The Ecology of Elections: A Bibliometric Study of the WoS-indexed Articles on Environmental Voting Behavior

Öz

This research constitutes a bibliometric investigation of environmental voting behavior, concentrating on 535 articles indexed in Web of Science from 1991 to 2024. The research employed the Bibliometrix package in R to analyze citation trends, prominent authors, journals, and interdisciplinary collaborations. This research revealed a notable increase in academic interest, especially following the early 1990s, fueled by heightened public apprehension regarding climate change and environmental crises. Political science has emerged as the leading field, accounting for 38 percent of the total number of articles in the dataset. According to the citation scores, the American Political Science Review and the American Journal of Political Science stood out as the first two sources, whereas research from the United States dominated the field. Key findings underscore the impact of green parties on conventional political conduct, particularly in Europe where environmental policies have become increasingly prominent. The research also demonstrated the influence of early sources of studying voting behavior, such as Rational Choice Theory. A cluster analysis utilizing bibliographic coupling of articles in the dataset revealed six thematic domains encompassing the ideological dynamics of environmental voting and the psychological underpinnings of voter behavior. The analysis indicated the increasing impact of environmental issues on the political sphere, and offered insights into how these concerns influence voters’ preferences and policy decisions. This study enhances the understanding of the intellectual framework surrounding environmental voting behavior and provides a basis for future research on the nexus between ecology and electoral studies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• voting behavior
• elections
• environmentalism
• Greens
• bibliometrics

Seçimlerin Ekolojisi: Çevreci Oy Verme Davranışına İlişkin WoS Dizinli Makalelerin Bibliyometrik Bir İncelemesi

Öz

: Bu araştırma, çevresel oy verme davranışına yönelik bibliyometrik bir inceleme olup, 1991-2024 yılları arasında Web of Science’ta dizinlenen 535 makaleye odaklanmaktadır. Çalışmada, atıf eğilimleri, önde gelen yazarlar, dergiler ve disiplinlerarası iş birliklerini analiz etmek için R yazılımındaki Bibliometrix paketi kullanılmıştır. Araştırma, özellikle 1990’lı yılların başından itibaren akademik ilginin önemli ölçüde arttığını ve bu durumun iklim değişikliği ve çevresel krizlere yönelik kamu kaygılarının yükselmesiyle desteklendiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Siyaset bilimi, veri setindeki toplam makalelerin %38’ini oluşturarak en baskın alan olarak öne çıkmaktadır. Atıf puanlarına göre American Political Science Review ve American Journal of Political Science en önde gelen iki dergi olurken, ABD merkezli araştırmalar alanda büyük ölçüde baskındır. Temel bulgular, yeşil partilerin geleneksel siyasal davranışlar üzerindeki etkisini vurgulamakta, özellikle Avrupa’da çevre politikalarının giderek daha belirgin hale geldiğini göstermektedir. Çalışma ayrıca Rasyonel Tercih Teorisi gibi oy verme davranışını inceleyen erken dönem kaynakların etkisini de ortaya koymaktadır. Veri setindeki makalelerin bibliyografik eşleşmesine dayalı bir kümeleme analizi, çevresel oy verme davranışının ideolojik dinamikleri ve seçmen davranışının psikolojik temelleri de dahil olmak üzere altı tematik alan belirlemiştir. Analiz, çevresel meselelerin siyaset üzerindeki artan etkisini göstermekte ve bu meselelerin seçmen tercihleri ile politika kararlarını nasıl şekillendirdiğine dair içgörüler sunmaktadır. Bu çalışma, çevresel oy verme davranışına ilişkin entelektüel çerçevenin anlaşılmasını derinleştirirken, ekoloji ve seçim çalışmaları arasındaki ilişki üzerine gelecekteki araştırmalar için bir temel oluşturmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• seçmen davranışı
• seçimler
• çevrecilik
• yeşiller
• bibliyometri

Kaynakça

1. Abou-Chadi, T. (2016). Niche Party Success and Mainstream Party Policy Shifts – How Green and Radical Right Parties Differ in Their Impact. British Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123414000155
2. Abou-Chadi, T., & Kayser, M. A. (2017). It’s not easy being green: Why voters punish parties for environmental policies during economic downturns. ELECTORAL STUDIES, 45, 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2016.10.009
3. Ackermann, K., & Freitag, M. (2015). Personality, Party Attachment, and Direct Democracy. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 91-+.
