Katrina Running

Towards climate justice: how do the most vulnerable weigh environment-economy trade-offs?

The worlds poor are especially vulnerable to environmental disasters, including the adverse consequences of climate change. This creates a challenge for climate justice advocates who seek to ensure that those least responsible for causing climate change do not bear unwanted burdens of mitigation. One way to promote climate justice could be to pay particular attention to the environmental policy preferences of citizens from poorer, lower-emitting countries. This paper examines opinions on environment-economy trade-offs and willingness to make personal financial contributions to protect the environment among residents of 42 developed and developing countries using data from the 2005-2008 World Values Survey, the 2010 Climate Risk Index, and World Bank development indicators. Results reveal that individuals in developing countries are less likely to support policies to prioritize environmental protection over economic growth but are more willing to donate personal income for pro-environmental efforts compared to citizens of more developed nations.

Individualist and collectivist consumer motivations in local organic food markets

Community-Supported Agriculture programs have become a popular model for providing consumers with direct economic engagement with independent local organic farms. The degree to which Community-Supported Agriculture members are unified in their identity and consumer interests, however, is unclear. One possibility is that mostly individual interests including supposed nutritional benefits, superior taste, and avoidance of synthetic pesticides motivate Community-Supported Agriculture members. Another is that they are motivated more by environmental and economic concerns at the collective level. Our study engages this debate by analyzing emergent themes in consumers’ motivational narratives using interview data with 58 members of a Community-Supported Agriculture program in a large southwestern city in the United States. We find that Community-Supported Agriculture members are largely unified in their consumer orientation and pursue individualist and collectivist goals equally. In other words, Community-Supported Agriculture members are neither primarily altruistic nor egoistic consumers, but they approach their consumption as a holistic act. Specifically, they emphasize environmental issues and a commitment to sustainability through local organic consumption as a pathway to individual health. This suggests that an internally homogeneous, yet multidimensional, framework constitutes the motivational structure of local organic food consumption. We argue this framework aligns with an emerging eco-habitus exhibited in environmentally conscious market fields that translate into both collective and individual benefits.

Perceptions of Environmental Change and Climate Concern Among Idaho’s Farmers

ABSTRACT Climate change public opinion research has identified conservative political ideology as the primary predictor of skepticism about climate change’s anthropogenic causes. Most farmers in Idaho are politically conservative, but they are also a unique group for whom observing their environment is part of daily life and work. We use data from in-depth interviews with 30 Idaho farmers to examine the relationship between observations of specific environmental changes and climate concern. We find that while most farmers report noticing changes in precipitation patterns, growing season length, and winter temperatures, few farmers connect these with long-term global climate change. These findings have two important implications: 1) direct experience, even in the form of disruption to an individual’s economic security, is not enough to overcome the influence of political ideology on climate change beliefs, and 2) acknowledging climate variation is not sufficient to convince individuals that the changes are produced by human activities.

Content matters: Stakeholder assessment of river stories or river science

Stakeholders include scientists, interest groups, leaders, professionals, government and NGO employees, and activists; they are individuals or groups that play an increasingly important role in public policy. As such, stakeholders are frequently used as a source to better inform public decision making. Given the growing importance of stakeholders’ understanding and thus communication concerning the issues on which they inform the public, it is timely to ask: How do stakeholders comprehend, or mentally construct an understanding of the policy issues upon which they are asked to weigh in? In an attempt to address this issue, this paper uses a case study of a policy issue, river restoration. Results from a survey of 85 stakeholders and a follow up interview of 20 stakeholders shed light on whether stakeholders predominantly prefer to think of river restoration in terms of science or through policy narratives. The findings indicate that stakeholders prefer explanations that use science and the engaged citizen narrative when they think about the river’s restoration. Additionally, stakeholders who work for government particularly emphasize that the river should be described in scientific terms. We use this data to further analyze what elements of science and narratives are divisive to stakeholders and which are not and conclude with advice on how stakeholders can speak in a non-divisive way to the public and other stakeholders.