How Political Events Can Motivate Some Risk Mitigation Activities for Climate Change
International Journal of Environment and Climate Change,
Aim: To stem the risks of future climate change, more people need to be motivated to take actions that will mitigate the release of greenhouse gases into the environment. Important to this discussion was that these actions include both public and private sphere behaviors.
Duration of Study: April 2016 to March 2017.
Methodology: We surveyed individual’s beliefs about climate change and their stated willingness to take different actions to mitigate the risks of climate change.
Results: Public sphere behaviors affect the environment only indirectly by influencing either public policies or other private sphere behaviors. Private sphere behaviors have direct environmental consequences but the consequences are small. Individual private sphere behaviors have environmentally significant impacts only in the aggregate when many people independently do similar things.
Conclusion: Our study replicated many of the results from the literature, in particular, that individuals are most willing to engage in small private actions to mitigate climate change, and that at least for large private acts and public acts, individuals who describe themselves as Democrats are also more willing to engage in more costly acts. Our survey also showed an important effect from the 2016 election of President of USA. Following the election, Democrats stated an increased willingness to engage in public sphere acts over time. If more individuals engaging in more public acts can influence public policy and can convert other individuals to engage in more private acts over time, then electing leadership who is negative toward climate change can ultimately result in motivating more individual mitigation activity for climate change.
Summary: This work shows that electing leaders who are negative toward climate change could provide a strong motivation for some individuals to be more willing to engage in public sphere acts over time to mitigate climate change.
- Risks of climate change
- mitigation actions
- 2016 election
How to Cite
Baker EJ. Evacuation behavior in hurricanes. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters. 1991;9:287–310.
Lindell MK, Lu JC, Prater CS. Household decision making and evacuation in response to Hurricane Lili. Natural Hazards Review. 2005;6:171–179.
Dash N, Gladwin H. Evacuation decision making and behavioral responses: Individual and household. Natural Hazards Review. 2007;8(3):69–77.
Huang S, Lindell M, Prater C, Wu H, Siebeneck L. Household evacuation decision making in response to hurricane Ike. Natural Hazards Review. 2012;13(4): 283–296.
Ge Y, Peacock WG, Lindell MK. Florida households’ expected responses to hurricane hazard mitigation incentives. Risk Analysis. 2011;31(10): 1676-1691.
Lazo JK, Bostrom A, Morss RE, Demuth JL, Lazrus H. Factors affecting hurricane evacuation intentions. Risk Analysis. 2015; 35(10):1837-1857.
Lindell MK, Whitney DJ. Correlates of household seismic hazard adjustment adoption. Risk Analysis. 2000;20(1):13-26.
Lindell MK, Arlikatti S, Prater CS. Why people do what they do to protect against earthquake risk: Perceptions of hazard adjustment attributes. Risk Analysis. 2009; 29(8);1072-1088.
Lindell MK, Hwang SN. Households perceived personal risk and responses in a multihazard environment. Risk Analysis. 2008;28(2):539-556.
Whitney DJ, Lindell MK, Nguyen HHD. Earthquake beliefs and adoption of seismic hazard adjustments. Risk Analysis. 2004; 24(1):87-102.
McCaffrey S, Wilson R, Konar A. Should I stay or should I go now? Or should I wait and see? Influences on wildfire evacuation decisions. Risk Analysis. 2018;38(7): 1390-1404.
Wilson RS, Winter PL, Maguire LA, Ascher T. Managing wildfire events: Risk‐based decision making among a group of federal fire managers. Risk Analysis. 2011;31(5): 805-818.
Morss RE, Demuth JL, Bostrom A, Lazo JK, Lazrus H. Flash flood risks and warning decisions: A mental models study of forecasters, public officials, and media broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado. Risk Analysis. 2015;35(11):2009 -2028.
Bubeck P, Botzen WJ, Aerts JC. A review of risk perceptions and other factors that influence flood mitigation behavior. Risk Analysis. 2012;32(9):1481-1495.
Pidgeon N. Climate change risk perception and communication: addressing a critical moment? Risk Analysis. 2012;32(6):951-956.
Shi J, Visschers VH, Siegrist M. Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis. 2015;35(12): 2183-2201.
Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis. 2012;32(6):957-972.
Kastner I, Stern PC. Examining the decision-making processes behind household energy investments: A review. Energy Research and Social Science. 2015;10:72-89.
Bamberg SMG. Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behavior. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2007;27:14–25.
Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavioral and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179–211.
Stern PC, Dietz T, Abel T, Guagnano GA, Kalof L. A value-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: The case of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review. 1999;6:81–97.
Steg L. Values, norms and intrinsic motivation to act pro-environmentally. Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 2016;41:277–292.
Lindell MK, Perry RW. The protective action decision model: theoretical modifications and additional evidence. Risk Analysis. 2012;32(4):616-632.
Lindell MK. Communication imminent risk in Rodriguez H, Trainor J, Donner W (eds.) Handbook of Disaster Research, New York: Springer. 2006;449-477.
Stern PC. New environmental theories: toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues. 2000;56(3):407-424.
Civitas Public Affairs Group. Memo summarizing research findings on Audubon’s conservative-leaning members’ views of climate change and the impact on birds, provided as a private communication to researchers; 2015.
Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W. Factors influencing the acceptability of energy policy. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2005;25(4):415-235.
Gifford R. The dragons of inaction: Psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. American Psychologist. 2011;66(4):290-302.
Hoffman AJ. Climate science as culture war. Stanford Social Innovation Review. 2012;10(4).
Swim J, Clayton S, Doherty T, Gifford R, Howard G, Reser J, Stern P, Weber E. Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted phenomenon and set of challenges. A Report by the American Psychological Association’s task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. American Psychological Association, Washington; 2009.
American Psychiatric Association. (n.d.). Public Perception: How Americans See Climate Change.
Rudiak-Gould P. We have seen it with our own eyes. Why we disagree about climate change visibility. Weather, Climate and Society. 2013;5(2):120-132.
Weber EU, Stern PC. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. American Psychologist. 2011;66(4) ;315.
Egan PJ, Mullin M. Climate change: US Public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science. 2017;20:209-227.
Slovic P. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236(4799):280-285.
Weber EU. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change. 2006;77(1-2), 103–120.
Wei HL, Lindell MK. Washington households’ expected response to lahar threat from Mt. Rainer. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2017;22:77-94.
Cillizza C. Donald Trump doesn’t think much of climate change, in 20 quotes, CNN; 2017.
Available:https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/08/politics/trump-global-warming/index.html, accessed January 7, 2019.
Abstract View: 1379 times
PDF Download: 425 times