Nathaniel Luke De Santos
Thesis for M.A. in Sustainability,
Department of Geology, Environment, and Sustainability
Hofstra University
Summer 24
Advisor: Dr. Sasha Pesci, Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability.
Committee:
Dr. Jase Bernhardt, Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability.
Dr. J. B. Bennington, Department of Geology, Environment and Sustainability.
Introduction
In the United States (the U.S.), climate change is one of several issues that influence if and how citizens vote. Along with the U.S, upward of 30 countries will host presidential, parliamentary, senate, or assembly elections in 2024. Countries range and include G7 giants such as the United States and smaller countries such as Palau. Other notable polls are due to the size of their populations (e.g., India, Pakistan, Mexico, Bangladesh, Russia, etc.), their heavy cultural export and influence to respective regions (e.g., Croatia), and countries under severe threat brought on by collapsing climate systems (e.g., Tuvalu). The climate crisis is a central and polarizing topic and will undoubtedly be a variable when considering elections globally (de Kirby, 2024).
This study will assess the relevance of climate policies among university students when faced with various variables in deciding on a candidate, including religious motivations, extrinsic/intrinsic motivations, affiliations with climate careers, and perceptions of political systems. Due to the country’s stance as a leader in cultural exportation, elections in the U.S. have long-standing effects on local and global communities. Findings from this study can further understand education, climate perceptions, and political behaviors to promote long-term climate resilience in communities. Findings from this study can provide an opportunity to collaborate with public education access to climate and civic action.
Research Questions
This research examines questions that will be framed around the 2024 U.S. election that evaluate variables and attitudes that influence voting behaviors, particularly with the concern of the changes in our climate systems. Questions sought to define the climate crisis’ influence on the voting process. I hoped to understand participants’ trust in the ability of political systems to mitigate climate change in their communities. The questions identified the participants’ relationship with climate change, their exposure through environment in their communities, studies, and career choices.
H1: Are students with higher engagement in climate careers more likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology?
H2: Students studying climate, sustainability, or earth sciences are more likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology.
H3: Students with stronger ties to nature during their upbringing are likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology.
H4: Students with higher exposure to climate stressors in their communities are likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology.
Literature review
Definition for key terms
Climate Change is defined by the United Nations (UN) as long-term changes in the planet’s temperature and weather patterns. The UN’s website places emphasis on human behavior as a main driving force of the system’s changes as supported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2022). Kulin et al. (2020) emphasize the occurrence of climate change as a threat to our societies. In the scope of this research, climate action is defined as educational, social, political, or behavioral stances on a positive relationship between our communities and planetary systems. 45% of Americans express an urgent desire to participate in climate action, citing it as a moderate to imperative social norm (Leisreowitz et al., 2020).
Introduction and Context of Voting in Climate Ideology
To prepare a survey to evaluate my research questions, I first had to understand the scope of political engagement and climate change. McCrea, Leviston, and Walker (2016) develop the ground that government is a critical tool when faced with the climate crisis. “Early” recognitions of climate policies were seen in the 1990s, capitulated by participating members of the Rio De Janeiro Earth Summit 1992 (McRight & Dunlap, 2016). Parallel to this, agencies on the political right mobilized resistance by employing the use of oil companies, politicians, commentators, and media channels. Today, climate change is still an integral concern, and due to its widespread effect, it will play a significant role in citizens’ voting decisions. Most voters, 75%, actively understand and acknowledge climate change, 61% agree that it is due to human behavior, and 66% express long-term concern (Leiserowitz et al., 2020).
To understand the factors that shape the intersection of voting and climate action, Campbell et al. (2021) drew attention to several key factors. These include cognitions, beliefs, experiences, demographics, partisanship, and cultural/media influences. All researchers that I referenced, including Campbell et al. adopted a combination of these variables in their studies. Notably, both of Campbell et al.’s surveys (N=82, N=34) revealed significant relationships between positive voting intentions and liberal media consumption, high rates of climate conversations, party identification, and, most importantly, personal worry about the crisis. This underscores the profound impact of personal concern on voting decisions.
