Global Climate Change Risk and Mitigation Perceptions : A Comparison of Nine Countries

To broaden our understanding of global climate change (GCC), this article presents results from an ongoing longitudinal research project that investigates public GCC risk perceptions in nine countries focusing on different perceptions important in policy formulation. A key goal of the study is to understand which nations express similar or different viewpoints with respect to explanatory factors such as threat perceptions, hazard experience, socio-demographics, knowledge of climate change, and other factors found in the environmental hazards literature. Despite many variances in GCC perceptions among the surveyed national populations, the analysis shows that some differences are marginal, while others allow the grouping of countries based on different perception factors. Survey results reveal a high degree of uncertainty with regards to climate change dimensions including risk, science, knowledge, and policy approaches to mitigate GCC.


Introduction
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) first working group concluded in its 2013 assessment report with 95% certainty that human behavior is the principal factor for rapid global climate change (GCC) recorded over the past decades (IPCC, 2013).Despite scientific consensus, public perceptions of climate change have shown widespread responses, high levels of uncertainty, and variation among various cultural groups.This variation is not well understood with regard to the level of differences and causes.Kahan et al. (2011) argued that understanding public perceptions of climate change risk requires knowledge of social values, place, or cultural characteristics, among other social values.
Previous research has focused on GCC impacts and the underlying science, failing to account for local impacts residents face and often perpetuating the idea that "global" changes affect "other" places (Moser 2006).Wardekker (2004) pointed out that communication efforts relevant to GCC do not acknowledge the importance of risk perceptions, specifically asking how science converges with uncertainties, moral dilemmas, the meaning of risk, as well as various other cultural explanations.These findings highlight the need to improve our understanding of public climate change perceptions.Unlike natural disasters, the concepts and knowledge of GCC impacts are relatively new.How people perceive climate change threats and the factors that explain these perceptions may be quite different than other natural hazards found in the environmental and social science literature due to differences that characterize GCC hazards (Burton, Kates, & White 1978;Slovic, 2010).The nature of the GCC hazard is also different from other natural hazards.While there is general agreement that the causes of GCC are anthropomorphic, it is uncertain when and how GCC will manifest itself, for example, into drought or abundant rain and flooding.
To develop effective policies for climate change mitigation and adaptation, it is paramount to understand how the public perceives these threats and to identify the underlying factors (Moser, 2010), but little data exist on how the causes of public risk perceptions; spatiotemporal hazards; and our ability and willingness to mitigate or adapt to GCC through behavioral changes and policy support (Leiserowitz, 2010;Schneider, Rosencranz, Mastrandrea, & Kuntz-Duriseti, 2010).To broaden our understanding of public perceptions and attitudes of GCC, this paper reports results from an ongoing longitudinal research project in nine countries, focusing on various dimensions of public GCC risk perceptions.One objective is to gain knowledge of the extent to which nations express similar or different viewpoints and perceptions with respect to climate change risk factors.Besides national and cultural differences, personal experience of the hazard has been suggested as an explanatory factor.We have ample evidence that perceptions of natural hazards vary based on the characteristics of the hazard, e.g., in catastrophic versus non-catastrophic threats, long term versus sudden, illustrated by droughts versus tornadoes.Much of this work was reported by Paul Slovic (2010).Perceptions can also change over time (Tate et al. 2003), e.g., recent studies show increased concern over nuclear power plants following the Fukushima nuclear accent in Japan (Mah et al., 2014;Kim et al., 2014) Lastly, risk perceptions vary by the nature of the hazard in terms of consequences, level of uncertainty, whether the hazard is voluntary, known or unknown, and dread, among other heuristics (Slovic, 2010).This paper contributes the rich and robust history of hazards research and societal response to natural disaster threats in the social sciences (Barrows, 1923;White, 1974;Mitchell, 1990;Cutter, Mitchell, & Scott, 2000) by addressing and explaining a broad array of perceived threats from GCC in nine nations.

