- Email: [email protected]
The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy
MARK
⁎
Ajay S. Singha, , Adam Zwickleb, Jeremy T. Bruskotterc, Robyn Wilsonc a b c
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marstellar St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States Michigan State University, Environmental Science and Policy Program and School of Criminal Justice, 655 Auditorium Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, United States The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Psychological distance Climate change adaptation Climate change policy Climate change impacts Climate communications
Factors influencing support for climate mitigation policy in the United States are well researched, however, research regarding individuals’ support for climate adaptation policy is relatively sparse. This study explores how an individual’s perception of climate change impacts may influence their support for adaptation actions. Results of a survey of the U.S. public (n = 653) indicates that individuals who believe climate change impacts are unlikely to happen or will primarily affect other people in other places are less likely to be concerned about climate change impacts and less likely to support climate adaptation. However, an individual’s support for climate change adaptation measures is not influenced by their perception of when climate change impacts will occur even when taking into account concern for climate impacts. Critical for policy-makers, a belief that climate adaptation measures will not be effective attenuates the relationship between psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, and adaptation policy measures. Our results indicate that to effectively communicate about climate change, policy-makers should emphasize that: (i) climate change impacts are occurring, (ii) that their constituents are being affected now, or will be in the future, and (iii) communicate that adaptation measures can be effective in addressing risks associated with climate change impacts.
1. Introduction The ability to enact policy to address anthropogenic climate change is influenced, in part, by how individuals perceive the risks associated with climate change. Social and behavioral scientists have focused on public perceptions of climate change (i.e., belief in climate change, understanding of climate change, and perception of associated impacts) as explanations for individuals’ motivation to address climate risks through collective action (Weber and Stern, 2011). The literature explaining support for climate-related policies explores relationships among beliefs, risk perception, attitudes, norms, political orientation, knowledge, and willingness to address human contributions to climate change (Brulle et al., 2012; Dietz et al., 2007; Krosnick et al., 2006; Leiserowitz, 2006; Marquart-Pyatt et al., 2011). Until recently, climate policy research in the U.S. focused primarily on the willingness to engage in individual-level behavioral changes or support policies aimed at climate change mitigation (Dietz et al., 2007; Krosnick et al., 2006; Leiserowitz, 2006). However, because of the delay in adopting and implementing comprehensive mitigation policies, there is also a need to adopt and implement measures to help communities adapt to changing
⁎
environmental conditions in tandem with mitigation measures. While considerable scholarship is devoted to exploring individual and community adaptation and capacity to adapt to climate change (Adger, 2003; Grothman and Pratt, 2005; Smit and Wandel, 2006), including how adaptation might occur (Füssel, 2007; Smith and Lenhart, 1996), literature addressing factors that explain support for climate adaptation policy (opposed to mitigation policy) is sparse. One reason for the lack of literature exploring support for adaptation policy in the U.S. may be the notion that adaptation would reduce the need to address climate change through mitigation measures (see Pielke et al., 2007). While existing research illuminates linkages among sociopsychological factors and preferences for climate mitigation policy, there is a need to also understand the factors that influence an individual’s perceptions of adaptation policy (Dietz et al., 2007; Roser-Renouf and Nisbet, 2008). Because people often lack the time, interest, and background knowledge to develop an in-depth understanding of policy issues (Krosnick, 1990), decisions about complex environmental issues such as climate change may be subject to simplifying rules and patterns of judgment based on limited and sometimes even irrelevant information
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.S. Singh), [email protected] (A. Zwickle), [email protected] (J.T. Bruskotter), [email protected] (R. Wilson).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011 Received 21 September 2016; Received in revised form 14 April 2017; Accepted 15 April 2017 Available online 26 April 2017 1462-9011/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
depend on the extent to which that community supports the government institutions focused on preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts. Therefore, a more in-depth understanding of the underlying factors driving support for adaptation may help policy makers understand if or when an adaptation policy may gain traction at the national or subnational level.
(Weber and Stern, 2011; Etkin and Ho, 2007). For example, existing research on climate change indicates there are complex associations between an individual’s personal experience with extreme weather changes, emotional affect, concern about climate change, and their willingness to take action to address climate change (Akerlof et al., 2013; Weber and Stern, 2011; Weber, 2010; Leiserowitz and Broad, 2008). However, Leiserowitz (2005, 2006) found that although there is general awareness, belief, and concern for climate change in the U.S., there is a perception that climate change is a moderate risk that will impact people far away in the future, which may contribute to a relative lack of action. Conversely, when people associate impacts of climate change in places that are known to them, they exhibit greater concern and willingness to act to address climate change (Raymond and Brown, 2011). Findings point towards an idea that if an individual believes climate change is psychologically distant that individual will be less motivated to address climate change or support their government in attempts to address climate change. However, Spence, et al. (2011) found that when climate change impacts are framed as occurring in other countries, individuals are still motivated to engage in environmental behaviors that reduce GHG emissions; thus complicating how perceptions of psychological distance might influence future actions regarding climate change. Understanding how perceived distance might factor in to people’s decisions about climate change adaptation policy could help policy-makers and issue advocates to better communicate about climate adaptation and propose adaptation policy alternatives.
2.2. Risk perception and public policy How hazardous events are estimated and evaluated by laypeople–their risk perception, depends on numerous factors (Slovic et al., 1982; Slovic, 1986; Renn et al., 1992). Studying how the public perceives risk can help policy makers better understand how, or if, a target population may believe a hazard should be addressed. If individuals believe they are personally at risk of experiencing negative impacts of climate change, they are more likely to support climate policies (Weber and Stern, 2011; Weber, 2006). Although individuals can reduce their personal risk, to a limited extent, from climate change impacts through individual changes in behavior (e.g., not living in a floodplain), they do not have control over most of the hazard (e.g., coastal inundation). In these instances, climate risks must be addressed as a community at the proper scale, requiring the creation of policies to guide the formation and implementation of adaptation strategies. The need for adaptation policy to facilitate adaptive behavior can be viewed as a form of collective risk management. Climate policy provides a method for addressing a risk at the community level, when addressing the risk at the individual level is not feasible (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). Assessing perception of climate related risk, and the underlying factors that influence how those risk perceptions are formed, can increase our understanding of public support for climate policy. In addition to assessing the perceptions of climate risks and the effect those perceptions have on support for public policy, it is important to also understand the perceived response efficacy of potential policies, i.e., the likelihood of the policy actually addressing the problem (Roser-Renout and Nisbet, 2008). As the perceived effectiveness of the response increases, individuals will be more motivated to choose that method of addressing that risk (Witte, 1992). Kellstedt et al. (2008) found that self-efficacy was strongly and positively associated with concern for climate change. However, little research to date has examined the interactions of perceived response efficacy and support for climate adaptation policy.