McCrea et al. (2016) evaluated a sample of Australian voters following their nation’s federal election. They highlighted a spike in climate skepticism following the results, then skepticism before casting ballots. McCrea also promoted the social identification theory: the relationship between a voter and a party can influence the prior decision. In cases where this occurs, it would be common for voters to simply vote along party lines (p. 1311). By applying cultural theory to climate change beliefs, McCrea et al. propose an array of contrasting viewpoints on climate and government (p. 1312). In this research, these pillars are foundational when considering the importance of voting on climate with every accessible tool.
Theoretical Perspectives of climate ideology in voting: left versus center versus right.
In the U.S., the two-party system has dominated elections for decades, and in the most recent 2020 election, both Democratic and Republican tickets broke the previously existing voter turnout records (Meixner, 2020). Leisreowitz et al. (2020) found that 92% of Democratic voters believed in climate change as opposed to 69% of Republicans, with 85% of Democrats expressing concern versus 27% of Republicans. This was reflected in the ballot, where, on average, climate change was ranked 13th on overall issues despite Democrats placing climate change as their second most important issue. In Leisreowitz’s study, 4% of registered voters (n=929) chose this as the most critical issue.
Drawing parallels in the Australian Parliament, McCrea et al. (2016) discuss mandatory voting participation in a sphere resemblant to American options: a center-left party generally seen as more engaged in climate action and a center-right base that greets climate with skepticism. Prior to and after Australia’s 2010 election, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) surveyed a sample of voters (N=5,036). Kulin, Seva, and Dunlap (2021) draw similarities in their European research, proposing similarities in North American and Australian systems in partisan orientation/ideology. Despite the broad measures evaluated in all regions, there is variance in the results of previous research.
Via the employment of data from 2001-2010 Gallup’s annual environmental polls, McRight & Dunlap proposed and supported: a) ideological polarization on climate science became prominent in 2001-2010, and b) partisan polarization on climate science became prominent in 2001-2010. Kulin et al. (2020) presented that stances on nationalism carried more influence than political action on climate. The increase of right-wing populism maintains a priority on country-first policies at the expense of climate action that requires international collaboration. In the study of Western countries, McRight & Dunlap (2011) further promoted the right as associated with skepticism versus the left’s more climate-forward approach.
Climate ideology against influence and parallel political stances/issues.
Society's ability to wholeheartedly focus on one issue becomes harder when compared with other voting issues. Following the collection of Leisreowitz's (2020) study, the author reflected that a significant event involving police brutality and race disparities followed suit. In a matter of cycles, the American priority had changed. This serves as an example of the conflict that the American voter faces. Before the 2020 election, 2% of Americans contributed solely to the political recognition of the climate crisis threat. Different issues carry different weight and consequences to the voters regardless of their objective effect on our systems.
Poortinga, Steg, and Vlek (2002) suggest that environmental concerns do not guarantee positive and proactive attitudes toward management strategies. Instead, a deep dive through the lens of cultural theory further examines the relationship between any one issue and the voter's psyche. They divide behavioral groups into four categorical schools of thought: nature capricious (fatalist), nature tolerant (hierarchist), nature benign (individualist), and nature ephemeral (egalitarian) (p. 457). They found that those identifying with the fatalist or individualist approaches were more likely to have weak relationships with nature. In the latter's case, this could be due to preferences in a free market and/or the belief that our behavior cannot impact nature. Hierarchies grasp the concepts of our species' relationship with nature and believe that government regulation is an essential role of federal institutions. In contrast, egalitarians were most likely to adopt pro-environmental behaviors, including actions in that favor (p. 469).
Kumil et al. (2021) found that nationalist and RWP beliefs by adopting an anti-immigration framework against aid/funding toward foreign nations. Instead, they challenge holders of this belief to understand how climate policies can prevent the immigration they oppose. Their research highlights a cognitive dissonance that climate change is a stand-alone issue without affecting others. If nothing else, this is a critical talking point in understanding that climate change carries more ramifications than is accepted by right-aligned voters.
Considerations: ideological implications and communication strategies.
