Public acceptance of environmental restrictions beyond high-income democracies

Abstract Environmental policies that effectively address pollution and climate change often come with restrictions on individual behavior and economic activity. Understanding public acceptance of such policies is therefore critical for environmental governance, particularly in political contexts beyond high-income democracies which dominate existing research. This study examines how citizens in less democratic political systems evaluate restrictive environmental policies and which policy attributes shape their support. We conducted a large-scale conjoint experiment with 17 793 respondents across 12 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Latin America where respondents were tasked to evaluate environmental policy proposals that differ in effectiveness, restrictiveness, individual and societal costs, and opportunities for citizen participation. The results show that acceptance of restrictive environmental policies is structured by a multidimensional evaluative logic. Across countries, citizens weigh policy effectiveness alongside personal and societal costs and procedural inclusion when forming policy preferences. Policies perceived as more effective, less economically burdensome, especially at the household level, and more inclusive receive higher levels of support, are viewed as fairer, and elicit greater willingness to comply. These findings contribute new evidence to debates on environmental governance and political legitimacy in less democratic regimes.