IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v61y2016icp176-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Public acceptability towards environmental policy measures: Value-matching appeals

Author

Listed:
  • Nilsson, Andreas
  • Hansla, André
  • Heiling, Joakim Malmborg
  • Bergstad, Cecilia Jakobsson
  • Martinsson, Johan

Abstract

People’s acceptability of environmental policy measures is vital for a successful implementation. Identifying how information concerning radical policy measures can be improved may increase support and generate more positive attitudes towards the policy. The effect of tailored information on acceptability towards implementing a proposed congestion charge was investigated by matching ecocentric arguments to biospherically value-oriented participants, and anthropocentric arguments to those who endorsed egoistic values. 627 respondents living in two small Swedish cities participated via a web-based survey. The results show that the single arguments (anthropocentric or ecocentric appeals) were evaluated more favourably than the combination of arguments (including both anthropocentric and ecocentric appeals). Strong biospheric and strong egoistic values were associated with positive and negative evaluations of the policy proposal, respectively. Finally, while respondents who endorsed egoistic values tended to be more positive towards the proposal after reading anthropocentric arguments (value match) than after reading pro-environmental arguments (value mismatch), the opposite effect was observed for respondents who did not endorse egoistic values. Our results suggest that tailoring information with regard to people’s values would be effective in promoting positive attitudes towards important policy measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Nilsson, Andreas & Hansla, André & Heiling, Joakim Malmborg & Bergstad, Cecilia Jakobsson & Martinsson, Johan, 2016. "Public acceptability towards environmental policy measures: Value-matching appeals," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 176-184.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:61:y:2016:i:c:p:176-184
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901116300971
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.04.013?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. Seán Schmitz & Sophia Becker & Laura Weiand & Norman Niehoff & Frank Schwartzbach & Erika von Schneidemesser, 2019. "Determinants of Public Acceptance for Traffic-Reducing Policies to Improve Urban Air Quality," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-16, July.
    2. Nguyen, The Ninh & Lobo, Antonio & Greenland, Steven, 2016. "Pro-environmental purchase behaviour: The role of consumers' biospheric values," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 98-108.
    3. Clare, Kathryn & Maani, Nason & Milner, James, 2022. "Meat, money and messaging: How the environmental and health harms of red and processed meat consumption are framed by the meat industry," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Min-Yen Chang & Lin-Jyun Huang & Han-Shen Chen, 2021. "Towards More Sustainable Diets: Investigating Consumer Motivations towards the Purchase of Green Food," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-14, November.
    6. Ediger, Volkan Ş. & Kirkil, Gokhan & Çelebi, Emre & Ucal, Meltem & Kentmen-Çin, Çiğdem, 2018. "Turkish public preferences for energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 492-502.
    7. Chen, Feiyu & Chen, Qirui & Hou, Jing & Li, Shanshan, 2023. "Effects of China's carbon generalized system of preferences on low-carbon action: A synthetic control analysis based on text mining," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    8. Wanyan Li & Jincan Liu, 2024. "Investigating Public Support for the Carbon Generalized System of Preference through the Lens of Protection Motivation Theory and Information Deficit Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(4), pages 1-20, February.
    9. Timo Liljamo & Heikki Liimatainen & Markus Pöllänen & Riku Viri, 2021. "The Effects of Mobility as a Service and Autonomous Vehicles on People’s Willingness to Own a Car in the Future," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-28, February.
    10. Alan Kabanshi, 2020. "Are We Overestimating the Benefits of Emission Reduction Measures?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-9, January.
    11. Hössinger, Reinhard & Peer, Stefanie & Juschten, Maria, 2023. "Give citizens a task: An innovative tool to compose policy bundles that reach the climate goal," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 173(C).
    12. Tan, Xueping & Wang, Xinyu & Zaidi, Syed Haider Ali, 2019. "What drives public willingness to participate in the voluntary personal carbon-trading scheme? A case study of Guangzhou Pilot, China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Daniel Sloot & Lise Jans & Linda Steg, 2021. "Is an Appeal Enough? The Limited Impact of Financial, Environmental, and Communal Appeals in Promoting Involvement in Community Environmental Initiatives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-28, January.
    14. Moeinaddini, Amin & Habibian, Meeghat, 2023. "Transportation demand management policy efficiency: An attempt to address the effectiveness and acceptability of policy packages," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 317-330.

    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:61:y:2016:i:c:p:176-184. 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.