| Popis: |
Environmental policies often face harsh opposition before and around their implementation, yet can harness widespread acceptance later on. This was shown, for example, for waste taxes (Carattini et al., 2018) and congestion charges (Schuitema et al., 2010). In this study, we investigate the development of approval for carbon taxes and changes in pro-environmental behavior around the implementation of a carbon tax in Austria. We also include experimental manipulations to examine whether and how carbon tax approval can be enhanced. Regularly, approval for forthcoming policies is not predictive of approval for and compliance with implemented policies (e.g., Carattini et al., 2018; Schuitema et al., 2010). For this reason, some researchers differentiate between acceptability (verbally approving of a policy before implementation) and acceptance (behaviorally revealed compliance of or verbally stated approval for an implemented policy; see, e.g., Schade & Schlag, 2003; Schuitema et al., 2010). We argue that this acceptability-acceptance gap might be a methodological chimera resulting from the fact that opinion polling typically ignores that the implementation of environmental policies itself changes the contextual boundaries (i.e., "behavioral costs"; see Kaiser, 2021; Kaiser et al., 2010) of acceptability and acceptance. For example, people could still start separating their waste after a waste tax has been implemented, even if they disagreed with the tax before implementation (Carattini et al., 2018), because non-compliance could be punished and people experience positive consequences of the policy (e.g., Schuitema et al., 2010). In this view, the acceptability-acceptance gap is comparable with the attitude-behavior gap in attitude research (see, e.g., Gifford, 2014; Kollmuss & Agyeman, 2002). We hypothesize that approval for carbon taxes will undergo a similar transition. In a longitudinal study, we observe the reasons for a potential change in policy approval before and after the implementation of a carbon tax in Austria. Assumingly, the implementation of a carbon tax itself changes the relative burdens (i.e., behavioral costs) for engagement in pro-environmental behavior. For example, after a carbon tax has been introduced, going by car becomes more expensive, which increases the likelihood that people prefer going by bike (for an explanation of behavioral costs and their effects on behavioral engagement, see, e.g., Kaiser, 2021; Kaiser et al., 2010). Next to assessing verbal approval for the carbon tax, we measure environmental attitudes, values (environmental and right-wing values), political orientation, and observe changes in the rates of pro-environmental behavior that is targeted by the carbon tax (e.g., heating and mobility). Additionally, we include experimental manipulations to investigate how the approval for carbon taxes can be modified through targeted communication and policy characteristics. Concerning communication about the necessity to implement a carbon tax, we assume that people’s values influence their perception of the credibility and importance of evidence. People with a political right-wing worldview and low pro-environmental values tend to be most skeptical about climate change (Whitmarsh, 2011). We assume that this is partly because current climate change communication strategies tend to appeal to people with a left-wing political orientation (Marshall et al., 2015); they appeal less to the political right (Lindeman et al., 2005; Schwartz, 1996). We therefore suggest that both, the values someone holds as part of their political affiliation and/or orientation and the values with which climate change communication is framed, influence the approval of carbon taxes. The included experiment seeks to test whether citizens’ support of environmental policies in their implementation phase can be increased by creating a fit between their political orientation and the values these messages are said to serve and enhance. |
