IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v166y2021i3d10.1007_s10584-021-03138-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Epistemic engagement: examining personal epistemology and engagement preferences with climate change in Oregon

Author

Listed:
  • Brianne Suldovsky

    (Portland State University)

  • Daniel Taylor-Rodríguez

    (Portland State University)

Abstract

Engaging politically polarized publics surrounding climate science is a vital element in the effort to enact climate mitigation policy. Science communication experts have identified several models of public engagement with science, including the deficit, dialogue, participation, and lay expertise model. Existing research suggests that the deficit model in particular is a largely ineffective model of engagement for controversial science like climate change. There is very little research, however, regarding the engagement preferences of political groups, or how those preferences differ. This study assesses preferences for climate change engagement in the state of Oregon in the United States and examines the relationship between those preferences and epistemic beliefs about climate science. Overall, we find that liberals are significantly more likely than moderates or conservatives to view climate science as certain and simple and to rely on expert knowledge more than their own direct experience. By contrast, conservatives are significantly more likely than liberals or moderates to view climate science as uncertain and complex and to rely on their own direct experience over the knowledge of content experts. We also find that perceived certainty and simplicity are positive predictors of a preference for the deficit model of science communication. Implications for public engagement with climate change and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Brianne Suldovsky & Daniel Taylor-Rodríguez, 2021. "Epistemic engagement: examining personal epistemology and engagement preferences with climate change in Oregon," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-18, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:166:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03138-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-021-03138-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10584-021-03138-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10584-021-03138-5?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Whitmarsh, David & Palmieri, Maria Giovanna, 2009. "Social acceptability of marine aquaculture: The use of survey-based methods for eliciting public and stakeholder preferences," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 452-457, May.
    2. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    3. James N. Druckman & Mary C. McGrath, 2019. "The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 9(2), pages 111-119, February.
    4. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 627-639, June.
    5. Strager, Michael P. & Rosenberger, Randall S., 2006. "Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 79-92, June.
    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. Parnphumeesup, Piya & Kerr, Sandy A., 2011. "Stakeholder preferences towards the sustainable development of CDM projects: Lessons from biomass (rice husk) CDM project in Thailand," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 3591-3601, June.
    2. repec:rri:wpaper:200906 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Blackstock, K.L. & Kelly, G.J. & Horsey, B.L., 2007. "Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 726-742, February.
    4. Welsch, Heinz, 2021. "How climate-friendly behavior relates to moral identity and identity-protective cognition: Evidence from the European social surveys," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    5. Alexandre Morin-Chassé & Erick Lachapelle, 2020. "Partisan strength and the politicization of global climate change: a re-examination of Schuldt, Roh, and Schwarz 2015," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 10(1), pages 31-40, March.
    6. Sironen, Susanna & Primmer, Eeva & Leskinen, Pekka & Similä, Jukka & Punttila, Pekka, 2020. "Context sensitive policy instruments: A multi-criteria decision analysis for safeguarding forest habitats in Southwestern Finland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Richards, Daniel R. & Warren, Philip H. & Moggridge, Helen L. & Maltby, Lorraine, 2015. "Spatial variation in the impact of dragonflies and debris on recreational ecosystem services in a floodplain wetland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 113-121.
    8. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    9. Maria Cerreta & Pasquale De Toro, 2012. "Strategic Environmental Assessment of Port Plans in Italy: Experiences, Approaches, Tools," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(11), pages 1-34, November.
    10. Jinyang Deng & David Dyre, 2009. "Linking Tourism Resources and Local Economic Benefits: A Spatial Analysis in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2009-06, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    11. Adrienne R. Brown & Lawrence C. Hamilton, 2021. "Interaction effects on support for climate‐change mitigation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2649-2660, November.
    12. Georgia Kandilioti & Christos Makropoulos, 2012. "Preliminary flood risk assessment: the case of Athens," 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. 61(2), pages 441-468, March.
    13. Ron Janssen & Gustavo A Arciniegas & Jos T A Verhoeven, 2013. "Spatial Evaluation of Ecological Qualities to Support Interactive Land-Use Planning," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 40(3), pages 427-446, June.
    14. Jared Abigail Valencia-Salvador & Fabio Humberto Sepúlveda-Murillo & Miguel Alfonso Flores-Sánchez & Norely Margarita Soto Builes, 2022. "Spatial Distribution of Social Inequality in the Metropolitan District of Quito, Ecuador," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 163(2), pages 753-769, September.
    15. de Castro, Mónica & Urios, Vicente, 2017. "A critical review of multi-criteria decision making in protected areas," Economia Agraria y Recursos Naturales, Spanish Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(02), January.
    16. Kaye Usry & Jason Husser & Aaron Sparks, 2022. "I'm Not a Scientist, I Just Know What I See: Hurricane experience and climate change acceptance," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(5), pages 1190-1201, September.
    17. Jessica E. Hughes & James D. Sauer & Aaron Drummond & Laura E. Brumby & Matthew A. Palmer, 2023. "Endorsement of scientific inquiry promotes better evaluation of climate policy evidence," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 176(6), pages 1-20, June.
    18. Cafferata, Alessia & Dávila-Fernández, Marwil J. & Sordi, Serena, 2021. "Seeing what can(not) be seen: Confirmation bias, employment dynamics and climate change," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 189(C), pages 567-586.
    19. Jamile Eleutério Delesposte & Luís Alberto Duncan Rangel & Marcelo Jasmim Meiriño & Ramon Baptista Narcizo & André Armando Mendonça de Alencar Junior, 2021. "Use of multicriteria decision aid methods in the context of sustainable innovations: bibliometrics, applications and trends," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 501-522, December.
    20. Lundström, Johanna & Öhman, Karin & Rönnqvist, Mikael & Gustafsson, Lena, 2014. "How reserve selection is affected by preferences in Swedish boreal forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-50.
    21. Garmendia, Eneko & Gamboa, Gonzalo, 2012. "Weighting social preferences in participatory multi-criteria evaluations: A case study on sustainable natural resource management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 110-120.

    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:spr:climat:v:166:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10584-021-03138-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.