是的,可以吗?参与式愿景过程对感知气候效能的影响

IF 3.3 Q2 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Jonas Peisker, T. Schinko
{"title":"是的,可以吗?参与式愿景过程对感知气候效能的影响","authors":"Jonas Peisker, T. Schinko","doi":"10.3389/fclim.2023.1129789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Lack of perceived efficacy can be an important barrier to climate mitigation action at various scales. Here, we study how a participatory visioning process, the Climate Modernity workshop in Styria, Austria, affected participants' efficacy outcomes. To this end, we conducted two survey waves eliciting self- and response efficacy regarding possible mitigation measures. We estimate difference-in-differences models and corroborate the findings using qualitative participant feedback. The results indicate that the intervention tended to decrease personal self-efficacy, in particular with regard to controversial topics like the transformation of the transport system. This suggests that participatory stakeholder processes can draw attention to the conflict potential and complexity of specific mitigation policies, decreasing the perceived feasibility of implementing them. The workshop, however, tended to increase particpants' personal response efficacy, particularly regarding voting for pro-environmental candidates. Accordingly, participatory processes could raise trust in the democratic process and in the effectiveness of making a green voting decision.","PeriodicalId":33632,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Climate","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Yes we can? Effects of a participatory visioning process on perceived climate efficacy\",\"authors\":\"Jonas Peisker, T. Schinko\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fclim.2023.1129789\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Lack of perceived efficacy can be an important barrier to climate mitigation action at various scales. Here, we study how a participatory visioning process, the Climate Modernity workshop in Styria, Austria, affected participants' efficacy outcomes. To this end, we conducted two survey waves eliciting self- and response efficacy regarding possible mitigation measures. We estimate difference-in-differences models and corroborate the findings using qualitative participant feedback. The results indicate that the intervention tended to decrease personal self-efficacy, in particular with regard to controversial topics like the transformation of the transport system. This suggests that participatory stakeholder processes can draw attention to the conflict potential and complexity of specific mitigation policies, decreasing the perceived feasibility of implementing them. The workshop, however, tended to increase particpants' personal response efficacy, particularly regarding voting for pro-environmental candidates. Accordingly, participatory processes could raise trust in the democratic process and in the effectiveness of making a green voting decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Climate\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Climate\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1129789\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Climate","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2023.1129789","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

缺乏公认的效力可能是各种规模的气候缓解行动的一个重要障碍。在这里,我们研究了参与式愿景过程,即奥地利施蒂里亚的气候现代性研讨会,如何影响参与者的效能结果。为此,我们对可能的缓解措施进行了两轮调查,以了解自我和应对效果。我们估计差异中的差异模型,并使用定性参与者反馈证实了研究结果。结果表明,干预倾向于降低个人自我效能感,特别是在交通系统转型等有争议的话题上。这表明,参与性利益攸关方进程可能会引起人们对具体缓解政策的潜在冲突和复杂性的关注,从而降低了执行这些政策的可行性。然而,工作坊倾向于提高参与者的个人反应效能,特别是在支持环保候选人的投票方面。因此,参与性进程可以提高对民主进程和作出绿色投票决定的有效性的信任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Yes we can? Effects of a participatory visioning process on perceived climate efficacy
Lack of perceived efficacy can be an important barrier to climate mitigation action at various scales. Here, we study how a participatory visioning process, the Climate Modernity workshop in Styria, Austria, affected participants' efficacy outcomes. To this end, we conducted two survey waves eliciting self- and response efficacy regarding possible mitigation measures. We estimate difference-in-differences models and corroborate the findings using qualitative participant feedback. The results indicate that the intervention tended to decrease personal self-efficacy, in particular with regard to controversial topics like the transformation of the transport system. This suggests that participatory stakeholder processes can draw attention to the conflict potential and complexity of specific mitigation policies, decreasing the perceived feasibility of implementing them. The workshop, however, tended to increase particpants' personal response efficacy, particularly regarding voting for pro-environmental candidates. Accordingly, participatory processes could raise trust in the democratic process and in the effectiveness of making a green voting decision.
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
Frontiers in Climate
Frontiers in Climate Environmental Science-Environmental Science (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
233
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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