Letter | Published:

Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience

Nature Climate Change volume 1, pages 4649 (2011) | Download Citation

Abstract

One of the reasons that people may not take action to mitigate climate change is that they lack first-hand experience of its potential consequences. From this perspective, individuals who have direct experience of phenomena that may be linked to climate change would be more likely to be concerned by the issue and thus more inclined to undertake sustainable behaviours. So far, the evidence available to test this hypothesis is limited, and in part contradictory1,2,3,4. Here we use national survey data collected from 1,822 individuals across the UK in 2010, to examine the links between direct flooding experience, perceptions of climate change and preparedness to reduce energy use. We show that those who report experience of flooding express more concern over climate change, see it as less uncertain and feel more confident that their actions will have an effect on climate change. Importantly, these perceptual differences also translate into a greater willingness to save energy to mitigate climate change. Highlighting links between local weather events and climate change is therefore likely to be a useful strategy for increasing concern and action.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J. Risk Res. 11, 351–374 (2008).

  2. 2.

    & Public perception of drought and climate change in Southeast England. Environ. Hazards 9, 340–357 (2010).

  3. 3.

    , , & Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environ. Behav. 41, 72–95 (2008).

  4. 4.

    , , & Climate change vulnerability and policy support. Soc. Nat. Resour. 19, 771–789 (2006).

  5. 5.

    & Psychology, climate change and sustainable behaviour. Environment 52, 9–18 (2010).

  6. 6.

    UK Energy Research Centre Making the Transition to a Secure and Low-carbon Energy System: UKERC Energy 2050 Project (UKERC, 2009).

  7. 7.

    Eurobarometer Europeans’ Attitudes Towards Climate Change (Special Eurobarometer 322, European Commission, 2009).

  8. 8.

    , & Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in January 2010 (Yale University and George Mason University, 2010); available at (accessed 28 October 2010).

  9. 9.

    YouGov/EDF Energy Survey Results (2010); available at (accessed 28 October 2010).

  10. 10.

    What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1, 332–342 (2010).

  11. 11.

    & Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol.10.1037/a0023253 (in the press).

  12. 12.

    et al. Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges (American Psychological Association, 2009); available at .

  13. 13.

    & Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim. Change 77, 73–95 (2006).

  14. 14.

    & The influence of spatial distance cues on affect and evaluation. Psychol. Sci. 19, 302–308 (2008).

  15. 15.

    Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: Why global warming does not scare us (yet). Clim. Change 77, 103–120 (2006).

  16. 16.

    & Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychol. 5, 207–232 (1973).

  17. 17.

    & Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57, 705–717 (2002).

  18. 18.

    & Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environ. Educ. Res. 8, 239–260 (2002).

  19. 19.

    The first cuckoo in winter: Phenology, recording, credibility and meaning in Britain. Glob. Environ. Chang. 19, 173–179 (2009).

  20. 20.

    IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (eds Pachauri, R. K. & Reisinger, A.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  21. 21.

    et al. Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000. Nature 470, 382–386 (2011).

  22. 22.

    & Risk analysis and climate change. Environ. Polit. 18, 670–688 (2009).

  23. 23.

    Cosmopolitan climates: Hybridity, foresight and meaning. Theor. Cult. Soc. 27, 267–276 (2010).

  24. 24.

    & Environmental worldview in response to environmental problems: Kentucky 1984 and 1988 compared. Environ. Behav. 22, 387–407 (1990).

  25. 25.

    , & Ecological disaster as contextual transformation: Environmental values in a renewable resource community. Environ. Behav. 37, 706–728 (2005).

  26. 26.

    & Correlates of responses to two potential hazards. J. Soc. Psychol. 128, 385–391 (1988).

  27. 27.

    The Pitt Review, Learning Lessons from the 2007 Floods (Cabinet Office, 2008).

  28. 28.

    We speak for the trees: Media reporting on the environment. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 34, 431–457 (2009).

  29. 29.

    & Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav. Res. Meth. 40, 879–891 (2008).

  30. 30.

    & SPSS Macro for Multiple Mediation (2008); available at .

  31. 31.

    , , , & Public Perceptions of Climate Change and Energy Futures in Britain: Summary Findings of a Survey Conducted in January-March 2010 (Technical Report) (Understanding Risk Working Paper 10-1, Cardiff University, 2010); available at .

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a research grant from the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-062-23-1134) as well as a Climate Change Leader Fellowship (RES-066-27-0013) and a major grant to the Understanding Risk research group from the Leverhulme Trust (F/00 407/AG). Further support was received from Horizon Digital Economy Research, RCUK grant (EP/G065802/1). The authors also wish to thank D. Venables, N. Vaughan and Ipsos MORI for assistance with the survey.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Horizon Digital Economy Research/School of Psychology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2TU, UK

    • A. Spence
  2. Welsh School of Architecture/School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK

    • W. Poortinga
  3. Understanding Risk Research Group, School of Psychology, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF10 3AT, UK

    • C. Butler
    •  & N. F. Pidgeon

Authors

  1. Search for A. Spence in:

  2. Search for W. Poortinga in:

  3. Search for C. Butler in:

  4. Search for N. F. Pidgeon in:

Contributions

All authors contributed to the design of the survey used within the work presented. A.S., N.F.P. and W.P. organized and managed the data collection. A.S. analysed the data. A.S. led in writing the paper, developing this with input from all authors.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to A. Spence or N. F. Pidgeon.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1059

Further reading