Download as a PDF

Earth & E-nvironment 5, 185-205
University of Leeds Press
Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the
UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate Change
Duncan M. Sharples
School of Earth & Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds, W. Yorkshire LS2 9JT
Abstract
Global climate change is accepted by the scientific community to be a reality the human race is
experiencing now. Yet the public, on both national and international levels, are consistently shown to lack
individual engagement in tackling the issue despite appearing to be fully aware of it. This is compounded
by a tendency to distance themselves from the issue, particularly the inherent risk associated with it.
Public concern clearly correlates with media coverage, and public opinion has been shown to be heavily
influenced by the media. This paper adds to the literature by investigating through both quantitative and
qualitative methods, the communication pathway that information travels along from the expert to the
layperson, and determines where problems lie in both informing and engaging the public further. It is
found that while experts believe there to be sufficient appropriate information available, the public does
not take advantage of it, instead gaining information from the media while simultaneously claiming the
media is not as reliable as the peer reviewed literature. To overcome the problems involved with
engagement further research is needed on lay understanding of scientific terminology, and also on the
availability to the public of peer reviewed literature.
Keywords: climate change; engagement; public perceptions; public understanding; media influence;
barriers; information; communication
ISSN 1744-2893 (Online)
© University of Leeds
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
1. Introduction
Climate change is a serious issue with global causes and global consequences, a reality the human race is
now beginning to realise as an immediate threat to the continued success of society. Fossil fuel sourced
carbon dioxide emissions are ever increasing, as are global temperature averages, polar ice melting is
accelerating and the consequences of the impacts are constantly being revised by the experts (Allison et al,
2009). Yet despite the urgency of the need for engagement within all levels of society and the scientific
weight behind the theory of anthropogenic climate change (see eg IPCC 2001, 2007), there remains a
surprisingly low level of public engagement in tackling the problem. However that is not to say that the
public are totally ignorant of the climate change issue; the wealth of available literature on public views
clearly indicates a wide general awareness of it, though this awareness does not necessarily coincide with
an understanding of the main key aspects (Lorenzoni et al, 2007). Therefore if awareness is not translating
to active engagement it may be postulated that public perception must play a primary role in the decision
– be it conscious or not – to refrain from personal engagement. This in turn leads to the consideration
that if perception is indeed such an important aspect in affecting public attitudes to climate change, then
how is this perception influenced? Mass communication is one of the most important aspects of
influencing public perception and in turn opinion, and in the context of climate change the available types
of communication are numerous. However this is not necessarily of positive consequence; it is not just
the form of communication that is vital to influencing perception, but also the source, and for the
majority of the general global public scientific knowledge is communicated via the mass media (Corbett &
Durfee, 2004). Trust in what is being communicated is inevitably tied in with trust of who is
communicating it and is of particular relevance when considering the portrayal by the media of the
inherent risks and level of scientific uncertainty associated with climate change, the latter of which is
argued by Zehr (2000) to be used in the media to create an “exclusionary boundary” between the public
and the climate scientists.
This study will look at existing literature on public perceptions of climate change both globally and in the
UK, then investigate and analyse, through the means of an online public survey, how the UK public as a
whole perceives their own level of knowledge on the issue of global climate change and compare this with
where they primarily gain their information from. The study will also investigate basic self perceived
individual levels of active engagement in tackling climate change.
To compliment and lend further significance through allowing more in-depth, precision analysis of these
results, the issue of public perception on global climate change will also be analysed qualitatively by
investigating the professional views of experts whose work is closely related to the field of climate science
and/or associated social issues.
The overall aim of this work is to discover apparent barriers to public engagement in the UK and
investigate how these barriers may be overcome. Of special focus will be the role the media plays in the
delivery of information on the climate change issue and any subsequent association between this and
public understanding of the topic.
2. Background & Context
2.1 Current UK Public Perceptions on Climate Change
Climate change as an important, prevalent issue has existed within the public domain for approximately
the last twenty five years. During this time numerous studies have been done on the changing public
attitudes towards it. A review of the major studies on public views, undertaken by Lorenzoni and Pidgeon
(2006), found European and American opinions to be generally within the same sphere of categorisation
and, of key importance to this study, a consensus within the literature that while the public are aware of
the climate change issue they do not possess an equivalent level of understanding in regards to the causes
of and solutions to climate change. The review also found that the public tend to consider climate change
to be less important than other issues, particularly of a social and personal nature. This is further enforced
186
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
by findings which show the public (in both the UK and USA) perceive the risk of climate change as a
“distant threat, of limited personal importance” (Lorenzoni et al, 2006). These aspects are shown to apply
specifically to the UK public in a DEFRA survey (2001) in which questioned members of the public
indicated a belief in climate change being due to human activities, yet offered a view of the causes and
impacts which, while more sure than previous surveys, was still indicative of confusion.
The results of these studies and those like them lead to a serious problem for policy makers, as the
achievement of a consensus within society as a whole, not just within the scientific community, is
necessary in order to allow for justification of high cost preventative and adaptative measures (Kempton,
1991).
2.2 Levels of Engagement
The existing literature indicates a distinct difference between individual intentions to engage in
mitigation and actual action (Pidgeon et al, 2008). Explaining this discrepancy in greater detail, Lorenzoni
et al (2007) first define engagement as an individual‟s three elements of the state (of connection) – being
cognitive, affective and behavioural - and show that being aware of the issue is not significant enough to
initiate engagement actions; there needs to be care and motivation as well. The results of that particular
study lead to an argument that “targeted and tailored information should be supported by wider structural
change”.
Another important aspect noted in the literature is the difference in reasoning for individual engagement;
often it is the case that persons who do engage in activities that can be considered as contributing to the
mitigation of climate change do not do so for that purpose, rather they engage for reasons such as
financial saving (Whitmarsh, 2009).
2.3 Media Influence
The media, especially news media, plays a role in presenting information to the public on climate change,
with studies (see e.g. Sampei & Aoyagi-Usui, 2009) showing a clear correlation between an increase in
media coverage and an increase in public concern over the issue. Whether this role as a provider of
information is positive or negative however is the subject of much debate, and is obviously hard to
ascertain to any degree of general certainty given the broad spectrum of delivery formats. Research finds
that while the media can generally be held partly responsible for inadequate public understanding, it at
least serves to focus people‟s attention on the environmental issues (Stamm et al, 2000).
Some themes do however seem constant; journalists often either exclude climate change dimensions of a
news story because they consider it too complicated, or they will present the issue in too narrow a context
(Smith, 2005). This latter aspect is arguably of greater negative impact, as it provides for a
misunderstanding of the nature of climate change rather than leading to continued ignorance. Indeed, the
media tends to be very selective about how and when to include global climate change in reports, and
when it does focus on the issue the science behind it is consistently suggested to be “statistically fuzzy”
(Dispensa & Brulle, 2003). Furthermore, coverage of climate change in the media - especially in UK
newspapers - is strongly linked to political agendas, with the different media entities creating their own
images of the science behind it and reporting on the seriousness of impacts depending on their own
political preferences (Carvalho & Burgess, 2005).