4. Aklin, M. (2018). How robust is the renewable energy industry to political shocks? Evidence from the 2016 U.S. elections. Business And Politics, 20(4), 523–552. https://doi.org/10.1017/bap.2018.15
5. Alvarez, R. M., & Morrier, J. (2024). Issue Responsiveness in Canadian Politics: Are Parties Responsive to the Public Salience of Climate Change in the Question Period? Political Research Quarterly, 77(1), 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231194270
6. Anderson, S., Marinescu, I., & Shor, B. (2023). Can Pigou at the Polls Stop Us Melting the Poles? Journal of The Association of Environmental And Resource Economists, 10(4), 903–945. https://doi.org/10.1086/722970
7. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton University Press.
8. Ard, K., & Mohai, P. (2011). Hispanics and Environmental Voting in the US Congress. Environmental Practice, 13(4), 302–313. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046611000330

9. Aria, M., & Cuccurullo, C. (2017). bibliometrix : An R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 959–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007
10. Babutsidze, Z., Blankenberg, A. K., & Chai, A. D. (2023). The effect of traditional media consumption and internet use on environmental attitudes in Europe. Journal Of Evolutionary Economics, 33(2), 309–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00191-023-00810-0
11. Baccini, L., & Leemann, L. (2021). Do natural disasters help the environment? How voters respond and what that means. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(3), 468–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2020.25
12. Bakker, B. N., & de Vreese, C. H. (2016). Personality and European Union attitudes: Relationships across European Union attitude dimensions. European Union Politics, 17(1), 25–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116515595885
13. Baraldi, A. L., Cantabene, C., & De Iudicibus, A. (2024). Does gender affect environmentally virtuous behaviour? Evidence from selective waste collection. Journal Of Environmental Management, 353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.120069
14. Bayer, R., & Tafazzoli, B. (2024). Politicization, Ratification of International Agreements, and Domestic Political Competition in Non-Democracies: The Case of Iran and the Paris Climate Accords. Uluslararasi Iliskiler-International Relations, 21(81), 5–25. https://doi.org/10.33458/uidergisi.1406808
15. Bechtel, M. M., & Hainmueller, J. (2011). How Lasting Is Voter Gratitude? An Analysis of the Short‐ and Long‐Term Electoral Returns to Beneficial Policy. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 852–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00533.x
16. Beland, L. P., & Boucher, V. (2015). Polluting politics. Economics Letters, 137, 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.11.007
17. Bene, M., Ceron, A., Fenoll, V., Hassler, J., Kruschinski, S., Larsson, A. O., Magin, M., Schlosser, K., & Wurst, A. K. (2022). Keep Them Engaged! Investigating the Effects of Self-centered Social Media Communication Style on User Engagement in 12 European Countries. Political Communication, 39(4), 429–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2042435
18. Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. University of Chicago Press.
19. Bergan, D. E., Lapinski, M. K., & Turner, S. (2022). Do Populists Really Reject Expert Judgment?: Expert Consensus and Support for Clean Water Act Protections. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 34(2). https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edac016
20. Birch, S. (2020). Political polarization and environmental attitudes: a cross-national analysis. Environmental Politics, 29(4), 697–718. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1673997
21. Birch, S. (2023a). The electoral benefits of environmental position-taking: Floods and electoral outcomes in England 2010-2019. European Journal of Political Research, 62(1), 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12522
22. Birch, S. (2023b). Voting for the Future: Electoral Institutions and the Time Horizons of Democracy. Political Studies Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231204550
23. Bleidorn, W., Schilling, T., & Hopwood, C. J. (2024). High Openness and Low Conscientiousness Predict Green Party Preferences and Voting. SOCIAL Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241245157
24. Boly, M., Combes, J. L., & Motel, P. C. (2023). Does environment pay for politicians? Economic Modelling, 128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106491
25. Boomhower, J. (2024). When Do Environmental Externalities Have Electoral Consequences? Evidence from Fracking. Journal of The Association Of Environmental And Resource Economists, 11(4), 999–1029. https://doi.org/10.1086/728467
26. Boyce, J. R., & Nilsson, M. A. N. (1999). Interest group competition and the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act. Natural Resources Journal, 39(4), 755–798.
