Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas

Sonja Klinsky, Hadi Dowlatabadi, Timothy Mcdaniels

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Despite a great deal of research on public perceptions of climate change science, very little empirical work has attempted to investigate how members of the lay public might evaluate the justice dilemmas inherent within climate policy decision-making. This exploratory study contrasts arguments about justice from a mitigation perspective, with those from an adaptation perspective and draws insights about the contours of politically acceptable climate policy. Using think-aloud protocols and a structured elicitation approach with members of the lay public to generate quantitative and qualitative data, this study suggests that the two types of climate policy trigger different sets of arguments about justice. When asked about mitigation burden-sharing participants overwhelmingly invoke arguments about causality. In contrast, in discussions of adaptation participants emphasized the needs of the afflicted parties and their ability to cope. Furthermore, social and spatial distances were not a factor in allocation of mitigation burdens, but were used to discount the distribution of compensation towards adaptation. These initial data about public perceptions of justice in this area suggest that the public would view adaptation and mitigation as complements not substitutes. These findings also highlight the importance of exploring public reactions to the sub-components of climate policy individually.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)862-876
Number of pages15
JournalGlobal Environmental Change
Volume22
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

climate policy
environmental policy
mitigation
justice
causality
climate change
decision making
public
ability
science

Keywords

  • Adaptation
  • Climate policy
  • Justice
  • Mitigation
  • Public perceptions

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Global and Planetary Change

Cite this

Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas. / Klinsky, Sonja; Dowlatabadi, Hadi; Mcdaniels, Timothy.

In: Global Environmental Change, Vol. 22, No. 4, 10.2012, p. 862-876.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{29fcad5204ed4655931867b33d64b37d,
title = "Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas",
abstract = "Despite a great deal of research on public perceptions of climate change science, very little empirical work has attempted to investigate how members of the lay public might evaluate the justice dilemmas inherent within climate policy decision-making. This exploratory study contrasts arguments about justice from a mitigation perspective, with those from an adaptation perspective and draws insights about the contours of politically acceptable climate policy. Using think-aloud protocols and a structured elicitation approach with members of the lay public to generate quantitative and qualitative data, this study suggests that the two types of climate policy trigger different sets of arguments about justice. When asked about mitigation burden-sharing participants overwhelmingly invoke arguments about causality. In contrast, in discussions of adaptation participants emphasized the needs of the afflicted parties and their ability to cope. Furthermore, social and spatial distances were not a factor in allocation of mitigation burdens, but were used to discount the distribution of compensation towards adaptation. These initial data about public perceptions of justice in this area suggest that the public would view adaptation and mitigation as complements not substitutes. These findings also highlight the importance of exploring public reactions to the sub-components of climate policy individually.",
keywords = "Adaptation, Climate policy, Justice, Mitigation, Public perceptions",
author = "Sonja Klinsky and Hadi Dowlatabadi and Timothy Mcdaniels",
year = "2012",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.008",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "862--876",
journal = "Global Environmental Change",
issn = "0959-3780",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing public rationales for justice trade-offs in mitigation and adaptation climate policy dilemmas

AU - Klinsky, Sonja

AU - Dowlatabadi, Hadi

AU - Mcdaniels, Timothy

PY - 2012/10

Y1 - 2012/10

N2 - Despite a great deal of research on public perceptions of climate change science, very little empirical work has attempted to investigate how members of the lay public might evaluate the justice dilemmas inherent within climate policy decision-making. This exploratory study contrasts arguments about justice from a mitigation perspective, with those from an adaptation perspective and draws insights about the contours of politically acceptable climate policy. Using think-aloud protocols and a structured elicitation approach with members of the lay public to generate quantitative and qualitative data, this study suggests that the two types of climate policy trigger different sets of arguments about justice. When asked about mitigation burden-sharing participants overwhelmingly invoke arguments about causality. In contrast, in discussions of adaptation participants emphasized the needs of the afflicted parties and their ability to cope. Furthermore, social and spatial distances were not a factor in allocation of mitigation burdens, but were used to discount the distribution of compensation towards adaptation. These initial data about public perceptions of justice in this area suggest that the public would view adaptation and mitigation as complements not substitutes. These findings also highlight the importance of exploring public reactions to the sub-components of climate policy individually.

AB - Despite a great deal of research on public perceptions of climate change science, very little empirical work has attempted to investigate how members of the lay public might evaluate the justice dilemmas inherent within climate policy decision-making. This exploratory study contrasts arguments about justice from a mitigation perspective, with those from an adaptation perspective and draws insights about the contours of politically acceptable climate policy. Using think-aloud protocols and a structured elicitation approach with members of the lay public to generate quantitative and qualitative data, this study suggests that the two types of climate policy trigger different sets of arguments about justice. When asked about mitigation burden-sharing participants overwhelmingly invoke arguments about causality. In contrast, in discussions of adaptation participants emphasized the needs of the afflicted parties and their ability to cope. Furthermore, social and spatial distances were not a factor in allocation of mitigation burdens, but were used to discount the distribution of compensation towards adaptation. These initial data about public perceptions of justice in this area suggest that the public would view adaptation and mitigation as complements not substitutes. These findings also highlight the importance of exploring public reactions to the sub-components of climate policy individually.

KW - Adaptation

KW - Climate policy

KW - Justice

KW - Mitigation

KW - Public perceptions

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84866169765&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84866169765&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.008

DO - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.008

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 862

EP - 876

JO - Global Environmental Change

JF - Global Environmental Change

SN - 0959-3780

IS - 4

ER -