2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Adaptation approach to addressing impacts of climate change Human adaptation to climate change refers to actions that help individuals, communities, and governments prepare for and adjust to changing climatic conditions or their effects in such a way that ‘moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2007; Melillo et al., 2014). Adaptation measures range from changing farming practices to reducing impacts of heavy rainfall events on soils, to decreasing institutional barriers, to increase adaptive capacity and resiliency to climate change impacts (Melillo et al., 2014). Climate adaptation research has focused on the applicability and adoption of measures at local and regional levels; however, there is now recognition of the need to address both mitigation and adaptation when developing climate policy at the national level (Urwin and Jordan, 2008). In 2011, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) outlined how federal agencies can assist and support stakeholders at all scales of government to address climate adaptation (Council on Environmental Quality, 2011). The CEQ recommended the government support U.S. adaptation efforts through a variety of intra and inter-governmental efforts. Since the CEQ Interagency Task force first report, President Obama has issued Executive Order 13514 allowing development of agency adaptation plans and, in November 2013 authorized agencies to implement the remaining recommendations from the CEQ. As federal adaptation planning and policy efforts are implemented it will be important to understand how and if the U.S. general public will support adaptation measures. In contrast to literature on climate mitigation policy, the majority of research on climate adaptation has drawn on sociological theory to assess a community or individual’s vulnerability or capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change (e.g., Brooks et al., 2005; Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Kelly and Adger, 2000; Pelling et al., 2008; Smit and Wandel, 2006). Generally, these studies suggest that proactively preparing for projected local climate change impacts can increase a community’s ability to adapt by providing additional preparation time to raise funds and implement projects to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts or increase the adaptive capacity of communities. Yet part of a community’s ability to adapt to climate change will also
2.3. Psychological distance of climate change One factor that may influence risk perceptions and policy preferences is the perceived psychological distance between climate change impacts and an individual. Psychological distance is an individual’s perception of how removed an object, risk, or event is from that individual (Liberman et al., 2007; Liberman and Trope, 2008; Trope and Liberman, 2010). Psychological distance is measured in four dimensions: hypotheticality or the likelihood of an event occurring (with unlikely events being more psychologically distant), temporal or when an event is occurring (with events in the past or future being more distant), social or who the event will be experienced by (with dissimilar people being more distant), and spatial or the physical distance an event will take place (with geographically distant places being more psychologically distant). The psychological distance at which an event, or object, is removed from one’s direct experience influences how it is perceived and evaluated, which, in turn, influences an individual’s motivation and preferences for action (Todorov et al., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2003). For example, individuals tend to discount those aspects of a risk that are more distant (e.g., increased risk of lung cancer over time from smoking) and focus more on those aspects which are psychologically nearer (e.g., the immediate pleasure derived from satisfying a nicotine craving) (Zwickle and Wilson, 2013). The connection between psychological distance and perceptions of 94
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
the perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts along the four domains of psychological distance (hypothetical, temporal, social, and spatial). The four items were 7-point, bi-polar Likert-type scales that gauged the individual’s beliefs regarding if, when, where, and who are or will be impacted by climate change. The measure for hypotheticality was worded in terms of likelihood of climate change impacts occurring (ranging from highly unlikely to highly likely). Temporal distance was measured by asking whether the respondent perceived impacts of climate change as being primarily felt now or will be felt in the distant future. Spatial distance was measured by asking whether the relative geographic distance of where impacts are or will be primarily experienced were near where the respondent lives or far away. Social distance was measured by asking whether the impacts of climate change would primarily be experienced by people similar to the respondent or by other, dissimilar people. The items measuring level of concern for climate change impacts were drawn from Leiserowitz et al. (2011), using a four-point scale regarding whether climate change will have serious negative consequences for the respondent, the respondent’s family, people in the respondent’s community, people in other states, people in other countries, nature (fish, wildlife, plants), the economy, or future generations. For purposes of this analysis showing how concern may mediate the relationship between psychological distance and support for policy approach, the eight question items were combined into one index measure of concern (α = 0.949). A single item was used to gauge the perceived efficacy of climate adaptation policy. The efficacy question asked how effective an adaptation measure would be in reducing the impact of climate change. Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from very ineffective to very effective. A measure of support for adaptation policies was constructed by combining responses to six items that asked about an individual’s support for policies to address natural disaster preparedness, water management, and habitat restoration (α = 0.825; Table 1). Individual policy questions were on a five point Likert-type scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Policy questions were framed to be either facilitative or restrictive. Facilitative policies create incentives to adopt behaviors to prepare for potential climate change impacts. In contrast, restrictive policies create disincentives to engage in behaviors that increase vulnerability to hazards. Both policy approaches were included in order to reduce the bias that one’s political ideology may have over their level of support. To analyze the relationships among dimensions of psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, response efficacy, and support for adaptation and mitigation policy, a simple mediated model and a moderated mediation model were constructed and analyzed (see Baron and Kenny, 1986). In a simple mediation model (Model 1; Fig. 1), a represents the relationship between the perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and the level of concern in regards to those impacts while b represents the relationship between level of concern and support for an adaptation approach while holding psychological distance constant. The direct effect is represented by c’ indicating the strength and direction of the relationship between dimensions of psychological distance on support for a climate adaptation approach holding concern constant while c represents the total direct effect (Hayes and Preacher, 2014). The indirect effect (ab) is the strength and
climate change has received attention in the climate change literature (e.g.; Spence and Pidgeon, 2010; Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006; Jones et al., 2017). Early research on the public perception of climate change found that individuals in the U.S. primarily perceive climate change as a temporally and spatially distant phenomenon, which potentially reduces support for climate mitigation policies (Leiserowitz, 2006; Leiserowitz et al., 2014). In two separate studies, Spence and colleagues found a complex relationship between psychological distance and climate change, with decreased distance being associated with greater concern, whereas increased distance was correlated with more positive attitudes towards mitigation (2010) and preparedness to reduce energy use (2011). One possible explanation for these mixed results may be the global nature of climate change: climate change will affect us in the future, but we are also being affected now, it is impacting places both far away and close to home, and concerns everyone, both those who are unlike us and our intimate family and friends. However, there are few examples connecting psychological distance to climate change adaptation policies. In one study, Haden et al. (2012) found that farmers in the central valley of California were motivated to adopt adaptation strategies when they perceived climate change impacts as occurring more proximate to their farm. The communication of environmental risks, and related policies, could likely be improved with a better understanding of the perceived psychological distance of climate change on climate related beliefs and actions (Spence et al., 2011; Zwickle and Wilson 2013). This study explores the strength and direction of relationships between the perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts, an individual’s level of concern about climate change impacts, and their support for adaptation policies. We hypothesize that concern for climate change impacts will mediate the relationship between the four dimensions of psychological distance and support for climate adaptation, specifically that perceived distance will determine the degree of personal concern, which will determine support. This study also explores the moderating influence of perceived response efficacy of adaptation policies/actions on the relationships among psychological distance, concern, and support for adaptation. Controlling for psych distance, it is predicted that concern will explain a significant portion of the variation in support, but that levels of response efficacy will attenuate the relationship. The purpose of this research is to better understand, in light of mixed results from previous studies, how beliefs in if, when, and where climate change impacts will occur and whom will affect support for climate adaptation policies. We also examine how concern for climate change impacts and perceptions of the efficacy of adaptation policies act as intervening variables in the relationship between psychological distance and support for adaptation measures. 3. Material and methods To assess the relationships among psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, and support for adaptation policies, an internet-based survey using the Qualtrics platform was administered to an online panel maintained by Survey Sampling Inc. (SSI). The panel was designed to be representative of the U.S. general public based upon key demographic indicators captured in the 2010 U.S. Census. Four items adapted from Spence et al. (2011) were used to measure Table 1 Climate Change Adaptation Policy Measures. How much would you support or oppose
… increasing federal aid for developing countries who are vulnerable to natural disasters that have increased due to climate change? … implementing zoning laws in 10 years that prohibit building of homes and commercial buildings in areas that are threatened by natural disasters such as wildfires, floods, or hurricanes? … a federal policy that provides you with incentives to increase your ability to adapt to natural disasters? … increasing funding for farmers to help them adapt to increases in flooding or drought? … increasing funding to local governments in the next year to implement projects to reduce risk of drought? … increasing funding to programs in your state that help protect or restore natural habitats that are endangered because of climate change?
95
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
Fig. 1. Simple Mediation and Moderated Mediation Conceptual Models.
ship between concern and support for climate adaptation policies, holding psychological distance constant, is significant and positive. The direct effect of psychological distance on support for policy, while holding concern constant, was significant for each dimension except temporal distance. Temporal distance did, however, have a significant indirect effect on policy support, indicating that temporal distance is fully mediated by level of concern for climate change impacts. Because the direct and indirect effects of the likelihood, social, and spatial dimensions are significant, results show that each of these dimensions are at least partially mediated by concern for climate change impacts. Results suggest the perceived likelihood of climate change occurring had a significant positive total effect on support for adaptation approaches (k2 = .229). The simple mediation model explained 37.4% of variance for support for climate adaptation policies. Social distance also had a significant negative total effect on support for the combined measure of adaptation policies (k2 = .172). Social distance and concern together explained 33.1% of the variance in support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. Spatial distance had a significant negative total effect on support for adaptation policies as well (k2 = .122). Overall, the model explained 33.6% of the variance in support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. The model for temporal distance and concern indicated a significant indirect effect (k2 = .116). Together the temporal dimension and concern for climate change impacts explained 32.7% of the variance in support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. Results show a significant total effect of psychological distance on the relationship between concern for climate change impacts and support for climate adaptation policies for the hypotheticality dimension of psychological distance and a significant, negative total effect (c’) for the social and spatial dimensions. Similar to the results for the simple mediation model, there was no significant effect of the temporal dimension of climate change impacts on support for the combined measure of adaptation policies when taking into account levels of concern and the perceived efficacy of an adaptation approach. Analysis of the conditional indirect effect of response efficacy indicates that efficacy moderates the relationship between concern and support for climate adaptation policies (Table 3). For all dimensions of psychological distance response efficacy is negatively related with both concern for climate change impacts and support for adaptation policy. That is, an individual’s perception of the efficacy of an adaptation approach attenuates the effect of concern for climate change impacts on their level of support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. In other words, as psychological distance decreases and concern increases, response efficacy may further explain lower levels of support for adaptation measures.
