about climate change, having trust in scientists, and being female. Other significant factors are unique to different policy types. Cluster analysis identifies four distinct respondent clusters based on policy support.

Suggested Citation

  • Rhodes, Ekaterina & Axsen, Jonn & Jaccard, Mark, 2017. "Exploring Citizen Support for Different Types of Climate Policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 56-69.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:137:y:2017:i:c:p:56-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800916302348
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.02.027?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Attari, Shahzeen Z. & Schoen, Mary & Davidson, Cliff I. & DeKay, Michael L. & Bruine de Bruin, Wändi & Dawes, Robyn & Small, Mitchell J., 2009. "Preferences for change: Do individuals prefer voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1701-1710, April.
    2. Raj Chetty & Adam Looney & Kory Kroft, 2009. "Salience and Taxation: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(4), pages 1145-1177, September.
    3. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Hsu, Shi-Ling & Walters, Joshua & Purgas, Anthony, 2008. "Pollution tax heuristics: An empirical study of willingness to pay higher gasoline taxes," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(9), pages 3612-3619, September.
    5. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    6. Kathryn Harrison, 2012. "A Tale of Two Taxes: The Fate of Environmental Tax Reform in Canada," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 29(3), pages 383-407, May.
    7. Rhodes, Ekaterina & Axsen, Jonn & Jaccard, Mark, 2015. "Gauging citizen support for a low carbon fuel standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 104-114.
    8. Kallbekken, Steffen & Sælen, Håkon, 2011. "Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2966-2973, May.
    9. Ann L. Owen & Emily Conover & Julio Videras & Stephen Wu, 2012. "Heat Waves, Droughts, and Preferences for Environmental Policy," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 556-577, June.
    10. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bord & Brent Yarnal & Nancy Wiefek, 2002. "Who Wants to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 1-17, March.
    11. Bryan Caplan, 2007. "Introduction to The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Princeton University Press.
    12. George Cvetkovich & Michael Siegrist & Rachel Murray & Sarah Tragesser, 2002. "New Information and Social Trust: Asymmetry and Perseverance of Attributions about Hazard Managers," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(2), pages 359-367, April.
    13. Lawrence H. Goulder & Ian W. H. Parry, 2008. "Instrument Choice in Environmental Policy," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 2(2), pages 152-174, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Odland, Severin & Rhodes, Ekaterina & Corbett, Meghan & Pardy, Aaron, 2023. "What policies do homeowners prefer for building decarbonization and why? An exploration of climate policy support in Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    2. Alberini, Anna & Ščasný, Milan & Bigano, Andrea, 2018. "Policy- v. individual heterogeneity in the benefits of climate change mitigation: Evidence from a stated-preference survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 565-575.
    3. Rhodes, Ekaterina & Axsen, Jonn & Jaccard, Mark, 2015. "Gauging citizen support for a low carbon fuel standard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 104-114.
    4. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    5. Carl, Jeremy & Fedor, David, 2016. "Tracking global carbon revenues: A survey of carbon taxes versus cap-and-trade in the real world," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 50-77.
    6. Long, Zoe & Axsen, Jonn & Kitt, Shelby, 2020. "Public support for supply-focused transport policies: Vehicle emissions, low-carbon fuels, and ZEV sales standards in Canada and California," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 98-115.
    7. Long, Zoe & Kitt, Shelby & Axsen, Jonn, 2021. "Who supports which low-carbon transport policies? Characterizing heterogeneity among Canadian citizens," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    8. Filippo Maria D’Arcangelo & Ilai Levin & Alessia Pagani & Mauro Pisu & Åsa Johansson, 2022. "A framework to decarbonise the economy," OECD Economic Policy Papers 31, OECD Publishing.
    9. Sælen, Håkon Grøn & Aasen, Marianne, 2023. "Exploring public opposition and support across different climate policies: Poles apart?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    10. Stefano Carattini & Maria Carvalho & Sam Fankhauser, 2018. "Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(5), September.
    11. Umit, Resul & Schaffer, Lena Maria, 2020. "Attitudes towards carbon taxes across Europe: The role of perceived uncertainty and self-interest," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    12. Izlawanie Muhammad & Norfakhirah Nazihah Mohd Hasnu & Mohd Adha Ibrahim & Suhaila Abdul Hamid & Mustafa Mohd Hanefah, 2022. "Trust in Government and Its Determinants: An Empirical Study of Public Acceptability for Carbon Tax in Malaysia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-12, November.
    13. Peter Dirksmeier & Leonie Tuitjer, 2023. "Do trust and renewable energy use enhance perceived climate change efficacy in Europe?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8753-8776, August.
    14. Kitt, Shelby & Axsen, Jonn & Long, Zoe & Rhodes, Ekaterina, 2021. "The role of trust in citizen acceptance of climate policy: Comparing perceptions of government competence, integrity and value similarity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 183(C).
    15. Emma Ejelöv & Andreas Nilsson, 2020. "Individual Factors Influencing Acceptability for Environmental Policies: A Review and Research Agenda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-14, March.
    16. Rhodes, Ekaterina & Scott, William A. & Jaccard, Mark, 2021. "Designing flexible regulations to mitigate climate change: A cross-country comparative policy analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    17. Laurent Ott & Mehdi Farsi & Sylvain Weber, 2021. "Beyond political divides: analyzing public opinion on carbon taxation in Switzerland," Chapters, in: Axel Franzen & Sebastian Mader (ed.), Research Handbook on Environmental Sociology, chapter 17, pages 313-339, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Brian Chi-ang Lin & Siqi Zheng & Marie Briguglio, 2016. "Household Cooperation In Waste Management: Initial Conditions And Intervention," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 497-525, July.
    19. Bhardwaj, Chandan & Axsen, Jonn & Kern, Florian & McCollum, David, 2020. "Why have multiple climate policies for light-duty vehicles? Policy mix rationales, interactions and research gaps," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 309-326.
    20. Christopher Jeffords, 2014. "Preference-directed regulation when ethical environmental policy choices are formed with limited information," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 46(2), pages 573-606, March.

    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:ecolec:v:137:y:2017:i:c:p:56-69. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.