27. Brace, P., & Hall, M. G. (1995). Studying Courts Comparatively - The View from The American States. Political Research Quarterly, 48(1), 5–29. https://doi.org/10.2307/449117
28. Brace, P., & Jewett A. (1995). The State of State-Politics Research. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 643–681. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800310
29. Brounen, D., & Kok, N. (2011). On the economics of energy labels in the housing market. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 166–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.11.006 Butler, D., & Stokes, D. (1969). Political Change in Britain: Basis of Electoral Choice. St. Martin’s Press.
30. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. University of Chicago Press.
31. Carattini, S., Baranzini, A., Thalmann, P., Varone, F., & Vöhringer, F. (2017). Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable? Environmental & Resource Economics, 68(1), 97–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-017-0133-8
32. Cazals, A., & Sauquet, A. (2015). How do elections affect international cooperation? Evidence from environmental treaty participation. Public Choice, 162(3–4), 263–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-014-0221-z
33. Chaudoin, S., & Woon, J. (2018). How Hard to Fight? Cross-Player Effects and Strategic Sophistication in an Asymmetric Contest Experiment. Journal Of Politics, 80(2), 585–600. https://doi.org/10.1086/694542
34. Colantone, I., Di Lonardo, L., Margalit, Y., & Percoco, M. (2024). The Political Consequences of Green Policies: Evidence from Italy. American Political Science Review, 118(1), 108–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055423000308
35. Collingwood, L., Morín, J. L., & Tzelgov, E. (2024). Walls, Weed, and Coal: How Threats to Local Industry Shape Economic Voting. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09967-1
36. Cooper, J., Kim, S. E., & Urpelainen, J. (2018). The Broad Impact of a Narrow Conflict: How Natural Resource Windfalls Shape Policy and Politics. Journal of Politics, 80(2), 630–646. https://doi.org/10.1086/694787
37. Cronert, A., & Nyman, P. (2024). Do voters’ biases impede future-oriented policy-making? European Journal of Political Research, 63(3), 1108–1128. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12635
38. Davis, F. L., & Wurth, A. H. (2003). Voting preferences and the environment in the American electorate: The discussion extended. Society & Natural Resources, 16(8), 729–740. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920309195
39. Di Maria, C., Lazarova, E., & Lange, L. (2024). Political “Colour” and Firm Behaviour: Evidence from US Power Plants’ Pollution Abatement. Environmental & Resource Economics, 87(5), 1141–1174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-024-00859-w
40. Dolezal, M. (2010). Exploring the Stabilization of a Political Force: The Social and Attitudinal Basis of Green Parties in the Age of Globalization. West European Politics, 33(3), 534–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402381003654569
41. Downs, A. (1957a). An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper.
42. Downs, A. (1957b). An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150. https://doi.org/10.1086/257897
43. Egli, F., Schmid, N., & Schmidt, T. S. (2022). Backlash to fossil fuel phase-outs: the case of coal mining in US presidential elections. Environmental Research Letters, 17(9). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac82fe
44. Elliott, R. J. R., Nguyen-Tien, V., Strobl, E. A., & Tveit, T. (2023). Climate-Related Natural Disasters and Voting Behavior: Evidence from Environmental Legislation in the US Senate. Journal of The Association of Environmental And Resource Economists, 10(3), 753–786. https://doi.org/10.1086/722540
45. Fagerholm, A. (2016). Social democratic parties and the rise of ecologism: A comparative analysis of Western Europe. Comparative European Politics, 14(5), 547–570. https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2014.34
46. Fair, C. C., Kuhn, P. M., Malhotra, N., & Shapiro, J. N. (2017). Natural Disasters and Political Engagement: Evidence from the 2010-11 Pakistani Floods. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 12(1), 99–141. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00015075
