Search

This paper aims to improve understanding of how EU citizens' left-right political positions and ideological polarization on climate change affect their views on both agriculture and diet in the context of climate change policy. It uses the methods of survey research and quantitative analyses of the data (principal components and regression analysis). The work combines the Farm- and Fork-related branches of Eurobarometer 93.2 (2020) and focuses on citizens' responses to a more climate-friendly agriculture and their ideas about 'eating a healthy and sustainable diet'. The analysis revealed different degrees of citizen support for a more climate-friendly agriculture and climate-friendly dietary options (including meat reduction). Citizens' left-right political position correlated negatively with support for a more climate-friendly agriculture and support for climate-friendly dietary options, but only in the Northwestern European countries. In these countries, the expected positive correlations between level of education and pro-environmental variables were found, but these correlations were not observed among the right-leaning participants. However, the positive correlation between support for a more climate-friendly agriculture and support for climate-friendly dietary options was less strongly affected by left-right political positions. Hence, public opinion is moving in the direction of EU climate policy over time; however, citizens did not fully acknowledge the priority of meat reduction in this context. Political and ideological polarization has seriously interfered with attempts to promote a more climate-friendly agriculture (Farm) and changes in dietary thinking including meat reduction (Fork). To promote these changes, more work must be done on the role of cultural identities in relation to climate issues. Yet, EU citizens showed an increasing support for more climate-friendly agriculture, which correlated positively with support for climate-friendly dietary options across the left-right political spectrum. Science-based information regarding climate risks and/or loyalty to local farmers may play a role in shaping these opinions. The priority of meat reduction needs considerably more attention to achieve the EU's climate objectives. For citizens, both nutritional (health) and environmental (i.e. climate change, as well as species decline and farm animal welfare) reasons can be strong motivating factors to consider meat reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Climate change adaptation strategies are emerging across Europe as societies attempt to adapt to the challenges of a changing environment. Social constructivist analyses of environmental policy - especially those emphasising 'framing' - can be very useful in teasing out the framings of policy problems such as adaptation. They can also shed light on the underlying assumptions that steer and guide public and environmental policy. Using the theoretical concept of framing to analyse adaptation policies across different scales of governance in four European countries - Sweden, Finland, the United Kingdom and Italy - and drawing on policy documents from those countries, as well as semi-structured interviews with practitioners, the development of adaptation policy processes and especially how adaptation has been defined within these processes are examined. Four major framings of adaptation are identified: 'planning', 'economic risk', 'vulnerability' and 'existing measures'. These frames affect how adaptation is conceptualised, policy problems defined and, ultimately how policy develops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how different efficacy constructs – self efficacy, personal outcome expectancy, collective efficacy, and collective outcome expectancy – independently influence willingness to engage in personal energy conservation behavior and support for policies to address climate change. Data from a representative, cross-sectional survey of 23 countries, European Social Survey Round 8, was analyzed to test the relationship. Overall, the results demonstrated that self efficacy, personal outcome expectancy, and collective outcome expectancy were all positively associated with both behavioral intention and policy support. Results regarding collective efficacy were unstable. The results demonstrate the importance of clearly distinguishing different constructs of efficacy beliefs from each other and suggest how climate change communication efforts may benefit from focusing on particular efficacy factors. • Distinguishes how four types of efficacy are associated with behavioral intention and policy support. • Collective efficacy does not have a robust relationship with behavioral intention or policy support. • Self efficacy has a positive association with behavioral intention and policy support. • Personal outcome expectancy has a positive association with behavioral intention and policy support. • Collective outcome expectancy has a positive association with behavioral intention and policy support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]