Shifts in tourists’ sentiments and climate risk perceptions following mass coral bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef


Iconic places, including World Heritage areas, are symbolic and synonymous with national and cultural identities. Recognition of an existential threat to an icon may therefore arouse public concern and protective sentiment. Here we test this assumption by comparing sentiments, threat perceptions and values associated with the Great Barrier Reef and climate change attitudes among 4,681 Australian and international tourists visiting the Great Barrier Reef region before and after mass coral bleaching in 2016 and 2017. There was an increase in grief-related responses and decline in self-efficacy, which could inhibit individual action. However, there was also an increase in protective sentiments, ratings of place values and the proportion of respondents who viewed climate change as an immediate threat. These results suggest that imperilled icons have potential to mobilize public support around addressing the wider threat of climate change but that achieving and sustaining engagement will require a strategic approach to overcome self-efficacy barriers.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Emotional words associated with the GBR.
Fig. 2: Changes in perceived threats to the GBR and in climate change attitudes.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study (SELTMP 2013; 2017)69 are publicly available from the CSIRO online data access portal at The R code used in this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.


  1. 1.

    Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C. & Leiserowitz, A. A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 1014–1020 (2015).

  2. 2.

    Lacey, J., Howden, M., Cvitanovic, C. & Colvin, R. M. Understanding and managing trust at the climate science–policy interface. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 22–28 (2018).

  3. 3.

    Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S. & Whitmarsh, L. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob. Environ. Change 17, 445–459 (2007).

  4. 4.

    Rogelj, J., McCollum, D. L., Reisinger, A., Meinshausen, M. & Riahi, K. Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature 493, 79–83 (2013).

  5. 5.

    van der Linden, S. L. The social–psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 41, 112–124 (2015).

  6. 6.

    van der Linden, S. L., Leiserowitz, A. A., Feinberg, G. D. & Maibach, E. W. The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PLoS ONE 10, e0118489 (2015).

  7. 7.

    Wynne, B. Creating public alienation: expert cultures of risk and ethics on GMOs. Sci. Cult. 10, 445–481 (2001).

  8. 8.

    Wood, W. Attitude change: persuasion and social influence. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 51, 539–570 (2000).

  9. 9.

    O’Neill, S., Boykoff, M., Neimeyer, S. & Day, S. A. On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 413–421 (2013).

  10. 10.

    Ockwell, D., Whitmarsh, L. & O’Neill, S. Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement? Sci. Commun. 30, 305–327 (2009).

  11. 11.

    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. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 343–347 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Singh, A. S., Zwickle, A., Bruskotter, J. T. & Wilson, R. The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 73, 93–99 (2017).

  13. 13.

    Scannell, L. & Gifford, R. Personally relevant climate change: the role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ. Behav. 45, 60–85 (2013).

  14. 14.

    Smith, N. & Leiserowitz, A. The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal. 34, 937–948 (2014).

  15. 15.

    Skurka, C., Niederdeppe, J., Romero-Canyas, R. & Acup, D. Pathways of influence in emotional appeals: benefits and tradeoffs of using fear or humor to promote climate change-related intentions and risk perceptions. J. Commun. 68, 169–193 (2018).

  16. 16.

    Milne, S., Sheeran, P. & Orbell, S. Prediction and intervention in health-related behaviour: a meta-analytic review of protection motivation theory. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 30, 106–143 (2000).

  17. 17.

    O’Neill, S. & Nicholson-Cole, S. “Fear Won’t Do It”: promoting positive engagement with climate change through visual and iconic representations. Sci. Commun. 30, 355–379 (2009).

  18. 18.

    O’Neill, S. J. & Hulme, M. An iconic approach for representing climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 402–410 (2009).

  19. 19.

    Höijer, B. Emotional anchoring and objectification in the media reporting on climate change. Public Underst. Sci. 19, 717–731 (2010).

  20. 20.

    Edensor, T. National Identity, Popular Culture and Everyday Life (Bloomsbury, 2002).

  21. 21.

    Barnett, J., Tschakert, P., Head, L. & Adger, W. N. A science of loss. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 976–978 (2016).

  22. 22.

    Tschakert, P. et al. Climate change and loss, as if people mattered: values, places, and experiences. WIREs Clim. Change 8, e476 (2017).

  23. 23.

    Dow, K. et al. Limits to adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 305–307 (2013).

  24. 24.

    Goldberg, J. et al. Climate Change, the Great Barrier Reef and the response of Australians. Palgrave Commun. 2, 15046 (2016).

