The governance of shared water systems requires collaboration across diverse stakeholders. In this study we advance the theoretical understanding of asymmetric collective action problems (CAPs) by reassessing the role of third-party interventions and emphasizing the strategic importance of policy brokers and institutional venues. Drawing on insights from the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF), we argue that policy brokers can play a pivotal role in bridging divides, fostering dialogue, and enabling “small-scale” solutions within complex governance settings. Empirically, we examine a case from Sweden's largest water system, where municipalities with asymmetric upstream–downstream positions negotiated the creation of a Water Protection Area. The study is based on interviews with local decision-makers. We illustrate how structural asymmetries in power, influence, and risk exposure, in combination with heterogeneous local interests, shape both incentives and capacities for cooperation. Our findings suggest that the presence—or even the perceived potential—of third-party involvement may foster a more conducive environment for coordination. We conclude by underscoring the strategic role of policy brokers in mediating between actor coalitions and the significance of institutional venues as platforms for consensus-building.

Research suggests that the extent to which exposure to extreme weather events reduces the ‘psychological distance’ of climate change and strengthen policy attitudes, is moderated by partisanship and ideology. Still, evidence remains mixed, and it is unclear to what extent such moderation effects are conditioned by the political context. In this paper, we investigate how extreme weather events affects climate change attitudes in a context defined by an overarching political consensus on climate change. Focusing on Sweden, and the extremely warm summer of 2018, we use gridded meteorological data and nationally representative survey data to estimate how extremes in temperature and precipitation, and exposure to wildfire, affects climate change attitudes. While results show that exposure to extremes increases both climate change concern and policy support, there is almost no evidence that political stance moderates this effect. The politicization of individual experiences of extreme events are thus limited in this political context. 

This article studies the attitudes of the public and politicians toward a tax on red and processed meat in Sweden, and how acceptability is affected by framing the tax as either: 1) a climate tax, 2) a public health tax, or 3) both a climate and public health tax, as well as specifying the use of tax revenues to a) support agriculture, b) support further climate [public health] initiatives, c) reduce VAT on broad categories of foods, or d) reduce VAT specifically on fruit and vegetables. These revenue uses were designed to isolate the impact of effectiveness, cost-neutrality and compensation of affected groups. Experimental survey-data were collected from 3,233 citizens and 1,253 politicians. The results showed that framing the tax had no effect on politicians and only a minor one on citizens; they became slightly more positive about the combined climate and public health justification compared to solely public health. The acceptability was generally greater when revenues were specified as opposed to unspecified, but the two cost-neutral revenue uses (a tax shift entailing either a broad reduction of VAT or just on fruit and vegetables) were the most acceptable proposals to both the public and politicians. The feasibility of implementing a tax on red and processed meat could be improved by ensuring that the average consumer’s total food costs do not increase and that any revenues are used to enhance the effectiveness of such a tax.

Meat taxes could reduce emissions and improve health but risks facing opposition due to concerns about fairness, effectiveness, and autonomy. While policy-specific beliefs influence attitudes, less is known about how specific arguments in the public discourse shape these beliefs and policy acceptability. This study identifies arguments from media archives and analyzes argument endorsement of Swedish voters (N = 3233) and politicians (N = 1253). Counter-arguments, particularly financial concerns for farmers and low-income households, are more strongly endorsed than pro-arguments. While voters and politicians show similar agreement, right-wing respondents generally support counter-arguments more than left-wing respondents. To gain broader support, a meat tax should minimize financial burdens, for example, through cost-neutral reforms or subsidies for sustainable farming. The results also indicate that most arguments relate to multiple policy-specific beliefs, suggesting that policy-specific beliefs offer limited guidance on how to improve policy design.

