TY - JOUR
T1 - Preferences for change
T2 - Do individuals prefer voluntary actions, soft regulations, or hard regulations to decrease fossil fuel consumption?
AU - Attari, Shahzeen Z.
AU - Schoen, Mary
AU - Davidson, Cliff I.
AU - DeKay, Michael L.
AU - Bruine de Bruin, Wändi
AU - Dawes, Robyn
AU - Small, Mitchell J.
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the Environmental Research and Education Foundation that granted the Francois Fiessinger Scholarship to the primary author, as well as the National Science Foundation Center for Sustainable Engineering (CSE) grant number DUE-0442618. The authors would also like to thank Elizabeth M. Hohenstein for her assistance in data collection. Additionally, we gratefully acknowledge the suggestions made by George Loewenstein and the anonymous reviewers.
PY - 2009/4/15
Y1 - 2009/4/15
N2 - Pittsburgh residents (n = 209) reported their preferences for voluntary actions, soft regulations, and hard regulations to (a) limit the number of SUVs and trucks and (b) increase green energy use for household energy consumption. These two goals were presented in one of two motivating frames, as addressing either environmental or national security issues. For the goal of limiting SUVs and trucks, results indicated that participants favored voluntary actions over hard regulations, and soft regulations over voluntary actions. For the goal of increasing green energy, results indicated that participants preferred both voluntary actions and soft regulations over hard regulations, but had no significant preference between voluntary actions and soft regulations. How the problems were framed did not significantly affect participants' willingness to accept voluntary actions or regulations. Participants' environmental attitudes (as assessed using the New Ecological Paradigm scale) had a strong positive relationship with support for regulatory strategies intended to change the behaviors in question. Women were more likely to support voluntary actions than men. The loss of personal freedom was frequently mentioned as a reason for saying no to hard regulations.
AB - Pittsburgh residents (n = 209) reported their preferences for voluntary actions, soft regulations, and hard regulations to (a) limit the number of SUVs and trucks and (b) increase green energy use for household energy consumption. These two goals were presented in one of two motivating frames, as addressing either environmental or national security issues. For the goal of limiting SUVs and trucks, results indicated that participants favored voluntary actions over hard regulations, and soft regulations over voluntary actions. For the goal of increasing green energy, results indicated that participants preferred both voluntary actions and soft regulations over hard regulations, but had no significant preference between voluntary actions and soft regulations. How the problems were framed did not significantly affect participants' willingness to accept voluntary actions or regulations. Participants' environmental attitudes (as assessed using the New Ecological Paradigm scale) had a strong positive relationship with support for regulatory strategies intended to change the behaviors in question. Women were more likely to support voluntary actions than men. The loss of personal freedom was frequently mentioned as a reason for saying no to hard regulations.
KW - Energy conservation
KW - Environmental behavior
KW - Personal freedom
KW - Preferences for change
KW - Regulations
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=62449224997&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=62449224997&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.007
DO - 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.10.007
M3 - Short Survey Article
AN - SCOPUS:62449224997
SN - 0921-8009
VL - 68
SP - 1701
EP - 1710
JO - Ecological Economics
JF - Ecological Economics
IS - 6
ER -