美国人对“碳排放”的称呼

IF 3 3区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture Pub Date : 2023-01-02 DOI:10.1080/17524032.2022.2156907
Francis A. Commerçon, Matthew H. Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, Jennifer P. Carman, S. Rosenthal, A. Leiserowitz
{"title":"美国人对“碳排放”的称呼","authors":"Francis A. Commerçon, Matthew H. Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, Jennifer P. Carman, S. Rosenthal, A. Leiserowitz","doi":"10.1080/17524032.2022.2156907","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n The effectiveness of climate change communication depends in part on how people perceive common terms used to describe key climate concepts. In a mixed methods study (N = 2859), we examined affect, top-of-mind associations, beliefs, policy support, and behavioral intentions elicited by terms communicators colloquially use to refer to the gases responsible for climate change: greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, and carbon pollution. Open-ended responses revealed that, of the three terms, carbon pollution evoked more negative images of harm; carbon emissions evoked more negative images of pollution; and greenhouse gas emissions evoked more images of climate change. Respondents had generally stronger negative affect toward carbon emissions and carbon pollution than greenhouse gas emissions. Although Americans had similar beliefs about carbon emissions and carbon pollution, they linked both terms more strongly than greenhouse gas emissions to harms to human health and the environment and to poor air quality.","PeriodicalId":54205,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the Terms Americans Use to Refer to “Carbon Emissions”\",\"authors\":\"Francis A. Commerçon, Matthew H. Goldberg, Karine Lacroix, Jennifer P. Carman, S. Rosenthal, A. Leiserowitz\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17524032.2022.2156907\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT\\n The effectiveness of climate change communication depends in part on how people perceive common terms used to describe key climate concepts. In a mixed methods study (N = 2859), we examined affect, top-of-mind associations, beliefs, policy support, and behavioral intentions elicited by terms communicators colloquially use to refer to the gases responsible for climate change: greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, and carbon pollution. Open-ended responses revealed that, of the three terms, carbon pollution evoked more negative images of harm; carbon emissions evoked more negative images of pollution; and greenhouse gas emissions evoked more images of climate change. Respondents had generally stronger negative affect toward carbon emissions and carbon pollution than greenhouse gas emissions. Although Americans had similar beliefs about carbon emissions and carbon pollution, they linked both terms more strongly than greenhouse gas emissions to harms to human health and the environment and to poor air quality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54205,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2156907\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2022.2156907","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

气候变化传播的有效性部分取决于人们如何理解用于描述关键气候概念的常用术语。在一项混合方法研究中(N = 2859),我们研究了传播者在指代导致气候变化的气体(温室气体排放、碳排放和碳污染)时通常使用的术语所引发的影响、最重要的联想、信念、政策支持和行为意图。开放式回答显示,在这三个术语中,碳污染引发了更多的负面伤害形象;碳排放引发了更多的污染负面形象;温室气体排放引发了更多关于气候变化的画面。受访者对碳排放和碳污染的负面影响普遍强于对温室气体排放的负面影响。尽管美国人对碳排放和碳污染有着相似的看法,但与温室气体排放相比,他们更强烈地将这两个术语与危害人类健康和环境以及空气质量差联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Evaluating the Terms Americans Use to Refer to “Carbon Emissions”
ABSTRACT The effectiveness of climate change communication depends in part on how people perceive common terms used to describe key climate concepts. In a mixed methods study (N = 2859), we examined affect, top-of-mind associations, beliefs, policy support, and behavioral intentions elicited by terms communicators colloquially use to refer to the gases responsible for climate change: greenhouse gas emissions, carbon emissions, and carbon pollution. Open-ended responses revealed that, of the three terms, carbon pollution evoked more negative images of harm; carbon emissions evoked more negative images of pollution; and greenhouse gas emissions evoked more images of climate change. Respondents had generally stronger negative affect toward carbon emissions and carbon pollution than greenhouse gas emissions. Although Americans had similar beliefs about carbon emissions and carbon pollution, they linked both terms more strongly than greenhouse gas emissions to harms to human health and the environment and to poor air quality.
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
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
7.40%
发文量
53
期刊介绍: Environmental Communication is an international, peer-reviewed forum for multidisciplinary research and analysis assessing the many intersections among communication, media, society, and environmental issues. These include but are not limited to debates over climate change, natural resources, sustainability, conservation, wildlife, ecosystems, water, environmental health, food and agriculture, energy, and emerging technologies. Submissions should contribute to our understanding of scientific controversies, political developments, policy solutions, institutional change, cultural trends, media portrayals, public opinion and participation, and/or professional decisions. Articles often seek to bridge gaps between theory and practice, and are written in a style that is broadly accessible and engaging.
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Trust in Science and Media Use on Public Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change: A Meta-analysis United Nations Environment Programme Initiatives for Communicating Environmental Big Data: Considering DEAL and WESR Growing Natural Connectiresons: The Effects of Modality and Type of Nature on Connectedness to Nature Cross-Country Analysis of the Association between Media Coverage and Exposure to Climate News with Awareness, Risk Perceptions, and Protest Participation Intention in 110 Countries The Worth of Nature: Valuations of Glaciers in Alaskan and Norwegian Media Discourse
×
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