IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/umc/wpaper/0811.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Environmental Policy Attitudes: Issues, Geographical Scale, and Political Trust

Author

Abstract

Objectives. This article examines environmental policy attitudes, focusing on the differences in preferences across issue type (i.e., pollution, resource preservation) and geographical scale (i.e., local, national, global). In addition, we study whether an individuals trust in government influences environmental policy attitudes. Methods. Analyzing data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we estimate a series of OLS regression models to examine the publics environmental policy attitudes. Results. We find stronger public support for government action to address pollution issues than resources issues, and stronger support for local and national pollution abatement than dealing with global problems. We also find that Republicans and ideological conservatives are less likely to support further government effort to address the environment, and that more trusting individuals are more favorable to government action to address pollution and global issues. Conclusion. Environmental policy attitudes vary by the nature of the issue; however, political ideology and partisan affiliation are consistent predictors of preferences across issues, even when controlling for an individuals level of trust in government.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey Milyo & David M. Konisky & Lilliard E. Richardson, Jr., 2008. "Environmental Policy Attitudes: Issues, Geographical Scale, and Political Trust," Working Papers 0811, Department of Economics, University of Missouri.
    • Handle: RePEc:umc:wpaper:0811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10Vh3-35QOlV9spNawyRHI31oPV1gQW08/view?usp=sharing
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin Johnson & Paul Brace & Kevin Arceneaux, 2005. "Public Opinion and Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental Attitudes," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 86(1), pages 87-108, March.
    2. Thomas Dietz & Linda Kalof & Paul C. Stern, 2002. "Gender, Values, and Environmentalism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 83(1), pages 353-364, March.
    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. Panarello, Demetrio, 2021. "Economic insecurity, conservatism, and the crisis of environmentalism: 30 years of evidence," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    2. Enzo Loner, 2016. "A new way of looking at old things. An application of Guttman errors analysis to the study of environmental concern," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(2), pages 823-847, March.
    3. Kaori Ando & Junkichi Sugiura & Susumu Ohnuma & Kim-Pong Tam & Gundula Hübner & Nahoko Adachi, 2019. "Persuasion Game: Cross Cultural Comparison," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 50(5), pages 532-555, October.
    4. Witkowski, Terrence H. & Reddy, Sabine, 2010. "Antecedents of ethical consumption activities in Germany and the United States," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 8-14.
    5. Measham, Thomas G. & Zhang, Airong, 2019. "Social licence, gender and mining: Moral conviction and perceived economic importance," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 363-368.
    6. Umaerus, Patrik & Högvall Nordin, Maria & Lidestav, Gun, 2019. "Do female forest owners think and act “greener”?," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 52-58.
    7. Ronald L. Schumann & Kevin D. Ash & Gregg C. Bowser, 2018. "Tornado Warning Perception and Response: Integrating the Roles of Visual Design, Demographics, and Hazard Experience," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(2), pages 311-332, February.
    8. Betul Gokkir & J. Samuel Barkin, 2019. "Are liberal states greener? Political ideology and CO2 emissions in American states, 1980–2012," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 9(4), pages 386-396, December.
    9. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    10. Vinayak, Pragun & Dias, Felipe F. & Astroza, Sebastian & Bhat, Chandra R. & Pendyala, Ram M. & Garikapati, Venu M., 2018. "Accounting for multi-dimensional dependencies among decision-makers within a generalized model framework: An application to understanding shared mobility service usage levels," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 129-137.
    11. Kalamas, Maria & Cleveland, Mark & Laroche, Michel, 2014. "Pro-environmental behaviors for thee but not for me: Green giants, green Gods, and external environmental locus of control," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 12-22.
    12. Neal D. Woods, 2021. "The State of State Environmental Policy Research: A Thirty‐Year Progress Report," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(3), pages 347-369, May.
    13. Tjørring, Lise & Jensen, Carsten Lynge & Hansen, Lars Gårn & Andersen, Laura Mørch, 2018. "Increasing the flexibility of electricity consumption in private households: Does gender matter?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 9-18.
    14. Jason Evans & Jon Calabria & Tatiana Borisova & Diane Boellstorf & Nicki Sochacka & Michael Smolen & Robert Mahler & L. Risse, 2015. "Effects of local drought condition on public opinions about water supply and future climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 132(2), pages 193-207, September.
    15. Stephen C. Whitfield & Eugene A. Rosa & Amy Dan & Thomas Dietz, 2009. "The Future of Nuclear Power: Value Orientations and Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(3), pages 425-437, March.
    16. Mitja Gorenak, 2019. "The Differences in Perceptions of Organisational Values in the Hospitality Sector: What Do They Tell Us?," Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal, University of Primorska Press, vol. 12(1), pages 73-82.
    17. Mohamed M. Mostafa, 2016. "Post-materialism, Religiosity, Political Orientation, Locus of Control and Concern for Global Warming: A Multilevel Analysis Across 40 Nations," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 128(3), pages 1273-1298, September.
    18. Stuart, Alice & Bond, Alan & Franco, Aldina M.A. & Baker, Julia & Gerrard, Chris & Danino, Vittoria & Jones, Kylie, 2023. "Conceptualising social licence to operate," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 85(PA).
    19. Elena V. Sautkina & Fatikha B. Agissova & Alexandra A. Ivanova & Kingsley S. Ivande & Veronika S. Kabanova & Natalia A. Patrakova, 2021. "Political, Environmental And Social Determinants Of Pro-Environmental Behaviour In Russia," HSE Working papers WP BRP 130/PSY/2021, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    20. Gunne Grankvist & Petri Kajonius & Bjorn Persson, 2016. "The Relationship between Mind-Body Dualism and Personal Values," International Journal of Psychological Studies, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 126-126, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Environment; NIMBY; Public Opinion; Political Economy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • Q5 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics
    • H1 - Public Economics - - Structure and Scope of Government

    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:umc:wpaper:0811. 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: Chao Gu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/edumous.html .

    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.