公众对减少城市空气污染政策的接受程度:一项基于人口的调查实验

C. Oltra, R. Sala, Sergi López‐Asensio, Silvia Germán
{"title":"公众对减少城市空气污染政策的接受程度:一项基于人口的调查实验","authors":"C. Oltra, R. Sala, Sergi López‐Asensio, Silvia Germán","doi":"10.22325/fes/res.2023.195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Low-emission zones, congestion charges and pedestrian areas have the potential to improve urban air quality. However, the lack of public and political support for these policies is often a significant obstacle to their introduction. In this article, we present the results of two studies. First, we investigated the public acceptability of three policies to reduce urban air pollution: pedestrianization, low emission zones and congestion charges. Second, based on an experimental online survey, we examined the effect of various framing conditions on the acceptability of congestion charges. The results show, first, that public acceptability is higher for pedestrianization and low emission zones and lower for congestion charging. Second, we find a positive effect on acceptability of information emphasizing the benefits of congestion charges and of positive labelling, comparing the wording “environmental contribution” with “urban toll”; and a negative effect of making political ideology prominent. Our findings suggest that while some interventions aimed at mitigating urban air pollution may be more readily supported than others, their acceptability can be enhanced (or diminished) through careful design and effective communication.","PeriodicalId":331063,"journal":{"name":"Revista Española de Sociología","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public acceptability of policies to reduce urban air pollution: A population-based survey experiment\",\"authors\":\"C. Oltra, R. Sala, Sergi López‐Asensio, Silvia Germán\",\"doi\":\"10.22325/fes/res.2023.195\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Low-emission zones, congestion charges and pedestrian areas have the potential to improve urban air quality. However, the lack of public and political support for these policies is often a significant obstacle to their introduction. In this article, we present the results of two studies. First, we investigated the public acceptability of three policies to reduce urban air pollution: pedestrianization, low emission zones and congestion charges. Second, based on an experimental online survey, we examined the effect of various framing conditions on the acceptability of congestion charges. The results show, first, that public acceptability is higher for pedestrianization and low emission zones and lower for congestion charging. Second, we find a positive effect on acceptability of information emphasizing the benefits of congestion charges and of positive labelling, comparing the wording “environmental contribution” with “urban toll”; and a negative effect of making political ideology prominent. Our findings suggest that while some interventions aimed at mitigating urban air pollution may be more readily supported than others, their acceptability can be enhanced (or diminished) through careful design and effective communication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":331063,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Española de Sociología\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Española de Sociología\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2023.195\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Española de Sociología","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22325/fes/res.2023.195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

低排放区、拥堵费和步行区都有可能改善城市空气质量。然而,缺乏对这些政策的公众和政治支持往往是实施这些政策的重大障碍。在这篇文章中,我们介绍了两项研究的结果。首先,我们调查了公众对三种减少城市空气污染的政策的接受程度:行人专用区、低排放区和拥堵费。其次,基于一项在线实验调查,我们考察了不同框架条件对拥堵费可接受性的影响。结果表明:①公众对行人专用区和低排放区的接受度较高,对拥堵收费的接受度较低;其次,通过比较“环境贡献”和“城市收费”的措辞,我们发现强调拥堵费和积极标签的好处的信息对可接受性有积极影响;以及政治意识形态突出的负面影响。我们的研究结果表明,虽然一些旨在减轻城市空气污染的干预措施可能比其他干预措施更容易得到支持,但通过精心设计和有效沟通,它们的可接受性可以提高(或降低)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Public acceptability of policies to reduce urban air pollution: A population-based survey experiment
Low-emission zones, congestion charges and pedestrian areas have the potential to improve urban air quality. However, the lack of public and political support for these policies is often a significant obstacle to their introduction. In this article, we present the results of two studies. First, we investigated the public acceptability of three policies to reduce urban air pollution: pedestrianization, low emission zones and congestion charges. Second, based on an experimental online survey, we examined the effect of various framing conditions on the acceptability of congestion charges. The results show, first, that public acceptability is higher for pedestrianization and low emission zones and lower for congestion charging. Second, we find a positive effect on acceptability of information emphasizing the benefits of congestion charges and of positive labelling, comparing the wording “environmental contribution” with “urban toll”; and a negative effect of making political ideology prominent. Our findings suggest that while some interventions aimed at mitigating urban air pollution may be more readily supported than others, their acceptability can be enhanced (or diminished) through careful design and effective communication.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信