relationship of dimensions of psychological distance and support for climate adaptation approach and k2 represents the “the proportion of the maximum possible indirect effect that could have occurred” (Preacher and Kelley, 2011, 106). Model 2 is a moderated mediation model where the relationship between concern and support for climate adaptation policy is moderated by the level of perceived response efficacy. To show the influence of policy effectiveness as a moderator of the relationship between concern and support for policy adaptation policy the conditional indirect effect (b3) is reported. To measure the overall effect of independent variables in the model on support for climate adaptation policy, the total variance accounted for by all parameters used in both the simple and moderated mediation models is also presented. A two-step analysis was used to answer the questions of strength, direction, and explanatory value of the relationships among psychological distance, concern, efficacy, and policy support. First, a simple mediation model (Fig. 1; Model 1) was constructed to explain how concern mediates the relationship between psychological distance and support for climate adaptation policies. Second, a moderated mediation model (Fig. 1; Model 2) was constructed to determine the extent to which the mediated relationship is dependent on perception of response efficacy (Preacher et al., 2007). For the analysis of Model 1 and Model 2, the indirect effect of psychological distance on policy support was tested using a bias-correcting bootstrap at a 95% confidence interval using the default settings in PROCESS at 1000 imputations. 4. Results Of the 743 subjects who responded to the survey invitation 653 (86%) completed the survey. While this study generalizes to theory and not the U.S. general population, study procedures used a quota method to ensure diversity within the panel. Of those who responded to the request to participate, 30% have household incomes less than $25,000, 53% have incomes between $25,000 and $75,000, and 17% have incomes of more than $75,000. Education attainment of the panel are 29% have a high school diploma or less, 39% have some college or a 2year degree, 21% have a 4-year college degree, and 11% have a graduate degree. Racial make-up of the panel is 73% white, 11% African-American, 6% Asian, 2% Native American, 0.5% Pacific Islander, and 0.5% are of another racial group. 4.1. Relationship between psychological distance and policy approach mediated by concern A simple mediation model (Model 1) was used to examine the direct and indirect effects of psychological distance on support for the combined measure of adaptation policies to address climate change impacts. An OLS path analysis was conducted showing the effect individual psychological distance dimensions on levels of support for climate adaptation policies. Model 1 indicates the more likely climate impacts are perceived to be (decreased distance), the greater the concern for climate impacts and support for climate adaptation measures. These results further support the idea that the more distant climate change impacts are perceived to be the less concerned individuals are about climate change impacts (Table 2). The relation-
5. Discussion The results of this study provide additional empirical evidence that individuals’ propensity to take actions regarding climate change are impacted by the extent to which they believe climate change is occurring (hypotheticality), is serious (concern for climate change impacts), and that there are effective solutions to adapt to climate change (response efficacy). Specifically, our results indicate that the 96
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
Table 2 The mediating effect of concern for climate change impacts on the relationship between psychological distance and support for policy. Psychological Distance
Concern β
Likelihood
Temporal
Social
Spatial
Hypothet Concern Constant
Temporal Concern Constant
Social Concern Constant
Spatial Concern Constant
Support SE
0.279 0.077 – – 1.49 0.078 r2 = .326 F(1, 634) = 306.507 p < .001 −0.074 0.016 – – 2.99 0.059 r2 = .031 F(1, 634) = 154.081, p < .001 −0.146 0.058 – – 3.149 0.019 r2 = .088 F(1, 634) = 60.83, p < .001 −0.103 0.019 – – 3.105 .072
a1 I1
a1 I1
a1 I1
a1
β
p
I1 r2 = .041 F(1, 634) = 27.355, p < .001
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
SE
.109 .016 .353 .032 2.041 .079 r2 = .374 F(2633) = 189.413 p < .001 .01 .012 .485 .028 .485 .028 r2 = .327 F(2633) = 154.081, p < .001 −.028 .014 .464 .029 2.302 .099 r2 = .331 F(2633) = 156.379, p < .001 −.042 .014 .464 0.28 2.37 .100 r2 = .336 F(2633) = 160.053, p < .001
p < .001 < .001 < .001
> .05 < .001 < .001
< .05 < .001 < .001
< .01 < .001 < .001
ab = .239 (SE = .023; .196, .285); c = .208 (SE = .014; p < .001) k2 = .229 (SE = .020; .188, .268) ab = −.101 (SE = .026; −.151, −.051) c = −.026 (SE = .014; p > .05) k2 = .116 (SE = .028; .063, .168) ab = −.163 (SE = .024; −.214, −.118) c = −.095 (SE = .016, p < .001); k2 = .172 (SE = .024; .128, .223) ab = −.112 (SE = .025; −.158, −.061) c = −.089 (SE = 0.017, p < .001); k2 = .122 (SE = .026; .067, .169)
(a = effect psych distance on concern; b = effect of concern on support; c’ = direct effect of psych distance on support; c = total effect; ab = indirect effect of psych distance on support; k2 = proportion of expected indirect effect).
Table 3 The effect of psychological distance on support as mediated by concern, moderated by response efficacy. Concern β Likelihood
Hypothet. Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Temporal
Temporal Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Social
Social Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Spatial Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Spatial
Climate Adaptation Policies SE
β.
p
.279 .016 – – – – – – 1.500 .078 r2 = .324 F(1, 631) = 301.75 p < .001 −.073 .016 – – – – – – 2.990 .059 r2 = .030 F(1, 631) = 19.759 p < .001 −.145 .058 – – – – – – 3.149 .058 r2 = .087 F(1, 631) = 60.78 p < .001 −.103 .019 – – – – – – 3.107 .019 r2 = .040 F(1, 631) = 27.16 p < .001
.001 – – – .001
.001 – – – .001
.001 – – .001
.001 – – .001
c’ b1 b2 b3 i2
.083 .382 .306 −.033 1.091 r2 = .526 F(1, 628) = 174.37 p < .001 .004 .499 .336 −.039 1.085
c’ b1 b2 b3 i2 r2 = .499 F(1, 628) = 156.537 p < .001 c’ −.017 b1 .494 b2 .336 b3 −.041 i2 1.162 r2 = .501 F(1, 628) = 157.424 p < .001 c’ −.034 b1 .480 b2 .328 b3 −.038 i2 1.269 r2 = .505 F(1, 628) = 160.394 p < .001
SE
p
.014 .072 .043 .014 .189
.001 .001 .001 .05 .001
.01 .072 .044 .015 .199
.727 .001 .001 .01 .001
.012 .071 .044 .014 .198
.168 .001 .001 .01 .001
.012 .071 .044 .015 .202
.01 .001 .001 .01 .001
(a = effect psych distance on concern; b1 = effect of concern on support’ b2 = effect efficacy on support; b3 = conditional indirect effect of efficacy on the relationship between concern and support; c’ = direct effect of psych distance on support).
97
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
on social and spatial proximity to motivate public support for adaptation can be problematic if individuals do not believe there is a solution. There is a fine line between making people aware and concerned about climate change but not so overwhelmed that they feel that any response, whether it be a policy or individual behavior, can be effective. Communicators should be aware of crossing that line in making the risk appear to be inevitable regardless of response.