The expanding field of public acceptance consistently shows left-leaning ideology as a predictor of support for many climate policy instruments. However, little work has been done to investigate the indirect links between ideology and policy-specific beliefs like perceived fairness, effectiveness and infringement on personal freedom on policy acceptance. Of this work, none pertain specifically to taxes that target greenhouse gas emissions from food consumption, called climate-motivated food taxes (CMF tax). CMF taxes are useful for studying the factors underlying ideology because they intersect with changing personal behaviour, which especially triggers ideological concerns. Moreover, CMF taxes appear to be an effective way to curb emissions stemming from the production of animal products, primarily beef and dairy, which are responsible for nearly a third of global emissions. Lastly, this study provides insight into how the predictability of ideological effects on policy acceptance differs in countries also beyond those classically studied (such as the USA and countries in Europe) by utilizing survey data collected in 2023 from Brazil, Germany, India, South Africa, Sweden and the USA (N = 10,513). We find direct and indirect links between ideology and policy acceptability, where fairness and effectiveness beliefs about policies mediate more of the effect than beliefs about freedom.

In 2021, governments of 51 countries spent US$697 billion on subsidizing fossil fuels. Removing fossil fuel subsidies is crucial not only for reducing CO2 emissions and making carbon pricing more effective, but also for making more valuable use of government funds. Currently, however, scientific evidence on the scale and scope of public attitudes towards fossil fuel subsidy-removal policies is lacking, yet it is instrumental for gauging political feasibility. Furthermore, previous studies tend to focus on carbon pricing in the developed world only. Here we present a comparative analysis of attitudes towards both carbon taxation and fossil fuel subsidy removal, focusing on five developing countries across four continents. It is found that (1) removing fossil fuel subsidies is not more undesirable than introducing carbon taxation and (2) the public has more-positive attitudes towards subsidy removal if optimal use of the saved fiscal revenues is specified.

Removing fossil fuel subsidies is important for mitigation and making carbon pricing polices effective. We find that removing subsidies on fossil fuels may not generate more public resistance (or support) than introducing a carbon tax, and by specifying alternatives for revenue recycling, the level of acceptability may increase.

This article studies if, how, and why different revenue uses affect public attitudes to environmental taxation. More specifically, using a large-scale (N = 4292) randomized survey experiment with a 2 × 3 factorial design, the article analyses how attitudes towards a proposed increase in the current air passenger tax in Sweden are altered when combining a tax increase with three different suggestions for revenue use. The increasingly popular fee-and-dividend solution, where revenues are distributed back to the public, thus decreasing negative distributive tax effects, is compared with two additional revenue uses: unspecified government spending on welfare services, and re-investment of revenues into aviation biofuels. Our results show that, although some of the commonly used independent variables such as climate concern, personal norms and political-ideological orientation are significant in determining policy attitudes, varying both tax level and revenue use also tangibly affects how a policy proposal is received. Interestingly, however, the fee-and-dividend approach does not yield the most positive policy attitudes. Rather, directing the revenues to fund an increased use of biofuels for aviation is the alternative that most clearly drives positive attitudes to this policy, and is also the alternative that is perceived as the most effective and fair in both the high tax and the low tax alternatives.

The Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH) have a key role to play in understanding which factors and policies would motivate, encourage and enable different actors to adopt a wide range of sustainable energy behaviours and support the required system changes and policies. The SSH can provide critical insights into how consumers could be empowered to consistently engage in sustainable energy behaviour, support and adopt new technologies, and support policies and changes in energy systems. Furthermore, they can increase our understanding of how organisations such as private and public institutions, and groups and associations of people can play a key role in the sustainable energy transition. We identify key questions to be addressed that have been identified by the Platform for Energy Research in the Socio-economic Nexus (PERSON, see person.eu), including SSH scholars who have been studying energy issues for many years. We identify three main research themes. The first research theme involves understanding which factors encourage different actors to engage in sustainable energy behaviour. The second research theme focuses on understanding which interventions can be effective in encouraging sustainable energy behaviour of different actors, and which factors enhance their effects. The third research theme concerns understanding which factors affect public and policy support for energy policy and changes in energy systems, and how important public concerns can best be addressed as to reduce or prevent resistance.