IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/revpol/v41y2024i1p104-134.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Politics of problem definition: Comparing public support of climate change mitigation policies using machine learning

Author

Listed:
  • Junghwa Choi
  • Wesley Wehde
  • Romit Maulik

Abstract

Public support is a key contributor to successful policy adoption and implementation. Given the urgency of climate change mitigation, scholars have explored various determinants that affect public support for climate change mitigation policy. However, the relative decisiveness of these factors in shaping public support is insufficiently examined. Therefore, we deploy interpretable machine learning to understand which factors, among many previously investigated, are most decisive for structuring public support for various climate change mitigation policies. In this paper, we particularly look at the decisiveness of problem definition for shaping public support among various factors. Using U.S national survey data, we find that how individuals define the issue of climate change is more decisive for structuring public support for promoting renewable energy and regulating pollutants to mitigate the risks associated with climate change. However, the results also indicate that the most decisive factors associated with public support vary depending on the types of mitigation policy. We conclude that different strategies should be utilized to increase public support for various climate change mitigation policy options. Our findings contribute to a scholarly understanding of the specific politics of problem definition in the context of environmental and climate change policy. El apoyo público es un contribuyente clave para la adopción e implementación exitosa de políticas. Dada la urgencia de la mitigación del cambio climático, los académicos han explorado varios determinantes que afectan el apoyo público a la política de mitigación del cambio climático. Sin embargo, la decisión relativa de estos factores en la configuración del apoyo público no se examina suficientemente. Por lo tanto, implementamos aprendizaje automático interpretable para comprender qué factores, entre muchos investigados previamente, son más decisivos para estructurar el apoyo público a diversas políticas de mitigación del cambio climático. En este documento, analizamos en particular la decisión de la definición del problema para dar forma al apoyo público entre varios factores. Usando datos de encuestas nacionales de EE. UU., encontramos que la forma en que las personas definen el problema del cambio climático es más decisiva para estructurar el apoyo público para promover las energías renovables y regular los contaminantes para mitigar los riesgos asociados con el cambio climático. Sin embargo, los resultados también indican que los factores más determinantes asociados al apoyo público varían según los tipos de política de mitigación. Concluimos que se deben utilizar diferentes estrategias para aumentar el apoyo público a varias opciones de políticas de mitigación del cambio climático. Nuestros hallazgos contribuyen a una comprensión académica de la política específica de definición de problemas en el contexto de la política ambiental y de cambio climático. 公众支持是成功的政策采纳和实施的关键因素。鉴于气候变化缓解的紧迫性,学者已探究了影响公众支持气候变化缓解政策的一系列决定因素。不过,这些因素在影响公众支持方面的相对决定性并未得到充分检验。因此,我们使用了可诠释的机器学习以理解在以往研究的许多因素中,哪些因素对于“构建公众对不同气候变化缓解政策的支持”而言最具决定性。本文中,我们特别研究了问题定义在影响公众支持一事上的决定性。通过使用美国国家调查数据,我们发现,个人如何定义气候变化问题一事对于“构建公众支持以促进可再生能源以及调节污染物以缓解与气候变化相关的风险”而言更具决定性。不过,结果还表明,与公众支持相关的、最具决定性的因素会因不同的缓解政策类型而存在差异。我们的结论认为,应该使用不同的策略来增加公众对不同气候变化缓解政策选项的支持。我们的研究结果有助于从学术上理解环境和气候变化政策情境下问题定义的具体政治。

