限制对环境政策的支持:不公平是比成本和无效更关键的障碍

IF 5.8 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q2 ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL Ambio Pub Date : 2024-09-17 DOI:10.1007/s13280-024-02074-9
Magnus Bergquist
{"title":"限制对环境政策的支持:不公平是比成本和无效更关键的障碍","authors":"Magnus Bergquist","doi":"10.1007/s13280-024-02074-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Costs and policy-specific beliefs, such as effectiveness and fairness, are central factors for supporting environmental taxes. Less is known about how much each of these factors is limiting support. Across four experiments, I investigate to which extent high costs, ineffectiveness, and unfairness constrain support for environmental taxes. Results consistently demonstrate that perceived unfairness poses a greater barrier to support than extensive costs or ineffectiveness. These findings were robust across three environmental taxes (meat tax, plastic tax, and carbon tax), across three cultures (USA, UK, and India), and were replicated using a representative US sample. Furthermore, delving deeper into the consequences of perceived unfairness, results showed that distributional unfairness was a stronger barrier to support than procedural unfairness. Beyond limiting support, being presented with an unfair tax proposal led participants to perceive the tax as less effective and to express lower trust in policymakers than when receiving a fairer tax proposal.</p>","PeriodicalId":461,"journal":{"name":"Ambio","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Limiting support for environmental policies: Unfairness is a more critical barrier than cost and ineffectiveness\",\"authors\":\"Magnus Bergquist\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s13280-024-02074-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Costs and policy-specific beliefs, such as effectiveness and fairness, are central factors for supporting environmental taxes. Less is known about how much each of these factors is limiting support. Across four experiments, I investigate to which extent high costs, ineffectiveness, and unfairness constrain support for environmental taxes. Results consistently demonstrate that perceived unfairness poses a greater barrier to support than extensive costs or ineffectiveness. These findings were robust across three environmental taxes (meat tax, plastic tax, and carbon tax), across three cultures (USA, UK, and India), and were replicated using a representative US sample. Furthermore, delving deeper into the consequences of perceived unfairness, results showed that distributional unfairness was a stronger barrier to support than procedural unfairness. Beyond limiting support, being presented with an unfair tax proposal led participants to perceive the tax as less effective and to express lower trust in policymakers than when receiving a fairer tax proposal.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":461,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ambio\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ambio\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02074-9\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ambio","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02074-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

成本和特定政策信念(如有效性和公平性)是支持环境税的核心因素。但人们对这些因素在多大程度上限制了支持率还知之甚少。通过四个实验,我调查了高成本、低效率和不公平在多大程度上限制了人们对环境税的支持。结果一致表明,与广泛的成本或无效性相比,感知到的不公平对支持率构成了更大的障碍。这些研究结果在三种环境税(肉类税、塑料税和碳税)、三种文化(美国、英国和印度)中都很稳健,并在具有代表性的美国样本中得到了验证。此外,深入研究感知到的不公平的后果,结果表明分配不公比程序不公更能阻碍支持。除了限制支持外,与收到更公平的税收建议时相比,收到不公平税收建议时,参与者会认为税收的效果较差,对政策制定者的信任度较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Limiting support for environmental policies: Unfairness is a more critical barrier than cost and ineffectiveness

Costs and policy-specific beliefs, such as effectiveness and fairness, are central factors for supporting environmental taxes. Less is known about how much each of these factors is limiting support. Across four experiments, I investigate to which extent high costs, ineffectiveness, and unfairness constrain support for environmental taxes. Results consistently demonstrate that perceived unfairness poses a greater barrier to support than extensive costs or ineffectiveness. These findings were robust across three environmental taxes (meat tax, plastic tax, and carbon tax), across three cultures (USA, UK, and India), and were replicated using a representative US sample. Furthermore, delving deeper into the consequences of perceived unfairness, results showed that distributional unfairness was a stronger barrier to support than procedural unfairness. Beyond limiting support, being presented with an unfair tax proposal led participants to perceive the tax as less effective and to express lower trust in policymakers than when receiving a fairer tax proposal.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ambio
Ambio 环境科学-工程:环境
CiteScore
14.30
自引率
3.10%
发文量
123
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Explores the link between anthropogenic activities and the environment, Ambio encourages multi- or interdisciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. Ambio addresses the scientific, social, economic, and cultural factors that influence the condition of the human environment. Ambio particularly encourages multi- or inter-disciplinary submissions with explicit management or policy recommendations. For more than 45 years Ambio has brought international perspective to important developments in environmental research, policy and related activities for an international readership of specialists, generalists, students, decision-makers and interested laymen.
期刊最新文献
Spatial synergies for urban foraging: A South African example. A conceptual framework of indicators for the suitability of forests for outdoor recreation. Urban ecosystem services research in Russia: Systematic review on the state of the art. Publisher Correction: The interplay between the urban development of Rome (Italy) and the Tiber River floods: A review of two millennia of socio-hydrological history. Recurrent discharges of non-petroleum substances from chemical tankers in Swedish marine Natura 2000 sites are against the aims of EU Directives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1