Study Sites
Nine countries were selected for the study.These countries are relevant to the global efforts of mitigating and adapting to GCC.The United States (US) is an obvious choice, as it a) is a Superpower, b) is the richest country in the world, and c) has the second highest GHG emissions (World Bank, 2014a).In addition, a significant national political debate over GCC still is ongoing.The participation of the U.S. in global treaties to lower GHG emissions is crucial to successfully adapt to GCC.Major natural disasters in the U.S. have been linked to climate change in the media, and the little research on climate change perceptions that has been published originates in the US.Therefore, the results and findings of this paper can be compared to earlier studies for validation purposes.
Despite its level of economic development, Mexico (MEX) is still characterized as a developing country, has experienced coastal storms, and has a strong policy interest in sustainability practices.It was therefore selected as one of the nine countries for this study.Canada (CAN) was chosen because of its existing policies to reduce GCC.Moreover, three of CAN's major cities are ranked in the top ten cities of the world on the urban resiliency rating system demonstrating the potential for effective adaptation (Barkham, 2014).Japan (JP) was selected, because it is an island state and an important economic leader in the region.Additionally, Japan has much experience with ocean tsunamis and storm surges and may be especially sensitive to climate change impacts due to the location of its nuclear power plants.Brazil (BRA) plays a leading role in South America with the largest economy of the continent (World Bank, 2014b).The Amazon, one of the largest ecosystems on Earth, makes BRA extremely vulnerable to GCC impacts (Malhi et al., 2008).Germany (GER) was selected because if its significant leadership role in the European Union (EU) and consistently strong support for international action on climate change.Furthermore, GER was less affected from the recent economic downturn compared to other EU countries and will probably have larger political capital in future years to impact climate change policy (Hill, 2011).In comparison, Spain (ESP) was heavily impacted by the worldwide economic downturn and consequently has considerably reduced its financial commitments to renewable energy to offset these impacts (Pew Research Center, 2010).Nevertheless, successful adaptation to sea level rise and extreme flooding events will be key to ESP's future, as ESP has an extensive shoreline and a tourism sector.
The Netherlands (NET) play a leadership role in implementing design interventions and adaptation policies, as evidenced by the country's ability to successfully cope with storm surges and sea level rise.However, its strategies will be tested when sea levels rise as anticipated, because about 30 percent of the NET is below sea level.Finally, the United Kingdom (UK) was selected for this study, as it plays a key role in international policy support for climate change mitigation, but also may have internal differences on national policies toward the issue.Certainly, this study can be expanded to other countries, which is part of ongoing research, as well as conducing repeat studies over time to investigate longitudinal changes in perceptions and their causes.For example, the authors are currently examining changes in GCC perceptions in Japan as a result of the Fukushima nuclear disaster.At this juncture, however, the paper provides important findings on national public risk perceptions and their role in GCC policy preferences.

Public Risk Perception Research
Early risk perception studies include the book "The Environment as Hazard" by Burton, Kates and White (1978).Geographical research that initially focused on examining human behavior in the face of natural hazards has influenced the more recent fields of sustainability, vulnerability analysis, and human-environment coupled systems research.For instance, Short (1984) and Douglas and Wildavsky (1983) found that risk acceptance and perceptions are embedded in cultural and social contexts, i.e. friends, family, coworkers, and respected public officials are responsible for transmitting many of the social influences affecting an individual's response to hazards.
The field has since added work on responses to technological hazards as well (Bowonder, Kasperson, & Kasperson, 1985;Flynn et al., 1995).In psychology, the work by Paul Slovic (2000) has coined the field of human response to both natural and technological hazards and disasters.Some influential findings on risk perceptions emerged from interdisciplinary research on siting a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository that included consideration of the social amplification of risk concept (Kasperson et al., 1988), public trust factors (Pijawka & Mushkatel, 1991), and the role of scientific uncertainty.Recent studies also highlight the importance of emotions for the decision-making process (Paton, 2008;NRC, 2010).
Over the past 20 years, our knowledge on public perception of GCC has grown extensively, particularly for the US.(Leiserowitz, Maibach, & Roser-Renouf, 2010;Whitmarsh, Seyfang, & O'Neill, 2011;Fischer et al., 2012;Jin & Shriar, 2013;Hagen & Pijawka, 2015).These studies inform us that risk perceptions have a significant impact on people's behavior and need to be considered when developing and implementing GCC policies (Kahan, 2012;Akerlof, Maibach, Fitzgerald, Cedeno, & Neuman, 2013).Overall, existing GCC surveys show that the public in the US generally acknowledges the existence of anthropogenic GCC and is highly concerned (Dessai et al., 2004;DEFRA, 2007;Ockwell, Whitmarsh, & O'Neill, 2009).Yet, the level of public engagement is low and pro-environmental behavior (i.e.support for renewable energy) is even less common (Whitmarsh, 2009;Moloney & Strengers, 2014).For example, few people go beyond advancing domestic energy conservation and even less commit to behavioral changes.
Despite the broad scientific consensus on the reality, risks, and causes of GCC, widespread dissent exists among the public with regard to GCC.Research found that the role of trust is critical in perceived risks of climate change, and this factor has to be addressed (Slovic, 2000).The lack of public consensus on GCC risks may result from distrust in the scientific information, lack of understanding, or distrust in the sources of the scientific information.
The way the public thinks about the nature of GCC may result in misinterpretations of the GCC facts as shown by Weber and Stern (2011).Misconceptions, such as the belief that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a type of air pollution, result in public support for the wrong policies (Prinn, Reilly, Sarofim, Wang, & Felzer, 2005).The considerable gap between expert assessments and lay understanding is exemplified in the current IPCC report (2014) and other reports and publications (Thomas, Melillo, & Peterson, 2009;Hagen et al., 2016) that focus specifically on GCC impacts in the US.
More recent studies found that insufficient knowledge and the lay public's inability to assess technical information does not explain differences between the public's and the scientists' level of concern.These studies acknowledge that, while public GCC science understanding requires improvement, illiteracy is not the issue.Instead, the reason that communication programs fail is the lack of acknowledgement of individual positions on climate change due to varying values and cultural worldviews (Kahan et al., 2011).Little research has explored these values and worldviews and how they impact people's risk perceptions and their support for climate change policies.Increasing our understanding of public risk perceptions would point out key areas that communication programs could leverage to enhance the effectiveness of information dissemination.This study aims at building this understanding by testing the level of public acceptance and support of various GCC adaptation and mitigation strategies in nine countries.

