IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i23p10292-d1528541.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Machine Learning a Probabilistic Structural Equation Model to Explain the Impact of Climate Risk Perceptions on Policy Support

Author

Listed:
  • Asim Zia

    (Department of Community Development and Applied Economics, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
    Department of Computer Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

  • Katherine Lacasse

    (Department of Psychology, Rhode Island College, Providence, RI 02908, USA)

  • Nina H. Fefferman

    (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
    Department of Mathematics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
    National Institute for Modeling Biological Systems, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Louis J. Gross

    (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
    Department of Mathematics, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA)

  • Brian Beckage

    (Department of Computer Science, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA
    Department of Plant Biology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA)

Abstract

While a flurry of studies and Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) have independently investigated the impacts of switching mitigation policies in response to different climate scenarios, little is understood about the feedback effect of how human risk perceptions of climate change could contribute to switching climate mitigation policies. This study presents a novel machine learning approach, utilizing a probabilistic structural equation model (PSEM), for understanding complex interactions among climate risk perceptions, beliefs about climate science, political ideology, demographic factors, and their combined effects on support for mitigation policies. We use machine learning-based PSEM to identify the latent variables and quantify their complex interaction effects on support for climate policy. As opposed to a priori clustering of manifest variables into latent variables that is implemented in traditional SEMs, the novel PSEM presented in this study uses unsupervised algorithms to identify data-driven clustering of manifest variables into latent variables. Further, information theoretic metrics are used to estimate both the structural relationships among latent variables and the optimal number of classes within each latent variable. The PSEM yields an R 2 of 92.2% derived from the “Climate Change in the American Mind” dataset (2008–2018 [N = 22,416]), which is a substantial improvement over a traditional regression analysis-based study applied to the CCAM dataset that identified five manifest variables to account for 51% of the variance in policy support. The PSEM uncovers a previously unidentified class of “lukewarm supporters” (~59% of the US population), different from strong supporters (27%) and opposers (13%). These lukewarm supporters represent a wide swath of the US population, but their support may be capricious and sensitive to the details of the policy and how it is implemented. Individual survey items clustered into latent variables reveal that the public does not respond to “climate risk perceptions” as a single construct in their minds. Instead, PSEM path analysis supports dual processing theory: analytical and affective (emotional) risk perceptions are identified as separate, unique factors, which, along with climate beliefs, political ideology, and race, explain much of the variability in the American public’s support for climate policy. The machine learning approach demonstrates that complex interaction effects of belief states combined with analytical and affective risk perceptions; as well as political ideology, party, and race, will need to be considered for informing the design of feedback loops in IAMs that endogenously feedback the impacts of global climate change on the evolution of climate mitigation policies.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10292-:d:1528541
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10292/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/23/10292/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Alan C. Acock, 2013. "Discovering Structural Equation Modeling Using Stata," Stata Press books, StataCorp LP, number dsemus.
    5. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    6. Slovic, Paul & Finucane, Melissa L. & Peters, Ellen & MacGregor, Donald G., 2007. "The affect heuristic," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1333-1352, March.
    7. Brian Beckage & Katherine Lacasse & Jonathan M. Winter & Louis J. Gross & Nina Fefferman & Forrest M. Hoffman & Sara S. Metcalf & Travis Franck & Eric Carr & Asim Zia & Ann Kinzig, 2020. "The Earth has humans, so why don’t our climate models?," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(1), pages 181-188, November.
    8. V.H.M. Visschers & P.M. Wiedemann & H. Gutscher & S. Kurzenhäuser & R. Seidl & C.G. Jardine & D.R.M. Timmermans, 2012. "Affect-inducing risk communication: current knowledge and future directions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 257-271, March.
    9. Nada Petrovic & Jaime Madrigano & Lisa Zaval, 2014. "Motivating mitigation: when health matters more than climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 126(1), pages 245-254, September.
    10. Nicholas Smith & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2014. "The Role of Emotion in Global Warming Policy Support and Opposition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(5), pages 937-948, May.
    11. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Geng Cui & Man Leung Wong & Hon-Kwong Lui, 2006. "Machine Learning for Direct Marketing Response Models: Bayesian Networks with Evolutionary Programming," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(4), pages 597-612, April.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Lorteau, Steve & Muzzerall, Parker & Deneault, Audrey-Ann & Kennedy, Emily Huddart & Rocque, Rhéa & Racine, Nicole & Bureau, Jean-François, 2024. "Do climate concerns and worries predict energy preferences? A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    5. 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).
    6. Romit Maulik & Junghwa Choi & Wesley Wehde & Prasanna Balaprakash, 2020. "Determining feature importance for actionable climate change mitigation policies," Papers 2003.10234, arXiv.org.
    7. 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.
    8. Adrian Brügger & Robert Tobias & Fredy S. Monge-Rodríguez, 2021. "Public Perceptions of Climate Change in the Peruvian Andes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, March.
    9. 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).
    10. Agustin Robles Morua & Kathleen E. Halvorsen & Alex S. Mayer, 2011. "Waterborne Disease‐Related Risk Perceptions in the Sonora River Basin, Mexico," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(5), pages 866-878, May.
    11. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    12. Debra Javeline & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Angela Chesler, 2019. "Does it matter if you “believe” in climate change? Not for coastal home vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 511-532, August.
    13. 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).
    14. 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).
    15. 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.
    16. Yu‐Ru Lin & Drew Margolin & Xidao Wen, 2017. "Tracking and Analyzing Individual Distress Following Terrorist Attacks Using Social Media Streams," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(8), pages 1580-1605, August.
    17. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2018. "Public Response to a Near‐Miss Nuclear Accident Scenario Varying in Causal Attributions and Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(5), pages 947-961, May.
    18. Kim, Do-hun & Sjølie, Hanne K. & Aguilar, Francisco X., 2024. "Psychological distances to climate change and public preferences for biodiversity-augmenting attributes in family-owned production forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    19. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    20. D. Liliana González-Hernández & Raúl A. Aguirre-Gamboa & Erik W. Meijles, 2023. "The role of climate change perceptions and sociodemographics on reported mitigation efforts and performance among households in northeastern Mexico," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1853-1875, February.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:23:p:10292-:d:1528541. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.