Public attitudes toward water management and drought in Texas

This material is based upon research conducted by the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy in The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. This research was supported by Texas Sea Grant under Award No. NA10OAR4170099 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; by the Texas A&M University Office of the Vice President for Research; and the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Texas Sea Grant, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Department of Commerce.Water management in Texas is increasingly salient as the population grows, water supplies continue to be taxed and the planet continues to warm, resulting in more severe, widespread, and frequent droughts in the state. Public support, though, is often essential for governments to enact large-scale projects, like those that may be needed to tackle water management issues. Given the challenges facing the state of Texas, surprisingly few studies explore public attitudes, preferences, and risk assessments about water-related resource allocations. Will the public act to direct or limit the actions of its elected officials on water issues? Is the public ready to consider policies, regulations, and expenditures concerning the potential impacts of increased drought frequency on Texas water resources? We report the results of 2 public opinion surveys of the citizens of Texas that focused on water management and drought issues. We found that the public is willing to support government efforts to manage water, but not if these efforts negatively affect the environment or agriculture

Framing Climate Policy Debates: Science, Network, and U.S. Congress, 1976-2007

Debates on global climate change (GCC) have been heavily influenced by such factors as scientific evidence, media coverage, public concerns, partisan interest, and so forth. Focusing on the linkages among the congressional committees, hearings, and invited witnesses (and their sectors), this study investigates the relational conditions under which congressional committees have mobilized climate expertise to discuss climate change issues for the past decades in U.S. Congress. Our findings show that agenda setting and witness selection by the committees significantly differed across the party lines: more environmental scientists were invited to define GCC as a threat in Democratic Congresses, whereas industrial scientists, to search for solutions in Republican Congresses. Except for a few proactive committees, committee jurisdiction was limitedly exercised. Our findings presents strong evidence along which climate policy debates have been framed based on a biased input of climate expertise

Public Attitudes toward Water Management and Drought in the United States

The final publication is available at http://link.springer.comWater management is becoming increasingly salient as climate change continues to alter the environment, resulting in more severe and frequent droughts. To address water management issues, large-scale projects may be needed. However, public support is often a prerequisite for governments at all levels to enact such projects. Given the growing importance of these issues, there are few recent studies that explore public attitudes, preferences, and risk assessments about water-related resource allocations. Will the public act to constrain the actions of their elected officials? Is the public ready to begin considering policies, regulations, and expenditures that address the potential impacts of increased drought frequency on local, state and national water resources? This research reports the results of two national public opinion surveys in the United States that focused on water management and drought issues. The results indicate that the public is willing to support government efforts to manage water, but not if they negatively affect the environment or agriculture. This material is based upon research conducted by the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy in The Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. This research was supported by Texas Sea Grant under Award No. NA10OAR4170099 from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce; by the Texas A&M University Office of the Vice President for Research; and the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Texas Sea Grant, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Department of Commerce

Integration of Remote Patient Monitoring Systems into Physicians Work in Underserved Communities: Survey of Healthcare Provider Perspectives

Remote patient monitoring (RPM) technologies have been identified as a viable alternative to improve access to care in underserved communities. Successful RPM platforms are designed and implemented for seamless integration into healthcare providers work to increase adoption and availability for offering remote care. A quantitative survey was designed and administered to elicit perspectives from a wide range of stakeholders, including healthcare providers and healthcare administrators, about barriers and facilitators in the adoption and integration of RPM into clinical workflows in underserved areas. Ease of adoption, workflow disruption, changes in the patient-physician relationship, and costs and financial benefits are identified as relevant factors that influence the widespread use of RPM by healthcare providers; significant communication and other implementation preferences also emerged. Further research is needed to identify methods to address such concerns and use information collected in this study to develop protocols for RPM integration into clinical workflow