47. Fiorina, M. P. (1981). Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. Yale University Press.
48. Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Genetic Variation in Political Participation. American Political Science Review, 102(2), 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055408080209
49. Fredriksson, P. G., Wang, L., & Mamun, K. A. (2011). Are politicians office or policy motivated? The case of US governors’ environmental policies. Journal Of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(2), 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2011.03.005
50. Friedland, D. M. (2016, November 16). Impacts of the 2016 U.S. Election on Environmental Law, Policy, and Enforcement. Beveridge & Diamond. https://www.bdlaw.com/publications/impacts-of-the-2016-u-s-election-on-environmental-law-policy-and-enforcement/
51. Furceri, D., Ganslmeier, M., & Ostry, J. (2023). Are climate change policies politically costly? Energy Policy, 178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2023.113575
52. Gibbons, A., & Evans, R. (2023). The executive lawmaking agenda: Political parties, prime ministers, and policy change in Australia(sic)(sic)(sic)Palabras clave. Policy Studies Journal, 51(2), 307–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12503
53. Gohil, J., Patel, J., Chopra, J., Chhaya, K., Taravia, J., & Shah, M. (2021). Advent of Big Data technology in environment and water management sector. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(45), 64084–64102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14017-y
54. Gourley, P., & Khamis, M. (2023). It is not easy being a Green party: Green politics as a normal good. European Journal of Political Economy, 76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2022.102266
55. Grant, Z. P., & Tilley, J. (2019). Fertile soil: explaining variation in the success of Green parties. West European Politics, 42(3), 495–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2018.1521673
56. Guber, D. L. (2001). Voting preferences and the environment in the American electorate. Society & Natural Resources, 14(6), 455–469.
57. Gulen, H., & Myers, B. W. (2024). The Selective Enforcement of Government Regulations: Battleground States, State Regulators, and the Environmental Protection Agency. Journal Of Law & Economics, 67(1), 225–263. https://doi.org/10.1086/728369
58. Han, J., & Finke, D. (2023). Voting Green in European Parliament elections: issue voting in an electoral context. Journal Of European Public Policy, 30(12), 2764–2785. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2022.2116082
59. Harrison, K. (2012). A Tale of Two Taxes: The Fate of Environmental Tax Reform in Canada. Review Of Policy Research, 29(3), 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2012.00565.x
60. Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2009). Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 387–406. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055409990104
61. Heitz, A., Wang, Y., & Wang, Z. G. (2023). Corporate Political Connections and Favorable Environmental Regulatory Enforcement. Management Science, 69(12), 7838–7859. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2020.3931
62. Hilbig, H., & Riaz, S. (2024). Natural Disasters and Green Party Support. Journal Of Politics, 86(1), 241–256. https://doi.org/10.1086/726917
63. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1992). Political Parties and Electoral Mobilization: Political Structure, Social Structure, and the Party Canvass. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/1964016
64. Inglehart, R. F. (1977). The Silent Revolution: Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Politics. Princeton University Press.
65. Innes, R., & Mitra, A. (2015). Parties, Politics, and Regulation: Evidence from Clean Air Act Enforcement. Economic Inquiry, 53(1), 522–539. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.12142
66. IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
67. IPCC. (2023). Climate Change 2023: AR6 Synthesis Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Isaksson, Z., & Gren, S. (2024). Political expectations and electoral responses to wind farm development in Sweden. Energy Policy, 186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2024.113984
68. Johnson, T., & Rickard, V. (2017). United Nations, Uniting Nations: International Support Cues and American Attitudes on Environmental Sustainability. Social Science Quarterly, 98(3), 876–893. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12431
69. Joseph, S., Friedrich, H., & Li, X. W. (2023). Analyzing drivers of organic food sales-A pooled spatial data analysis for Hamburg (Germany). PLOS ONE, 18(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0285377
70. Jung, J., Petkanic, P., Nan, D., & Kim, J. H. (2020). When a Girl Awakened the World: A User and Social Message Analysis of Greta Thunberg. Sustainability, 12(7), 2707. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072707
71. Kahn, M. E., & Matsusaka, J. G. (1997). Demand for environmental goods: Evidence from voting patterns on California initiatives. Journal Of Law & Economics, 40(1), 137–173. https://doi.org/10.1086/467369
72. Kallbekken, S., Kroll, S., & Cherry, T. L. (2011). Do you not like Pigou, or do you not understand him? Tax aversion and revenue recycling in the lab. Journal Of Environmental Economics and Management, 62(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2010.10.006
73. Key, V. O. (1966). The Responsible Electorate: Rationality in Presidential Voting, 1936-1960. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
74. Kim, S. E., & Urpelainen, J. (2017). The Polarization of American Environmental Policy: A Regression Discontinuity Analysis of Senate and House Votes, 1971-2013. Review Of Policy Research, 34(4), 456–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12238
75. Koger, G. (2009). Making Change: A Six-Month Review. Forum-A Journal of Applied Research in Contemporary Politics, 7(3).