Of related importance, but not necessarily pertaining exclusively to the topic of media influence, is that of
terminology. The complexity of the science behind climate change inevitably has the potential to lead to
confusion when attempted to be interpreted by a layperson, but this confusion may be exacerbated by the
difference in linguistics, as well as the emergence of new compound terms and phrases. Good examples
of these compounds are ones that focus around the word „carbon‟ – for example „carbon footprint‟.
These compounds can be used to investigate trends in how the public thinks and behaves toward climate
change (Nerlich & Koteyko, 2009). A negative facet of the issue of terminology is the subsequent
possibility for misquotation by, for example, journalists – a simple misquotation can risk a lot, causing
187
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
trouble not only in the public sphere but in the interactions between media and scientific communities
(Boykoff, 2008). As such it is imperative that a balance must be maintained when communicating climate
science to the public; complex issues need to be communicated clearly and effectively while
simultaneously avoiding potentially damaging misinformation.
3. Research Methods & Design
3.1 Interviews of Experts
Qualitative research was conducted in the form of interviews with academic persons whose work is
directly or closely associated with climate change. The purpose of this aspect of the study was to gauge
expert opinions on the public‟s perceptions of climate change in order to provide a base for comparative
analysis of the public survey results; this is particularly relevant when considering the flow of information,
as the interviewees are very close to the source, whereas the public are effectively at the end point of the
communication pathway. Expert views may help distinguish if information relayed across to the public
translates to similar conclusions, or if conclusions are not translated similarly (or indeed at all) alongside
the information within the public domain. Should the latter be the case, interview results may help isolate
the possible reasons of this, or at least narrow down key potential causes, ie are the expert views different
or are they unanimous in their opinions? Or perhaps there would be a fundamental shift within the
communication pathways.
There are several forms of potential interview styles to use for such research, but best suited to this
particular study is that of a semi-structured qualitative interview. This interview style is flexible as it
involves having a draft list of questions divided into themes, but it also allows for the dialogue to change
according to the answers given (Broom, 2005), as well as providing the opportunity for the interviewer to
use supplementary questions to probe more deeply into any interesting relevant comments made by the
interviewee (Sapsford & Jupp, 1996). This naturalistic form of interview, combined with the recording of
each interview in full, allows for greater in-depth analysis.
Analysis took place in the form of grounded theorising, whereby the initial intention was to generate
categories into which the data could be placed, followed by more specific subcategories which would lead
to an exploration of whether there was a consistent sequence of visualisable events or issues to which
public perceptions (determined by the quantitative aspect of the study) can be attributed, thereby
demonstrating causation (Weiss, 1994). Obviously the first step of generating broad categories was
facilitated by the prior formatting of the questions asked, which were designed to cover four specific areas
of research with opportunity to expand on answers given within each category. Other than the initial
introductory questions, these categorical questions were intended to explore experts‟ opinions on:
The reality of climate change and its causes
Availability within the public domain of reliable and impartial information on climate change
Involvement of the public in tackling climate change at an individual level
The role the media and/or other groups play in the communication of climate change
information and subsequent impacts on engagement
There was also the opportunity for the interviewees to offer any additional comments on the research
topic that they thought had not been covered or wanted to comment on further. These comments, where
they were made, were placed accordingly into the existing categories during analysis. Consideration was
also given to potential sources for further research mentioned during the interviews and, while these
topics did not necessarily form part of the intended research in this work, any that appeared to be
important factors or influences on the work are included where it is considered to be relevant.
The next step of creating more specific and explanatory categories was done using basic coding
methodology, whereby transcriptions of the interviews were made then read and re-read to determine key
aspects of the interviewee‟s comments, then to narrow these aspects down into their most elemental form.
188
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Once these categories were produced each interview could be carefully read through a final time to
determine whether the interviewee made reference to the category as a causal aspect of the issue they are
commenting on.
The end result of this process is to have a selection of important aspects which represent the
interviewees‟ opinions on public perceptions of climate change. From this, analysis of the quantitative
aspect of the study can be tailored with regards to whether or not the qualitative results are also
represented by the responses given by the public, thereby either correlating them or leading to an
explanation of alternative conclusions.
.
3.2 Public Surveys
To assess public perceptions and opinions a survey was created, being considered an effective research
tool for this purpose as comparatively high responses are desired to be able to measure answer
frequencies precisely and determine correlations between the applied variables (Wallner et al., 2003).
While it would be ideal to adopt techniques such as telephone surveying or postal delivery of surveys in
order to allow for the broadest of social cross sections and an improved specificity of responses, these
approaches were not deemed practical for this study and therefore it was decided that the survey would
be created and delivered to potential respondents through online systems. This did give several
advantages, in particular relating to the ease of which the survey could be created and sent, as a specific
survey design orientated website was used; this „central hub‟ allowed for a link to the survey to be sent via
email and results stored on a single account rather than the need to adopt a process of sending and
receiving individual surveys. It also gave the added benefit of being able to attempt to incorporate a
snowball technique (Wheater & Cook, 2000), whereby respondents would pass on the link to the survey
to their online contacts.
In terms of the format of the questions, the survey was composed of several different styles of questions,
all of which required either a specific choice or multiple answers to be given, as “surveys which include a
broad array of opinions and options provide respondents an opportunity to consider things that may not
have occurred to them” (Wellman & Fahmy, 1985). The multiple available choice forms in the survey
implemented the Likert categorisation in a fivefold format, thus allowing for an accurate response while
producing easily quantifiable results (Sapsford, 1999).
The overall purpose of the survey was to investigate specific areas, namely:
Public awareness of climate change in terms of relevant knowledge and concern
Levels of trust in various information sources
Interpretation and level of acceptance of the science of climate change
Level of personal engagement in tackling climate change
A section of demographic questions was included at the end of the survey in order to assess whether the
responses amounted to a cross sectional social representation appropriate for a fair and reliable analysis.
These questions were designed to gather information without compromising anonymity, and therefore
consisted of questions regarding, for example, gender and age range.
4. Results
4.1 Interview Results
A total of six interviews were conducted, each with a qualified professional currently working in the field
of climate change or a field very closely associated with it. While this is a less than ideal number of
interviews to conduct, it was necessary to be limited so due to various, mainly temporal, constraints.
Interview length varied from roughly five minutes to almost thirty, however this is not to say that the
quality of relevant content was vastly different between the interviews.
189
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Due to the nature of the interview technique the questions used were not exactly the same in each
interview; instead, the base questions were used as reference points and additional questions put forth to
further explore and/or prompt for elaboration on the interviewee‟s comments. Transcriptions of each
interview, including the variations of questions specific to each, were found on analysis to contain a large
amount of information regarding the interviewees‟ views on public perceptions of climate change. While
this appeared promising much of it was far too ambiguous and specific to an individual interview to be of
substantial use here, however there did prove to be several aspects which most, if not all, interviewees
considered important. All of these aspects related either directly or indirectly to barriers to public
engagement in tackling the issue of climate change created somewhere along the information pathway.