  25. 25.

    Marshall, N. A. et al. The dependency of people on the Great Garrier Reef, Australia. Coast. Manag. 45, 505–518 (2017).

  26. 26.

    Gurney, G. G. et al. Redefining community based on place attachment in a connected world. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 10077–10082 (2017).

  27. 27.

    Marshall, N. et al. Measuring what matters in the Great Barrier Reef. Front. Ecol. Environ. 16, 271–277 (2018).

  28. 28.

    Coghlan, A. Linking natural resource management to tourist satisfaction: a study of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. J. Sustain. Tour. 20, 41–58 (2012).

  29. 29.

    Esparon, M., Stoeckl, N., Farr, M. & Larson, S. The significance of environmental values for destination competitiveness and sustainable tourism strategy making: insights from Australia’s Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. J. Sustain. Tour. 23, 706–725 (2015).

  30. 30.

    At What Price? The Economic, Social and Icon Value of the Great Barrier Reef (Great Barrier Reef Foundation, 2017).

  31. 31.

    Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2014 (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2014).

  32. 32.

    Final Report: 2016 Coral Bleaching Event on the Great Barrier Reef (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2017).

  33. 33.

    James, L. E. Half the Great Barrier Reef is dead. National Geographic Magazine (August 2018);

  34. 34.

    Reef Health (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2019);

  35. 35.

    Chen, D. Cyclone Debbie leaves Whitsunday Islands reefs in ruins. ABC News (9 April 2017);

  36. 36.

    Heron, S. F. et al. Impacts of Climate Change on World Heritage Coral Reefs: A First Scientific Assessment (UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 2017);

  37. 37.

    Eagle, L., Hay, R. & Low, D. R. Competing and conflicting messages via online new media: potential impacts of claims that the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Ocean Coast. Manag. 158, 154–163 (2018).

  38. 38.

    Willacy, M. Great Barrier Reef coral bleaching could cost $1b in lost tourism, research suggests. ABC News (21 June 2016);

  39. 39.

    Annual Report 2017–2018 (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, 2018).

  40. 40.

    Piggott-McKellar, A. E. & McNamara, K. E. Last chance tourism and the Great Barrier Reef. J. Sustain. Tour. 25, 397–415 (2016).

  41. 41.

    Cunsolo, A. & Ellis, N. R. Ecological grief as a mental health response to climate change-related loss. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 275–281 (2018).

  42. 42.

    Archer, J. The Nature of Grief (Routledge, 1999).

  43. 43.

    Smith, K. B., Oxley, D., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R. & Hibbin, J. R. Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left-right political orientations. PLoS ONE 6, e25552 (2011).

  44. 44.

    Head, L. The Anthropoceneans. Geogr. Res. 53, 313–320 (2015).

  45. 45.

    Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N. & O’Brien, K. Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 112–117 (2013).

  46. 46.

    Marshall, N. et al. Reef grief: investigating the relationship between place meanings and place change on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Sustain. Sci. 14, 579–587 (2019).

  47. 47.

    Kasperson, R. E. et al. The social amplification of risk: a conceptual framework. Risk Anal. 8, 177–187 (1988).

  48. 48.

    Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N. & Slovic, P. in The Social Amplification of Risk (eds Pidgeon, N. et al.) Ch. 1 (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

  49. 49.

    Lankester, A. J., Bohensky, E. & Newlands, M. Media representations of risk: the reporting of dredge spoil disposal in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park at Abbot Point. Mar. Policy 60, 149–161 (2015).

  50. 50.

    Prideaux, B., McNamara, K. E. & Thompson, M. The irony of tourism: visitor reflections of their impacts on Australia’s World Heritage rainforest. J. Ecotourism 11, 102–117 (2012).

  51. 51.

    Hillery, M., Nancarrow, B., Griffin, G. & Syme, G. Tourist perception of environmental impact. Ann. Tour. Res. 28, 853–867 (2001).

  52. 52.

    Leviston, Z., Greenhill, M. & Walker, I. Australian Attitudes to Climate Change and Adaptation: 2010–2014 (CSIRO, 2015).

  53. 53.

    Pearce, P. L. in Managing Tourism and Hospitality Services: Theory and International Applications (eds Prideaux, B. et al.) Ch. 25 (CABI, 2006).

  54. 54.

    Marshall, N. et al. Identifying indicators of aesthetics in the Great Barrier Reef for the purposes of management. PLoS ONE 14, e0210196 (2019).

