Richard J. Bord

Risk Perceptions, General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change

The research reported here examines the relationship between risk perceptions and willingness to address climate change. The data are a national sample of 1225 mail surveys that include measures of risk perceptions and knowledge tied to climate change, support for voluntary and government actions to address the problem, general environmental beliefs, and demographic variables. Risk perceptions matter in predicting behavioral intentions. Risk perceptions are not a surrogate for general environmental beliefs, but have their own power to account for behavioral intentions. There are four secondary conclusions. First, behavioral intentions regarding climate change are complex and intriguing. People are neither “nonbelievers” who will take no initiatives themselves and oppose all government efforts, nor are they “believers” who promise both to make personal efforts and to vote for every government proposal that promises to address climate change. Second, there are separate demographic sources for voluntary actions compared with voting intentions. Third, recognizing the causes of global warming is a powerful predictor of behavioral intentions independent from believing that climate change will happen and have bad consequences. Finally, the success of the risk perception variables to account for behavioral intentions should encourage greater attention to risk perceptions as independent variables. Risk perceptions and knowledge, however, share the stage with general environmental beliefs and demographic characteristics. Although related, risk perceptions, knowledge, and general environmental beliefs are somewhat independent predictors of behavioral intentions.

In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change

In a survey of 1,218 Americans, the key determinant of behavioral intentions to address global warming is a correct understanding of the causes of global warming. Knowing what causes climate change, and what does not, is the most powerful predictor of both stated intentions to take voluntary actions and to vote on hypothetical referenda to enact new government policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Identifying bogus causes (e.g., insecticides) correlates with the belief that the globe will warm, but is only weakly related to voluntary actions and not at all related to support for government policies. General pro-environmental beliefs and perceptions that global warming poses serious threats to society also help to explain behavioral intentions. The explanatory power of an air pollution framework is substantial in bivariate analyses, but has little explanatory power in multivariate analyses that include knowledge, risk perceptions, and general environmental beliefs. Translating public concern for global warming into effective action requires real knowledge. General environmental concern or concern for the negative effects of air pollution appear not to motivate people to support programs designed to control global warming.

Who Wants to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Objective. We examine cognitive, economic, and partisan heuristic theories of why some people express support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Methods. Data come from a mail survey of 623 residents of central Pennsylvania, a region in which mitigation costs exceed potential benefits from slowing the rate of global warming. Results. Ordinary least squares analysis shows that people who can accurately identify the causes of climate change and who expect bad consequences from climate change are likely to support both government anti‐fossil fuel initiatives and voluntary actions. Economic circumstances and anxieties are not important predictors, but the belief that environmental protection efforts do not threaten jobs for people like the respondent, limit personal freedoms, and hurt the economy is a strong predictor. Democrats are more likely than Republicans to support government efforts to reduce emissions. Conclusions. Cognitive explanations of support for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are more powerful than economic or partisan heuristic ones. People want to reduce emissions if they understand the causes of climate change, if they perceive substantial risks from climate change if average surface temperatures increase, and if they think climate change mitigation policies will not cost them their jobs.

Attitudes and Conditions for Cooperation in a Paper Recycling Program

Receptivity toward paper recycling was examined in relation to peoples accuracy with wastepaper separation among: (1) personnel with two wastebaskets in offices, (2) personnel with divided wastebaskets, (3) personnel depositing nonsalvageable waste outside offices. A large university was used for the research, and half of each study group received encouragement to cooperate throughout this experiment. Findings indicated that receptivity and accuracy in wastepaper separation were related positively, but separation was better where the required effort was minimal, as in offices with two wastebaskets. Peoples accuracy with wastepaper separation deteriorated over time, but not enough to nullify the effect of asking people to participate in a paper recycling program. Encouragement did not have a statistically significant impact on accuracy with separation. Finally, no change in receptivity toward manual wastepaper separation was found among participants after the experiment. Therefore, the investigators concluded that office workers are willing and able to cooperate in paper recycling, though more needs to be known about improving peoples accuracy in manual wastepaper separation.

Judgments of policies designed to elicit local cooperation on llrw disposal siting: Comparing the public and decision makers

Abstract The study reported here solicited the opinions of the general public of the State of Pennsylvania and of key decision makers in environmental, civic, industry, and health groups, on various policy issues connected with the establishment of low-level radioactive waste disposal sites. Specifically, the focus was on their judgment of options designed to elicit local cooperation and their trust in various officials and agencies. The data indicates that the general public views both compensation and power sharing options as important in promoting local cooperation. However, power sharing options are viewed as more important than incentives. The general public consistently demonstrates a preference for options which put control of the site in the hands of locals. On the other hand, influential decision-makers, with the exception of those representing environmental advocacy organizations, tend to view compensation as more important than local power sharing. Their preferences mirror those programs currently being pursued by federal and state officials. Preferences exhibited by leaders of environmental advocacy organizations parallel those of the general public. Furthermore, the general public demonstrates a relative lack of trust in local officials to represent their interests in siting decisions. This raises the issue of legitimacy in negotiations with local communities.

The two faces of coastal environmentalism: Environmental protection and development on Cape May

This research examines environmental attitudes in a coastal community that has pressures for growth in a fragile ecology. Our survey finds that public opinion on environmental issues on Cape May has two dimensions: one concerned with development and growth, and the other with environmental health and safety. Attitudes toward the desirability of development originate from concerns with the loss of open space, population growth, and crowding. Opinions on the proper strictness of environmental regulations originate from concerns for maintaining the local environment, including clean water and a healthy ocean and bay, and from participation in outdoors activities such as birdwatching. The two dimensions of environmentalism have implications for growth management in coastal areas.

IMPACT OF DOGMATISM ON REACTIONS TO UNVALIDATED AUTHORITY AND ANTI-AUTHORITY

Studies establishing a positive relationship between dogmatism and reverence for authority have generally dealt with sources of authority which were both untested and unquestionable. This research demonstrated that designated authorities who failed to behave in an authoritative manner were evaluated less favorably by 68 high than by 68 low dogmatics. In addition, “anti-authorities” who behaved in a socially acceptable manner were evaluated more favorably by high than by low dogmatics. This pattern of results is predictable if dogmatism is viewed as a general defense mechanism, with reliance-on-authority functioning to reduce anxiety.