76. Konuralp, E. (2018). On Positivism and its Methodological Individualist Revision. In E. Yağanak & A. U. Hacıfevzioğlu (Eds.), Epistemological, Ethical and Political Issues in Modern Philosophy (pp. 69–83). Peter Lang.
77. Kronborg, A., Hedegaard, F., Klindt, I., & Vandeweerdt, C. (2024). Do green parties in government benefit from natural catastrophes? How wildfires are linked to voting. Electoral Studies, 88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102749
78. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. Duell, Sloan and Pearce.
79. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., & Rosenthal, S. (2016). Global Warming and the U.S. Presidential Election, Spring 2016.
80. Liao, Y. J., & Junco, P. R. (2022). Extreme weather and the politics of climate change: A study of campaign finance and elections. Journal Of Environmental Economics and Management, 111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeem.2021.102550
81. Lichtin, F., van der Brug, W., & Rekker, R. (2023). Generational replacement and Green party support in Western Europe. Electoral Studies, 83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2023.102602
82. Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: An introduction. In S. M. Lipset & S. Rokkan (Eds.), Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives (pp. 1–64). The Free Press.
83. List, J. A., & Sturm, D. M. (2006). Elections matter: Theory and evidence from environmental policy. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(4), 1249–1281. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.121.4.1249
84. Littvay, L., Weith, P. T., & Dawes, C. T. (2011). Sense of Control and Voting: A Genetically-Driven Relationship. Social Science Quarterly, 92(5), 1236–1252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6237.2011.00816.x
85. Lüth, M., & Schaffer, L. M. (2022). The electoral importance and evolution of climate-related energy policy: evidence from Switzerland. Swiss Political Science Review, 28(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12520
86. Magontier, P., Solé-Ollé, A., & Viladecans-Marsal, E. (2024). The political economy of coastal development. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2024.105178
87. Marquet, O., Núñez, M. B. F., & Maciejewska, M. (2024). The political price of superblocks. Electoral outcomes of sustainable transport interventions in Barcelona. Environment International, 189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108789
88. Martelli, S., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Paruolo, P., Bréchet, T., Strobl, E., Guizzardi, D., Cerutti, A. K., & Iancu, A. (2018). Do Voters Support Local Commitments for Climate Change Mitigation in Italy? Ecological Economics, 144, 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.06.035
89. Masyutina, O., Paustyan, E., & Yakovlev, G. (2023). Environmental Politics in Authoritarian Regimes: Waste Management in Russian Regions. Russian Politics, 8(3), 305–330. https://doi.org/10.30965/24518921-00803002
90. Mazzoleni, M. (2009). The Saliency of Regionalization in Party Systems A Comparative Analysis of Regional Decentralization in Party Manifestos. Party Politics, 15(2), 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068808099981
91. McAlexander, R. J., & Urpelainen, J. (2020). Elections and Policy Responsiveness: Evidence from Environmental Voting in the US Congress(sic)(sic)Palabras Clave. Review Of Policy Research, 37(1), 39–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12368
92. McAllister, J. H., & bin Oslan, A. (2021). Issue ownership and salience shocks: The electoral impact of Australian bushfires. ELECTORAL STUDIES, 74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102389
93. Meeks, L. (2023). Promising a Greener Paris: Anne Hidalgo’s Framing of Environmental Issues in Her Mayoral Campaigns. Environmental Communication-A Journal of Nature and Culture, 17(6), 550–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2023.2226356
94. Meguid, B. M. (2005). Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review, 99(3), 347–359. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055405051701
95. Menge, J. A., Bühren, C., & Schlesinger, T. (2024). What determines voting behavior to host the Olympic games in the Rhine-Ruhr area: a multilevel model. Frontiers In Sports and Active Living, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fspor.2024.1372121
96. Meyer, A. G. (2019). Elite Influence on Climate Change Skepticism: Evidence from Close Gubernatorial Elections. Journal Of The Association Of Environmental And Resource Economists, 6(4), 783–822. https://doi.org/10.1086/703744
97. Miragliotta, N. (2013). The Australian Greens: carving out space in a two-party system. ENVIRONMENTAL POLITICS, 22(5), 706–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2013.824172
98. Mo, C. H., Jachimowicz, J. M., Menges, J. I., & Galinsky, A. D. (2023). The Impact of Incidental Environmental Factors on Vote Choice: Wind Speed is Related to More Prevention-Focused Voting. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-023-09865-y
99. Mohai, P., & Kershner, D. (2002). Race and environmental voting in the US Congress. Social Science Quarterly, 83(1), 167–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.00077
100. Morpurgo, J., Kissling, W. D., Tyrrell, P., Negret, P. J., van Bodegom, P. M., & Allan, J. R. (2023). The role of elections as drivers of tropical deforestation. Biological Conservation, 279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2022.109832
101. Nicholson, S. P. (2003). The political environment and ballot proposition awareness. American Journal of Political Science, 47(3), 403–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5907.00029
102. Ogami, M. (2024). The Conditionality of Political Short-Termism: A Review of Empirical and Experimental Studies. Politics And Governance, 12. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.7764
103. Otjes, S., & Krouwel, A. (2023). The nuclear option: Voting for the pan-European party Volt. European Union Politics, 24(4), 726–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/14651165231193814
104. Özdil, M. A., & Konuralp, E. (2024). The Bibliometric Interplay Between Sustainability and Fashion Studies Amidst the Neoliberal Era. Fashion Practice, 16(3).