Predictors of the Perceived Risk of Climate Change and Preferred Resource Levels

The Version of Record of this manuscript has been published and is available in Journal of Risk Research, 20 May 2015, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2015.1043567#.VZ2Y7WND2Ao.In a 2013 U.S. national public opinion survey, data were collected from 1,321 adult respondents for five psychometric variables—Dread, Scientists’ Level of Understanding, Public’s Level of Understanding, Number Affected, and Likelihood—for six threats (sea level rise, increased flooding, and four others) associated with climate change. Respondents also rated Perceived Risk and indicated the Resource Level that they believed should be invested in management programs for each threat. Responses did not vary significantly across the six threats, so they were combined. The survey collected standard demographic information, as well as measuring Climate Change Knowledge (CCK) and environmental values (New Ecological Paradigm, NEP). Psychometric variables predicted Perceived Risk extremely well (R = .890, p < .001); all five psychometric variables were significant predictors. The results were generally consistent with previous research except that Scientists’ Level of Understanding was a positive, rather than negative, predictor of Perceived Risk. Jointly the demographic, knowledge and environmental values variables significantly predicted Perceived Risk (R = .504, p < .001). Consistent with previous research, significant positive predictors were Age, Democratic Party identification, and NEP score; significant negative predictors were Male gender and White ethnicity. When demographic, knowledge, and environmental values variables were added to psychometric ones, only the psychometric variables were statistically significant predictors. Perceived Risk strongly predicted Resource Level (r = .772, p < .001). Adding demographic, knowledge and environmental value variables to Perceived Risk as predictors of Resource Level did not appreciably increase overall predictive ability (r = .790, p < .001), although White ethnicity emerged as a significant negative predictor and Religiosity, Democratic Party ID, Liberal Political Ideology, and NEP score were significant positive predictors. The results demonstrate that risk perceptions of climate change and policy preferences among climate change management options are highly predictable as a function of demographic, knowledge, environmental values, and psychometric variables. Among these, psychometric variables were found to be the strongest predictors.This material is based upon research conducted by the Institute for Science, Technology and Public Policy (ISTPP) in The Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are solely those of the authors

Public Support for the Department of Homeland Security

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a landmark in the history of the U.S. federal government. With the largest reorganization of the federal executive branch in decades, policymakers sought to group agencies with missions related to homeland security under one cabinet level official. It is natural to ask whether this reorganization has succeeded. One measure of that success would be public confidence in the competency of the department. In this paper, we report the results of a national poll which asked a variety of questions related to individuals’ perceptions of the Department of Homeland Security. The results illustrate that the level of confidence in the competency of the Department of Homeland Security is generally high—though there are divisions among people’s evaluations based on party, religiosity, attention to terrorism, and education level.This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Number 2008-DN-077-ARI018-03.Ye

RPR Review of Policy Research Preferences, Knowledge, and Citizen Probability Assessments of the Terrorism Risk of Nuclear Powerr opr_552 207..227

Abstract How does the American public assess risk when it comes to national security issues? This paper addresses this question by analyzing variation in citizen probabilit

Preferences, Knowledge, and Citizen Probability Assessments of the Terrorism Risk of Nuclear Power

The definitive version is available at www.interscience.wiley.com.How does the American public assess risk when it comes to national security issues? This paper addresses this question by analyzing variation in citizen probability assessments of the terrorism risk of nuclear power plants. Drawing on the literature on how motivated reasoning, selective information processing, and domain specific knowledge influence public opinion, we argue that heterogeneous issue preferences and knowledge of nuclear energy and homeland security have important explanatory power. Using original data from a unique 2009 national survey in the United States, we show that Americans are divided in their probability assessments of the terrorism risk of nuclear power plants. Consistent with our theoretical expectations, individuals who support using nuclear power to meet rising energy demands, who are generally less concerned with terrorism, or who are more knowledgeable about terrorism and nuclear security tend to provide lower assessments of the likelihood that nuclear power plants increase terrorist attacks, and vice versa. The findings have implications for the literature on public opinion, risk assessment, energy policy and planning, and homeland security.This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under Grant Award Number 2008-DN-077-ARI018-03. The views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies, either expressed or implied, of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Decision Making Under Conditions of Uncertainty: Experimental Assessment of Decision Models

This research was supported by the National Defense University under Contract No. DABJ29-03-P-0084 and was a project of Texas A&M University's Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy in the George Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily relfect the views of the National Defense University.National Defense University (DABJ29-03-P-0084

What Butterfly Effect? The Contextual Differences in Public Perceptions of the Health Risk Posed by Climate Change

The definitive version is available at www.mdpi.com/journal/climate.Abstract: One of the most difficult aspects of persuading the public to support climate change policy is the lack of recognition that climate change will likely have a direct impact on an individual’s life. Anecdotal evidence and arguments within the media suggest that those who are skeptical of climate change are more likely to believe that the negative externalities associated with climate change will be experienced by others, and, therefore, are not a concern to that individual. This project examines public perceptions of the health risk posed by climate change. Using a large national public opinion survey of adults in the United States, respondents were asked to evaluate the health risk for themselves, their community, the United States, and the world. The results suggest that individuals evaluate the risk for each of these contexts differently. Statistical analyses are estimated to identify the determinants of each risk perception to identify their respective differences. The implications of these findings on support for climate change policy are discussed