Felix Wolter

LMU Munich

Although CO2 pricing is widely regarded as one of the most effective policy tools for tacking climate change, it remains unpopular within the public. Previous research shows that the extent to which CO2 pricing policies are supported by the public depends on how they are implemented. The key variations are the level of the price itself and how the revenues generated for public finance are used. However, the literature investigating how these policies affect public acceptance yields mixed evi-dence. Against this background, the aim of this study is to investigate public acceptance of different CO2 pricing policies and mechanisms that drive them. Specifically, we seek to investigate whether different pricing schemes affect perceived fairness, acceptance, and how perceived fairness mediates acceptance. A further question is whether different price levels affect the subjectively perceived like-lihood of climate-friendly behavioral change for different people (and whether there are mediation effects).

We will employ a factorial survey experiment (FSE), including an experimental variation in the amount of information that respondents receive. The FSE is implemented in an online access panel survey in Germany (N=1,000). The FSE varies the following aspects: attributes of example house-holds presented to survey respondents in vignettes (income, CO2 emissions, and behavioral scope/dimension (e.g. mobility, heating) and costs for reducing these emissions), and characteristics of CO2 pricing schemes (CO2 price, share of redistribution, target, and use of the non-redistributed share).

The data for this study are being collected at the time we submit this abstract, so we cannot report any results.

Fabian Thiel; Claudia Diehl

University of Konstanz

Urban street space in many cities is dominated by motorized individual transport, with over 60% allocated to cars and much less to cycling or walking. This spatial asymmetry produces notable ecological and social challenges (particularly for those without a private car). However, little is known about how this inequality is perceived and evaluated by the broader population. We address three questions related to a socially just and ecologically sustainable distribution of urban street space: (1) Are people aware of this street space inequality? (2) To what extent is it considered unjust? (3) Under what conditions is there willingness to redistribute space? Drawing on theories of inequality perception, we expect individuals to systematically underestimate the true extent of spatial inequality, with perceptions of fairness shaped by everyday routines, self-interest, and ideological orientation. Political ideology and environmental concern are expected to further influence justice evaluations and support for redistribution. We use data from a nationwide online survey in Germany (n ≈ 1,000). Respondents estimate current and preferred street space allocations, assess allocation scenarios reflecting common justice principles (equality, equity, need), and, in a split-ballot experiment, some receive information about the real distribution before stating their support for redistribution. The findings make an important contribution to understanding misperceptions in urban transport and show how different types of distributions are evaluated by citizens. By linking these outcomes to individual-level predictors such as self-interest and ideological orientation, we can better explain variation in fairness judgments and political support for urban street space redesign.

Sebastian Koos¹; Adrian Rinscheid²

¹ University of  Konstanz; ² University of St.Gallen

As frustration with slow decarbonization grows, climate activism is becoming more radical. Beyond rallying popular support for their movement, activists aim to increase public support for their demands and foster greater political engagement among citizens. But how do activists’ strategic choices shape these outcomes? And how will public support evolve under increasingly adverse climatic conditions? Expanding recent lines of inquiry in environmental sociology, political science, and social psychology, we leverage a preregistered experiment to study support for climate activism among US (n=4,633) and German (n=4,636) residents. Specifically, we compare responses to different forms of climate protest in the present and in a hypothetical—but plausible—future where climate-related losses are increasingly felt. Our results show that radical protest tactics reduce public support relative to conventional tactics, such as demonstrations. Yet under worsening climate conditions, public support for climate activism significantly rises—although support for radical activism remains limited.

Sandra Walzenbach¹; Johanna Meyer²

¹ Universität Konstanz; ² Lund University

Fridays for Future and the Last Generation have become central actors in Germany’s climate protest movement, united by the aim of accelerating political action on climate change. While both rely on public support to increase pressure on decision-makers, they differ in their strategies: Fridays for Future uses peaceful demonstrations, whereas the Last Generation employs disruptive tactics.

This study examines public perceptions of these contrasting protest forms using a mixed-methods approach. In an explanatory sequential design, we first collected quantitative data from a probability-based sample of 1,047 citizens in Konstanz, followed by qualitative interviews with a subsample of 53 respondents — a strategy that provides a comprehensive view of how different protest forms are received.

Quantitative results show greater public understanding for peaceful protest than for disruptive actions, while both forms are primarily supported by younger individuals who are environmentally concerned and perceive climate change as a serious threat. Qualitative findings suggest that levels of support are shaped by a perceived trade-off between legitimacy and effectiveness. Understanding for the Last Generation often depends on whether their actions are viewed as non-violent. For most interviewees, the (positively perceived) media attention generated by disruptive protest does not outweigh concerns about its legitimacy and effectiveness. Overall, our study reveals polarized views of disruptive protest, with public reactions more consistent with the concept of backfiring than with the radical flank hypothesis.