Abstract
AbstractThis paper examines public support for global- and national-level climate policy instruments in Finland, and the ways urban/rural-domicile and climate change risk perception predict people’s attitudes toward climate policies. Moreover, this study analyzes the degree to which perception of closeness to the district modifies people’s climate policy attitudes. The research method employed was ordinal logistic regression and data were from the demographically representative Finland 2019-survey (n = 1742 and response activity = 44%). According to the results, subsidizing renewable energy is an especially popular climate policy instrument, whereas approving new nuclear plants is rather unpopular. Policy instruments were typically more popular at the global level than they were at the national level. Perception of climate change risk was especially strongly linked with support for a national carbon tax. The effect of urban/rural-domicile and subjective closeness to the district on the attitudes was highly dependent on the policy instrument in question. The study contributes to the understanding of how climate policy attitudes vary depending on the climate change risk perception, urban/rural-domicile, and the instrument-type.
Funder
Tiina ja Antti Herlinin säätiö
University of Turku (UTU) including Turku University Central Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Geography, Planning and Development
Reference75 articles.
1. Aaltonen, J., Keski-Heikkilä, A. (2021) Uusi puheenjohtaja Riikka Purra kritisoi valtakunnansyyttäjää ja hallituksen työllisyystoimia – Sanoo HS:lle, ettei koe olevansa ”lainkaan populisti” - Politiikka | HS.fi. Helsingin Sanomat. Helsinki. Available at: https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000008193845.html (Accessed 20 August 2021).
2. Aldy, J., & Stavins, R. (2012). The promise and problems of pricing carbon: theory and experience. The Journal of Environment & Development, 21(2), 152–180.
3. Anderson, K., & McKibbin, W. J. (2000). Reducing coal subsidies and trade barriers: their contribution to greenhouse gas abatement. Environment and Development Economics, 5(4), 457–481. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X00000279
4. Aro, R., & Wilska, T. A. (2014). Standard of living, consumption norms, and perceived necessities. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 34(9/10), 710–728. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-06-2013-0064
5. Attari, S. Z., Schoen, M., Davidson, C. I., et al. (2009). Preferences for change: do individuals prefer voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption? Ecological Economics, 68(6), 1701–1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOLECON.2008.10.007
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献