Sampling
Reliability was a key consideration in the study design.It was important to select countries that are relevant to the global efforts of mitigating and adapting to GCC and to establish validity and authenticity within the surveyed population samples.Household respondent data was needed for age, income, gender, and level of education; these samples had to represent each of the regions in the national data set and all social groups in each country.As the surveys were based on Internet panels, this was not assured from countries in Africa, which is why they were excluded.This is an acknowledged shortfall of this research, which will be addressed in an ongoing longitudinal multi-year initiative.Household were selected randomly within the parameters of socio-economic variables and computer ownership.We sampled 7,327 households overall, with each country's sample size large enough to scientifically and adequately generalize to the larger population with a 95 percent confidence level and a ± 4 percent margin of error.Within-country sample sizes range from 539 (CAN) to 947 (US) respondents (Figure 1).A literature-based theoretical framework was developed to guide the survey questions instrument design and data analysis.The framework identifies important variables affecting how the

Survey
Guided by and attitud divided int on a set of participant definition adaptation of concern statements well as cau

Various sta of GCC, a
The key distributio scales, me used to ex also yielde    With rega likelihood paper and developme categories (Figure 6).shop local responses process.

GCC a
Our surve threat to th threat perc countries, severity.W less than 2 and 22.9 p people in themselves  Respondents had to estimate how long it will take until negative impacts of GCC will be experienced a) somewhere on Earth and b) in their region.

Country Similarities
Figure 9 positions the nine surveyed countries in a 3D cube based on the perceived a) level of personal concern over GCC, b) personal level of threat, and c) governmental trust in terms of institutional management of risk.
The differences in mean scores among the countries are often only marginal, which allows to cluster the countries.For example, the UK, JP, the US, ESP, and GER show strong similarities of the perceived GCC threat level.The maximum difference in the mean scores for the three principal perception factors among the five countries is less than 0.5.The level of perceived personal threat, CAN, BRA, and MEX, is the highest.The NET is an outlier with regard to the perception factors mapped in Figure 9.Although the NET's level of personal concern over GCC and trust towards the government as risk manager are similar to the results of the UK, JP, US, ESP, and GER, the perceived level of threat is below the threat level reported in any other country.This is in large part because the country is already strongly engaged in adaptation activities and national policies, such as levies and floodgates, due to its topography.Since a sizeable portion of the country is below sea level, the population s is accustomed to the natural threats.that requires stronger governmental involvement.Contrary, the US, NET, and UK are the least concerned about GCC threats, risks, and potential impacts.Overall, survey participants strongly support behavioral change to mitigate GCC.Between 63.5 percent (JP) and 96.7 percent (MEX) were either willing or strongly willing to commit to behavioral changes, with CAN, BRA, and MEX exhibiting the strongest will to implement changes.Majority support were given to the options of using more recycled paper and purchasing energy saving appliances by study participants.However, a change in travel behavior among the public is less likely.For example, among the surveyed populations in the NET and the US, close to 25 percent dismiss the idea of using public transit more frequently.
Our findings indicate that the public perception of GCC risk are in conflict with the findings and recommendations provided by the scientific community.For instance, the public underestimates personal risks in contrast to views of scientists that GCC is occurring (Pittock, 2009).As we see in this paper, the public varies in their perceptions, exhibits high levels of uncertainty, and sees little risk to themselves in their local areas.Additionally, there is little trust in institutional risk managers.
The high levels of uncertainty reported by the survey respondents present an opportunity for new communication efforts.Many people are not sure about the danger GCC poses today and how it will impact future generations, are undecided to support GCC mitigation strategies, and question the reliability of GCC information sources.The comparatively high levels of public uncertainty and indecisiveness provide opportunities to influence public behavior and perceptions by objective GCC coverage.If people can establish personal connections to GCC impacts, it will likely increase their level of concern and support for mitigation and adaptation policies.Finally, awareness of national disparities in tolerable policies is vital for reaching an agreement on international policies and global targets.Thus, more in-depth survey research including diverse populations is necessary to allow more country comparisons and obtain sub-national data. Figure Figure 3 d on a scale fro ple are concern e from 'strong lack of politica he impacts in t everse GCC.B percent of all about the inte R is followed b P (37 percent), or global warm ntral factor of that GCC is co general are c bach, & Roser- Figunts were asked educe the caus Figure 8 c globally an are already the lowest experience

Figure 10
Figure10positions the nine nations on the three dimensions of adaptation and mitigation policy support and commitment to behavioral changes.BRA and MEX show the largest level of support, not only being most supportive of climate change polices, but also most willing to engage in behavioral changes to mitigate GCC.JP, GER, ESP, and CAN also show similar responses.Another grouping consists of the UK and the NET, who are similar in terms of behavior and in their low support for adaptation policies.The US show the least support among the public for any climate change policy.