Perhaps surprisingly, when the answers interviewees gave were coded specifically (where possible) to yes
or no categorisation, all experts tended to give the same answer. An outline of how responses compared
at this basic level is shown in Table 1. Obviously this method is reducing the answers to a very basic form,
and further investigation was required to allow for broader and more accurate analysis. However, this data
does give a good indication of where to focus analysis, namely on why the experts though the public were
not informed on the issue, what the specific barriers to engagement are and how groups (including if
relevant, the media) manipulate the available information.
Table 1: Basic responses to core questions. Note that some responses could not be fairly determined as yes or no, and were recorded
appropriately. Also, ‘n/a’ was applied where either the question was not asked or an answer not given.
1
Questions
Any doubt climate change is real?
Is your view shared by your peers?
Vital the public be informed on the issue?
Are they?
Is there enough available reliable information?
Are there specific barriers to engagement?
Does the media play a positive or negative role?
Are there groups that manipulate the issue?
Does that detract from importance and/or exacerbate confusion?
No
Yes
Yes
n/a
Yes
Yes
Both
Yes
Yes
2
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Both
Yes
n/a
Interviewee and Response
3
4
No
Yes
Yes
n/a
Yes
Yes
Both
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
n/a
Yes
Yes
Both
Probably
Yes
5
6
No
n/a
Yes
No
Don't know
Yes
"Tough" (leans towards positive)
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
To an extent
No
Yes (implication of)
Marginally positive
Yes
Yes (implication of)
To expand upon the basic answers, the transcriptions were read through once more and key issues related
to the issue raised were identified. So as to avoid over-complicating the analysis, once these issues were
identified they were subsequently sorted into categories according to key words or phrases. This in turn
identified the main line of responses, as well as some minor but very relevant aspects. Finally, these
categories were tabulated, then the transcriptions read through again and a record made of which
interviewees agreed with each aspect, determined by whether they mentioned a key word in their answer
to the relevant questions. The results of this procedure are shown in Table 2.
Some aspects determined by this process are clearly subcategories of others, for example the main line of
the interviews is communication, however this is a broad term and as such requires separating into
individual components.
190
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Table 2: Each aspect is considered a key issue and/or barrier by one or more of the interviewees in the understanding and engagement
of the public on the issue of climate change. The table shows which interviewees mentioned the relative aspect and which did not.
1
Communication problem
Confusion relating to terminology
Misunderstanding due to complexity
Trust issues
Media influence
Political associations of media
Education
Polarisation of debate
2
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
3
Y
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
4
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
5
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
6
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
4.2 Summer Survey Results
4.2.1
General
Before proceeding into the survey results, it should be noted that as the amount of information gathered
from the surveys was ultimately far greater than required for a study of this scale it was decided that to
make the most effective use of the data, analysis of results would focus primarily on the sections of the
survey which related to what was discovered from the qualitative research. As such, not all data gathered
in the survey will be used in this work.
With regards to the response rate of the summer survey, a total of 109 surveys were started and out of
these 99 respondents answered all questions. Results will be drawn however from the responses of each
relevant question.
4.2.2
Information & Knowledge
It would appear from the results of the first three questions that there is a great difference in people‟s
opinions on their own knowledge when compared with their primary sources of information and how
reliable people consider various sources to be. More than half the respondents – 52.3 percent - consider
themselves „quite knowledgeable‟ on the issue of climate change, whereas on either side of this we see
22.0 percent consider themselves very knowledgeable and 21.1 percent barely knowledgeable. However
when we look at where people admit to getting the majority of their information on climate change from,
there is a greater spread of responses across the answers (summarised in Table 3). Of particular note is
the fact that a total of 60.6 percent of responders use the media, in one form or another, as their primary
source of information.
Table 3: Source of information on climate change. Note that the first three categories can all be classed as media sources.
What is your primary source of information about the climate change issue?
Answer Options
Response Percent Response Count
Newspapers
15.6%
17
TV/radio news
23.9%
26
TV/film documentaries
21.1%
23
Peer reviewed journals
15.6%
17
Non peer reviewed internet sites eg Wikipedia
1.8%
2
Other academic sources
6.4%
7
Other
15.6%
17
answered question
109
109
skipped question
0
0
191
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Despite the fact that this equates to a total of 66 respondents that use a form of media as their primary
source, few respondents consider the listed forms of media as being „very reliable‟, with only 2 people
listing newspapers as such, 1 person TV/radio news and 12 people TV/film documentaries. However,
when looking at how many respondents consider these media forms to be „quite reliable‟ the numbers
change drastically – 32 people consider the newspapers „quite reliable‟, 53 TV/radio news and 56 TV/film
documentaries. When comparing the considered reliability of these media forms with peer reviewed
literature a greater number (36) of respondents indicated that they consider peer reviewed literature to be
„very reliable‟.
Finally in relation to information and knowledge, the attitudes of respondents to climate change
information were assessed to determine if these results might be associated with motivational attitudes.
The results to this aspect are seen in Table 4.
Table 4: Motivational attitudes of the public. Numbers in bold signify the largest response count for the agreement level of the associated
statement. Of importance here are the views the public have on the reality of climate change and where they feel responsibility lies for
tackling the issue.
How much do you agree with the following statements?
Answer Options
Fully Agree Mostly Agree No opinion Mostly Disagree Strongly Disagree Response Count
I want to do my part in tackling climate change but the changes I would need to make to my lifestyle are impractical
4
29
11
49
6
99
Climate change is a global issue which can only be tackled at an international level
13
39
11
24
12
99
I am doing what I can to help tackle climate change
8
52
10
25
4
99
My local authority is not doing enough to tackle climate change
25
46
20
6
2
99
UK businesses are not doing enough to tackle climate change
39
45
13
1
1
99
Internationally, governments are not doing enough to tackle climate change
46
43
6
4
0
99
The UK government is not doing enough to tackle climate change
40
46
6
7
0
99
It's too late to avert the effects of climate change
5
25
16
40
13
99
Climate change is unlikely to happen in my lifetime
1
11
12
41
34
99
Climate change is an important global issue, but other problems are more important
7
14
19
47
12
99
Climate change is a real problem that is happening now
49
37
7
3
3
99
Most of the information presented by the UK media about climate change is presented in an alarmist fashion
23
42
14
18
2
99
I don't think climate change will have much impact on me personally
4
14
12
48
21
99
Extreme weather events seem to be increasing in regularity where I live
13
45
18
15
8
99
Climate change is a myth created to further the interests of certain groups
3
3
5
31
57
99
Climate change is a natural phenomenom, humans contribute little or nothing to its occurance
6
10
14
37
32
99
answered question
99
99
skipped question
10
10
As can be seen, responses in this one question indicate that the majority of people questioned agree that
not enough is being done on local, national and international levels to combat the issue of climate change,
yet agree that they are doing what they can on a personal level. The majority of respondents also feel that
climate change is an important issue which is an immediate problem for both the global community and
for them on a personal level, yet despite this statement people do not see tackling the issue as their
personal responsibility; most see the international community and international businesses & industry as
being primarily responsible for tackling climate change. To elaborate on this, only 20.2 percent of
respondents think responsibility lies on a personal level, yet 59.4 percent believe they are doing what they
can to tackle the issue.
