Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Article
  • Published:

Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA


Addressing climate change in the United States requires enactment of national, state and local mitigation and adaptation policies. The success of these initiatives depends on public opinion, policy support and behaviours at appropriate scales. Public opinion, however, is typically measured with national surveys that obscure geographic variability across regions, states and localities. Here we present independently validated high-resolution opinion estimates using a multilevel regression and poststratification model. The model accurately predicts climate change beliefs, risk perceptions and policy preferences at the state, congressional district, metropolitan and county levels, using a concise set of demographic and geographic predictors. The analysis finds substantial variation in public opinion across the nation. Nationally, 63% of Americans believe global warming is happening, but county-level estimates range from 43 to 80%, leading to a diversity of political environments for climate policy. These estimates provide an important new source of information for policymakers, educators and scientists to more effectively address the challenges of climate change.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1: Estimates of four different opinions about global warming at the state in 2013.
Figure 2: Estimates of two different opinions about global warming at the 113th congressional district level in 2013.
Figure 3: Estimates of two different opinions about global warming at the county level in 2013.
Figure 4: Comparison of MRP estimates with public opinion results from independent, representative surveys across 11 survey questions.
Figure 5: Cross-validation comparison across six simulated sample sizes (n = 99 simulations) of mean absolute error between MRP results and disaggregation against the full sample.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J. & Fisher, A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal. 19, 461–471 (1999).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Leiserowitz, A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77, 45–72 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Marx, S. M. et al. Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 47–58 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dietz, T., Gardner, G. T., Gilligan, J., Stern, P. C. & Vandenbergh, M. P. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce US carbon emissions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 18452–18456 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Spence, A., Poortinga, W., Butler, C. & Pidgeon, N. F. Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nature Clim. Change 1, 46–49 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Gromet, D. M., Kunreuther, H. & Larrick, R. P. Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 9314–9319 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lorenzoni, I. & Pidgeon, N. Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Climatic Change 77, 73–95 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Leiserowitz, A. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 25, 1433–1442 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychologist 66, 315–328 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 19, 689–701 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociological Q. 52, 155–194 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Zaval, L., Keenan, E. A., Johnson, E. J. & Weber, E. U. How warm days increase belief in global warming. Nature Clim. Change 4, 143–147 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wilbanks, T. J. & Kates, R. W. Global change in local places: How scale matters. Climatic Change 43, 601–628 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W. & Tompkins, E. L. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob. Environ. Change A 15, 77–86 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Van der Horst, D. NIMBY or not? exploring the relevance of location and the politics of voiced opinions in renewable energy siting controversies. Energy Policy 35, 2705–2714 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bulkeley, H. & Betsill, M. M. Revisiting the urban politics of climate change. Environ. Politics 22, 136–154 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1163–1172 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Akerlof, K., Maibach, E. W., Fitzgerald, D., Cedeno, A. Y. & Neuman, A. Do people “personally experience” global warming, and if so how, and does it matter? Glob. Environ. Change 21, 81–91 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Egan, P. J. & Mullin, M. Turning personal experience into political attitudes: The effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. J. Politics 74, 796–809 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Goebbert, K., Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Klockow, K., Nowlin, M. C. & Silva, C. L. Weather, climate and worldviews: The sources and consequences of public perceptions of changes in local weather patterns. Weather Clim. Soc. 4, 132–144 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hamilton, L. C. & Keim, B. D. Regional variation in perceptions about climate change. Int. J. Climatol. 29, 2348–2352 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Howe, P. D., Markowitz, E. M., Lee, T. M., Ko, C-Y. & Leiserowitz, A. Global perceptions of local temperature change. Nature Clim. Change 3, 352–356 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Howe, P. D. & Leiserowitz, A. Who remembers a hot summer or a cold winter? the asymmetric effect of beliefs about global warming on perceptions of local climate conditions in the US. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 1488–1500 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Capstick, S. B. & Pidgeon, N. F. Public perception of cold weather events as evidence for and against climate change. Climatic Change 122, 695–708 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Myers, T. A., Maibach, E. W., Roser-Renouf, C., Akerlof, K. & Leiserowitz, A. A. The relationship between personal experience and belief in the reality of global warming. Nature Clim. Change 3, 343–347 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Van Der Linden, S. On the relationship between personal experience, affect and risk perception: The case of climate change. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 44, 430–440 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in November, 2013 (Yale University and George Mason University, 2014);

  29. Leiserowitz, A., Feinberg, G., Howe, P. & Rosenthal, S. Climate Change in the American Mind: A Focus on California, Colorado, Ohio, and Texas (Yale University, 2013);

  30. Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C. & McIver, J. P. Statehouse Democracy: Public Opinion and Policy in the American States (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  31. Clinton, J. D. Representation in Congress: Constituents and roll calls in the 106th House. J. Politics 68, 397–409 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Park, D. K., Gelman, A. & Bafumi, J. Bayesian multilevel estimation with poststratification: State-level estimates from national polls. Political Anal. 12, 375–385 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Park, D. K., Gelman, A. & Bafumi, J. in Public Opinion in State Politics (ed Cohen, J. E.) 209–228 (Stanford Univ. Press, 2006).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  34. Gelman, A. & Little, T. Poststratification into many categories using hierarchical logistic regression. Sur. Methodol. 23, 127–35 (1997).

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lax, J. R. & Phillips, J. H. How should we estimate public opinion in the states? Am. J. Political Sci. 53, 107–121 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pacheco, J. Using national surveys to measure dynamic us state public opinion a guideline for scholars and an application. State Politics Policy Q. 11, 415–439 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Warshaw, C. & Rodden, J. How should we measure district-level public opinion on individual issues? J. Politics 74, 203–219 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tausanovitch, C. & Warshaw, C. Measuring constituent policy preferences in Congress, state legislatures, and cities. J. Politics 75, 330–342 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Buttice, M. K. & Highton, B. How does multilevel regression and poststratification perform with conventional national surveys? Political Anal. 21, 449–467 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Cooperative Congressional Election Study (Harvard University, 2013);

  41. Leiserowitz, A. & Akerlof, K. Race, Ethnicity, and Public Responses to Climate Change (Yale University and George Mason University, 2010);

  42. Gurney, K. R. et al. High resolution fossil fuel combustion CO2 emission fluxes for the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 5535–5541 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes (R Foundation, 2014);

Download references


This project was supported by the Skoll Global Threats Fund, the Energy Foundation, the 11th Hour Project, the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, and the V. K. Rasmussen Foundation. The authors wish to thank E. Maibach, C. R-Renouf, G. Feinberg, L. Fernandez, S. Rosenthal and B. Schwarz.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



P.D.H. and A.L. designed the study. P.H. and M.M. built the model. A.L. provided the modelling and validation data. P.H., M.M. and J.R.M. processed data and tested the model. All authors contributed to writing the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter D. Howe.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Howe, P., Mildenberger, M., Marlon, J. et al. Geographic variation in opinions on climate change at state and local scales in the USA. Nature Clim Change 5, 596–603 (2015).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing