Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-68cz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-10T22:57:02.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The importance of salience: public opinion and state policy action on climate change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 October 2018

Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo  and
John Poe
Rebecca Bromley-Trujillo*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Christopher Newport University, USA
John Poe
Affiliation:
Department of Health Management and Policy, University of Kentucky, USA
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

How does the salience of environmental issues influence climate policy adoption in the American states? This article considers how two aspects of public salience, issue problem status and issue attention, work with environmental interest group membership to influence climate policy adoption in the American states. We contribute to the theoretical development of issue salience and offer alternative measures that capture differences in salience across subnational units. We find evidence that states where climate change is perceived to be a problem, and where attention to environmental issues is high, are more likely to adopt relevant policies. Furthermore, states with Republican majorities in either legislative chamber are less likely to adopt climate policies. Our findings have implications for the impact of salience on the policy process.

Keywords

climate changeissue saliencepublic policystate politics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , June 2020 , pp. 280 - 304
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Abelson, RP (1988) Conviction. American Psychologist 43, 267–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Abramowitz, AI (1995) It’s Abortion, Stupid: Policy Voting in the 1992 Presidential Election. Journal of Politics 57, 176–186.Google Scholar
Aldrich, JH, Sullivan, JL and Borgida, E (1989) Foreign Affairs and Issue Voting: Do Presidential Candidates “Waltz Before a Blind Audience?”. The American Political Science Review 83, 123–141.Google Scholar
Allison, PD and Waterman, RP (2002) Fixed-Effects Negative Binomial Regression Models. Sociological Methodology 32, 247–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, K (2002) Direct Democracy and the Link between Public Opinion and State Abortion Policy. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 2, 372–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, L (2011) News: The Politics of Illusion. White Plains, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
Berry, FS (1994) Sizing up State Policy Innovation Research. Policy Studies Journal 22, 442–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, FS and Berry, WD (1992) Tax Innovation in the States: Capitalizing on Political Opportunity. American Journal of Political Science 36, 715–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, WD, Ringquist, EJ, Fording, RC and Hanson, RL (1998) Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science 42, 327–348.Google Scholar
Berry, WD, Ringquist, EJ, Fording, RC, Hanson, RL and Klarner, C (2010) Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States: A Re-appraisal. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 10, 117–135.Google Scholar
Bishin, B (2009) Tyranny of the Minority: The Subconstituency Politics Theory of Representation. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Bizer, GY, Visser, PS, Berent, MK and Krosnick, JA (2004) Importance, Knowledge, and Accessibility: Exploring the Dimensionality of Strength-Related Attitude Properties. In Saris WE and Sniderman PM (eds.), Studies in Public Opinion: Gauging Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Boden, TA, Marland, G and Andres, RJ (2017) National CO2 Emissions from Fossil-Fuel Burning, Cement Manufacture, and Gas Flaring: 1751-2014, Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, doi: 10.3334/CDIAC/00001_V2017.Google Scholar
Bohner, G and Dickel, N (2011) Attitudes and Attitude Change. Annual Review of Psychology 62, 391–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boninger, DS, Krosnick, JA, Berent, MK and Fabrigar, LR (1995) The Causes and Consequences of Attitude Importance. Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences 4, 159–189.Google Scholar
Bostrom, A, Morgan, G, Fischhoff, B and Read, D (1994) What Do People Know about Global Climate Change? 1. Mental models. Risk Analysis 14, 959–970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brace, P, Sims-Butler, K, Arceneaux, K and Johnson, M (2002) Public Opinion in the American States: New Perspectives Using National Survey Data. American Journal of Political Science 46, 173–189.Google Scholar
Bromley-Trujillo, R, Poe, J, Butler, JS and Davis, W (2016) The Spreading of Innovation: State Adoptions of Energy and Climate Change Policy. Review of Policy Research 33, 544–565. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12189.Google Scholar
Burden, BC and Sanberg, JNR (2003) Budget Rhetoric in Presidential Campaigns from 1952 to 2000. Political Behavior 25, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burstein, P (2003) The Impact of Public Opinion on Policy: A Review of an Agenda. Political Research Quarterly 56, 29–40.Google Scholar
Capstick, S, Whitmarsh, L, Poortinga, W, Pidgeon, N and Upham, P (2015) International Trends in Public Perceptions of Climate Change over the Past Quarter Century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 6, 35–61.Google Scholar
Carley, S (2011) The Era of State Energy Policy Innovation: A Review of Policy Instruments. Review of Policy Research 28, 265–294.Google Scholar
Carley, S and Miller, CJ (2012) Regulatory Stringency and Policy Drivers: A Reassessment of Renewable Portfolio Standards. Policy Studies Journal 40, 730–756.Google Scholar
Carpini, MXD, Keeter, S and Kennamer, JD (1994) Effects of the News Media Environment on Citizen Knowledge of State Politics and Government. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 71, 443–456.Google Scholar
Chandler, J (2009) Trendy Solutions: Why Do States Adopt Sustainable Energy Portfolio Standards? Energy Policy 37, 3274–3281.Google Scholar
Dahl, RA (1956) A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Daley, D and Garand, JC (2005) Horizontal Diffusion, Vertical Diffusion, and Internal Pressure in State Environmental Policymaking, 1989-1998. American Politics Research 33, 615–644.Google Scholar
Davenport, C and Lipton, E (2017) How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/us/politics/republican-leaders-climate-change.html.Google Scholar
Demski, C, Capstick, S, Pidgeon, N, Sosato, RG and Spence, A (2017) Experience of Extreme Weather Affects Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Responses. Climatic Change 140, 149–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorroh, J (2009) Statehouse Exodus. American Journalism Review 31, 20–36.Google Scholar
Dunlap, RE and McCright, A (2011) Organized Climate Change Denial. In: Schlosberg D, Dryzek J and Norgaard, R. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, Cambridge, 1, pp. 144–160.Google Scholar
Dunlap, RE, Xiao, C and McCright, A (2001) Politics and Environment in America: Partisan and Ideological Cleavages in Public Support for Environmentalism. Environmental Politics 10, 23–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enda, J, Matsa, KE and Boyles, JL (2014) America’s Shifting Statehouse Press. Pew Research Center’s Journalism Project. http://www.journalism.org/2014/07/10/americas-shifting-statehouse-press/ (accessed 12 February 2017).Google Scholar
Epstein, L and Segal, JA (2000) Measuring Issue Salience. American Journal of Political Science 44, 66–83.Google Scholar
Erikson, RS, Wright, GC and McIver, JP (1993) Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, A (2010) How Republicans Learned to Reject Climate Change. National Public Radio, https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125075282. (accessed 15 October 2018).Google Scholar
Green, W (2004) The Behaviour of the Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Limited Dependent Variable Models in the Presence of Fixed Effects. The Econometrics Journal 7, 98–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, DP and Meier, KJ (2003) Legislative Victory, Electoral Uncertainty: Explaining Outcomes in the Battles over Lesbian and Civil Rights. Review of Policy Research 20, 671–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, SP, Esler, M and Hays, CE (1996) Environmental Commitment Among the States: Integrating Alternative Approaches to State Environmental Policy. Publius 26, 41–58.Google Scholar
Hilbe, JM (2011) Negative Binomial Regression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huang, M-Y, Alavalapati, JRR, Carter, DR and Langholtz, MH (2007) Is the Choice of Renewable Portfolio Standards Random? Energy Policy 35, 5571–5575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, M, Brace, P and Arceneaux, K (2005) Public Opinion and Dynamic Representation in the American States: The Case of Environmental Attitudes. Social Science Quarterly 86, 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karch, A (2007) Emerging Issues and Future Directions in State Policy Diffusion Research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7, 54–80.Google Scholar
Kelemen, D (2010) Globalizing European Union Environmental Policy. Journal of European Public Policy 17, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, SY and Wolinsky-Nahmias, Y (2014) Cross-National Public Opinion on Climate Change: The Effects of Affluence and Vulnerability. Global Environmental Politics 13, 79–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klarner, C (2003) The Measurement of the Partisan Balance of State Government. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 3, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konisky, DM, Hughes, L and Kaylor, CH (2016) Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change Concern. Climatic Change 134, 533–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, JOpinions in the States. Available from http://climatepublicopinion.stanford.edu/sample-page/opinions-in-the-states/ (accessed 21 July 2017).Google Scholar
Lax, JR and Phillips, JH (2009) How Should We Estimate Opinion in the States? American Journal of Political Science 53, 107–121.Google Scholar
Lax, JR and Phillips, JH (2012) The Democratic Deficit in the States. American Journal of Political Science 56, 148–166.Google Scholar
Leiserowitz, A (2006) Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect, Imagery, and Values. Climate Change 77, 42–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyon, TP and Yin, H (2010) Why do States Adopt Renewable Portfolio Standards? An Empirical Investigation. Energy Journal 31, 131–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maibach, E, Roser-Renouf, C and Leiserowitz, A (2009) Global Warming’s Six Americas 2009: An Audience Segmentation Analysis. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change.Google Scholar
Matisoff, DC (2008) The Adoption of State Climate Change Policies and Renewable Portfolio Standards: Regional Diffusion or Internal Determinants? Review of Policy Research 25, 527–546.Google Scholar
Matisoff, DC and Edwards, J (2014) Kindred Spirits or Intergovernmental Competition? The Innovation and Diffusion of Energy Policies in the American States (1990–2008). Environmental Politics 23, 795–817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarthy, T (2014) Meet the Republicans in Congress who Don’t Believe Climate Change is Real. The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/17/climate-change-denial-scepticism-republicans-congress.Google Scholar
Monroe, AD (1998) Public Opinion and Policy, 1980–1993. Public Opinion Quarterly 62, 6–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mooney, CZ and Lee, M-H (1995) Legislative Morality in the American States: The Case of Pre‐Roe Abortion Regulation Reform. American Journal of Political Science 39, 599–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neundorf, A and Adams, J (2016) The Micro-Foundations of Party Competition and Issue Ownership: The Reciprocal Effects of Citizens’ Issue Salience and Party Attachments. British Journal of Political Science 1–22. doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000642.Google Scholar
Oehl, B, Schaffer, LM and Bernauer, T (2017) How to Measure Public Demand for Policies When There is no Appropriate Survey Data? Journal of Public Policy 37, 173–204.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E (2010) Polycentric Systems for Coping with Collective Action and Global Environmental Change. Global Environmental Change 20, 550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owen, AL, Conover, E, Videras, J and Wu, S (2012) Heat Waves, Droughts, and Preferences for Environmental Policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 31, 556–577.Google Scholar
Page, BI and Shapiro, RY (1983) The Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. American Political Science Review 77, 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabe, BG (2010) Greenhouse Governance: Addressing Climate Change in America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Reilly, S, Richey, S and Taylor, JB (2012) Using Google Search Data for State Politics Research: An Empirical Validity Test Using Roll-off Data. States Politics and Policy Quarterly 12, 146–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, TW, Bostrom, A, Read, D and Morgan, MG (2010) Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople. Risk Analysis 30, 1520–1538.Google ScholarPubMed
Ringquist, E and Garand, JC (1999) Policy Change in the American States. In Weber Ronald E and Brace Paul (eds.), American State and Local Politics. New York: Chatham House Publishing, 268–299.Google Scholar
Rogers, S (2015) Voter Knowledge of State Legislatures. Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Conference, Chicago IL.Google Scholar
Schreurs, MA and Tiberghien, Y (2007) Multi-Level Reinforcement: Explaining European Union Leadership in Climate Change Mitigation. Global Environmental Politics 7, 19–46.Google Scholar
Smith, TW (1985) The Polls: America’s Most Important Problems Part I: National and International. Public Opinion Quarterly 49, 264–274.Google Scholar
Squire, P (2007) Measuring State Legislative Professionalism: The Squire Index Revisited. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 7, 211–227.Google Scholar
Stimson, JA, MacKuen, MB and Erikson, RS (1995) Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89, 543–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoutenborough, JW and Beverlin, M (2008) Promoting Pollution-Free Energy: The Diffusion of State Net Metering Policies. Social Science Quarterly 89, 1230–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UNFCCC. Paris Agreement- Status of Ratification. https://unfccc.int/process/the-paris-agreement/status-of-ratification. (accessed 15 October 2018).Google Scholar
U.S. Climate Policy Maps (2013) Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. http://www.c2es.org/us-states-regions/policy-maps.Google Scholar
Walker, JL (1969) The Diffusion of Innovations Among the American States. American Political Science Review 63, 880–899.Google Scholar
Wheeler, SM (2008) State and Municipal Climate Change Plans: The First Generation. Journal of the American Planning Association 74, 481–496.Google Scholar
Wlezien, C (2005) On the Salience of Political Issues: The Problem with ‘Most Important Problem. Electoral Studies 24, 555–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yeager, DS, Larson, SB, Krosnick, JA, Tompson, T (2011) Measuring Americans' Issue Priorities: A New Version of the Most Important Problem Question Reveals More Concern about Global Warming and the Environment. Public Opinion Quarterly 75, 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahran, S, Brody, SD, Grover, H and Vedlitz, A (2006) Climate Change Vulnerability and Policy Support. Society & Natural Resources 19, 771–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J (1992) Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, J and Feldman, S (1992) A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36, 579–616.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Bromley-Trujillo and Poe Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/ES9IZ6
Link
Supplementary material: File

Bromley-Trujillo and Poe supplementary material

Bromley-Trujillo and Poe supplementary material 1

Download Bromley-Trujillo and Poe supplementary material(File)
File 1.7 MB