4.2.3
Behaviour
The next section of questions was associated with actual engagement, or lack thereof, in tackling the issue
of climate change, though this was not an issue of direct action - questions related exclusively to aspects
of individuals‟ everyday life, specifically concerning transport habits but also home and shopping attitudes.
192
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Firstly, respondents were questioned on their day to day travel habits. From this it was found that the
same amount of people walk as those who use a car – 34.3 percent - with a further 22.2 percent using a
form of public transport. Next, people were questioned on their preferred mode of transport for longer
journeys within the UK, with the results showing that over half (53.5 percent) indicate using a train for
longer journeys, with 38.4 percent using a car. Only 4.0 percent of respondents claimed they do not take
longer journeys.
Finally people were questioned about their flying habits, with respondents being asked if they pay a
carbon offsetting fee, should they actually make use of aeroplanes. Of the 63 people who do fly, only 12
stated that they do pay a carbon offsetting fee.
Next, behaviour at home was investigated by use of questions relating to environmentally friendly
purchases (Table 5) and aspects of their home life which are commonly associated with being better for
the environment than if they were absent.
Table 5. Environmentally friendly shopping habits of respondents.
Do you regularly buy any of the following (please tick all that apply)?
Answer Options
Response Percent Response Count
Locally produced food/drink
83.8%
83
Organic food/drink
42.4%
42
Eco-friendly cleaning products
36.4%
36
Clothes made from natural fibres
27.3%
27
None of the above
10.1%
10
answered question
99
99
skipped question
10
10
Practices at home vary, though commonplace aspects such as insulation and making use of recycling
facilities are more frequently observed than rarer or more complex ones. For example, 81.8 percent of
people questioned have double glazing in place in their homes and 92.9 percent make use of paper
recycling facilities, whilst only 3.0 percent have a hybrid car and a mere 1.0 percent have solar panels
installed.
4.2.4
Demographics
The demographic section was included to indicate how broad a social cross section the study covered and
so avoid, or at least be aware of, sampling an area of society likely to produce results that may not
represent the population as a whole. The results of this section are satisfactory, yet not ideal; more than
half – 55.6 percent – of respondents were in the age range of 18-25. Also, a total of 67.7 percent of
respondents were located in northern areas of England. Gender responses were roughly equal, though
slightly more females (59.6 percent) responded than males. Employment status was quite restricted, with
the majority being either employed full time (32.3 percent) or a student (42.4 percent).
4.3 Winter Survey Results
4.3.1
General
The results from the winter survey are drawn from responses to the same questions as the results for the
summer survey. The primary difference in the results of the two surveys is the overall response rate; the
winter survey attracted fewer responses - a total of 61, of which 52 answered all questions - which is less
than hoped for but sufficient for the scope of this study.
193
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
4.3.2
Information & Knowledge
Most respondents in the winter survey – 54.1 percent - consider themselves „quite knowledgeable‟ on
the issue of climate change, with a further 24.6 percent claiming to be „very knowledgeable‟. With regards
to being „barely knowledgeable‟ or having „very little‟ knowledge, only 13.1 and 4.9 percent respectively
consider themselves so. When looking at what people use as their primary source of information on the
issue of climate change the response counts for TV/radio news, TV/film documentaries and peer
reviewed journals are very close, being 21.3, 23.0 and 19.7 percent respectively. Looking then at how
respondents gauge reliability of various sources, shown in Table 6, we see that a much greater proportion
of respondents consider peer reviewed journals to be „very reliable‟ compared to the three media sources.
Table 6. Reliability of various information sources. Note how media sources are generally considered ‘quite reliable’
and peer reviewed journals ‘very reliable’.
How reliable do you consider the following sources of information to be?
Answer Options
Very Reliable Quite Reliable Not Sure Not Very Reliable Not At All Reliable No Opinion Response Count
Newspapers
1
18
7
30
5
0
61
TV/radio news
2
24
10
22
3
0
61
TV/film documentaries
2
34
11
10
4
0
61
Peer reviewed journals
27
19
7
3
2
3
61
Non peer reviewed internet sites eg Wikipedia
0
14
17
21
7
2
61
Other academic sources eg University websites
10
30
13
4
2
2
61
answered question
61
61
skipped question
0
0
Looking finally at how respondents‟ stances on information sources translate into motivational attitudes,
there is a clear consensus – 23 fully agree and 22 mostly agree - that global climate change is a reality.
However opinions are far less definite when considering whether it is too late to avert climate change; 18
respondents mostly disagree with the statement, whilst 16 people have no opinion and 10 people fully
agree. What is clear is where respondents consider responsibility for tackling climate change lies, with a
clear majority of respondents feeling that neither their local authority, UK businesses, UK government
nor international governments are doing enough.
4.3.3 Behaviour
Day to day forms of travel respondents used was fairly evenly split between car (26.4 percent), public
transport (30.2 percent) and walking (32.1 percent). Looking next at longer journeys within the UK, this
also showed a fairly even split of responses between using a car (45.3 percent) and a train (50.9 percent).
Only one respondent stated they do not take long journeys in the UK.
With regards to flying, of the 31 respondents who do fly 11 admit to paying a carbon offsetting fee.
Finally the survey looks at personal habits related to shopping and the home. With regards to shopping
13.5 percent of respondents did not regularly purchase any of the listed products, however 75.0 percent
regularly bought locally produced food/drink, 46.2 percent eco-friendly cleaning products, 44.2 percent
organic food/drink and 25.0 percent clothes made from natural fibres.
As to what respondents‟ home lives entailed in, shown in Table 7, again, high percentages of respondents
make use of recycling facilities and other common aspects associated with being environmentally friendly,
yet more expensive and/or newer technologies are barely possessed by respondents.
194
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Table 7. Frequency of items and/or facilities commonly associated with being environmentally friendly. Note the high use of
the more ‘grounded’ aspects compared to the low occurrences of high-tech/expensive ones.
Which of the following do you have/use at home?
Answer Options
Response Percent Response Count
Insulated walls
43.4%
23
Insulated roof spaces/attic/loft
62.3%
33
Double glazing
81.1%
43
Plastic recycling facilites
69.8%
37
Paper recycling facilities
77.4%
41
Glass recycling facilities
69.8%
37
Low energy (energy saving) lightbulbs
88.7%
47
Hybrid car
0.0%
0
Solar panels
1.9%
1
Domestic wind turbine
0.0%
0
Compost heap
35.8%
19
Water saving device in (eg) toilet cistern
22.6%
12
None of the above
1.9%
1
answered question
53
53
skipped question
8
8
4.3.4
Demographics
The results for the demographic section of the winter survey are reasonably representative of a good
social cross section, though there are again distinct areas of majority. The largest proportion of
respondents live in the northern areas of England and there were no responses at all from Scotland or the
southwest of England. With regards to age range, the survey was mostly completed by a relatively young
range of people, aging from 18-33 years old. Gender was again fairly evenly split, with 52.8 percent of the
respondents being male. With regards to employment status, 41.5 percent of respondents were employed
full time, 50.9 percent were students and the remainder were split between unemployed, self employed
and „other‟.
