Attitudes toward climate change mitigation policies: a review of measures and a construct of policy attitudes

Research on policy support or public acceptability of climate change policies is proliferating. There is, however, a great diversity in how these evaluative responses have been defined, operationalized, and measured across studies. In order to shed some light on this subject, we reviewed 118 studies published over the last 15 years aiming at measurement of policy <i>acceptability</i>, <i>acceptance, support</i>, and other responses to climate change mitigation policies. We found that conceptual vagueness and weak theoretical embedding are pervasive in the field, which leads to uncertainty over what is being measured, ambiguity of policy recommendations, and difficulties in comparing empirical results. In response, we propose a construct of policy attitudes as an overarching concept comprising the diversity of measures and constructs already in use. The purpose of the construct is to serve as a common basis for operationalization and survey design. In order to inform policy makers, researchers should be clear in how they formulate surveys with a focus on questions of importance to research and policy-making. <b>Key policy insights</b><i>Acceptability</i>, <i>acceptance</i>, and <i>support</i> are defined as distinct and possibly empirically distinguishable classes of responses evaluating a policy proposal. These responses are expressions of underlying <i>policy attitudes</i>.People may respond to policies in other ways as well, including lack of interest.There is no popularity threshold for a policy to be safe to implement, but instead it is a matter of identifying the conditions of policy support or other responses.Results obtained using different measures of mitigation policy attitudes vary widely with respect to the characteristics of the policy in question and the measured response. Thus, great care must be taken when designing surveys and interpreting their results. <i>Acceptability</i>, <i>acceptance</i>, and <i>support</i> are defined as distinct and possibly empirically distinguishable classes of responses evaluating a policy proposal. These responses are expressions of underlying <i>policy attitudes</i>. People may respond to policies in other ways as well, including lack of interest. There is no popularity threshold for a policy to be safe to implement, but instead it is a matter of identifying the conditions of policy support or other responses. Results obtained using different measures of mitigation policy attitudes vary widely with respect to the characteristics of the policy in question and the measured response. Thus, great care must be taken when designing surveys and interpreting their results.

有关气候变化政策的政策支持度与公众可接受性的研究正呈爆发式增长。然而，现有研究中，这类评价性回应的定义、操作化与测量路径存在显著异质性。为厘清该领域的研究现状，我们梳理了过去15年间发表的118项针对气候变化减缓政策的政策可接受性、接纳度、支持度及其他回应的测量研究。本研究发现，该领域普遍存在概念模糊与理论嵌入不足的问题，这直接导致测量对象界定不清、政策建议模糊不明，且难以开展实证研究结果的跨研究比较。对此，我们提出将政策态度作为统合性构念，涵盖当前已被使用的各类测量维度与研究构念。该构念的核心目的是为测量操作化与问卷设计提供统一的基准框架。为向政策制定者提供有效决策参考，研究者在设计问卷时应清晰聚焦于与研究目标及政策制定相关的核心问题。

<b>核心政策启示</b>
<i>可接受性</i>、<i>接纳度</i>与<i>支持度</i>被界定为评估政策提案时的不同类别回应，且在实证层面可能具有可区分性。此类回应均为潜在<i>政策态度</i>的外在表现。公众对政策的回应还可表现为其他形式，例如缺乏兴趣。一项政策能否安全推行并无统一的受欢迎程度阈值，关键在于识别政策支持或其他回应的形成条件。采用不同测量方式得到的减缓政策态度研究结果，会因所涉政策的特征与测量的回应类型不同而存在显著差异。因此，在设计问卷与解读研究结果时需格外谨慎。

<i>可接受性</i>、<i>接纳度</i>与<i>支持度</i>被界定为评估政策提案时的不同类别回应，且在实证层面可能具有可区分性。此类回应均为潜在<i>政策态度</i>的外在表现。公众对政策的回应还可表现为其他形式，例如缺乏兴趣。一项政策能否安全推行并无统一的受欢迎程度阈值，关键在于识别政策支持或其他回应的形成条件。采用不同测量方式得到的减缓政策态度研究结果，会因所涉政策的特征与测量的回应类型不同而存在显著差异。因此，在设计问卷与解读研究结果时需格外谨慎。