105. Pacca, L., Curzi, D., Rausser, G., & Olper, A. (2021). The Role of Party Affiliation, Lobbying, and Electoral Incentives in Decentralized US State Support of the Environment. Journal of The Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, 8(3), 617–653. https://doi.org/10.1086/711583
106. Peeters, W., & Coffé, H. (2024). Votes for climate: green issue salience and preferences, and regional differences in the electoral success of green parties in the 2019 Belgian federal elections. Acta Politica. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-024-00337-7
107. Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111797
108. Piston, S., Krupnikov, Y., Milita, K., & Ryan, J. B. (2018). Clear as Black and White: The Effects of Ambiguous Rhetoric Depend on Candidate Race. Journal Of Politics, 80(2), 662–674. https://doi.org/10.1086/696619
109. Pollex, J., & Berker, L. E. (2024). The European Parliament and Fridays for Future: analysing reactions to a new environmental movement by Europe’s climate policy champion. Journal of European Integration. https://doi.org/10.1080/07036337.2024.2334079
110. Quoss, F., Rudolph, L., & Daeubler, T. (2024). How does information affect vote choice in open-list PR systems? Evidence from a survey experiment mimicking real-world elections in Switzerland. Electoral Studies, 91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102837
111. Reif, K., & Schmitt, H. (1980). Nine Second‐Order National Elections – A Conceptual Framework for The Analysis of European Election Results. European Journal of Political Research, 8(1), 3–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.1980.tb00737.x
112. Revesz, R. L. (1997). Environmental Regulation, Ideology, and the D. C. Circuit. Virginia Law Review, 83(8), 1717. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073657
113. Ringquist, E. J., & Dasse, C. (2004). Lies, damned lies, and campaign promises? Environmental legislation in the 105th Congress. SOCIAL SCIENCE QUARTERLY, 85(2), 400–419. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0038-4941.2004.08502009.x
114. Rüdig, W. (2012). The perennial success of the German Greens. Environmental Politics, 21(1), 108–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2011.643371
115. Sabherwal, A., Ballew, M. T., van der Linden, S., Gustafson, A., Goldberg, M. H., Maibach, E. W., Kotcher, J. E., Swim, J. K., Rosenthal, S. A., & Leiserowitz, A. (2021). The Greta Thunberg Effect: Familiarity with Greta Thunberg predicts intentions to engage in climate activism in the United States. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(4), 321–333. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12737
116. Saha, S. (2023). Why don’t politicians talk about meat? The political psychology of human-animal relations in elections. Frontiers In Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1021013
117. Sahle, M., Lahoti, S. A., Lee, S.-Y., Kamiyama, C., Tan, X., Kozar, R., Saito, O., & Takeuchi, K. (2024). Mapping the evolving research landscape of sustainability science from 2006 to 2023: unveiling its transformation. Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01529-y
118. Sanford, L. (2023). Democratization, Elections, and Public Goods: The Evidence from Deforestation. American Journal of Political Science, 67(3), 748–763. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12662
119. Schulze, K. (2021). Policy Characteristics, Electoral Cycles, and the Partisan Politics of Climate Change. GlobaL Environmental Politics, 21(2). https://doi.org/10.1162/glep_a_00593
120. Schumacher, I. (2014). An Empirical Study of the Determinants of Green Party Voting. Ecological Economics, 105, 306–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.05.007
121. Schwörer, J. (2024). Mainstream parties and global warming: What determines parties’ engagement in climate protection? European Journal of Political Research, 63(1), 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12602
122. Seeberg, H. B., & Adams, J. (2024). Citizens’ issue priorities respond to national conditions, less so to parties’ issue emphases. European Journal of Political Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12714
123. Settle, J. E., Dawes, C. T., Loewen, P. J., & Panagopoulos, C. (2017). Negative Affectivity, Political Contention, and Turnout: A Genopolitics Field Experiment. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1065–1082. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12379
124. Shipan, C. R., & Lowry, W. R. (2001). Environmental Policy and Party Divergence in Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400201