4.4 Combined Survey Results
4.4.1
General
The two surveys were merged together to give overall results. This gave a total of 170 responses, with 151
respondents filling in all sections of the survey (excluding the final question asking for any additional
comments). These combined results will focus again on the same aspects of the survey that were looked
at in the individual survey results, and the combined section will be where the overall focus of the analysis
will take place, as it is considered to be of a greater value, particularly as the winter survey contained so
relatively few responses.
Though respondents were requested to specify their answer if it fell under the category „other‟, these
specifics (where actually given) were not taken into account in the analysis – only the response count for
the category of „other‟ as a whole was considered quantitatively practical for inclusion.
4.4.2
Information & Knowledge
Over half (52.9 percent) of respondents consider themselves „quite knowledgeable‟ on climate change,
with a further 22.9 percent considering themselves very knowledgeable. As primary sources of
195
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
information on the issue, a total of 60.0 percent of respondents use the media in one of the three main
forms, whereas 17.1 percent rely on peer reviewed journals.
To clearly show how the respondents viewed reliability of the various sources of information, the data
was plotted onto a graph (Fig.1), where it can be seen that peer reviewed journals and other academic
sources are generally considered reliable, whereas the media as a whole is not, though the considered
reliability of different forms of media is in turn varied. In relation to this, the following question showed
that a large proportion (63 mostly agree and 40 fully agree) of the 153 responses indicated that they
consider most information presented by the media to be done so in an alarmist fashion, thereby adding a
possible extra dimension to their perceptions on its unreliability.
It is clear from the surveys that the majority of respondents believe that climate change is a real problem
(of 153 responses 72 fully agree and 59 mostly agree) and that they feel the UK (68 fully agree, 64 mostly
agree) and international governments (79 fully agree, 60 mostly agree) are not doing enough to tackle it.
Fig.1. Showing how reliable the respondents consider the various sources of information on climate change to be. Of importance here is
the clear difference between media and academic sources.
4.4.3
Behaviour
Overall responses to travel habits show that the most common form of travel for everyday activities is
walking, with 33.6 percent of respondents indicating this. The second most used form of travel was car
(31.6 percent), followed by public transport (25.0 percent). With regards to longer journeys within the UK,
travel by train and car were the two most common, being used by 52.6 and 40.8 percent of respondents
respectively.
A total of 94 respondents indicated they travelled by aeroplane, of which 23 (15.1 percent) claimed they
paid a carbon offsetting fee when doing so.
Table 8 shows the overall shopping habits with regards to the purchasing of specific products considered
to be environmentally friendly.
196
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Table 8. Purchasing of products associated with being environmentally friendly
Do you regularly buy any of the following (please tick all that apply)?
Answer Options
Response Percent Response Count
Locally produced food/drink
80.8%
122
Organic food/drink
43.0%
65
Eco-friendly cleaning products
39.7%
60
Clothes made from natural fibres
26.5%
40
None of the above
11.3%
17
answered question
151
151
skipped question
19
19
.
Looking at what engagements are involved with respondents‟ lives, the most common practice is paper
recycling, with 87.5 percent indicating they make use of such facilities at home. Next most common is the
possession of double glazing – 81.6 percent of respondents have this installed in their home to some level.
Other recycling facilities and insulation of their houses make up the majority of other practices
respondents indicated are a part of their home lives.
4.4.4
Demographics
Overall demographic responses indicate a fair representation of society, though there are clear leanings
towards majorities for some sections; most responses came from northern areas of England – a total of
105 of the 152 which answered that particular question. Other aspects of the demographic section appear
to favour certain groups and/or ranges however that is not to say such results are not representative of
the population in general. For example the majority of respondents indicate they are between the ages of
18 and 33 and either students or employed full time.
5.
Analysis
5.1 Interviews
To determine the key aspects of what the interviewees were commenting on, careful consideration had to
be given not to confuse their personal opinions with their professional opinions. Ideally this would have
been achieved through the process of microanalysis however such an approach was not practical for a
study of such relatively small scope. As such it was assumed that all elements of each response, unless
explicitly stated otherwise, were the interviewees‟ professional opinions. Examples of how interviewees
responded to different aspects of the interview are shown in Table 9.
As shown in Section 4, there was a general agreement amongst the interviewees on most issues raised,
and from the basic results (Table 1) it is clear to see that firstly, according to the experts, climate change is
considered by them to be a real issue and that to their knowledge this is a view which is shared amongst
their peers. The interviewees also agree that it is vital the public be informed on the issue and believe that
there is enough available information for them to be. Despite this, they all state that there are specific
barriers to public engagement in tackling the issue, and so the interpretation of what these barriers are
and how they may be overcome is where the majority of analysis of the interviews focuses.
As Table 2 showed, there was some clear discrepancy between views on what barriers existed and how
they influenced public opinion, though this is not to say that the interviewees did not agree on the whole;
only that they did or did not mention each aspect. The broadest aspect, and certainly the apparent main
issue in regards to public engagement issues, is communication. While not all interviewees specifically
mentioned communication as a term, all of them did refer to various aspects of communication as being a
major cause of problems with public engagement in tackling climate change. Thus, communication can be
separated into two categories: the problems associated with the individual receipt and interpretation of
197
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
the information itself, and the problems occurring along the pathway of information being presented to
the public. When these are investigated more thoroughly, ie by once again reading the interviews after
attaining these results and with them in mind, a clearer idea of the specifics of these issues becomes
apparent.
With regards to the information received by the public on climate change, there were two issues that were
dominant – terminology and complexity. The experts shared the view that confusion stems from a lack of
understanding of both the scientific terminology used and the level of complexity of the science behind
climate change. When considering terminology there is the belief that key words or phrases have a
different meaning than they actually do. A prime example of this is the term „uncertainty‟: in scientific
fields this relates to a quantifiable level of the margin of error associated with the data produced by
climate models. However in layman terms the word „uncertainty‟ can simply imply a lack of definite
evidence and therefore increase unreliability. This links in with complexity, as obviously the climate
models used to generate data work in an incredibly complicated manner, generally understood only by
those professionals who work on them, so the public will inevitably struggle to comprehend a large
proportion of the most important factors involved in producing evidence of climate change.
Table 9. Extracts from the interviews, showing examples of how experts view the various aspects associated with public perceptions. All
quotes are precisely as the interviewee stated during questioning.
The reality of anthropogenic climate change
Importance of the public being informed on the issue
Availability of information to the public
Public understanding of the issue
Media influence
“...absolutely convinced Earth’s climate is changing and
convinced that humans play a significant part in that.”