Suggested Citation

  • Junghwa Choi & Wesley Wehde & Romit Maulik, 2024. "Politics of problem definition: Comparing public support of climate change mitigation policies using machine learning," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 104-134, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:1:p:104-134
    DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12523
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ropr.12523?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Joshua A. Basseches & Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo & Maxwell T. Boykoff & Trevor Culhane & Galen Hall & Noel Healy & David J. Hess & David Hsu & Rachel M. Krause & Harland Prechel & J. Timmons Roberts & J, 2022. "Climate policy conflict in the U.S. states: a critical review and way forward," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-24, February.
    2. Carmen Keller & Michael Siegrist, 2009. "Effect of Risk Communication Formats on Risk Perception Depending on Numeracy," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(4), pages 483-490, July.
    3. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, 2006. "Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(3), pages 755-769, July.
    4. Liam F. Beiser-McGrath & Robert A. Huber, 2018. "Assessing the relative importance of psychological and demographic factors for predicting climate and environmental attitudes," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 335-347, August.
    5. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    6. 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.
    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. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Luke Keele, 2007. "Social Capital and the Dynamics of Trust in Government," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 241-254, April.
    11. van de Graaff, Shashi, 2016. "Understanding the nuclear controversy: An application of cultural theory," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 50-59.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Michael K. Lindell & Sudha Arlikatti & Carla S. Prater, 2009. "Why People Do What They Do to Protect Against Earthquake Risk: Perceptions of Hazard Adjustment Attributes," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(8), pages 1072-1088, August.
    16. Stuart Capstick & Nicholas Pidgeon, 2014. "Public perception of cold weather events as evidence for and against climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 122(4), pages 695-708, February.
    17. 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.
    18. Jeryl L. Mumpower & Liu Shi & James W. Stoutenborough & Arnold Vedlitz, 2013. "Psychometric and Demographic Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Terrorist Threats and the Willingness to Pay for Terrorism Risk Management Programs," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(10), pages 1802-1811, October.
    19. 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.
    20. James Flynn & Paul Slovic & C. K. Mertz & Cathie Carlisle, 1999. "Public Support For Earthquake Risk Mitigation In Portland, Oregon," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 205-216, April.
    21. 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.
    22. Junghwa Choi & Scott Robinson & Romit Maulik & Wesley Wehde, 2020. "What matters the most? Understanding individual tornado preparedness using machine learning," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(1), pages 1183-1200, August.
    23. Pralle, Sarah B., 2003. "Venue Shopping, Political Strategy, and Policy Change: The Internationalization of Canadian Forest Advocacy," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(3), pages 233-260, September.
    24. Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Andrew Dugan, 2022. "On the differential correlates of climate change concerns and severe weather concerns: evidence from the World Risk Poll," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 1-24, April.
    25. Charles Davis & Jonathan M. Fisk, 2014. "Energy Abundance or Environmental Worries? Analyzing Public Support for Fracking in the United States," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 31(1), pages 1-16, January.
    26. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Joseph T. Ripberger & Carol L. Silva & Deven E. Carlson & Kuhika Gupta & Nina Carlson & Ani Ter-Mkrtchyan & Riley E. Dunlap, 2020. "Partisan asymmetry in temporal stability of climate change beliefs," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 10(4), pages 322-328, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Nils C. Bandelow & Johanna Hornung & Ilana Schröder, 2024. "Perception and performance in environmental policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 41(1), pages 6-11, January.

    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. Romit Maulik & Junghwa Choi & Wesley Wehde & Prasanna Balaprakash, 2020. "Determining feature importance for actionable climate change mitigation policies," Papers 2003.10234, arXiv.org.
    2. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    3. Sælen, Håkon Grøn & Aasen, Marianne, 2023. "Exploring public opposition and support across different climate policies: Poles apart?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    4. Agneman, Gustav & Henriks, Sofia & Bäck, Hanna & Renström, Emma, 2024. "On the nexus between material and ideological determinants of climate policy support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Asim Zia & Katherine Lacasse & Nina H. Fefferman & Louis J. Gross & Brian Beckage, 2024. "Machine Learning a Probabilistic Structural Equation Model to Explain the Impact of Climate Risk Perceptions on Policy Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-25, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Thomas, Melanee & DeCillia, Brooks & Santos, John B. & Thorlakson, Lori, 2022. "Great expectations: Public opinion about energy transition," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    9. Vona, Francesco, 2023. "Managing the distributional effects of climate policies: A narrow path to a just transition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Habla, Wolfgang & Kokash, Kumai & Löfgren, Åsa & Straubinger, Anna & Ziegler, Andreas, 2024. "Self-interest and support of climate-related transport policy measures: An empirical analysis for citizens in Germany and Sweden," ZEW Discussion Papers 24-028, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Yektansani, Kiana & Azizi, SeyedSoroosh, 2021. "Using Machine Learning to Predict Consumers’ Environmental Attitudes and Beliefs," 2021 Annual Meeting, August 1-3, Austin, Texas 313902, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    13. Andrew G. Meyer, 2022. "Do economic conditions affect climate change beliefs and support for climate action? Evidence from the US in the wake of the Great Recession," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 64-86, January.
    14. Jaeyoung Lim & Kuk-Kyoung Moon, 2022. "Does Political Participation Strengthen the Relationship between Civic Morality and Environmentally Friendly Attitudes? Evidence from South Korea," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(4), pages 1-13, February.
    15. Osman M. Jama & Abdishakur W. Diriye & Abdulhakim M. Abdi, 2023. "Understanding young people’s perception toward forestation as a strategy to mitigate climate change in a post-conflict developing country," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 4787-4811, June.
    16. Ting Liu & Nick Shryane & Mark Elliot, 2022. "Attitudes to climate change risk: classification of and transitions in the UK population between 2012 and 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, December.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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).

    More about this item

    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:bla:revpol:v:41:y:2024:i:1:p:104-134. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ipsonea.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.