more temporally, socially, and spatially distant climate change impacts are perceived to be, the less concerned individuals are about climate impacts and the less supportive they are of adaptation policies. While beliefs and judgements of climate change may be a function of time and space there also appears to be evidence of the role of social implications (i.e. fairness and equity of impacts) in motivations to address climate change through collective actions, such as adaptation. Related, psychological distance research has shown that the perceived distance of an object affects individuals’ judgments and preferences for future outcomes (Todorov et al., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2003). Greater support for climate adaptation policies may be achieved by framing climate change impacts as happening here, now, and affecting people similar to the target audience (Jones et al., 2017). Simply put, the data indicate that public opinion regarding if, when and where the effects of climate change are anticipated, as well as who is anticipated to be impacted, significantly influences Americans’ support for climate adaptation policy. Public perceptions that climate change impacts are a distant phenomenon therefore pose a challenge to decision-makers who try to justify climate preparedness measures. Results of the simple mediation analysis show similar findings to Spence et al. (2011) who found a positive relationship between hypotheticality and a negative relationship between other dimensions of psychological distance with levels of concern about climate change. The influence of psychological distance on levels of concern may be one contributing factor as to why public opinion polls find the American public generally perceive climate change as only a minor threat relative to other hazards (Pew Research Center, 2013). Low levels of concern and motivation to address climate change may be due to the lack of perceived immediacy (Moser and Dilling, 2004), meaning that if climate change impacts are seen as happening in the distant future or to someone else far away there is no immediate need to be concerned. If one or more dimensions of psychological distance influence levels of concern, as found by Jones et al. (2017), and in turn influence support for action, policy makers need to address how climate change is perceived on each dimension of psychological distance in order to increase concern, and ultimately support for adaptation. However, our data indicates that it matters little whether an individual perceives climate change impacts as occurring now or in the future; people who are concerned about climate change exhibited the same level of policy support regardless of when impacts are believed to occur. One interpretation of this finding is that people might view adaptation policies equally effective for responding to current and future threats. As long as individuals are concerned, communicating about when impacts will occur may be less critical when discussing support for adaptation measures. Our data indicate that support for climate adaptation measures depends upon their perceived efficacy. Past research has examined the relationship between perceptions of climate change and perceived selfefficacy and found that a belief that one’s individual behaviors will reduce climate change had a strong and positive association with concern for climate change (Kellstedt et al., 2008; see also Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Roser-Renout and Nisbet, 2008). To date, we are unaware of literature examining response efficacy, or the ability of collective actions (rather than individual actions), to address a societal problem. Our findings indicate the more individuals believe adaptation measures will be effective, the more supportive they are of the approach, regardless of their level of concern. Individuals may be concerned about climate change, but if they do not believe a specific policy will be effective it lessens the potential influence of their concern on support for that policy. In light of this finding, in order to increase support for climate adaptation policies policy makers should develop effective measures and communicate how effective those adaptation approaches or specific adaptation measures will be in reducing vulnerabilities to climate change impacts. There are risks associated with making climate change appear to be too “near” or too threatening. Raising concern by focusing
6. Conclusion There is a significant association between individual dimensions of psychological distance, levels of concern for climate change impacts, and support for adaptation policies. Findings suggest that the “nearer” individuals believe climate change impacts are to them, the more supportive they are of enacting climate adaptation policy, assuming that policy is perceived as effective. Similar to prior research regarding climate mitigation, in order to increase levels of support for climate adaptation measures, policy makers should emphasize that climate change is occurring where they live and will affect people like them, and that the adaptation policy will effectively reduce their vulnerability or increase their capacity to address climate change impacts. Our findings suggest that when climate impacts occur, now or in the future, is not a strong predictor of support; people understand that policies implemented today will have both immediate and long-term benefits. Although this is not, by any means, a panacea for overcoming political opposition to increase support for climate change policy in the U.S. Communicating about climate change impacts on all- or most- of the dimensions of psychological distance is only likely to affect the judgments and decisions of those people who have not formed strong opinions about an adaptation approach to addressing climate change impacts. References Adger, W.N., 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79 (4), 387–404. Akerlof, K., Maibach, E.W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A.Y., Neuman, A., 2013. Do people personally experience global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob. Environ. Change 23 (1), 81–91. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173. Brooks, N., Adger, N.W., Kelly, M.P., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 15 (2), 151–163. Brulle, R.J., Carmichael, J., Jenkins, J.C., 2012. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114 (2), 169–188. Council on Environmental Quality, 2011. Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. . https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/2011_adaptation_progress_ report.pdf. Dietz, T., Dan, A., Shwom, R., 2007. Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol. 72 (2), 185–214. Etkin, D., Ho, E., 2007. Climate change: perceptions and discourses of risk. J. Risk Res. 10 (5), 623–641. Füssel, H.M., 2007. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (2), 155–167. Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 15 (3), 199–213. Haden, V.R., Niles, M.T., Lubell, M., Perlman, J., Jackson, L.E., 2012. Global and local concerns: what attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS One 7 (12), e52882. Hayes, A.F., Preacher, K.J., 2014. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 67 (3), 451–470. IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 7–22. Jones, C., Hine, D.W., Marks, A.D.G., 2017. The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis 37, 331–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601. Kellstedt, P.M., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., 2008. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United
98
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
See It as Threat. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/27/mostamericans-believe-climate-change-is-real-but-fewer-see-it-as-a-threat/ (Accessed 13 January 2014). Pielke, R., Prins, G., Rayner, S., Sarewitz, D., 2007. Climate change 2007: lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 445 (7128), 597–598. Preacher, K.J., Kelley, K., 2011. Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol. Methods 16 (2), 93. Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., 2011. Assessing spatial associations between perceptions of landscape value and climate change risk for use in climate change planning. Clim. Change 104 (3–4), 653–678. Renn, O., Burns, W.J., Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Slovic, P., 1992. The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. J. Soc. Issues 48 (4), 137–160. Roser-Renouf, C., Nisbet, M.C., 2008. The measurement of key behavioral science constructs in climate change research. Int. J. Sustain. Commun. 3, 37–95. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk Anal. 2 (2), 83–93. Slovic, P., 1986. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Anal. 6 (4), 403–415. Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16 (3), 282–292. Smith, J.B., Lenhart, S.S., 1996. Climate change adaptation policy options. Clim. Res. 6 (2), 193–201. Spence, A., Pidgeon, P., 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Change 20 (4), 656–667. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., 2011. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32 (6), 957–972. Todorov, A., Goren, A., Trope, Y., 2007. Probability as a psychological distance: construal and preferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43 (3), 473–482. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2003. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110 (3), 403. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117 (2), 440. Urwin, K., Jordan, A., 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Glob. Environ. Change 18 (1), 180–191. Weber, E.U., Stern, P.C., 2011. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 66 (4), 315. Weber, E.U., 2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim. Change 77 (1–2), 103–120. Weber, E.U., 2010. What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 (3), 332–342. Witte, K., 1992. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 59 (4), 329–349. Zwickle, A., Wilson, R.S., 2013. 11 construing risk. Effect. Risk Commun. 190.
States. Risk Anal. 28 (1), 113–126. Kelly, P.M., Adger, W.N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Clim. Change 47 (4), 325–352. Krosnick, J.A., Holbrook, A.L., Lowe, L., Visser, P.S., 2006. The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim. Change 77 (1–2), 7–43. Krosnick, J.A., 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: a study of issue publics in contemporary America. Polit. Behav. 12 (1), 59–92. Leiserowitz A., Broad K., 2008. Florida: Public opinion on climate change. A Yale University/University of Miami/Columbia University Poll. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change. http://environment.yale.edu/leiserowitz/ climatechange/US.html (Retrieved 30 August 2013). Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., 2011. Global warming’s six Americas, May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. Retrieved from: http://www.earthtosky.org/content/course-content/2012-mini-course/Knowledege_ of_Audience/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., Rosenthal, S., Marlon, J., 2014. Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in November, 2013. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT. Leiserowitz, A.A., 2005. American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 25 (6), 1433–1442. Leiserowitz, A., 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery and values. Clim. Change 77, 45–72. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., 2008. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 322 (5905), 1201–1205. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., Stephan, E., 2007. Psychological distance. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, vol. 2. pp. 353–383. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (3), 445–459. Marquart-Pyatt, S.T., Shwom, R.L., Dietz, T., Dunlap, R.E., Kaplowitz, S.A., McCright, A.M., Zahran, S., 2011. Understanding public opinion on climate change: a call for research. Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 53 (4), 38–42. Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., Yohe, G.W., 2014. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. US Global Change Research Program. pp. 841. Moser, S.C., Dilling, L., 2004. Making climate hot. Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 46 (10), 32–46. Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J., Smith, D., 2008. Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organizations. Environ. Plann. 40 (4), 867–884. Pew Research Center, 2013. Most Americans Believe Climate Change Is Real, but Fewer
99
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Environmental Science and Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci
The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy
MARK
⁎
Ajay S. Singha, , Adam Zwickleb, Jeremy T. Bruskotterc, Robyn Wilsonc a b c
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue University, 195 Marstellar St., West Lafayette, IN 47907, United States Michigan State University, Environmental Science and Policy Program and School of Criminal Justice, 655 Auditorium Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, United States The Ohio State University, School of Environment and Natural Resources, 210 Kottman Hall, 2021 Coffey Road, Columbus, OH 43210, United States
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Psychological distance Climate change adaptation Climate change policy Climate change impacts Climate communications
Factors influencing support for climate mitigation policy in the United States are well researched, however, research regarding individuals’ support for climate adaptation policy is relatively sparse. This study explores how an individual’s perception of climate change impacts may influence their support for adaptation actions. Results of a survey of the U.S. public (n = 653) indicates that individuals who believe climate change impacts are unlikely to happen or will primarily affect other people in other places are less likely to be concerned about climate change impacts and less likely to support climate adaptation. However, an individual’s support for climate change adaptation measures is not influenced by their perception of when climate change impacts will occur even when taking into account concern for climate impacts. Critical for policy-makers, a belief that climate adaptation measures will not be effective attenuates the relationship between psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, and adaptation policy measures. Our results indicate that to effectively communicate about climate change, policy-makers should emphasize that: (i) climate change impacts are occurring, (ii) that their constituents are being affected now, or will be in the future, and (iii) communicate that adaptation measures can be effective in addressing risks associated with climate change impacts.