“I believe that colleagues that work on cc share that view.”
“I definitely think humans are having an impact on the rate of
climate change.”
“Yes, and I don’t think they are.”
“I think it’s very important to educate them to definitely keep
them informed about our understanding of things and to really
make sure they have the fundamental scientific
understanding.”
“I think it’s our responsibility as scientists to make sure they
are involved.”
“I think they’re given a lot of information but I don’t know how
well it’s understood and how well people are able to
differentiate between what is correct and good information
and what’s bad information.”
“I think it’s one of those things that’s really difficult to
communicate in a way that’s accessible to the general public.”
“I don’t think there’s enough accurate unbiased information...”
“...when talking to the public uncertainty gives this idea we’re
not really sure of what’s going on.”
“...it’s hard to communicate some of the ideas to people that
aren’t used to dealing with it...”
“I think there is confusion amongst the public about the
difference between adapting and mitigating and between
mitigating and addressing general pollution.”
“...some very good, some very bad, some mediocre roles in
informing the public.”
“Even when they’re reporting a positive news story the kind of
alarmist language and spin they put on things ultimately has a
negative impact because of the way they report things.”
“It’s definitely a double edged sword I would say.”
Issues arising in relation to how information is transmitted to the public revolved primarily around the
groups that present it; the media, while being considered by all interviewees to play both a positive and
negative role in informing the public, was also associated with its own agenda, mainly pertaining to the
political leanings of individual media entities. These aspects, when combined, lead to a serious issue of
trust in those presenting information on climate change, therefore reducing the effectiveness of
communication.
Another aspect, mentioned by two of the interviewees and associated with the media in particular, is a
polarisation of the climate change issue; instead of presenting the debate in a balanced manner with
198
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
appropriate coverage of the matter as a whole, the media tend to present it as a strictly two sided
argument with each side being accorded equal coverage irrelevant of the amount of supporting evidence.
5.2 Public Surveys
5.2.1
Information & Knowledge
An important factor resulting from the analysis of the qualitative interviews conducted was which part of
the public survey to focus attention on in the analysis. It is clear from the interviews that the largest
contributing factor to public perception, and therefore opinion and level of engagement, is the manner in
which information is transmitted and received, and as such the most logical course to take in regards to
analysis of the survey data is to look at the public responses to the questions relating to this in an attempt
to determine how the issue is perceived from their point of view.
In section four the results of the survey suggest that while the majority of respondents in both surveys
consider the media to provide relatively unreliable information compared to academic sources, it also
appears that this is the source of climate change information for the majority of respondents, who also
consider themselves to be knowledgeable, to some degree, on the issue. This possible relationship can be
established as actual or not through statistical testing, specifically by implementing the Chi-squared test as
it establishes whether or not there the two factors being tested have a statistically significant influence on
each other. Prior to this however it must be established that the two survey data sets are of a statistically
reliable nature, so to determine if the two public surveys are significantly associated and therefore
indicative of how reliable the two are when merged together, t-tests were performed on the data relating
to the aspects of the work regarding information and knowledge. To account for the difference in
response counts between the two surveys, this statistical analysis was performed on the percentage counts,
where applicable. The null hypothesis here is that there is no statistically significant difference between
the two sets of data and as such they are representative samples of a similar population, therefore offering
a reliable data set when combined with each other.
Responses to the first question of the surveys – regarding how knowledgeable the public considers itself –
accepts the null hypothesis, with t = 2.82E-16 where t-critical = 2. The second question, asking what the
public uses as a primary information source on climate change, gives t = 0.01 where t-critical = 2, again
accepting the null hypothesis.
To determine the reliability of the third question in the survey it was decided that as the work is focusing
on a basic „yes or no‟ in terms of reliability of the sources, the counts from the two categories either side
of „not sure‟ would be combined to produce two categories, one of „reliable‟ and one of „not reliable‟. By
then converting the counts into a percentage of the overall response to the question the data is presented
in a fashion that can be easily tested for its significance in the same manner as the first two questions.
Statistical testing shows that the two data sets are not significantly different (t = 1.10 for „reliable‟ and t =
1.54 for „non-reliable, where t-critical = 2.57 for both categories), and therefore the results can be merged
to form a combined set to be used for overall analysis.
Next, to ascertain if there is a significant relationship between the level of knowledge and where the
respondents gain most of their information from, a Chi-squared (X2) test was implemented. In order to
perform the test the responses from question two were clustered into two groups – media and non media
(including general internet sources as a form of media). Respondents that did not specify their source or
the source they gave under the „other‟ category could not be defined as either media or non-media were
not included in the test.
The result of this Chi-squared test shows a very significant association between level of knowledge and
the source of information, with X2 being 43.78 where P = 13.28 at the 99 percentile. By looking at Table
10, it is apparent that the biggest contributor to the overall X2 value comes from the observed number of
respondents claiming to be very knowledgeable and sourcing their information from non-media entities
199
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
being far higher than the expected value. Conversely, the amount of observed respondents with the same
knowledge who gain information from media sources is far less than expected.
It can be seen in Fig. 1 that in relation to format of media, the public see documentaries as the most
reliable, so perhaps level of knowledge is proportional to the media source. We can again use the Chisquared test to determine if this is indeed the case, which is ultimately building on the results shown by
Table 9 with a more specific analysis. By only focusing on those respondents who use media as their
primary source it can be determined if the type of media relates to a self assessed level of knowledge.
There is found to be no significant relationship between types of media and level of knowledge (X2=6.9
where P=18.31 at the 95 percentile). So while there is an apparent relationship between knowledge and
source, it does not seem to be significant as to the precise format of media source.
Table 10. Chi-squared (X2) test to assess relationship between level of knowledge and source of information on
climate change. X2 is found to be far higher than P at 0.01, indicating a very close association.
Knowledge Level
Expert
Very
Quite
Barely
Very little
Know nothing
TOTALS
Total X 2
DF
P=0.01
Observed
1.00
12.00
65.00
31.00
6.00
0.00
115.00
43.78
5.00
13.28
Media
Expected
2.80
25.24
61.01
21.74
4.21
0.00
115.00
Cell X
2
1.16
6.95
0.26
3.95
0.76
0.00
13.08
Observed
3.00
24.00
22.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.00
Non-media
Expected
Cell X 2
1.20
2.73
10.76
16.31
25.99
0.61
9.26
9.26
1.79
1.79
0.00
0.00
49.00
30.70
Next, another Chi-squared test was used to assess if there is a relationship between level of knowledge
and who the respondents feel is responsible for tackling climate change, with a narrowing down of
categories to national, international or no one. The X2 in this case (9.38) is shown to be smaller than the P
value at the 95 percentile (18.31), thereby showing that there is no statistically significant relationship
between respondents‟ level of knowledge and who they think is responsible for tackling climate change.
5.2.2
Behaviour
All t-tests conducted on the behavioural aspects of the survey results show that the two surveys are not
significantly different and therefore can be considered representative of a similar sample population.
