IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/2003.10234.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Determining feature importance for actionable climate change mitigation policies

Author

Listed:
  • Romit Maulik
  • Junghwa Choi
  • Wesley Wehde
  • Prasanna Balaprakash

Abstract

Given the importance of public support for policy change and implementation, public policymakers and researchers have attempted to understand the factors associated with this support for climate change mitigation policy. In this article, we compare the feasibility of using different supervised learning methods for regression using a novel socio-economic data set which measures public support for potential climate change mitigation policies. Following this model selection, we utilize gradient boosting regression, a well-known technique in the machine learning community, but relatively uncommon in public policy and public opinion research, and seek to understand what factors among the several examined in previous studies are most central to shaping public support for mitigation policies in climate change studies. The use of this method provides novel insights into the most important factors for public support for climate change mitigation policies. Using national survey data, we find that the perceived risks associated with climate change are more decisive for shaping public support for policy options promoting renewable energy and regulating pollutants. However, we observe a very different behavior related to public support for increasing the use of nuclear energy where climate change risk perception is no longer the sole decisive feature. Our findings indicate that public support for renewable energy is inherently different from that for nuclear energy reliance with the risk perception of climate change, dominant for the former, playing a subdued role for the latter.

Suggested Citation

  • Romit Maulik & Junghwa Choi & Wesley Wehde & Prasanna Balaprakash, 2020. "Determining feature importance for actionable climate change mitigation policies," Papers 2003.10234, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:2003.10234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.10234
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stefan Drews & Jeroen C.J.M. van den Bergh, 2016. "What explains public support for climate policies? A review of empirical and experimental studies," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(7), pages 855-876, October.
    2. Robert E. O'Connor & Richard J. Bard & Ann Fisher, 1999. "Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 461-471, June.
    3. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Xinsheng Liu & Arnold Vedlitz, 2016. "Predictors of the perceived risk of climate change and preferred resource levels for climate change management programs," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(6), pages 798-809, June.
    4. Ziegler, Andreas, 2017. "Political orientation, environmental values, and climate change beliefs and attitudes: An empirical cross country analysis," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 144-153.
    5. Thomas J. Rudolph & Jillian Evans, 2005. "Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Government Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(3), pages 660-671, July.
    6. Jeremy Martinich & Allison Crimmins, 2019. "Climate damages and adaptation potential across diverse sectors of the United States," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(5), pages 397-404, May.
    7. Tien Ming Lee & Ezra M. Markowitz & Peter D. Howe & Chia-Ying Ko & Anthony A. Leiserowitz, 2015. "Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1014-1020, November.
    8. Junghwa Choi & Wesley Wehde, 2019. "Venue Preference and Earthquake Mitigation Policy: Expanding the Micro‐Model of Policy Choice," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 36(5), pages 683-701, September.
    9. Boudet, Hilary & Clarke, Christopher & Bugden, Dylan & Maibach, Edward & Roser-Renouf, Connie & Leiserowitz, Anthony, 2014. "“Fracking” controversy and communication: Using national survey data to understand public perceptions of hydraulic fracturing," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 57-67.
    10. Aaron McCright & Riley Dunlap & Chenyang Xiao, 2013. "Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 119(2), pages 511-518, July.
    11. Stoutenborough, James W. & Sturgess, Shelbi G. & Vedlitz, Arnold, 2013. "Knowledge, risk, and policy support: Public perceptions of nuclear power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 176-184.
    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. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    2. Hu, Saiquan & Jia, Xiao & Zhang, Xiaojin & Zheng, Xiaoying & Zhu, Junming, 2017. "How political ideology affects climate perception: Moderation effects of time orientation and knowledge," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 124-131.
    3. Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Managing the distributional effects of climate policies: A narrow path to a just transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    4. Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "The Relevance of Attitudinal Factors for the Acceptance of Energy Policy Measures: A Micro-econometric Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-140.
    5. Daniel Engler & Elke D. Groh & Gunnar Gutsche & Andreas Ziegler, 2020. "Acceptance of climate-oriented policy measures in times of the COVID-19 crisis," MAGKS Papers on Economics 202029, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    6. Seol-A Kwon & Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee, 2019. "Analyzing the Determinants of Individual Action on Climate Change by Specifying the Roles of Six Values in South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-24, March.
    7. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2021. "Can Political Trust Weaken the Relationship between Perceived Environmental Threats and Perceived Nuclear Threats? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(18), pages 1-13, September.
    8. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/6d7es28iae9pjoil7092hs41h3 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Lars Mewes & Leonie Tuitjer & Peter Dirksmeier, 2024. "Exploring the variances of climate change opinions in Germany at a fine-grained local scale," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-14, December.
    10. Groh, Elke D. & Möllendorff, Charlotte v., 2020. "What shapes the support of renewable energy expansion? Public attitudes between policy goals and risk, time, and social preferences," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    11. Kanberger, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2023. "On the preferences for an environmentally friendly and fair energy transition: A stated choice experiment for Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    12. Yeheng Pan & Yu Xie & Hepeng Jia & Xi Luo & Ruifen Zhang, 2022. "Lower Carbon, Stronger Nation: Exploring Sociopolitical Determinants for the Chinese Public’s Climate Attitudes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(1), pages 1-13, December.
    13. Arndt, Christoph, 2023. "Climate change vs energy security? The conditional support for energy sources among Western Europeans," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    14. Francesco Vona, 2019. "Job losses and political acceptability of climate policies: why the ‘job-killing’ argument is so persistent and how to overturn it," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 524-532, April.
    15. Myoungsoon You & Youngkee Ju, 2020. "The Outrage Effect of Personal Stake, Familiarity, Effects on Children, and Fairness on Climate Change Risk Perception Moderated by Political Orientation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(18), pages 1-14, September.
    16. Yingying Sun & Ziqiang Han, 2018. "Climate Change Risk Perception in Taiwan: Correlation with Individual and Societal Factors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    17. Céline Nauges & Sarah Ann Wheeler & Kelly S. Fielding, 2021. "The relationship between country and individual household wealth and climate change concern: the mediating role of control," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16481-16503, November.
    18. Edwards, Michelle L., 2018. "Public perceptions of energy policies: Predicting support, opposition, and nonsubstantive responses," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 348-357.
    19. Sælen, Håkon Grøn & Aasen, Marianne, 2023. "Exploring public opposition and support across different climate policies: Poles apart?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    20. Francisco Serranito & Donatella Gatti & Gaye-Del Lo, 2023. "Unpacking the green box: Determinants of Environmental Policy Stringency in European countries," Working Papers hal-04202808, HAL.
    21. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:arx:papers:2003.10234. 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: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    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.