A core separation in ideologies of the two bases was how each administration would communicate and handle climate change and to what degree of importance it was placed. Following the announcement of then President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Act and current President Biden’s decision to approve the Keystone pipeline, many citizens responded negatively to both. Particularly, Democrats opposed President Trump’s decision at 93%, and Independents at 66%, while only 31% of Republicans shared this concern (Leiserowitz et al, 2020). Evaluating the divide between the previously mentioned Democratic and Republican statistics highlights the staunch implications of climate change due to the actions of candidates and parties facing various challenges. Access to uniform information is widespread, and even what is factual can become lost in news cycles theming with updates of other campaign issues. Just over half of registered voters had heard of the Green New Deal, at 57% (Leiserowitz et al., 2020). A phenomenon that plagues climate action and perception is widespread misinformation by political figures and stakeholders. McCright & Dunlap (2016) highlight the example of President George W. Bush’s administration (2000-2008) as a pivotal turning point in American climate policy. At this time, administration members employed strategies to undermine climate scientists in the interests of framing Americans’ perceptions. Stark polarizations can be epitomized prior to the following 2008 election: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore celebrated their Nobel Peace Prizes, while members of the Republican party and media continued to spread their own climate agendas. The role of the media is evident, and it is presented for interpretation rather than fact.
When exploring political action, Herrnstadt and Muehlegger (2013) found that elected officials were far more likely to engage with climate-positive policies in response to unusual weather in their representative states. By cross-analyzing community curiosity via internet searches, Herrnstadt and Muehlegger determined that the general public was far more engaging during these perceived temporal irregularities. Their findings here may not have been intentional, but they shed light on kairos, the Greek principle of opportune time. If people were seeking out climate information as a response, this could suggest the desire for more in-depth access to climate information systems.
Climate ideology: access to data, information, education pathways.
McRight et al. (2016) compare modern media in the U.S. as adopting the tone of uncertainty rather than objectivity and directly suggest that consumers- the American populace are less knowledgeable, as reflected in low support for global campaigns. They proposed and tested six hypotheses via data from Gallup’s annual environmental polls from 2001-2008, and their results suggested: H1: Identifying left voters held consistent beliefs on climate aligned with science, H2: Identifying left voters expressed concern on global warming, H3: Political orientation moderates associations between educational attainments. Left voters were more likely to base their beliefs on their education, and H4: Identifying left voters experienced positive effects with a self-reported understanding of global warming, climate science, and personal concern.
In seeking to understand the perception of climate as seen in McRight’s findings, I recalled a study by Skamp et al. (2019). Sampled high school students in grades 6-10 recognize impactful variables as socio-psychological factors, perceptions of policies and threats, and contextual factors. A globally distributed closed questionnaire found that 62% of students understood climate change, with 64% expressing proactive attitudes toward the environment. Results suggested that countries with higher objective messaging on climate change experienced higher scores compared to averages.
If participants to McRight’s study suggested left leaning voters held positive views on climate sciences, and Skamp et al.’s study among students suggested more students understood climate change than not, why was there still a population (of right aligned voters) that held opposing views. Should my research be successful in identifying the variables that tie climate understanding and voting intention together, it can be implemented in public education and community resilience efforts.
Methods:
Sampling and geographic scope
Data collection for this research involved an online survey of 20 questions assessing the influence of climate on voting ideology. Through out April to July 2024, the survey was distributed to students in other four institutions in the New York Metropolitan and Long Island area: City University of New York, Stony Brook University, Columbia University, and Hofstra University. I began by sharing this survey with Hofstra students on April 8th, and it assessed the participants’ upbringing, education, area of study, involvement in climate action, voting ideology, and intent. The survey did not seek to identify a participant’s party or candidate preferences. The surveys were designed to take participants 12-15 minutes and did not compensate them.
The juxtaposition of public institutions vs. private in both an urban and suburban setting offers an array of perspectives: Private urban, private suburban, public urban, and public suburban. The inclusion of Columbia, Stony Brook, and CUNY seeks to include various demographic populations that are less common at Hofstra. This research creates an opportunity to better understand the subtle differences in results between the general profiles of private and public school samples to reflect a national demographic. The survey did not seek to identify a participant’s party or candidate preferences.
Data collection
The surveys were designed on Qualtrics via the access of Hofstra University and shared through the campus's physical and virtual channels. A parallel survey was distributed through similar channels to students at Columbia University, Stony Brook University, and in the CUNY system to access data from a sample in a public university setting. See survey questions in Appendix A and Appendix B.
The link to the survey was sent to organizations related to climate, government, ecology, and student organizations that were accessible to me through all universities. Despite the outreach to the survey, low participation from all universities may suggest that at the time of this research, students were not inclined to participate due to their own schedules and a lack of compensation.
Hofstra University: | Leaders for Environment and Action Fellowship, Hofstra SGA, Hofstra Geology Dept. and other classmates/campus peers. |
Columbia University: | Global Thought cohort, Lamont-Doherty lab, CU Soccer |
City University of New York: | African Student Union, American Society of Civil Engineers, Bakersville Chemical Society, BetaBetaBeta Honors Society, Biomedical Asian Health Coalition, Biomedical Engineering Society, Biomedical Engine |
Stony Brook University: | AAPI Mentorship, Actors Conservancy, Afghani Students Union, Albanian Students Association, African Students Union, Alphabeta, Alpha Kappa, SBU Soccer |
Data analysis
Data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel and Qualtrics. I was particularly interested in evaluating how the variables of climate engagement and political intentions intersect. Results were compared among research gathered prior to these evaluations to propose future research initiatives.
Contribution of the study
On the broader scale of research on climate and engagement. This research can provide insight into climate change awareness and its influence. Given that the sample of these surveys is geared toward the U.S. I hope this research can identify voting patterns among them regarding climate change and whether or not this research can provide a framework to suggest education avenues on climate change and community resilience among non-college attending U.S. Americans. Additionally, universities and colleges in the U.S. -particularly New York- attracts many international students from countries around the world, which presents an opportunity for global collaborations. Still, education on climate should not solely be reserved for those seeking information through academic and professional channels, but all members of a community affected by climate stressors.
Findings
Sample Description
The survey was taken 53 times, with 38 students who were U.S. students who were actively registered to vote (N=38). Most participants/students were dominantly enrolled at Hofstra University. Of the 38 participants, the vast majority (89%, n=34) expressed intentions to vote in the upcoming federal election. Twenty-four percent (n=9) of participants identified as having grown up in rural environments with high exposure to nature, (39%, n=15) identified with an urban upbringing with less proximity to nature, and 37%, (n=14) selected “other” or particular conditions. The majority of participants 63%, (n=24) majored in topics related to climate or environmental policy: sustainability, geology, and environmental/earth sciences, and forms of political sciences. The remainder of participants (37%, (n=14) majored in topics not specifically relating to climate or earth sciences, such as journalism, engineering, computer sciences, and art.
Figure 1. Sample demographics of survey respondents.
Media Consumption:
A question in the survey prompted participants to identify their source of media consumption. (Fig. 1). The most common choice of media consumption was social media, and through family and peers at 68%, (n=26) each. Traditional media (newspapers or news channels via radio or television) was selected by 58% of participants (n=22). Participants had the option to select all that apply and this was selected by 32% (n=12).
Figure 2. Media influence on climate perception (N=38).
Identifying the perceived importance of Climate Change as an issue:
A question in the survey prompted participants to rank the issues of climate change, access and affordability of healthcare, financial ramifications (taxes, wages), and religious values in order of importance when selecting a candidate or party. The highest ranking of results was tied with 37% of participants (n=14) selecting climate change as their primary concern, while another 37% (n=14) selected healthcare. Financial ramifications were the overwhelming third choice of participants at 53% (n=20), and religious values were selected as fourth/least necessary by 95% (n=36).
Notably, 85% of participants who selected Climate Change as their first concern selected health as their second choice, while 64% of participants who selected health as their primary concern selected Climate Change as their second choice. This suggests that 55% (n=21) of participants selected both Climate Change and healthcare as their top two priorities in voting ideology. This is notable, as climate change both affects public health in communities most affected (World Bank, 2024). The World Bank states that inaction on climate can lead to an estimated 45 million in risk of health issues by 2030.
Table 1. Question 8. Rank the following in order of importance when deciding a political party candidate. (N=33).
