未来资源研究所-气候洞察2020调查美国公众对气候变化和环境的看法（英文）-2020.9-30页_7mb

Summary of Climate Insights 2020: Natural Disasters

Core Content

The Climate Insights 2020 report examines American public opinion on natural disaster adaptation policies in the context of climate change. It is part of a series of surveys led by Jon A. Krosnick and Bo MacInnis, with support from Resources for the Future (RFF) and ReconMR. The survey was conducted between May 28 and August 16, 2020, and included 999 American adults.

The report explores how framing climate change in policy discussions affects public support for government action on wildfires and floods. It also investigates the role of material self-interest, political affiliation, and the concept of "sociotropic" reasoning in shaping opinions about these policies.

Main Findings

Public Support for Adaptation Policies

• Wildfires:

  • 76% support removing dead vegetation in forests.
  • 79% support helping Americans who lose their homes due to fires.
  • 85% support increasing the number of firefighters.
  • 87% support requiring use of fire-resistant building materials.
  • 58% support prohibiting development near fire-prone areas.
  • 47% support federal payment for relocation to safer areas.

• Floods:

  • 57% support prohibiting development in flood-prone areas.
  • 59% support paying people to move to safer places.
  • 66% support requiring flood insurance.
  • 77% support helping Americans who lose homes due to floods.
  • 84% support new building codes to minimize flood damage.
  • 87% support construction to encourage quicker water drainage.

Responsibility for Disaster Prevention

• A majority (71%) of Americans believe the federal government and state governments should work together to reduce wildfire damage.
• Only 2% want the federal government to take sole responsibility, while 28% think affected states should be primarily responsible.
• For floods, 72% believe both federal and state governments should collaborate, with 95% supporting the idea that flood-prone states should take responsibility.

Support for Insurance Subsidies

• 72% of respondents support government funding for fire insurance for low-income families.
• 68% support government funding for flood insurance for low-income families.
• These figures reflect a preference for fairness, as poor communities have fewer options and less ability to bear costs.

Political Party Preferences

• Democrats tend to support government intervention more than Republicans.
• Independents fall in the middle.
• Fire adaptation policies (e.g., removing dead vegetation) show near-equal support across all parties.
• Paying people to move from dangerous areas has the largest support gap between Democrats and Republicans.

Framing Effects

• The report tests the framing hypothesis, suggesting that how policies are framed (e.g., emphasizing climate change or not) can influence public support.
• Equivalency framing and emphasis framing are two key concepts explored:
  • Equivalency framing presents the same fact in different ways (e.g., saving 200 lives vs. 400 deaths).
  • Emphasis framing highlights specific attributes of a policy (e.g., job creation vs. environmental damage).
• Framing climate change as a cause of increased disaster severity may increase public support for adaptation policies.

Material Self-Interest and Sociotropic Reasoning

• Sociotropic reasoning—focusing on the well-being of the broader population—dominates policy opinion formation.
• Material self-interest has little impact on public support for disaster-related policies.
• The report suggests that low-income communities may be less supportive of policies that restrict development or relocation due to finite pool of worry theory, where people prioritize immediate concerns over distant ones.

Key Information

• The survey methodology involved random assignment of participants to different policy framing conditions.
• The policy support index was used to measure the average level of support across various adaptation policies.
• The data explorer tool allows users to view detailed survey results and is accessible via the RFF and Stanford websites.
• The report emphasizes the importance of fairness and cost-effectiveness in shaping public opinion on disaster policies.
• It highlights the complexity of public sentiment in the face of climate change, noting that while most support government action, there is divergence in who should bear the costs.

Conclusion

The Climate Insights 2020 report underscores the public's concern about natural disasters and the role of climate change in exacerbating their frequency and severity. It identifies a preference for government intervention in adaptation efforts, particularly in the form of prevention and risk reduction rather than relocation or direct financial compensation. The findings suggest that public opinion is influenced by framing and fairness concerns, and that policy design must consider these factors to be effective and equitable.

Authors and Institutions

• Bo MacInnis (economist, Stanford University) and Jon A. Krosnick (social psychologist, Stanford University) are the lead researchers.
• Resources for the Future (RFF) is the nonprofit research institution behind the project.
• The report is part of a long-term survey series initiated in 1997, focusing on American public opinion on climate change and related issues.

Licensing and Credits

• The report is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, meaning it can be shared and adapted for non-commercial purposes, but not for redistribution or modification.
• Credit should be given to MacInnis, Bo and Jon A. Krosnick. 2020. Climate Insights 2020: Natural Disasters. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
• The data is sourced from various institutions, and further questions should be directed to krosnick@stanford.edu.