1. Introduction The ability to enact policy to address anthropogenic climate change is influenced, in part, by how individuals perceive the risks associated with climate change. Social and behavioral scientists have focused on public perceptions of climate change (i.e., belief in climate change, understanding of climate change, and perception of associated impacts) as explanations for individuals’ motivation to address climate risks through collective action (Weber and Stern, 2011). The literature explaining support for climate-related policies explores relationships among beliefs, risk perception, attitudes, norms, political orientation, knowledge, and willingness to address human contributions to climate change (Brulle et al., 2012; Dietz et al., 2007; Krosnick et al., 2006; Leiserowitz, 2006; Marquart-Pyatt et al., 2011). Until recently, climate policy research in the U.S. focused primarily on the willingness to engage in individual-level behavioral changes or support policies aimed at climate change mitigation (Dietz et al., 2007; Krosnick et al., 2006; Leiserowitz, 2006). However, because of the delay in adopting and implementing comprehensive mitigation policies, there is also a need to adopt and implement measures to help communities adapt to changing
⁎
environmental conditions in tandem with mitigation measures. While considerable scholarship is devoted to exploring individual and community adaptation and capacity to adapt to climate change (Adger, 2003; Grothman and Pratt, 2005; Smit and Wandel, 2006), including how adaptation might occur (Füssel, 2007; Smith and Lenhart, 1996), literature addressing factors that explain support for climate adaptation policy (opposed to mitigation policy) is sparse. One reason for the lack of literature exploring support for adaptation policy in the U.S. may be the notion that adaptation would reduce the need to address climate change through mitigation measures (see Pielke et al., 2007). While existing research illuminates linkages among sociopsychological factors and preferences for climate mitigation policy, there is a need to also understand the factors that influence an individual’s perceptions of adaptation policy (Dietz et al., 2007; Roser-Renouf and Nisbet, 2008). Because people often lack the time, interest, and background knowledge to develop an in-depth understanding of policy issues (Krosnick, 1990), decisions about complex environmental issues such as climate change may be subject to simplifying rules and patterns of judgment based on limited and sometimes even irrelevant information
Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A.S. Singh), [email protected] (A. Zwickle), [email protected] (J.T. Bruskotter), [email protected] (R. Wilson).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011 Received 21 September 2016; Received in revised form 14 April 2017; Accepted 15 April 2017 Available online 26 April 2017 1462-9011/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
depend on the extent to which that community supports the government institutions focused on preparing for and adapting to climate change impacts. Therefore, a more in-depth understanding of the underlying factors driving support for adaptation may help policy makers understand if or when an adaptation policy may gain traction at the national or subnational level.
(Weber and Stern, 2011; Etkin and Ho, 2007). For example, existing research on climate change indicates there are complex associations between an individual’s personal experience with extreme weather changes, emotional affect, concern about climate change, and their willingness to take action to address climate change (Akerlof et al., 2013; Weber and Stern, 2011; Weber, 2010; Leiserowitz and Broad, 2008). However, Leiserowitz (2005, 2006) found that although there is general awareness, belief, and concern for climate change in the U.S., there is a perception that climate change is a moderate risk that will impact people far away in the future, which may contribute to a relative lack of action. Conversely, when people associate impacts of climate change in places that are known to them, they exhibit greater concern and willingness to act to address climate change (Raymond and Brown, 2011). Findings point towards an idea that if an individual believes climate change is psychologically distant that individual will be less motivated to address climate change or support their government in attempts to address climate change. However, Spence, et al. (2011) found that when climate change impacts are framed as occurring in other countries, individuals are still motivated to engage in environmental behaviors that reduce GHG emissions; thus complicating how perceptions of psychological distance might influence future actions regarding climate change. Understanding how perceived distance might factor in to people’s decisions about climate change adaptation policy could help policy-makers and issue advocates to better communicate about climate adaptation and propose adaptation policy alternatives.
2.2. Risk perception and public policy How hazardous events are estimated and evaluated by laypeople–their risk perception, depends on numerous factors (Slovic et al., 1982; Slovic, 1986; Renn et al., 1992). Studying how the public perceives risk can help policy makers better understand how, or if, a target population may believe a hazard should be addressed. If individuals believe they are personally at risk of experiencing negative impacts of climate change, they are more likely to support climate policies (Weber and Stern, 2011; Weber, 2006). Although individuals can reduce their personal risk, to a limited extent, from climate change impacts through individual changes in behavior (e.g., not living in a floodplain), they do not have control over most of the hazard (e.g., coastal inundation). In these instances, climate risks must be addressed as a community at the proper scale, requiring the creation of policies to guide the formation and implementation of adaptation strategies. The need for adaptation policy to facilitate adaptive behavior can be viewed as a form of collective risk management. Climate policy provides a method for addressing a risk at the community level, when addressing the risk at the individual level is not feasible (Lorenzoni et al., 2007). Assessing perception of climate related risk, and the underlying factors that influence how those risk perceptions are formed, can increase our understanding of public support for climate policy. In addition to assessing the perceptions of climate risks and the effect those perceptions have on support for public policy, it is important to also understand the perceived response efficacy of potential policies, i.e., the likelihood of the policy actually addressing the problem (Roser-Renout and Nisbet, 2008). As the perceived effectiveness of the response increases, individuals will be more motivated to choose that method of addressing that risk (Witte, 1992). Kellstedt et al. (2008) found that self-efficacy was strongly and positively associated with concern for climate change. However, little research to date has examined the interactions of perceived response efficacy and support for climate adaptation policy.
2. Theoretical framework 2.1. Adaptation approach to addressing impacts of climate change Human adaptation to climate change refers to actions that help individuals, communities, and governments prepare for and adjust to changing climatic conditions or their effects in such a way that ‘moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2007; Melillo et al., 2014). Adaptation measures range from changing farming practices to reducing impacts of heavy rainfall events on soils, to decreasing institutional barriers, to increase adaptive capacity and resiliency to climate change impacts (Melillo et al., 2014). Climate adaptation research has focused on the applicability and adoption of measures at local and regional levels; however, there is now recognition of the need to address both mitigation and adaptation when developing climate policy at the national level (Urwin and Jordan, 2008). In 2011, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) outlined how federal agencies can assist and support stakeholders at all scales of government to address climate adaptation (Council on Environmental Quality, 2011). The CEQ recommended the government support U.S. adaptation efforts through a variety of intra and inter-governmental efforts. Since the CEQ Interagency Task force first report, President Obama has issued Executive Order 13514 allowing development of agency adaptation plans and, in November 2013 authorized agencies to implement the remaining recommendations from the CEQ. As federal adaptation planning and policy efforts are implemented it will be important to understand how and if the U.S. general public will support adaptation measures. In contrast to literature on climate mitigation policy, the majority of research on climate adaptation has drawn on sociological theory to assess a community or individual’s vulnerability or capacity to adapt to the effects of climate change (e.g., Brooks et al., 2005; Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Kelly and Adger, 2000; Pelling et al., 2008; Smit and Wandel, 2006). Generally, these studies suggest that proactively preparing for projected local climate change impacts can increase a community’s ability to adapt by providing additional preparation time to raise funds and implement projects to reduce vulnerability to climate change impacts or increase the adaptive capacity of communities. Yet part of a community’s ability to adapt to climate change will also
2.3. Psychological distance of climate change One factor that may influence risk perceptions and policy preferences is the perceived psychological distance between climate change impacts and an individual. Psychological distance is an individual’s perception of how removed an object, risk, or event is from that individual (Liberman et al., 2007; Liberman and Trope, 2008; Trope and Liberman, 2010). Psychological distance is measured in four dimensions: hypotheticality or the likelihood of an event occurring (with unlikely events being more psychologically distant), temporal or when an event is occurring (with events in the past or future being more distant), social or who the event will be experienced by (with dissimilar people being more distant), and spatial or the physical distance an event will take place (with geographically distant places being more psychologically distant). The psychological distance at which an event, or object, is removed from one’s direct experience influences how it is perceived and evaluated, which, in turn, influences an individual’s motivation and preferences for action (Todorov et al., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2003). For example, individuals tend to discount those aspects of a risk that are more distant (e.g., increased risk of lung cancer over time from smoking) and focus more on those aspects which are psychologically nearer (e.g., the immediate pleasure derived from satisfying a nicotine craving) (Zwickle and Wilson, 2013). The connection between psychological distance and perceptions of 94
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
the perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts along the four domains of psychological distance (hypothetical, temporal, social, and spatial). The four items were 7-point, bi-polar Likert-type scales that gauged the individual’s beliefs regarding if, when, where, and who are or will be impacted by climate change. The measure for hypotheticality was worded in terms of likelihood of climate change impacts occurring (ranging from highly unlikely to highly likely). Temporal distance was measured by asking whether the respondent perceived impacts of climate change as being primarily felt now or will be felt in the distant future. Spatial distance was measured by asking whether the relative geographic distance of where impacts are or will be primarily experienced were near where the respondent lives or far away. Social distance was measured by asking whether the impacts of climate change would primarily be experienced by people similar to the respondent or by other, dissimilar people. The items measuring level of concern for climate change impacts were drawn from Leiserowitz et al. (2011), using a four-point scale regarding whether climate change will have serious negative consequences for the respondent, the respondent’s family, people in the respondent’s community, people in other states, people in other countries, nature (fish, wildlife, plants), the economy, or future generations. For purposes of this analysis showing how concern may mediate the relationship between psychological distance and support for policy approach, the eight question items were combined into one index measure of concern (α = 0.949). A single item was used to gauge the perceived efficacy of climate adaptation policy. The efficacy question asked how effective an adaptation measure would be in reducing the impact of climate change. Responses were recorded on a 7-point Likert-type scale that ranged from very ineffective to very effective. A measure of support for adaptation policies was constructed by combining responses to six items that asked about an individual’s support for policies to address natural disaster preparedness, water management, and habitat restoration (α = 0.825; Table 1). Individual policy questions were on a five point Likert-type scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Policy questions were framed to be either facilitative or restrictive. Facilitative policies create incentives to adopt behaviors to prepare for potential climate change impacts. In contrast, restrictive policies create disincentives to engage in behaviors that increase vulnerability to hazards. Both policy approaches were included in order to reduce the bias that one’s political ideology may have over their level of support. To analyze the relationships among dimensions of psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, response efficacy, and support for adaptation and mitigation policy, a simple mediated model and a moderated mediation model were constructed and analyzed (see Baron and Kenny, 1986). In a simple mediation model (Model 1; Fig. 1), a represents the relationship between the perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and the level of concern in regards to those impacts while b represents the relationship between level of concern and support for an adaptation approach while holding psychological distance constant. The direct effect is represented by c’ indicating the strength and direction of the relationship between dimensions of psychological distance on support for a climate adaptation approach holding concern constant while c represents the total direct effect (Hayes and Preacher, 2014). The indirect effect (ab) is the strength and
climate change has received attention in the climate change literature (e.g.; Spence and Pidgeon, 2010; Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006; Jones et al., 2017). Early research on the public perception of climate change found that individuals in the U.S. primarily perceive climate change as a temporally and spatially distant phenomenon, which potentially reduces support for climate mitigation policies (Leiserowitz, 2006; Leiserowitz et al., 2014). In two separate studies, Spence and colleagues found a complex relationship between psychological distance and climate change, with decreased distance being associated with greater concern, whereas increased distance was correlated with more positive attitudes towards mitigation (2010) and preparedness to reduce energy use (2011). One possible explanation for these mixed results may be the global nature of climate change: climate change will affect us in the future, but we are also being affected now, it is impacting places both far away and close to home, and concerns everyone, both those who are unlike us and our intimate family and friends. However, there are few examples connecting psychological distance to climate change adaptation policies. In one study, Haden et al. (2012) found that farmers in the central valley of California were motivated to adopt adaptation strategies when they perceived climate change impacts as occurring more proximate to their farm. The communication of environmental risks, and related policies, could likely be improved with a better understanding of the perceived psychological distance of climate change on climate related beliefs and actions (Spence et al., 2011; Zwickle and Wilson 2013). This study explores the strength and direction of relationships between the perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts, an individual’s level of concern about climate change impacts, and their support for adaptation policies. We hypothesize that concern for climate change impacts will mediate the relationship between the four dimensions of psychological distance and support for climate adaptation, specifically that perceived distance will determine the degree of personal concern, which will determine support. This study also explores the moderating influence of perceived response efficacy of adaptation policies/actions on the relationships among psychological distance, concern, and support for adaptation. Controlling for psych distance, it is predicted that concern will explain a significant portion of the variation in support, but that levels of response efficacy will attenuate the relationship. The purpose of this research is to better understand, in light of mixed results from previous studies, how beliefs in if, when, and where climate change impacts will occur and whom will affect support for climate adaptation policies. We also examine how concern for climate change impacts and perceptions of the efficacy of adaptation policies act as intervening variables in the relationship between psychological distance and support for adaptation measures. 3. Material and methods To assess the relationships among psychological distance, concern for climate change impacts, and support for adaptation policies, an internet-based survey using the Qualtrics platform was administered to an online panel maintained by Survey Sampling Inc. (SSI). The panel was designed to be representative of the U.S. general public based upon key demographic indicators captured in the 2010 U.S. Census. Four items adapted from Spence et al. (2011) were used to measure Table 1 Climate Change Adaptation Policy Measures. How much would you support or oppose
… increasing federal aid for developing countries who are vulnerable to natural disasters that have increased due to climate change? … implementing zoning laws in 10 years that prohibit building of homes and commercial buildings in areas that are threatened by natural disasters such as wildfires, floods, or hurricanes? … a federal policy that provides you with incentives to increase your ability to adapt to natural disasters? … increasing funding for farmers to help them adapt to increases in flooding or drought? … increasing funding to local governments in the next year to implement projects to reduce risk of drought? … increasing funding to programs in your state that help protect or restore natural habitats that are endangered because of climate change?
95
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
Fig. 1. Simple Mediation and Moderated Mediation Conceptual Models.
ship between concern and support for climate adaptation policies, holding psychological distance constant, is significant and positive. The direct effect of psychological distance on support for policy, while holding concern constant, was significant for each dimension except temporal distance. Temporal distance did, however, have a significant indirect effect on policy support, indicating that temporal distance is fully mediated by level of concern for climate change impacts. Because the direct and indirect effects of the likelihood, social, and spatial dimensions are significant, results show that each of these dimensions are at least partially mediated by concern for climate change impacts. Results suggest the perceived likelihood of climate change occurring had a significant positive total effect on support for adaptation approaches (k2 = .229). The simple mediation model explained 37.4% of variance for support for climate adaptation policies. Social distance also had a significant negative total effect on support for the combined measure of adaptation policies (k2 = .172). Social distance and concern together explained 33.1% of the variance in support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. Spatial distance had a significant negative total effect on support for adaptation policies as well (k2 = .122). Overall, the model explained 33.6% of the variance in support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. The model for temporal distance and concern indicated a significant indirect effect (k2 = .116). Together the temporal dimension and concern for climate change impacts explained 32.7% of the variance in support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. Results show a significant total effect of psychological distance on the relationship between concern for climate change impacts and support for climate adaptation policies for the hypotheticality dimension of psychological distance and a significant, negative total effect (c’) for the social and spatial dimensions. Similar to the results for the simple mediation model, there was no significant effect of the temporal dimension of climate change impacts on support for the combined measure of adaptation policies when taking into account levels of concern and the perceived efficacy of an adaptation approach. Analysis of the conditional indirect effect of response efficacy indicates that efficacy moderates the relationship between concern and support for climate adaptation policies (Table 3). For all dimensions of psychological distance response efficacy is negatively related with both concern for climate change impacts and support for adaptation policy. That is, an individual’s perception of the efficacy of an adaptation approach attenuates the effect of concern for climate change impacts on their level of support for the combined measure of adaptation policies. In other words, as psychological distance decreases and concern increases, response efficacy may further explain lower levels of support for adaptation measures.
relationship of dimensions of psychological distance and support for climate adaptation approach and k2 represents the “the proportion of the maximum possible indirect effect that could have occurred” (Preacher and Kelley, 2011, 106). Model 2 is a moderated mediation model where the relationship between concern and support for climate adaptation policy is moderated by the level of perceived response efficacy. To show the influence of policy effectiveness as a moderator of the relationship between concern and support for policy adaptation policy the conditional indirect effect (b3) is reported. To measure the overall effect of independent variables in the model on support for climate adaptation policy, the total variance accounted for by all parameters used in both the simple and moderated mediation models is also presented. A two-step analysis was used to answer the questions of strength, direction, and explanatory value of the relationships among psychological distance, concern, efficacy, and policy support. First, a simple mediation model (Fig. 1; Model 1) was constructed to explain how concern mediates the relationship between psychological distance and support for climate adaptation policies. Second, a moderated mediation model (Fig. 1; Model 2) was constructed to determine the extent to which the mediated relationship is dependent on perception of response efficacy (Preacher et al., 2007). For the analysis of Model 1 and Model 2, the indirect effect of psychological distance on policy support was tested using a bias-correcting bootstrap at a 95% confidence interval using the default settings in PROCESS at 1000 imputations. 4. Results Of the 743 subjects who responded to the survey invitation 653 (86%) completed the survey. While this study generalizes to theory and not the U.S. general population, study procedures used a quota method to ensure diversity within the panel. Of those who responded to the request to participate, 30% have household incomes less than $25,000, 53% have incomes between $25,000 and $75,000, and 17% have incomes of more than $75,000. Education attainment of the panel are 29% have a high school diploma or less, 39% have some college or a 2year degree, 21% have a 4-year college degree, and 11% have a graduate degree. Racial make-up of the panel is 73% white, 11% African-American, 6% Asian, 2% Native American, 0.5% Pacific Islander, and 0.5% are of another racial group. 4.1. Relationship between psychological distance and policy approach mediated by concern A simple mediation model (Model 1) was used to examine the direct and indirect effects of psychological distance on support for the combined measure of adaptation policies to address climate change impacts. An OLS path analysis was conducted showing the effect individual psychological distance dimensions on levels of support for climate adaptation policies. Model 1 indicates the more likely climate impacts are perceived to be (decreased distance), the greater the concern for climate impacts and support for climate adaptation measures. These results further support the idea that the more distant climate change impacts are perceived to be the less concerned individuals are about climate change impacts (Table 2). The relation-
5. Discussion The results of this study provide additional empirical evidence that individuals’ propensity to take actions regarding climate change are impacted by the extent to which they believe climate change is occurring (hypotheticality), is serious (concern for climate change impacts), and that there are effective solutions to adapt to climate change (response efficacy). Specifically, our results indicate that the 96
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
Table 2 The mediating effect of concern for climate change impacts on the relationship between psychological distance and support for policy. Psychological Distance
Concern β
Likelihood
Temporal
Social
Spatial
Hypothet Concern Constant
Temporal Concern Constant
Social Concern Constant
Spatial Concern Constant
Support SE
0.279 0.077 – – 1.49 0.078 r2 = .326 F(1, 634) = 306.507 p < .001 −0.074 0.016 – – 2.99 0.059 r2 = .031 F(1, 634) = 154.081, p < .001 −0.146 0.058 – – 3.149 0.019 r2 = .088 F(1, 634) = 60.83, p < .001 −0.103 0.019 – – 3.105 .072
a1 I1
a1 I1
a1 I1
a1
β
p
I1 r2 = .041 F(1, 634) = 27.355, p < .001
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
< .001 – < .001
c’ b I2
SE
.109 .016 .353 .032 2.041 .079 r2 = .374 F(2633) = 189.413 p < .001 .01 .012 .485 .028 .485 .028 r2 = .327 F(2633) = 154.081, p < .001 −.028 .014 .464 .029 2.302 .099 r2 = .331 F(2633) = 156.379, p < .001 −.042 .014 .464 0.28 2.37 .100 r2 = .336 F(2633) = 160.053, p < .001
p < .001 < .001 < .001
> .05 < .001 < .001
< .05 < .001 < .001
< .01 < .001 < .001
ab = .239 (SE = .023; .196, .285); c = .208 (SE = .014; p < .001) k2 = .229 (SE = .020; .188, .268) ab = −.101 (SE = .026; −.151, −.051) c = −.026 (SE = .014; p > .05) k2 = .116 (SE = .028; .063, .168) ab = −.163 (SE = .024; −.214, −.118) c = −.095 (SE = .016, p < .001); k2 = .172 (SE = .024; .128, .223) ab = −.112 (SE = .025; −.158, −.061) c = −.089 (SE = 0.017, p < .001); k2 = .122 (SE = .026; .067, .169)
(a = effect psych distance on concern; b = effect of concern on support; c’ = direct effect of psych distance on support; c = total effect; ab = indirect effect of psych distance on support; k2 = proportion of expected indirect effect).
Table 3 The effect of psychological distance on support as mediated by concern, moderated by response efficacy. Concern β Likelihood
Hypothet. Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Temporal
Temporal Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Social
Social Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Spatial Concern Efficacy Interaction Constant
a1 – – – i1
Spatial
Climate Adaptation Policies SE
β.
p
.279 .016 – – – – – – 1.500 .078 r2 = .324 F(1, 631) = 301.75 p < .001 −.073 .016 – – – – – – 2.990 .059 r2 = .030 F(1, 631) = 19.759 p < .001 −.145 .058 – – – – – – 3.149 .058 r2 = .087 F(1, 631) = 60.78 p < .001 −.103 .019 – – – – – – 3.107 .019 r2 = .040 F(1, 631) = 27.16 p < .001
.001 – – – .001
.001 – – – .001
.001 – – .001
.001 – – .001
c’ b1 b2 b3 i2
.083 .382 .306 −.033 1.091 r2 = .526 F(1, 628) = 174.37 p < .001 .004 .499 .336 −.039 1.085
c’ b1 b2 b3 i2 r2 = .499 F(1, 628) = 156.537 p < .001 c’ −.017 b1 .494 b2 .336 b3 −.041 i2 1.162 r2 = .501 F(1, 628) = 157.424 p < .001 c’ −.034 b1 .480 b2 .328 b3 −.038 i2 1.269 r2 = .505 F(1, 628) = 160.394 p < .001
SE
p
.014 .072 .043 .014 .189
.001 .001 .001 .05 .001
.01 .072 .044 .015 .199
.727 .001 .001 .01 .001
.012 .071 .044 .014 .198
.168 .001 .001 .01 .001
.012 .071 .044 .015 .202
.01 .001 .001 .01 .001
(a = effect psych distance on concern; b1 = effect of concern on support’ b2 = effect efficacy on support; b3 = conditional indirect effect of efficacy on the relationship between concern and support; c’ = direct effect of psych distance on support).
97
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
on social and spatial proximity to motivate public support for adaptation can be problematic if individuals do not believe there is a solution. There is a fine line between making people aware and concerned about climate change but not so overwhelmed that they feel that any response, whether it be a policy or individual behavior, can be effective. Communicators should be aware of crossing that line in making the risk appear to be inevitable regardless of response.
