Attitudes to climate change risk: classification of and transitions in the UK population between 2012 and 2020

Abstract

Strategies for achieving carbon emissions goals presuppose changes in individual behaviour, which can be indirectly nudged by interventions or tailored information but ultimately depend upon individual attitudes. Specifically, the perception that climate change is low risk has been identified as a barrier to participation in climate change adaptation and mitigation efforts. Therefore, understanding public attitudes towards climate change risk is an important element of reducing emissions. We applied k-means cluster analysis to explore attitudes to climate change risk in the UK population using data from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, a national survey running from 2009 to present. We identified three distinct attitude clusters: “Sceptical”, “Concerned”, and “Paradoxical” in both waves 4 (from 2012 to 2014) and 10 (from 2018 to 2020) of this survey. The Sceptical cluster tended to deny the seriousness of climate change and the urgency or even the necessity of dealing with it. The Concerned cluster displayed anxiety about climate change risks and supported action to reduce them. The Paradoxical cluster acknowledged the reality of climate change impacts but did not support actions to mitigate them. We further observed statistical associations between cluster membership and the social characteristics of the participants, including sex, age, income, education, and political affiliation. We also found a temporal stability of cluster structure between the two waves. However, the transition matrices indicated a general transition away from the Sceptical and Paradoxical clusters, and toward the Concerned cluster between wave 4 to wave 10. The findings suggest that more tailored public information campaigns regarding climate change risk may be necessary.

Temporal Stability of Attitudes towards Climate Change and Willingness to Pay for the Emissions Reduction Options in Queensland, Australia

“…For example, Rhead et al [10], using the UK Survey of Public Attitudes and Behaviour towards the Environment, found evidence that greater environmental concern led to the higher probability of being engaged in pro-environmental behaviour. This finding was supported by Liu et al [11], who explored attitudes to climate change risk using the UK Household longitudinal study for 2012 and 2020. Liu et al [11] identified the temporal stability of cluster structure between two surveys in 2012 and 2020 in the UK, noting the shift towards the Concerned cluster.…”

“…This finding was supported by Liu et al [11], who explored attitudes to climate change risk using the UK Household longitudinal study for 2012 and 2020. Liu et al [11] identified the temporal stability of cluster structure between two surveys in 2012 and 2020 in the UK, noting the shift towards the Concerned cluster. They found that the perception that climate change was a low risk was a barrier to mitigation efforts, emphasising that understanding public attitudes towards climate change was important for policy makers in order to design policy to reduce emissions.…”

Abandoning fossil fuel production: What can be learned from the Danish phase-out of oil and gas?

“…A similar tendency could be observed in the UK: 28% of people in 2011 questioned the ex-istence of climate change. This number declined to a modest size of 6% in 2018 [34]. The same tendency could also be observed in Norway, as climate change doubters dropped from 4.4% in 2018 to 2.4% in 2019 [35].…”

Correlates of Climate Change Risk Perception: Evidence from Latin America

“…2_3_4 To date, the study of factors associated with climate risk perceptions has focused primarily on the rich world. 5 For example, research conducted in the United States, 6 -7 -8 Australia, 9 -10 and the United Kingdom 11 - 12 has shown risk perception in a uent democracies to be in uenced by both cognitive 13 and experiential processes. 14 While these ndings enhance our comprehension of climate change risk perceptions, their applicability might be limited to speci c countries and cultures.…”