Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:ftp://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp10061.pdf Non-technical SummaryClimate change is seen as a problem facing current and future generations. Two measures exist in order to cope with its potential effects: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation describes all measures which aim to reduce human based influences on the climate, namely CO 2 and other greenhouse gas emissions. On the contrary, adaptation entails all adjustments in response to actual or expected effects of climate change which serve to reduce harm or exploit potential benefits. While mitigation has been the focus of scientific and political discussions in the past decades, adaptation may become increasingly important as some of the effects of climate change are impending and already irreversible. From an economic point of view, adaptation, contrary to most mitigation options, can also be rational for individuals as they may come to the conclusion that is in their own interest to adapt to new environmental conditions.This study aims to shed light onto some of the factors supporting or hindering individual engagement in adaptation behavior, which little research has empirically investigated to date. In order to analyze behavioral change with regard to climate change, this paper takes on a broader perspective of adaptation, which can be defined as all changes an individual makes in order to adjust to a changing environment. In particular, the effect of information on the perceived risk of individuals was investigated, drawing on a psychological framework called Protection Motivation Theory. Three hypotheses were constructed which were empirically tested in the study: (i) higher levels of perceived risk lead to higher levels of motivation to adapt; (ii) providing information as opposed to not providing information increases perceived risk; (iii) providing locally-focused information as opposed to globally-focused information leads to higher levels of perceived risk.It was found that higher perceived risk did lead to significantly higher motivation to adapt, giving support to hypothesis one. However, hypothesis two and three could not be supported, as the effects of information (compared to no information), and locally-focused information (compared to globally-focused information) on perceived risk were not significant. These results suggest that, contrary to the assumptions in economic theory, the sole provision of information is not sufficient to spur m...

Die Dis cus si on Pape rs die nen einer mög lichst schnel len Ver brei tung von neue ren For schungs arbei ten des ZEW. Die Bei trä ge lie gen in allei ni ger Ver ant wor tung der Auto ren und stel len nicht not wen di ger wei se die Mei nung des ZEW dar.Dis cus si on Papers are inten ded to make results of ZEW research prompt ly avai la ble to other eco no mists in order to encou ra ge dis cus si on and sug gesti ons for revi si ons. The aut hors are sole ly respon si ble for the con tents which do not neces sa ri ly repre sent the opi ni on of the ZEW.Download this ZEW Discussion Paper from our ftp server:http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp11060.pdf Non-Technical SummaryIt is a common belief that more information about climate change will lead to a better understanding of the phenomenon and to an increase of prevention measures, such as insurance for natural hazards.To test this hypothesis, two independent surveys in Germany were conducted. The survey by the research team of KIT was based on an internet questionnaire and a sample of 510 respondents from all regions and socio-economic groups in Germany. The other survey (by researchers of ZEW) was conducted with 157 respondents which were personally present at the premises of the research institute in Mannheim.The main objective of the analyses was to check the correlations and interactions between knowledge about climate change, scientific information about the phenomenon and the risk perception of climate-induced hazards. Furthermore the links between risk perception and prevention measures were analysed.We found that respondents who revealed a better actual knowledge in questions about climate change perceived climate change impacts as less hazardous than those with weaker knowledge. The impact of actual knowledge is opposed to the effect of the self-declared knowledge of the respondents. Respondents who declared their own level of information about climate change as being rather high showed a higher degree of risk perception of climate change than those who ascribed themselves a lower level of information.Overall, in both surveys independently from each other we identified certain factors determining risk perception. These are: gender (female respondents exhibited higher risk perception), experience of damages through extreme weather events (experience implies higher risk perception), and actual knowledge about climate change (better knowledge implies lower risk perception). Surprisingly, the provision of scientific information about expected climate change impacts showed no significant effect on the risk perception.Furthermore we found a positive effect of risk perception of climate change on the willingness to insure and a significant influence of experience with damages through extreme weather events on insurance coverage.Since information about the consequences of climate change does not lead to increased risk perception, we doubt the efficiency of large-scale public information campaigns. Given the broad coverage of the topic in mass media with partly...