There is one exception to this and that is the question regarding practices at home, for which the t-test
result suggests a rejection of the null hypothesis (t = 2.82 where t-critical = 2.18). Therefore though a
merger of the two surveys is useful for determining how information and knowledge may relate to each
other, it cannot be used to determine any statistically significant relationship between these aspects and
practices at home. Additionally, there is no real gain to be seen from testing for relationships between
forms of travel as the options contained in the question are fairly limited and association may well be
inevitable yet not actually significant.
With regards to shopping habits, while this question shows that the two surveys could be merged together,
it is questionable as to the benefit of doing so as terminology must be considered - what do people
assume is „local‟ or „eco-friendly‟? It is a very ambiguously phrased question, and would benefit from
establishing how the respondents interpret these terms prior to further analysis being conducted on this.
There is an apparent contradiction of respondents‟ feelings of personal responsibility compared to
believing they are doing what they can to help tackle climate change, but it is not clear how this translates,
if indeed at all, to transport and shopping habits.
200
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
6.
Discussion
The experts interviewed in this study clearly indicate trust as an issue in the communicating of climate
science, and while this was investigated in regards to the media there was very little specific coverage of
the public‟s level of trust in the scientific and political communities, which in today‟s societies (particularly
Western) are very closely linked, so much so that “scientists politicise the issue, politicians reduce the
scientific complexities and uncertainties to CO2 emissions reduction targets, and the media ignore the
uncertainties and transform them into a sequence of events leading to catastrophe and requiring
immediate action” (Weingart et al, 2000).
This correlates somewhat, in regards to the media, to what the experts in this work stated in that a lack of
understanding by the public due to the complexity of science is affected directly by the way in which the
media presents the public with information. Also, trust in the source of information on climate change is
an important issue and the relationship between the sources of information and knowledge levels in the
quantitative part of the study suggests that the public places trust in the media as a reliable source of
climate change information. This means that climate science is inevitably transmitted into the public arena
in a fashion that exacerbates confusion, potentially leading the public to form an opinion which is not
necessarily false, but certainly less accurate than they believe it to be. The association between media and
public opinion can also lead to a situation where the public falsely believe themselves to be capable of
offering an informed opinion, demonstrated in a study done by Wilson (95) in which the author
conducted a survey of American students and found that a majority gained their information from the
media and over half thought themselves suitably informed to engage in a serious debate about climate
change, however the subsequent questions found that they were not at all in possession of the level of
knowledge required to do so. This clear association between media presentation of the issue and
perceived knowledge indicates that the media plays a significant role in influencing public opinion. Indeed,
this relationship is especially true for an issue such as risks associated with climate change, which is of a
distant time scale and of an international nature (Trumbo and Shanahan, 2000). The results in this study
appear to offer support to these notions but only through implication; specific further research tailored
around determining the nature of this possible relationship would be of greater benefit in establishing the
reality of its existence.
Further exacerbating the issue is the matter of terminology; while not specifically investigated in the
quantitative aspect of this work it did occur in the comments of experts and is worth mentioning due to
its potential impacts as a key part of the communication pathway. Kempton (1991) finds that public and
scientific comprehensions differ, with the layperson assuming terms to have similar meaning when in fact
they are quite different. This large miscomprehension may not have had a significant role to play in this
work, but it brings to consideration how people interpret different words, and this in turn may have led to
unreliable responses to a number of the survey questions, for example when asking about shopping habits,
the term „locally produced‟ may be interpreted differently by each respondent, as might their idea of what
„regularly‟ is. When this notion is applied to climate science there is potential for large misinterpretations
of terms such as „uncertainty‟ (as mentioned in Section 5.1), „theory‟ and „sceptic‟. Further research on the
role that lay interpretation of these terms plays in public understanding of climate science (or indeed
science in general) is highly recommended, as it is of too broad a scope for this study to have covered
The results also discovered that while the experts believe there is sufficient available information in the
public domain, the public do not gain their knowledge from the peer reviewed literature despite clearly
considering it the most reliable source. This could indicate a key issue; why do only a relatively small
percentage of the public use peer reviewed literature as their primary source of information on global
climate change? Two possible answers are that either they do not generally have the understanding
necessary to make sense of the literature, or they do not have good enough access: other than
government related literature e.g. IPCC reports, which bring up matters of trust, the majority of scientific
literature is found in academic journals, and most of these academic journals do not provide free access to
their articles, instead charging a fee to view them. As this fee is often paid for by institutions that employ
201
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
the experts, could it be that they overlook this when considering availability of information to the public?
This would likely prove an interesting issue for future research to focus on.
The results of this study generally replicate those found in other similar works, though there are
discrepancies. One previous study of particular note is the DEFRA survey (2001) which covered,
amongst other topics both closely and distantly associated, similar aspects through the use of similar
questions. While the categorisation of answers is inevitably different the percentage response to the
positive/negative is almost identical. This would suggest that perceptions towards climate change, as
covered in this study, have changed little if at all in the past nine years. The public appear to be fully
aware of climate change and consider themselves to have at least the level of knowledge required to
actively engage in tackling the issue, yet refrain from actually doing so. Furthermore, whilst the members
of the public who consider themselves to have a level of knowledge of „very‟ or „expert‟ tend to source
their information from academia, the majority of the public gains its information from the media and
considers itself „quite knowledgeable‟. However, the inability to merge the two surveys together to create
a more specific frame of statistical analysis in regards to how this translates to individual engagement in
the home leaves the results of that aspect somewhat open to interpretation. It clearly appears that
respondents are actively engaging in some aspects of potential mitigation (eg recycling) but the extent to
which this actually contributes to tackling global climate change compared to how effective the public
consider it to be should be investigated further. The results in this work suggest that, in line with other
studies, the individual considers responsibility for tackling climate change to lie with the international
community, thereby distancing themselves from the issue. Therefore, a statement by the individual
claiming they are doing what they can to tackle climate change is somewhat ambiguous.
A main problematic aspect that impacted on the quantitative part of the study was the order of planning.
With hindsight, one immediate alteration would improve the results of the research should it be
conducted again, and that is the conducting of the qualitative interviews and analysis of the subsequent
results would be better served taking place before the creation of the public surveys. This would allow for
the survey to be designed specifically around the results of the interviews, thereby allowing for a more
complimentary overall analysis, and resulting in less „surplus‟ data to be sieved through. A final issue is
that of the demographic data – as shown in section 4.4.4 whilst the data is reasonably representative of
society, it is far from ideal and should such surveys be conducted again it would be prudent to investigate
alternative methods of delivery to expand the social cross section as far as possible.
7.
Conclusion
This study has focused primarily on the transmission of information along a communicative pathway,
looking at how it is both transmitted and received in an attempt to locate any potential errors in
communication. It has shed valuable light on the issue of public perceptions of global climate change,
adding weight to previous studies conducted and providing new pathways for future research. Of
particular importance is the impact the media has upon public perceptions, with the resulting confusion
associated with its communication of climate science allowing for a continuous cycle of misrepresentation
of the science, the accuracy and truth of the topic being hidden beneath a tangle of media narratives.
