Ocean views: coastal environmental problems as seen by downeast Maine residents

This brief contends that loss of fishing jobs and income is the top environment-related concern among residents of Maine\u27s Hancock and Washington counties, as well as forestry decline and water pollution. Also of note, across a wide range of environmental issues, political party affiliation is associated with level of concern about environmental problems

The Zika Virus Threat: How Concerns About Scientists May Undermine Efforts to Combat the Pandemic

Using data from the University of New Hampshire’s October 2016 Granite State Poll, authors Thomas Safford, Lawrence Hamilton, and Emily Whitmore investigate how New Hampshire residents view the Zika crisis. They report that most New Hampshire residents believe Zika is only a minor threat to public health in the United States, and they generally trust the CDC as a source of information about the virus. The data also show that, while there is doubt about the government’s ability to control the spread of the virus, the public feels that emergency federal funding to combat Zika should be a priority. They discuss that many Granite Staters have real concerns about the practice of science, believing scientists change their findings to get the answers they want. More importantly, individuals who questioned the integrity of scientists are less likely to believe Zika is a threat, have confidence in the government’s ability to combat the virus, trust the CDC, and to prioritize emergency funding. They conclude that these results suggest that health officials working to engage the public in efforts to control the spread of Zika must not only discuss risks associated with the virus and mechanisms of transmission, but also confront science skepticism and potential concerns about the integrity of the scientists gathering data related to Zika and other infectious diseases

Jobs, natural resources, and community resilience: A survey of southeast Alaskans about social and environmental change

As part of the Community and Environment in Rural America (CERA) project, researchers at the Carsey Institute surveyed 1,541 residents of the ten boroughs and unincorporated census areas in Southeast Alaska to better understand social and environmental change in the region and their implications for Alaskan community and families. The authors of this brief report that social problems in the extremely isolated region of Southeast Alaska such as crime and drug use are closely related to economic distress, particularly in small outlying communities

In the Wake of the Spill: Environmental Views Along the Gulf Coast

Abstract Objectives We analyze patterns in environmental views of Gulf Coast residents, in the wake of the 2010 oil spill. To what extent do spill-related and other environmental views vary with individual characteristics, personal experience with the spill, or characteristics of place? Methods About 2,000 residents of selected coastal regions in Louisiana and Florida were interviewed by telephone in late summer 2010. Results One-quarter of the respondents said that their environmental views had changed as a result of the spill. Despite reporting more change, more spill effects, and greater threats from climate-induced sea-level rise, Louisiana respondents were less likely to support a deepwater moratorium, alternative energy, or resource conservation. Conclusions Results are consistent with real effects from the spill. Differences between Louisiana and Florida respondents are not explained by spill effects or individual characteristics, however. The patterns reflect biophysical differences of the coastlines that shaped their socioeconomic development

Trusting Scientists More Than the Government: New Hampshire Perceptions of the Pandemic

In this brief, authors Lawrence Hamilton and Thomas Safford report that despite a dramatic increase in the incidence of COVID-19, and an evolving government response, there was no significant change between surveys taken in mid-March and mid-April in the shares of New Hampshire residents who reported they were making “major changes” in their daily routines, had low confidence in the federal government’s response, or expressed trust in information from science agencies

The Worst Is Behind Us: News Media Choice and False Optimism in the Summer of 2020

In the summer of 2020, mitigation efforts slowed the first US wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Experts warned, however, that without coordinated, sustained mitigation—such as testing and tracing, limited travel or gatherings, social distancing and mask wearing—the worst could lie ahead. A July survey found majority (59%) agreement with the expert warnings, while a minority (27%) mistakenly thought that the worst was behind us, or that COVID-19 was not a real problem. Among frequent Fox News and conservative talk radio consumers, however, large majorities (67–80%) held such false optimism or denial views, in contrast with small minorities (9–16%) among public radio and local television audiences. The impacts of news media choice were strongest among Republicans. Republicans who frequently watched Fox News were significantly more likely to express false optimism/denial views, whereas Republicans who watched a local TV station (ABC affiliate) or listened to public radio were significantly less likely to express false optimism/denial. News media choices had weaker effects on political Independents, however, and almost no effects on Democrats. These news media × party interactions suggest political asymmetry in the importance of “elite cues” for shaping COVID-19 perceptions. Unrealistic perceptions had real consequences: false optimism and denial correlate with lower support for mitigation steps, which worsened the pandemic

Elite Cues and the Rapid Decline of Trust in Science Agencies on COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has been marked by political divisions in US public trust of scientists. Such divisions are well known on other science topics, but regarding COVID-19 they arose suddenly, with disastrous results. Public distrust of scientists has been variously explained in terms of conflicts with belief systems, psychology, peer influences, or communication from elites. Three surveys conducted from March to July 2020 in the US state of New Hampshire observed changing perceptions on COVID-19, providing a test of alternative explanations. Over this period trust in science agencies such as the CDC for information on the coronavirus fell dramatically among Republicans, while views among Democrats and Independents changed little. Elite cues provide an obvious explanation—specifically, a reversal of views toward the CDC expressed by President Donald Trump. The change was consequential: people expressing lower trust in scientists also report less compliance with science-based behavioral recommendations, and less support for scientifically-informed policies. On several items, partisan differences are narrowest among college graduates, opposite to patterns previously seen with other science-trust issues. The primacy of elite cues regarding COVID-19 agrees, however, with earlier conclusions about the origins of distrust in scientists on climate change and environmental protection

Views of a Fast-Moving Pandemic: A Survey of Granite Staters’ Responses to COVID-19

In this brief, authors Thomas Safford and Lawrence Hamilton report the results of a Granite State Panel survey (March 17-26), asking New Hampshire residents about their views concerning government responses to the coronavirus (COVID-19) and whether they changed their daily routine because of the pandemic. They report that New Hampshire residents who approve of President Trump’s handling of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic and those who regularly watch Fox News are less likely than others to have made major changes in their routines due to COVID-19. Granite Staters have polarized opinions about President Trump’s handling of the pandemic: 40 percent strongly or somewhat approve, and 56 percent strongly or somewhat disapprove. Just 4 percent express more neutral views. Governor Sununu’s response to COVID-19 is viewed more positively—67 percent strongly or somewhat approve, and only 13 percent strongly or somewhat disapprove—but 20 percent express more neutral opinions. A large majority (77 percent) say they trust science agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control for information about the coronavirus

Beliefs about development versus environmental tradeoffs in the Puget Sound region

Using data from a phone survey of 1,980 Puget Sound residents conducted in 2012, this fact sheet outlines residents’ views about the importance of environmental protection as well as their opinions about energy development, protection of wild salmon, and land use regulation. Seventy-four percent of Puget Sound residents believe that protecting the environment should be a priority even if it means limiting economic growth. The majority of residents favor both increased use of renewable energy (82 percent) and protecting wild salmon (75 percent). Residents are more divided about curbing development, with those from rural areas being more apt to prioritize protecting private property rights over regulating land use. Read more about Communities and Coastal Restoration in the Puget Sound Region