125. Spoon, J., Hobolt, S. B., & de Vries, C. E. (2014). Going green: Explaining issue competition on the environment. European Journal of Political Research, 53(2), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12032
126. Stef, N., & Ben Jabeur, S. (2023). Elections and Environmental Quality. Environmental & Resource Economics, 84(2), 593–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10640-022-00739-1
127. Sugg, J., & Weir, C. (2023). Geographical Insights on the Partisan Polarization of the Acceptance of Human-Caused Climate Change in the US. Southeastern Geographer, 63(2), 135–154. https://doi.org/10.1353/sgo.2023.0012
128. Swyngedouw, E. (2013). Into the Sea: Desalination as Hydro-Social Fix in Spain. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2013.754688
129. Tawiah, V., & Zakari, A. (2024). Government political ideology and green innovation: evidence from OECD countries. Economic Change and Restructuring, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-024-09712-y
130. Theisen, O. M. (2012). Climate clashes? Weather variability, land pressure, and organized violence in Kenya, 1989-2004. Journal of Peace Research, 49(1), 81–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343311425842
131. Tolbert, C. J., & Mcneal, R. S. (2003). Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on Political Participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56(2), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290305600206
132. Tonnesen, H., Bene, M., Hassler, J., Larsson, A. O., Magin, M., Skogerbo, E., & Wurst, A. K. (2023). Between anger and love: A multi-level study on the impact of policy issues on user reactions in national election campaigns on Facebook in Germany, Hungary, and Norway. NEW MEDIA & SOCIETY. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231208122
133. Torres, M., & Smith, S. S. (2018). Revisiting Bedrock Values: The Stability and Predictive Power of the Society Works Best Index. AMERICAN POLITICS RESEARCH, 46(2), 308–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17733797
134. Trenchs, N. R., Casals, E. E., & Blasco, M. M. (2023). Do politicians connect with young people? Analysis of Twitter use by candidates in the 2019 European Parliament election campaign. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 15(1), 27–53. https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs_00077_1
135. Vega, C. (2023). EPA Announces $21M in Research Grant Funding to Investigate Cumulative Health Impacts of Climate Change on Underserved Communities. US Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-21m-research-grant-funding-investigate-cumulative-health-impacts-0
136. von Stein, J. (2022). Democracy, Autocracy, and Everything in Between: How Domestic Institutions Affect Environmental Protection. British Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 339–357. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000712342000054X
137. Wang, D., & Mei, J. H. (2024). An advanced review of climate change mitigation policies in the United States. Resources Conservation and Recycling, 208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2024.107718
138. Wattier, M. J., & Tatalovich, R. (2000). Issue publics, mass publics, and agenda setting: environmentalism and economics in presidential elections. Environment And Planning C-Government and Policy, 18(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1068/c9c
139. Whitley, S. G., Nelsen, B. F., & Guth, J. L. (2023). Explaining Green Party Support in the 2019 European Parliamentary Elections: A Test of Four Hypotheses. SOCIETY, 60(3), 413–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12115-023-00824-1
140. Woolston, C. (2023). Measuring societal impact: how to go beyond standard publication metrics. Nature, 614(7947), 375–377. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00345-1
141. Yan, Q. S., Zhang, Z. Q., Er, C. X., & Wang, W. Q. (2024). The mechanism of internal and external efficacy influences residents’ pro-environmental behavior through environmental willingness. Plos One, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298378
142. Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.
143. Zelin, W. A., & Smith, D. A. (2023). Weather to Vote: How Natural Disasters Shape Turnout Decisions. Political Research Quarterly, 76(2), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129221093386
144. Zhang, C., Li, W., Zhang, H., & Zhan, T. (2024). Recent Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis and Its Applications. Electronics, 13(1), 226. https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13010226