Issues | First | Second | Third | Fourth |
Climate Change | 37% (n=14) | 32% (n=12) | 32% (n=12) | 0 (n=0) |
Healthcare | 37% (n=14) | 47% (n=18) | 13% (n=5) | 3% (n=1) |
Financial Implications | 26% (n=10) | 18% (n=7) | 53% (n=20) | 3% (n=1) |
Religious Values | 0% (n=0) | 3% (n=1) | 3% (n=1) | 95% (n=36) |
Figure 3. Question 8. Rank the following in order of importance when deciding a political party candidate. (N=38).
Participants’ level of trust in political institutions:
Questions 10-14 in the survey were framed to measure participants' stances on statements regarding Climate Change and political beliefs (See Appendix A and Appendix B). Specifically, the questions sought to understand how participants felt about political systems' ability to act on climate and how important it is as a deciding factor when selecting a candidate or party. 55% (n=21) participants agreed that Climate Change was the most important political issue, with a further 21% (n=8) strongly agreeing, 21% (n=8) feeling neutral, and 3% (n=1) disagreed. 82% of participants (n=31) either agreed or strongly agreed that they had high exposure to Climate Change with 13% (n=5) feeling neutral and 5% (n=2) did not agree. In the phrasing of this question, participants' neutrality can be equated to lower exposure.
Over half of participants (89%, (n=34) considered or strongly considered the political stances of parties and candidates, with 8% (n=3) neutral, and 3% (n=1) did not consider them at all. In determining the trust between the party/candidate and the participants, 45% (n=17) disagreed or strongly disagreed that institutions could be trusted to advocate climate solutions, 32% (n=12) felt neutral, and only 24% (n=9) expressed trust.
In contrast, when asked about trust in nonpartisan climate organizations, 42% (n=16) strongly agreed or agreed, with 45% (n=11) in total expressing distrust in non-partisan climate organizations.
Table 2. Questions 10-14. Do you agree/disagree with the following statements? (N=38).
Statements | Strongly Agree | Agree | Neutral | Disagree | Strongly Disagree |
Climate Change is the most important issue. | 21% (n=8) | 55% (n=21) | 21% (n=8) | 3% (n=1) | 0 (n=0) |
Participant’s exposure to Climate Change. | 37% (n=14) | 45% (n=17) | 13% (n=5) | 5% (n=2) | 0 (n=0) |
Participants’ consideration of environmental stances by party/candidates. | 52% (n=17) | 39% (n=13) | 6% (n=2) | 0 (n=0) | 3% (n=1) |
Trust in political institutions to address climate change. | 8% (n=3) | 16% (n=6) | 32% (n=12) | 29% (n=11) | 16% (n=6) |
Trust in Climate Change non-for-profits instead of political institutions. | 18% (n=7) | 24% (n=9) | 29% (n=11) | 29% (n=11) | 0 (n=0) |
Discussion
H1: Are students with higher engagement in climate careers more likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology?.
Based on the findings of this study, few participants (18%, (n=7) of participants held positions in climate organizations such as conservation societies and sustainable teams at non climate companies. Examples given were the Atlantic Marine Conservation Society and PSEG Green Teams. Fourteen percent (n=1) of participants at nonpartisan climate organizations identified their upbringing in rural settings
H2: Students studying climate, sustainability, or earth sciences are more likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology.
Based on the findings of this study, three-quarters of participants (75%, n=18) who studied a subject related to climate change saw the issue as most important compared to (43%, (n=6) of participants studying majors outside of climate. This could suggest that students who are higher educated on related majors are more likely to prioritize voting toward climate policies. Overall, a follow up study would need to further tie these majors and will to act on climate. This finding presents itself in my curiosity: do participants undergo these majors due to direct field of exposure or knowledge?
H3: Students with stronger ties to nature during their upbringing are likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology.
Twenty-four percent (n=9) of participants were from rural settings. Of rural participants, 67% of participants (n=6) held either the belief of “agreeing” or “strongly agreeing” that climate change was the most important political issue.
H4: Students with higher exposure to climate stressors in their communities are likely to prioritize climate in voting ideology. The majority of participants (63%, n=24) selected a combination of “Strongly Agree” and “Agree” when prompted to evaluate the statements of Climate Change’s dominant significance and their exposure to climate stressors, as reflected in questions 10–12. Notably, “Agree” was selected both times, which was the strongest relationship at (21%, n=8). See table 2.
With more participants sharing sentiments on their exposure to climate change, as well as their rural upbringing, I believe that there is cause to further research the relationship between exposure and ideology. For example, questions that identify a participant's involvement in mitigation and their perception through their experiences. When evaluating media consumption, it is important to observe that most student-participants selected family/peers as a source of information. See figure 1. Considering the reliance on peers and family influence is strong, it is important to frame further studies to further evaluate reasons. In the example of proposing programs in rural communities, it should be noted of inclusivity to all members of the community. If community members rely on each other, then they should be afforded the same access to information and programs.
Limitations of the study
I expected that data gathering to be challenging, given the parameters of the sample. Students at Hofstra University account for a demographic makeup that is not accurately reflective of the United States. Hofstra’s population consists of estimates: 53% caucasian, 14% Hispanic, 9% African, and 3% of mixed ethnicities, with indigenous and other at <1%, respectively. United States demographics are estimated: 59% caucasian, 18% Hispanic, 12% African-American (nonhispanic), 6% Asian, also with indigenous and others at <1%. To address this imbalance, CUNY reports that their schools account for 25% African, 21.2% Asian/Pacific, 30.2% Hispanic, and 23% caucasian. When considering Hofstra's status as a private institution, data gathering through the City University of New York system (public institution) will bring separate challenges: particularly, there is less of a working network between the researcher (a Hofstra) and the organizations. In future studies, I can make more attempts to include future samples by engaging them in conversation to ongoing projects, further strengthening the relationships between research and samples.
The survey was distributed to university students preparing their own projects, and it is without externally motivated compensations I theorize that this deterred more students that were sent the link to participate. Importantly, the surveys include non-university-educated Americans, which accounts for two-thirds of the national population (Case & Deaton, 2023).
In considering how this research could have been different, I identified how my questions could be more specific to the topic. For example, when asking about religious preferences in political ideology. Avoiding broad questions in follow-up studies will help me and other researchers record more specific information related to climate and voting ideology. While I expected a slow start to my survey due to the sample of university students’ calendars, I think in future studies, I can include a wider sample from the start instead of amending this research to include data from other universities.
Notably, the sample of university students does not reflect on the majority of the population. Eighteen percent of Americans were enrolled in degrees in the U.S, and of those, the population’s racial demographics was not reflective of the American population (Welding, 2023). Future studies stemming from my research will include a sample to reflect on these discrepancies.
Future Studies/ Further Goals
This research sheds light on the relationship between education and the perception of climate change in political systems. Should there be an improved sample size, I would propose further research that specifically proposes studies to assess relationships between rural populations and academia. Climate education proposals in this area should be made accessible to all residents without the obligation of obtaining them in a place of higher learning. Chene (2024) suggests that the similarities in all Small Island Developing States include geographical isolation, and often cultural traditions correlate with the likelihood of political distrust and corruption. Many small island states are rife with corruption due to resource mismanagement, as well as influence from organizations such as oil conglomerates (Chene, 2024). Ultimately, Chene does not provide enough empirical evidence on proven anti-corruption solutions. Future studies that I conduct will be designed with these two thoughts in mind. I would also consider running parallel surveys of rural communities- specifically coastal ones. Findings from this study can be used to further study the introduction of public education on climate change to rural coastal communities in SIDs. In turn, this research could bridge the knowledge gap between political trust, civic engagement, and climate action in said SIDS.
Conclusion
Due to the sheer numbers of elections this year, I was curious as to understand the relationship between climate ideology and voting intention. I sought to understand the relationship between educated participants at a university level, and their understanding of and engagement in political civic duties. In gathering data prior to planning a survey, researchers highlighted that their climate was seen as an important voting issue. This is emphasized in Leisreowitz et al's (2020) study, with 75% of registered voters having concern on climate. As well as being important in voting, in the U.S climate was seen as an indicative as to someone’s political preference by Leisreowitz et al. (2020). Campbell et al (2021) addressed cognitions and beliefs surrounding climate and voting- they found that these were influenced by media consumption, and whether or not people took part in common climate conversations. McRight & Dunlap (2021) suggested that political polarization meant that those leaning right were more skeptical, versus leftists who had a more climate forward approach with political engagement.
Findings from this research showed the biggest concerns in elections were climate change and healthcare at 37% (n=14) each- and the majority who selected either as first had the other as second. Therefore, 85% of participants selected both climate change and healthcare as their dominant concerns. With finances being third, I must acknowledge that data could be skewed as those outside of universities might have different perceptions of finances in voting, for example non-students may place higher values on things more important to them, than what they would have learned in an academic setting. Participants that had higher exposures to climate stressors in their upbringing were more likely to vote with climate perceived as the priority (n=20). More than half of participants (n=17) considered the climate policies of parties and candidates, but nearly a third of participants (n=10) expressed distrust in their political systems to act on climate. Contrasting to this, under half of participants (n=15) expressed more trust in nonpartisan organizations instead of political institutions to act on climate.
Study results also showed that most participants (n=23) referred to their family/peers for information, suggesting that participants were heavily influenced by who they spend time with more than traditional or social media channels.
This study shed light on initial questions that identify conditions that encourage or discourage climate perceptions in political ideology, and in future studies I would like to include it in studies that aid rural/coastal communities in SIDS, where there is traditionally government pushback and corruption. Future studies in this field for SIDS can contribute to programs that educate respective citizens to act on climate stressors via political and education systems.
This research is important to the current climate because of the relevance between climate action, and civic engagement. As stated earlier there are many countries experiencing elections of presidential, and parliamentary implications in 2024 and by studying the effect of education on climate and climate education’s influence on voting ideologies, we can learn and propose further efforts to bridge a divide between climate awareness, action, and the potential of government systems to act on this critical issue.
References:
Colleges & Schools. The City University of New York. https://www.cuny.edu/about/colleges/
Hofstra University Profile. Data USA. https://datausa.io/profile/university/hofstra-university
United States of America Profile. Data USA. https://datausa.io/profile/geo/united-states
What is Climate Change?. The United Nations.
*Campbell, E., Kotcher, J., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S. A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2021). Predicting the importance of global warming as a voting issue among registered voters in the United States. Current Research in Ecological and Social Psychology, 2, 100008 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666622721000010
Chêne, M. (2010). Corruption challenges in small island developing states in the Pacific region. Transparency International, September, 9. https://knowledgehub.transparency.org/assets/uploads/helpdesk/255_Corruption_in_small_island_developing_states_Pacific.pdf
*Herrnstadt, E., & Muehlegger, E. (2014). Weather, salience of climate change and congressional voting. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 68(3), 435-448. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069614000758?casa_token=Wm
sqYPUqxuQAAAAA:YTtHVdoMHaVxSodqo0xBJKgv3W4eOKxO9meYs8Y44Y67tH9 6slGsB1b0EpTj1ElAx9CkofJP7rM
*Kulin, J., Johansson Sevä, I., & Dunlap, R. E. (2021). Nationalist ideology, rightwing populism, and public views about climate change in Europe. Environmental politics, 30(7), 1111-1134 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1898879
Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Rosenthal, S., Kotcher, J., Ballew, M. T., Bergquist, P., ... & WANG, X. (2020). Politics and global warming, April 2020.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=climate+change+in+the+ american+mind+April+2020&btnG=
Marquart-Pyatt, S. T. (2015). Public opinion about the environment: Testing measurement equivalence across countries. International Journal of Sociology, 45(4), 309-326. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00207659.2015.1098268
*McCrea, R., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. A. (2016). Climate change skepticism and voting behavior: What causes what?. Environment and Behavior, 48(10), 1309-1334 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0013916515599571?casa_token=246ZiV5 kbmQAAAAA%3AvjTQOSrC0wJhfoj5LZ7DeMPU5oVEqGNj8GSsBM4kpBX2k0zUp vruxhHcY3eHvOUjWO0MRZ9P0HLicg
*McCrea, R., Leviston, Z., & Walker, I. A. (2016). Climate change skepticism and voting behavior: What causes what?. Environment and Behavior, 48(10), 1309-1334. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0013916515599571?casa_token=FrOsm2T k0cUAAAAA%3AsJod4hkDlRo_29VTAj2JyQ-FmkC8OZaYYRmfUwCerhLCFUluwX h8_AVAww6PeQrXfwJikalu062hVA
McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2011). The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public's views of global warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly, 52(2), 155-194
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2011.01198.x?casa_token=elv HBN7RwzIAAAAA%3AWI6QBU16FXc6285LquPmEX2tkleVQND0FAnXSn-jKJWiP 2DmIA58GuAW3mLtn0AH-ulN5q_TR9bzkw
Meixner, Sophie US election results show Joe Biden surpassing Barack Obama's popular vote record. ABC.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-11-05/joe-biden-popular-vote-breaks-obama-record-pr esident-trump/12852042
*Poortinga, W., Steg, L., & Vlek, C. (2002). Environmental risk concern and preferences for energy-saving measures. Environment and behavior, 34(4), 455-478
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00116502034004003?casa_token=vBho5m r7g8sAAAAA:_9_8AuHqvj6PWZC5w11WmiNmWKF1f6LpM8rWJdOhPxM7mMRab EnM8iA1rCS2Ww2vlfLbSfSvqFxbaA
*Skamp, K., Boyes, E., Stanisstreet, M., Rodriguez, M., Malandrakis, G., Fortner, R., ... & Yoon, H. G. (2021). Voting for change: An international study of students’ willingness to support measures to ameliorate climate change. Research in Science Education, 51, 861-887. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11165-019-09864-2
Welding, L. (2023). College enrollment statistics in the US. Best Colleges. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-enrollment-statistics/#:~:text=How%20many%20people%20don't,that's%20about%2019.1%20million%20people.
Appendix A: Distributed Survey Online survey questionnaire for Hofstra university students.
Screening questions:
1. Are you a US citizen?
2. Are you registered to vote?
Further questions:
3. Are you aware as to whether there is a federal election this year?
4. Do you intend on voting in this year's federal election?
5. Do you intend on voting in this year's federal election?
6. What is your educational background?
7. What is your area of study?
8. How many years have you been at Hofstra?
9. Have you ever held an internship, job, role, or partnered with a climate organization? 10. If so, which?
11. Have you ever volunteered or worked on a political campaign, or in any political company or organization?
12. What type of environment were you raised in?
13. Rate the following issues based on the importance of your decision to vote. 14. Sources that influence your voting ideology. (Check all that apply)
15. Select the factors that determine if you vote or not. (Check all that apply)
Likert Scale Questions: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree.
16. Climate Change is our most important challenge.
17. In my community there is high exposure to climate stressors
18. When choosing a political candidate or party, I consider their stance on environmental policies.
19. I believe that elected officials can be trusted to make a difference on climate change and a nation’s carbon footprint.
20. Climate specific organizations are more important than elected officials when considering climate action.
Appendix B: Follow up Survey to external universities. Online survey questionnaire for students at Columbia, Stony Brook, and City Universities of New York.
Screening questions:
21. Are you a US citizen?
22. Are you registered to vote?
23. Are you currently enrolled in an American college or university?
Further questions:
24. Are you aware as to whether there is a federal election this year?
25. Do you intend on voting in this year's federal election?
26. Do you intend on voting in this year's federal election?
27. What is your educational background?
28. What is your area of study?
29. Have you ever held an internship, job, role, or partnered with a climate organization? 30. If so, which?
31. Have you ever volunteered or worked on a political campaign, or in any political company or organization?
32. What type of environment were you raised in?
33. Rate the following issues based on the importance of your decision to vote. 34. Sources that influence your voting ideology. (Check all that apply)
35. Select the factors that determine if you vote or not. (Check all that apply) Likert Scale Questions: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Neutral, Agree, Strongly Agree.
36. Climate Change is our most important challenge.
37. In my community there is high exposure to climate stressors
38. When choosing a political candidate or party, I consider their stance on environmental policies.
39. I believe that elected officials can be trusted to make a difference on climate change and a nation’s carbon footprint.
40. Climate specific organizations are more important than elected officials when considering climate action.
Comments