选择保护:在适应气候变化方面,公众支持洪水防御而非迁移

Jan Freihardt, Mark T. Buntaine, Thomas Bernauer
{"title":"选择保护:在适应气候变化方面,公众支持洪水防御而非迁移","authors":"Jan Freihardt, Mark T. Buntaine, Thomas Bernauer","doi":"10.1088/1748-9326/ad6781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Policy makers worldwide face tough choices over how to prioritize public funding for adaptation to climate change. One particularly difficult choice is whether to opt for policies that promote relocation away from flood risks or infrastructure investments that protect against flooding. Local communities commonly prefer protective infrastructure, but it is less obvious that the general public will support this approach due to the growing costs. We study public opinion on these adaptation approaches using a choice experiment with nationally representative samples in the United States and Germany (n = 2,400 each). We asked participants to prioritize federal funding between two hypothetical, equally sized communities differing in their adaptation strategy, flood frequency, lives and economic assets at risk, economic vitality, geographic distance, and political orientation. In both countries, we find surprisingly strong support for protective infrastructure over relocation policies among the general public, even under conditions where relocation could be an attractive alternative for addressing the growing costs of protective infrastructure and rebuilding efforts.","PeriodicalId":507917,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Research Letters","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Choosing to protect: Public support for flood defense over relocation in climate change adaptation\",\"authors\":\"Jan Freihardt, Mark T. Buntaine, Thomas Bernauer\",\"doi\":\"10.1088/1748-9326/ad6781\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Policy makers worldwide face tough choices over how to prioritize public funding for adaptation to climate change. One particularly difficult choice is whether to opt for policies that promote relocation away from flood risks or infrastructure investments that protect against flooding. Local communities commonly prefer protective infrastructure, but it is less obvious that the general public will support this approach due to the growing costs. We study public opinion on these adaptation approaches using a choice experiment with nationally representative samples in the United States and Germany (n = 2,400 each). We asked participants to prioritize federal funding between two hypothetical, equally sized communities differing in their adaptation strategy, flood frequency, lives and economic assets at risk, economic vitality, geographic distance, and political orientation. In both countries, we find surprisingly strong support for protective infrastructure over relocation policies among the general public, even under conditions where relocation could be an attractive alternative for addressing the growing costs of protective infrastructure and rebuilding efforts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":507917,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Research Letters\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Research Letters\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6781\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Research Letters","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ad6781","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

全世界的政策制定者都面临着如何将公共资金优先用于适应气候变化的艰难抉择。一个特别困难的选择是,是选择促进远离洪水风险的搬迁政策,还是选择防止洪水的基础设施投资。地方社区通常更倾向于保护性基础设施,但由于成本不断增加,公众是否会支持这种方法就不那么明显了。我们在美国和德国各抽取了具有全国代表性的样本(n = 2,400),通过选择实验研究了公众对这些适应方法的看法。我们要求参与者在两个规模相当的假想社区之间优先考虑联邦资金,这两个社区在适应策略、洪水频率、面临风险的生命和经济资产、经济活力、地理距离和政治取向方面各不相同。我们发现,在这两个国家中,即使在搬迁可能是解决保护性基础设施和重建工作日益增长的成本的一个有吸引力的替代方案的条件下,普通民众也出人意料地强烈支持保护性基础设施而非搬迁政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Choosing to protect: Public support for flood defense over relocation in climate change adaptation
Policy makers worldwide face tough choices over how to prioritize public funding for adaptation to climate change. One particularly difficult choice is whether to opt for policies that promote relocation away from flood risks or infrastructure investments that protect against flooding. Local communities commonly prefer protective infrastructure, but it is less obvious that the general public will support this approach due to the growing costs. We study public opinion on these adaptation approaches using a choice experiment with nationally representative samples in the United States and Germany (n = 2,400 each). We asked participants to prioritize federal funding between two hypothetical, equally sized communities differing in their adaptation strategy, flood frequency, lives and economic assets at risk, economic vitality, geographic distance, and political orientation. In both countries, we find surprisingly strong support for protective infrastructure over relocation policies among the general public, even under conditions where relocation could be an attractive alternative for addressing the growing costs of protective infrastructure and rebuilding efforts.
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