Empirical Research of Public Acceptance on Environmental Tax: A Systematic Literature Review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Several international organizations such as the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), United Nations (UN), and World Bank recommend that policymakers implement an environmental tax to reduce climate change, protect the environment and gain more income for governments. Effectiveness of the policy depends on a carefully designed framework, which essentially adopts the social and economic contextual of a country and public support. Researchers have been focusing on examining the factors that influence public acceptance of an environmental tax. This paper aims to systematically review the empirical studies using the RepOrting Standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses (ROSES) protocol. The information is relevant for policy makers in designing a feasible and acceptable carbon tax policy. Furthermore, the paper provides suggestions for future research. Related articles were selected using two leading databases, namely Scopus and Science Direct, and one supporting database, namely Google Scholar. Thematic analysis was conducted on 60 articles and four main themes were derived with 32 subthemes. The analysis indicates that people are more supportive when they (i) are well informed about a policy’s effectiveness and the policy content, particularly the use of revenue, (ii) have high trust in the government, (iii) have a positive attitude toward protecting the environment, (iv) perceive the policy is fair in terms of costs distribution and social sharing, and (v) are concerned about the climate change issue.

Related collections

Most cited references 76

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The integrative review: updated methodology.

Robin Whittemore, Kathleen Knafl (2005)

The aim of this paper is to distinguish the integrative review method from other review methods and to propose methodological strategies specific to the integrative review method to enhance the rigour of the process. Recent evidence-based practice initiatives have increased the need for and the production of all types of reviews of the literature (integrative reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and qualitative reviews). The integrative review method is the only approach that allows for the combination of diverse methodologies (for example, experimental and non-experimental research), and has the potential to play a greater role in evidence-based practice for nursing. With respect to the integrative review method, strategies to enhance data collection and extraction have been developed; however, methods of analysis, synthesis, and conclusion drawing remain poorly formulated. A modified framework for research reviews is presented to address issues specific to the integrative review method. Issues related to specifying the review purpose, searching the literature, evaluating data from primary sources, analysing data, and presenting the results are discussed. Data analysis methods of qualitative research are proposed as strategies that enhance the rigour of combining diverse methodologies as well as empirical and theoretical sources in an integrative review. An updated integrative review method has the potential to allow for diverse primary research methods to become a greater part of evidence-based practice initiatives.

0 comments Cited 951 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The Role of Google Scholar in Evidence Reviews and Its Applicability to Grey Literature Searching

Neal Haddaway, Alexandra Collins, Deborah Coughlin … (2015)

Google Scholar (GS), a commonly used web-based academic search engine, catalogues between 2 and 100 million records of both academic and grey literature (articles not formally published by commercial academic publishers). Google Scholar collates results from across the internet and is free to use. As a result it has received considerable attention as a method for searching for literature, particularly in searches for grey literature, as required by systematic reviews. The reliance on GS as a standalone resource has been greatly debated, however, and its efficacy in grey literature searching has not yet been investigated. Using systematic review case studies from environmental science, we investigated the utility of GS in systematic reviews and in searches for grey literature. Our findings show that GS results contain moderate amounts of grey literature, with the majority found on average at page 80. We also found that, when searched for specifically, the majority of literature identified using Web of Science was also found using GS. However, our findings showed moderate/poor overlap in results when similar search strings were used in Web of Science and GS (10–67%), and that GS missed some important literature in five of six case studies. Furthermore, a general GS search failed to find any grey literature from a case study that involved manual searching of organisations’ websites. If used in systematic reviews for grey literature, we recommend that searches of article titles focus on the first 200 to 300 results. We conclude that whilst Google Scholar can find much grey literature and specific, known studies, it should not be used alone for systematic review searches. Rather, it forms a powerful addition to other traditional search methods. In addition, we advocate the use of tools to transparently document and catalogue GS search results to maintain high levels of transparency and the ability to be updated, critical to systematic reviews.

0 comments Cited 376 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta‐analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources

Michael Gusenbauer, Neal Haddaway (2020)

Rigorous evidence identification is essential for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (evidence syntheses) because the sample selection of relevant studies determines a review's outcome, validity, and explanatory power. Yet, the search systems allowing access to this evidence provide varying levels of precision, recall, and reproducibility and also demand different levels of effort. To date, it remains unclear which search systems are most appropriate for evidence synthesis and why. Advice on which search engines and bibliographic databases to choose for systematic searches is limited and lacking systematic, empirical performance assessments. This study investigates and compares the systematic search qualities of 28 widely used academic search systems, including Google Scholar, PubMed, and Web of Science. A novel, query‐based method tests how well users are able to interact and retrieve records with each system. The study is the first to show the extent to which search systems can effectively and efficiently perform (Boolean) searches with regards to precision, recall, and reproducibility. We found substantial differences in the performance of search systems, meaning that their usability in systematic searches varies. Indeed, only half of the search systems analyzed and only a few Open Access databases can be recommended for evidence syntheses without adding substantial caveats. Particularly, our findings demonstrate why Google Scholar is inappropriate as principal search system. We call for database owners to recognize the requirements of evidence synthesis and for academic journals to reassess quality requirements for systematic reviews. Our findings aim to support researchers in conducting better searches for better evidence synthesis.