Media formats, terminology and reliability all play key roles in the process of the public forming a false
opinion of its own level of knowledge on the issue. Climate change is portrayed as an international
problem and the public therefore believe responsibility for tackling it lies on an international level, making
only small contributions themselves yet believing this to be significant and all they can do.
The quantitative data gathered for this work was of a far greater breadth than was ultimately required,
particularly with regards to actual engagement. As such the content of the work looks at only a thin range
of issues covered. The surveys need to be investigated and analysed further; this study has approached the
beginnings of the issue, but to delve further into the quantitative data would require going past the scope
of the qualitative data, and the purpose of this study was to look at the fields which both aspects covered,
which is primarily the information and knowledge sections. The results here also lead to a number of
202
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
potential conclusions, which can only be established as likely realities on the basis of further, more
specific, focused research.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the members of the public that participated in the online surveys and the
experts who took the time to be interviewed for the study. Special thanks also goes to Prof. Piers Forster
for supervising the work and Dr. Lucy Middlemiss for providing invaluable assistance in the qualitative
analysis stage.
203
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Bibliography
Allison, I., BindofF, N.L., Bindschadler, R.A., Cox, P.M., De Noblet, N., England, M.H., Francis, J.E.,
Gruber, N., Haywood, A.M., Karoly, D.J., Kaser, G., Le Quéré, C., Lenton, T.M., Mann, M.E.,
Mcneil, B.I., Pitman, A.J., Rahmstorf, S., RignoT, E., Schellnhuber, H.J., Schneider, S.H.,
Sherwood, S.C., Somerville, R.C.J., Steffen, K., Steig, E.J., Visbeck, M., & Weaver, A.J. 2009, The
Copenhagen Diagnosis, The University of New South Wales Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC),
Sydney, Australia.
Baron, J., 2006, Thinking About Global Warming, Climatic Change, 77(1-2), pp137-150
Boykoff, M.T., 2008, Media and Scientific Communication: A Case of Climate Change, Geological Society
London Special Publications: Communicating Environmental Geoscience, 305, pp11-18
Brechin, S.R., 2003, Comparative Public Opinion and Knowledge on Global Climatic Change and the
Kyoto Protocol: the US versus the World? International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(10),
pp106-135
Broom, A., 2005, Using Qualitative Interviews in CAM Research: A Guide to Study Design, Data
Collection and Data Analysis, Complimentary Therapies in Medicine 13(1), pp65-73
Burkell, J., 2003, The Dilemma of Survey Non-Response, Library and Information Science Research, 25(3),
pp239-263
Carvalho, A., & BurgesS, J., 2005, Cultural Circuits of Climate Change in UK Broadsheet Newspapers,
1985-2003, Risk Analysis (25)6, pp1457-1469
Corbett, J.B., & Durfee, J.L., 2004, Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of
Science, Science Communication 26(2), pp129-151
Department for EnvironmenT, Food and RuraL Affairs (DEFRA), 2002, Survey of Public Attitudes to
Quality of Life and to the Environment – 2001
IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Watson, R.T. and the Core Writing
Team (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY,
USA.
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K
and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland.
Dispensa, J.M., & Brulle, R.J., 2003, Media‟s Social Construction of Environmental Issues: Focus on
Global Warming – A Comparative Study, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 23(10),
pp74-105
Kontic, B., 2000, Why Are Some Experts More Credible than Others? Environmental Impact Assessment
Review, 20(4), pp427-434
Kempton, W., 1991, Lay Perspectives on Global Climate Change, Global Environmental Change 1(3), pp183208
Lorenzoni, I., Leiserowitz, A., Doria, M.D., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N.F., 2006, Cross-National
Comparisons of Image Associations with “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” Among
Laypeople in the United States of America and Great Britain, Journal of Risk Research 9(3), pp265281
Lorenzoni, I., & Pidgeon, N.F., 2006, Public Views on Climate Change: European and USA Perspectives,
Climatic Change 77(1-2), pp73-95
204
Sharples, D.M., (2010) Communicating Climate Science: Evaluating the UK Public‟s Attitude to Climate
Change. Earth and e-nvironment 5, 185-205
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & WhitmarsH, L., 2007, Barriers Perceived to Engaging with Climate
Change among the UK Public and their Policy Implications, Global Environmental Change, 17(3-4),
pp445-459
Nerlich, B., & Koteyko, N., 2009, Compounds, Creativity and Complexity in Climate Change
Communication: The Case of „Carbon Indulgences‟, Global Environmental Change, 19(3), pp345-353
Pidgeon, N.F., Lorenzoni, I., & Poortinga, W., 2008, Climate Change or Nuclear Power-No Thanks! A
Quantitative Study of Public Perceptions and Risk Framing in Britain, Global Environmental Change,
18(1), pp69-85
Ryan, C., & Garland, R., 1999, The Use of a Specific Non-Response Option on Likert-Type Scales,
Tourism Management, 20(1), pp107-113
Sampei, Y., & Aoyagi-Usui, M., 2009, Mass-Media Coverage, its Influence on Public Awareness of
Climate Change Issues, and Implications for Japan‟s National Campaign to Reduce Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Global Environmental Change, 19(2), pp203-212
Sapsford, R., & Jupp, V., 1996, Data Collection and Analysis, London, SAGE
Sapsford, R., 1999, Survey Research, London, SAGE
Smith, J., 2005, Dangerous News: Media Decision Making about Climate Change Risk, Risk Analysis,
25(6), pp1471-1482
Stamm, K.R., Clark, F., & Eblacas, P.R., 2000, Mass Communication and Public Understanding of
Environmental Problems: The Case of Global Warming, Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), pp219237
Trumbo, C.W., & Shanahan J., 2000, Social Research on Climate Change: Where We Have Been, Where
We Are and Where We Might Go, Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), pp199-204
Weingart, P., Engels, A., & Pansegrau, P., 2000, Risks of Communication: Discourses on Climate Change
in Science, Politics and the Mass Media, Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), pp261-283
Weiss, R.S., 1994, Learning from Strangers: The Art and Method of Qualitative Interview Studies, New York, The
Free Press
Wellman, J.D., & Fahmy, P.A., 1985, Resolving Resource Conflict: The Role of Survey Research in Public
Involvement Programs, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 5(4), pp363-372
Wheater, C.P., & Cook, P.A., 2000, Using Statistics to Understand the Environment, Oxon, Routledge
Whitmarsh, L., 2009, Behavioural Responses to Climate Change: Asymmetry of Intentions and Impacts,
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 29(1), pp13-23
Wilson, K.M., 1995, Mass Media as Sources of Global Warming Knowledge, Mass Communication Review
22(1-2)
Zehr, S.C., 2000, Public Representations of Scientific Uncertainty about Global Climate Change, Public
Understanding of Science, 9(2), pp85-103
205