Meta-analyses of fifteen determinants of public opinion about climate change taxes and laws

The successful implementation of climate change mitigation policies, such as taxes and laws aimed at reducing carbon emissions, hinges on public acceptance. However, understanding the determinants of this acceptance remains a significant challenge. Existing research, spanning numerous disciplines, offers inconclusive results regarding the factors influencing public opinion on these policies. Some studies highlight the importance of perceived fairness and effectiveness, while others find weaker evidence for the role of trust, values, and demographics. This study addresses this gap by conducting a series of meta-analyses to synthesize findings from a large body of research and identify key determinants of public opinion on climate change taxes and laws. The aim is to provide clear insights to researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to inform the design of more effective and socially acceptable climate policy instruments. The focus is on policy instruments (taxes and laws) specifically aimed at mitigating climate change, excluding broader policies or sustainable energy solutions.

A substantial body of research across various disciplines has investigated public opinion regarding climate change taxes and laws. However, the results have been inconsistent and inconclusive. While some studies have provided compelling evidence for the importance of perceived fairness and effectiveness, others have found weaker evidence for the role of trust, values, and demographic factors. This lack of consistency necessitates a meta-analytic approach to synthesize existing research and draw more robust conclusions about the determinants of public acceptance.

This meta-analysis included 89 datasets from 51 articles across 33 countries, encompassing a total of 119,465 participants. The datasets were selected based on a set of rigorous eligibility criteria. Studies had to assess public opinion on climate change taxes or laws using quantitative survey methods, with a focus on policies explicitly aimed at mitigating climate change. The 15 determinants investigated were categorized into four groups: policy-specific beliefs, climate change evaluations, psychological factors, and demographic factors. Separate random-effects meta-analyses were performed for each determinant using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Publication bias and heterogeneity were assessed using appropriate statistical methods. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted to investigate potential variations in effects across subtypes of determinants, policy domains (regulations versus economic policies), and sampling regions (Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceania). The search for eligible studies involved multiple strategies including database searches (EconLit, GreenFILE, International Political Science Abstracts, International Bibliography of Social Science, PsychINFO, and ERIC), review of reference lists, examination of mailing lists and conference programs. Data extraction involved coding descriptive information, effect sizes (Pearson correlation coefficients), and information for subgroup analyses.

The meta-analysis revealed that perceived fairness and effectiveness were the strongest determinants of public opinion on climate change taxes and laws. Fairness, specifically distributional fairness (how fairly policies distribute costs and benefits), had the strongest relationship (r = 0.73). Effectiveness, particularly in mitigating climate change, was the second strongest determinant (r = 0.50). Climate change concern showed a strong positive relationship (r = 0.48), while risk perception and seriousness exhibited medium-sized effects. Climate change belief showed a weak-to-medium relationship (r = 0.23), varying across regions. Knowledge about climate change had a weak positive relationship (r = 0.14), with no significant difference between objective and subjective knowledge. Self-transcendent values were positively associated (r = 0.26), while self-enhancement values had a weak negative relationship (r = -0.09). Trust in implementing institutions (r=0.43) was stronger than trust in political institutions (r=0.21). Political ideology (left-right) showed a small-to-medium negative relationship (r = -0.18), stronger in North America. Education (r = 0.13), age (r = -0.07), and income (r = 0.04) showed weak effects. Gender had a negligible effect. Subgroup analyses revealed stronger relationships for regulations compared to economic policies and regional variations in the effects of self-transcendent values and trust. Publication bias was not a major concern.

The findings strongly support the importance of perceived fairness and effectiveness in shaping public opinion on climate change policies. Distributional fairness, ensuring equitable distribution of costs and benefits, appears particularly crucial. The strong relationship between climate change concern and policy support highlights the need for effective communication strategies emphasizing the risks and consequences of inaction. While psychological factors (values and trust) and demographic variables played a role, their effects were generally smaller than those of perceived fairness and effectiveness. Regional variations in effects suggest that policy design needs to consider cultural and institutional contexts. The limitations of relying on observational studies necessitate future research using randomized controlled trials to explore causal relationships and test specific interventions to improve policy acceptance.

This meta-analysis demonstrates the critical roles of perceived fairness and effectiveness in determining public acceptance of climate change taxes and laws. Distributional fairness is particularly important, as is demonstrating the effectiveness of policies in achieving climate mitigation goals. Future research should focus on exploring interactions between determinants and testing interventions to address barriers to public acceptance, particularly in under-represented regions. Furthermore, research on alternative policy instruments and other determinants of public opinion, such as emotions and pro-environmental identity, warrants further investigation.

The meta-analysis is based on a set of studies with geographical biases (Europe being over-represented), potentially limiting the generalizability of the findings to the global south. The reliance on observational data limits the ability to draw strong causal conclusions. The study's focus on specific types of climate change policies might also restrict the generalizability to broader policy domains.