more temporally, socially, and spatially distant climate change impacts are perceived to be, the less concerned individuals are about climate impacts and the less supportive they are of adaptation policies. While beliefs and judgements of climate change may be a function of time and space there also appears to be evidence of the role of social implications (i.e. fairness and equity of impacts) in motivations to address climate change through collective actions, such as adaptation. Related, psychological distance research has shown that the perceived distance of an object affects individuals’ judgments and preferences for future outcomes (Todorov et al., 2007; Trope and Liberman, 2003). Greater support for climate adaptation policies may be achieved by framing climate change impacts as happening here, now, and affecting people similar to the target audience (Jones et al., 2017). Simply put, the data indicate that public opinion regarding if, when and where the effects of climate change are anticipated, as well as who is anticipated to be impacted, significantly influences Americans’ support for climate adaptation policy. Public perceptions that climate change impacts are a distant phenomenon therefore pose a challenge to decision-makers who try to justify climate preparedness measures. Results of the simple mediation analysis show similar findings to Spence et al. (2011) who found a positive relationship between hypotheticality and a negative relationship between other dimensions of psychological distance with levels of concern about climate change. The influence of psychological distance on levels of concern may be one contributing factor as to why public opinion polls find the American public generally perceive climate change as only a minor threat relative to other hazards (Pew Research Center, 2013). Low levels of concern and motivation to address climate change may be due to the lack of perceived immediacy (Moser and Dilling, 2004), meaning that if climate change impacts are seen as happening in the distant future or to someone else far away there is no immediate need to be concerned. If one or more dimensions of psychological distance influence levels of concern, as found by Jones et al. (2017), and in turn influence support for action, policy makers need to address how climate change is perceived on each dimension of psychological distance in order to increase concern, and ultimately support for adaptation. However, our data indicates that it matters little whether an individual perceives climate change impacts as occurring now or in the future; people who are concerned about climate change exhibited the same level of policy support regardless of when impacts are believed to occur. One interpretation of this finding is that people might view adaptation policies equally effective for responding to current and future threats. As long as individuals are concerned, communicating about when impacts will occur may be less critical when discussing support for adaptation measures. Our data indicate that support for climate adaptation measures depends upon their perceived efficacy. Past research has examined the relationship between perceptions of climate change and perceived selfefficacy and found that a belief that one’s individual behaviors will reduce climate change had a strong and positive association with concern for climate change (Kellstedt et al., 2008; see also Lorenzoni et al., 2007; Roser-Renout and Nisbet, 2008). To date, we are unaware of literature examining response efficacy, or the ability of collective actions (rather than individual actions), to address a societal problem. Our findings indicate the more individuals believe adaptation measures will be effective, the more supportive they are of the approach, regardless of their level of concern. Individuals may be concerned about climate change, but if they do not believe a specific policy will be effective it lessens the potential influence of their concern on support for that policy. In light of this finding, in order to increase support for climate adaptation policies policy makers should develop effective measures and communicate how effective those adaptation approaches or specific adaptation measures will be in reducing vulnerabilities to climate change impacts. There are risks associated with making climate change appear to be too “near” or too threatening. Raising concern by focusing
6. Conclusion There is a significant association between individual dimensions of psychological distance, levels of concern for climate change impacts, and support for adaptation policies. Findings suggest that the “nearer” individuals believe climate change impacts are to them, the more supportive they are of enacting climate adaptation policy, assuming that policy is perceived as effective. Similar to prior research regarding climate mitigation, in order to increase levels of support for climate adaptation measures, policy makers should emphasize that climate change is occurring where they live and will affect people like them, and that the adaptation policy will effectively reduce their vulnerability or increase their capacity to address climate change impacts. Our findings suggest that when climate impacts occur, now or in the future, is not a strong predictor of support; people understand that policies implemented today will have both immediate and long-term benefits. Although this is not, by any means, a panacea for overcoming political opposition to increase support for climate change policy in the U.S. Communicating about climate change impacts on all- or most- of the dimensions of psychological distance is only likely to affect the judgments and decisions of those people who have not formed strong opinions about an adaptation approach to addressing climate change impacts. References Adger, W.N., 2003. Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ. Geogr. 79 (4), 387–404. Akerlof, K., Maibach, E.W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A.Y., Neuman, A., 2013. Do people personally experience global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob. Environ. Change 23 (1), 81–91. Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J. Person. Soc. Psychol. 51 (6), 1173. Brooks, N., Adger, N.W., Kelly, M.P., 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob. Environ. Change 15 (2), 151–163. Brulle, R.J., Carmichael, J., Jenkins, J.C., 2012. Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Clim. Change 114 (2), 169–188. Council on Environmental Quality, 2011. Federal Actions for a Climate Resilient Nation: Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force. . https:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/2011_adaptation_progress_ report.pdf. Dietz, T., Dan, A., Shwom, R., 2007. Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol. 72 (2), 185–214. Etkin, D., Ho, E., 2007. Climate change: perceptions and discourses of risk. J. Risk Res. 10 (5), 623–641. Füssel, H.M., 2007. Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (2), 155–167. Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 15 (3), 199–213. Haden, V.R., Niles, M.T., Lubell, M., Perlman, J., Jackson, L.E., 2012. Global and local concerns: what attitudes and beliefs motivate farmers to mitigate and adapt to climate change? PLoS One 7 (12), e52882. Hayes, A.F., Preacher, K.J., 2014. Statistical mediation analysis with a multicategorical independent variable. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 67 (3), 451–470. IPCC, 2007. Summary for policymakers. In: Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 7–22. Jones, C., Hine, D.W., Marks, A.D.G., 2017. The future is now: reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis 37, 331–341. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601. Kellstedt, P.M., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., 2008. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United
98
Environmental Science and Policy 73 (2017) 93–99
A.S. Singh et al.
See It as Threat. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/27/mostamericans-believe-climate-change-is-real-but-fewer-see-it-as-a-threat/ (Accessed 13 January 2014). Pielke, R., Prins, G., Rayner, S., Sarewitz, D., 2007. Climate change 2007: lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 445 (7128), 597–598. Preacher, K.J., Kelley, K., 2011. Effect size measures for mediation models: quantitative strategies for communicating indirect effects. Psychol. Methods 16 (2), 93. Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., 2011. Assessing spatial associations between perceptions of landscape value and climate change risk for use in climate change planning. Clim. Change 104 (3–4), 653–678. Renn, O., Burns, W.J., Kasperson, J.X., Kasperson, R.E., Slovic, P., 1992. The social amplification of risk: theoretical foundations and empirical applications. J. Soc. Issues 48 (4), 137–160. Roser-Renouf, C., Nisbet, M.C., 2008. The measurement of key behavioral science constructs in climate change research. Int. J. Sustain. Commun. 3, 37–95. Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Lichtenstein, S., 1982. Why study risk perception? Risk Anal. 2 (2), 83–93. Slovic, P., 1986. Informing and educating the public about risk. Risk Anal. 6 (4), 403–415. Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob. Environ. Change 16 (3), 282–292. Smith, J.B., Lenhart, S.S., 1996. Climate change adaptation policy options. Clim. Res. 6 (2), 193–201. Spence, A., Pidgeon, P., 2010. Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob. Environ. Change 20 (4), 656–667. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N., 2011. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 32 (6), 957–972. Todorov, A., Goren, A., Trope, Y., 2007. Probability as a psychological distance: construal and preferences. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 43 (3), 473–482. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2003. Temporal construal. Psychol. Rev. 110 (3), 403. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., 2010. Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychol. Rev. 117 (2), 440. Urwin, K., Jordan, A., 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Glob. Environ. Change 18 (1), 180–191. Weber, E.U., Stern, P.C., 2011. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 66 (4), 315. Weber, E.U., 2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim. Change 77 (1–2), 103–120. Weber, E.U., 2010. What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 (3), 332–342. Witte, K., 1992. Putting the fear back into fear appeals: the extended parallel process model. Commun. Monogr. 59 (4), 329–349. Zwickle, A., Wilson, R.S., 2013. 11 construing risk. Effect. Risk Commun. 190.
States. Risk Anal. 28 (1), 113–126. Kelly, P.M., Adger, W.N., 2000. Theory and practice in assessing vulnerability to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Clim. Change 47 (4), 325–352. Krosnick, J.A., Holbrook, A.L., Lowe, L., Visser, P.S., 2006. The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agendas: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim. Change 77 (1–2), 7–43. Krosnick, J.A., 1990. Government policy and citizen passion: a study of issue publics in contemporary America. Polit. Behav. 12 (1), 59–92. Leiserowitz A., Broad K., 2008. Florida: Public opinion on climate change. A Yale University/University of Miami/Columbia University Poll. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change. http://environment.yale.edu/leiserowitz/ climatechange/US.html (Retrieved 30 August 2013). Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Smith, N., 2011. Global warming’s six Americas, May 2011. Yale University and George Mason University. Retrieved from: http://www.earthtosky.org/content/course-content/2012-mini-course/Knowledege_ of_Audience/SixAmericasMay2011.pdf. Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., Rosenthal, S., Marlon, J., 2014. Climate change in the American mind: Americans’ global warming beliefs and attitudes in November, 2013. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Yale University and George Mason University, New Haven, CT. Leiserowitz, A.A., 2005. American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 25 (6), 1433–1442. Leiserowitz, A., 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect, imagery and values. Clim. Change 77, 45–72. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., 2008. The psychology of transcending the here and now. Science 322 (5905), 1201–1205. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., Stephan, E., 2007. Psychological distance. Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, vol. 2. pp. 353–383. Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Change 17 (3), 445–459. Marquart-Pyatt, S.T., Shwom, R.L., Dietz, T., Dunlap, R.E., Kaplowitz, S.A., McCright, A.M., Zahran, S., 2011. Understanding public opinion on climate change: a call for research. Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 53 (4), 38–42. Melillo, J.M., Richmond, T.C., Yohe, G.W., 2014. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment. US Global Change Research Program. pp. 841. Moser, S.C., Dilling, L., 2004. Making climate hot. Environ.: Sci. Policy Sustain. Dev. 46 (10), 32–46. Pelling, M., High, C., Dearing, J., Smith, D., 2008. Shadow spaces for social learning: a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within organizations. Environ. Plann. 40 (4), 867–884. Pew Research Center, 2013. Most Americans Believe Climate Change Is Real, but Fewer
99