  55. 55.

    Nature 543, 7645 (2017).

  56. 56.

    Pocock, C. Sense matters: aesthetic values of the Great Barrier Reef. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 8, 365–381 (2002).

  57. 57.

    Brown, B. E. Coral bleaching: causes and consequences. Coral Reefs 16, S129–S138 (1997).

  58. 58.

    Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages. Nature 556, 492–496 (2018).

  59. 59.

    Ives, C. D. & Kendal, D. The role of social values in the management of ecological systems. J. Environ. Manag. 144, 67–72 (2014).

  60. 60.

    Kenter, J. O. et al. What are shared and social values of ecosystems? Ecol. Econ. 111, 86–99 (2015).

  61. 61.

    Kuhn, J. L. Toward and ecological humanistic psychology. J. Humanist. Psychol. 41, 9–24 (2001).

  62. 62.

    Figley, C. R. (ed.) Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in Those Who Treat the Traumatized (Routledge, 1995).

  63. 63.

    Gifford, R. The dragons of inaction: psychological barriers that limit climate change mitigation and adaptation. Am. Psychol. 66, 290–302 (2011).

  64. 64.

    Hill, J. O., Wyatt, H. R., Reed, G. W. & Peters, J. C. Obesity and the environment: where do we go from here? Science 299, 853–855 (2003).

  65. 65.

    Epton, T. & Harris, P. R. Self-affirmation promotes health behaviour change. Health Psychol. 27, 746–752 (2008).

  66. 66.

    Harth, N. S., Leach, C. W. & Kessler, T. Guilt, anger, and pride about in-group environmental behaviour: different emotions predict distinct intentions. J. Environ. Psychol. 34, 18–26 (2013).

  67. 67.

    Hobbs, R. J. Grieving for the past and hoping for the future: balancing polarizing perspectives in conservation and restoration. Restor. Ecol. 21, 145–148 (2013).

  68. 68.

    Chapin, F. S. & Knapp, C. N. Sense of place: a process for identifying and negotiating potentially contested visions of sustainability. Environ. Sci. Policy 53, 38–46 (2015).

  69. 69.

    Marshall, N., et al. Social and Economic Long Term Monitoring Program (SELTMP) for the Great Barrier Reef Data. v1 (CSIRO, 2019);

  70. 70.

    Bryman, A. Social Research Methods 4th edn (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  71. 71.

    Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E. & Richler, J. J. Effect size estimates: current use, calculations, and interpretation. J. Exp. Psychol. 141, 2–18 (2012).

  72. 72.

    Plutchik, R. A psychoevolutionary theory of emotions. Soc. Sci. Inf. 21, 529–553 (1982).

  73. 73.

    Mohammad, S. M. & Turney, P. D. Emotions evoked by common words and phrases: using Mechanical Turk to create an emotion lexicon. In Proc. NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Approaches to Analysis and Generation of Emotion in Text, 26–34 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2010).

  74. 74.

    Mohammad, S. M. & Turney, P. D. Crowdsourcing a word–emotion association lexicon. Comput. Intell. 29, 436–465 (2012).

  75. 75.

    Hughes, T. P. et al. Global warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377 (2017).

  76. 76.

    Spillman, C. M., Heron, S. F., Jury, M. R. & Anthony, K. R. N. Climate change and carbon threats to coral reefs. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 92, 1581–1586 (2011).

Download references


This study was conducted using data from the Social and Economic Long-Term Monitoring Program for the Great Barrier Reef (SELTMP: with funding provided by the Australian and Queensland Governments as part of the Reef 2050 Integrated Monitoring and Reporting Program (2017–2019) and the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research Program, Tropical Ecosystems Hub (2011–2015). S.F.H. was supported by National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) grant (no. NA14NES4320003) (Cooperative Institute for Climate and Satellites) at the University of Maryland/ESSIC. The scientific results and conclusions, as well as any views or opinions expressed herein, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Government, the Minister for the Environment, the Queensland Government, NOAA or the US Department of Commerce.

Author information

N.A.M., M.I.C., P.L.P., J.G. and others designed the research and collected data. M.I.C., L.T., G.W. and N.A.M. analysed the data. M.I.C., N.A.M., L.T., S.F.H., J.H., B.T., P.L.P. and J.G. wrote the paper.

Correspondence to Matthew I. Curnock.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information: Nature Climate Change thanks Karen McNamara, Nick Pidgeon and other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark