Testing for Budget Constraint Effects in a National Advisory Referendum Survey on the Kyoto Protocol

In contrast to providing standard reminders about remembering household budgets, does asking survey respondents about their discretionary income and its use affect their voting responses in a national advisory referendum survey? We explore this question using U.S. household data from a unique set of multi-mode random samples (telephone and Internet surveys), and an advisory referendum concerning the Kyoto Protocol. The contingent valuation method is applied to estimate household willingness to pay (WTP) for a split-sample treatment: respondents who only received a standard reminder of household budgets (control group) versus respondents who received two mental accounting-type questions on discretionary income and its uses (treatment group). Results indicate that the treatment significantly influences voting responses and lowers estimated household WTP.budget constraint, contingent valuation, Kyoto Protocol, mental accounts, referendum, Environmental Economics and Policy,

Exploring the Beta Model Using Proportional Budget Information in a Contingent Valuation Study

Using a set of random telephone and Internet (web-based) survey samples for a national advisory referendum, we implement Beta models to handle proportional budget information, and allow for consistency in modeling assumptions and the calculation of estimated willingness to pay (WTP). Results indicate significant budget constraint effects and demonstrate the potential for Beta models in handling mental-accounting type information.Beta model

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Experiment

We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from competing models of science communication, that exposure to information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition

From Experts' Beliefs to Safety Standards: Explaining Preferred Radiation Protection Standards in Polarized Technical Communities

Public policy debates often involve complex, high-stakes issues in which the views of experts within scientific and technical communities play a prominent role. Disputes over appropriate governmental actions concerning global climate change, genetically modified organisms, nuclear waste disposal, cloning, and stem cell research highlight the political importance that can be attached to debates within scientific communities. Not only do these debates influence the kinds of assumed causal relationships that underlie policy alternatives (e.g., the link between CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and global temperatures, or the dispersal patterns of pollens from genetically modified corn), but also those appointed to advisory and technical policy making positions are often chosen from the participating scientific communities. The appointment to such positions has become an increasingly contentious process; some critics contend that experts’ policy positions have trumped their scientific standing in determining appointments to important science policy boards (Revkin 2004; Mooney 2005)

Bayesian versus politically motivated reasoning in human perception of climate anomalies

In complex systems where humans and nature interact to produce joint outcomes, mitigation, adaptation, and resilience require that humans perceive feedback-signals of health and distress-from natural systems. In many instances, humans readily perceive feedback. In others, feedback is more difficult to perceive, so humans rely on experts, heuristics, biases, and/or identify confirming rationalities that may distort perceptions of feedback. This study explores human perception of feedback from natural systems by testing alternate conceptions about how individuals perceive climate anomalies, a form of feedback from the climate system. Results indicate that individuals generally perceive climate anomalies, especially when the anomalies are relatively extreme and persistent. Moreover, this finding is largely robust to political differences that generate predictable but small biases in feedback perception at extreme ends of the partisan spectrum. The subtlety of these biases bodes well for mitigation, adaptation, and resilience as human systems continue to interact with a changing climate system.Peer reviewedSociolog

Drivers for Policy Agreement in Nascent Subsystems: An Application of the Advocacy Coalition Framework to Fracking Policy in Switzerland and the UK

The study of public policy deals with subsystems in which actors cooperate or compete to turn their beliefs into policy solutions. Yet, most studies concern mature subsystems in which the main actors and their allies and enemies can easily be identified. This paper tackles the challenge of studying nascent subsystems, in which actors have begun to engage in politics but are uncertain about other actors’ beliefs. Actors therefore find it relatively difficult to identify their allies and opponents. Focusing on the Advocacy Coalition Framework, we examine three main ways in which actors might agree to support the same policy design before they decide whether or not to form long-term relationships within advocacy coalitions: they see the issue through the same lenses, they follow leaders, or they know each other from earlier cooperation. We use the case of fracking policy in Switzerland and the UK as a key example, in which actors have begun to agree with each other, but where final policy outputs were not yet defined, and long-term relationships not yet observable. We find that, when dealing with new issues, actors strongly rely on former contacts rather than shared ideologies or leadership