The Views of Citizens on the Issue of Participation in Confronting Climate Change: The Case of Greece

  • Aikaterini Zerva
  • Georgios Tsantopoulos
  • Evangelos ManolasEmail author
  • Stilianos Tampakis
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)


Climate change no longer constitutes a prediction for the future but it is already occurring. For this reason what is necessary is both the adaptation of citizens to new changes as well as action by the scientific community and by the bodies involved in the fight against climate change. Thus, the bodies will need to organize and undertake effective action which will encourage citizens to participate in such actions in order to adapt to future impacts. The aims of this research are, on the one hand, the investigation of the characteristics which influence participation in activities and, on the other hand, the discovery of specific characteristics with regard to citizen preferences. In order to achieve its aims this research used a structured questionnaire and 1536 questionnaires were collected from January 2014 to June 2015. The main results include that younger citizens greatly trust scientists, show great willingness for voluntary action and get their information on climate change through documentaries. Also, those with higher educational level trust the actions of non-governmental bodies while middle aged citizens and secondary education graduates trust the actions of governmental bodies while older citizens prefer activities for the reduction of pollutants.


Climate change Views of citizens Involved bodies Public opinion 


  1. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change: perspectives across scales. Glob Environ Change 15(2):75–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bedsworth LW, Hanak E (2013) Climate policy at the local level: insights from California. Glob Environ Change 23(3):664–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biesbroek GR, Swart RJ, Carter TR, Cowan C, Henrichs T, Mela H, Morecroft MD, Rey D (2010) Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies. Glob Environ Change 20(3):440–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Sgobbi A, Tavoni M (2009) Delayed action and uncertain stabilisation targets. How much will the delay cost? Clim Change 96(3):299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boykoff MT (2008) Lost in translation? United States television news coverage of anthropogenic climate change, 1995–2004. Clim Change 86(1–2):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boykoff MT, Roberts JT (2007) Media coverage of climate change: current trends, strengths, weaknesses. Human Development Report 2007/2008. Available: Accessed 14 Sept 2017
  7. Brevini B (2016) The value of environmental communication research. SAGE J 78(7):684–687Google Scholar
  8. Carrington D (2011) Climate change concern tumbles in US and China. The GuardianGoogle Scholar
  9. Cattell RB (1978) The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cin CK (2012) Blaming the government for environmental problems: a multilevel and cross-national analysis of the relationship between trust in government and local and global environmental concerns. Environ Behav 45(8):971–992Google Scholar
  11. Clar C, Prutsch A, Steurer R (2013) Barriers and guidelines for public policies on climate change adaptation: a missed opportunity of scientific knowledge-brokerage. Nat Resour Forum 37(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Damianou X (1999) Sampling methodology: techniques and applications, 3rd edn. Aithra, AthensGoogle Scholar
  13. Djoufras I, Karlis D (2001) Elements of multivariate data analysis. Notes on course “Data Analysis I”. Department of Business Administration University of the Aegean, ChiosGoogle Scholar
  14. Egan PJ, Mullin M (2012) Turning personal experience into political attitudes: the effect of local weather on Americans’ perceptions about global warming. J Polit 74(3):796–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EMEKA (2011) The environmental, economic and social impacts of climate change in Greece. Bank of Greece, AthensGoogle Scholar
  16. Eriksen S, Kelly P (2007) Developing credible vulnerability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 12(4):495–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. European Commission (2015). Citizen support for climate action, Special Eurobarometer 435/Wave EB83.4. Commission: Brussels, Belgium. Available:
  18. Evans L, Milfont TL, Lawrence J (2014) Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Glob Environ Change 25:69–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Filias V, Pappas P, Antonopoulou Μ, Zarnari Ο, Magganara Ι, Meimaris Μ, Nikolakopoulos I, Papachristou Ε, Perantzaki Ι, Sampson Ε, Psychogios Ε (2000) Introduction to social research methodology and techniques. Gutenberg Social Library, AthensGoogle Scholar
  20. Flechsig M, Gerlinger K, Herrmann N, Klein RJT, Schneider M, Sterr H, Schellnhuber HJ (2000) Weather impacts on natural, social and economic systems (wise, ENV4-CT97-0448) German Report. PIK RepGoogle Scholar
  21. Ford JD, King D (2015) A framework for examining adaptation readiness. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 20(4):505–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fragos CK (2004) Methodology of market research and data analysis with the use of the statistical package SPSS for windows. Interbooks Publications, AthensGoogle Scholar
  23. Freudenburg WR, Muselli V (2013) Reexamining climate change debates: scientific disagreement or scientific certainty argumentation methods (SCAMs)? Am Behav Sci 57(6):777–795CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Freund R, Wilson W (2003) Statistical methods. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Gough C (2008) State of the art in carbon dioxide capture and storage in the UK: an experts’ review. Int J Greenhouse Gas Control 2:155–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hagen B (2016) Public perception of climate change: policy and communication. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanger S, Pfenninger S, Dreyfus M, Patt A (2013) Knowledge and information needs of adaptation policy-makers: a European study. Reg Environ Change 13(1):91–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanusch F (2015) The role of norms in US foreign climate policy. In: Sommer B (ed) Cultural dynamics of climate change and the environment in Northern America. Brill, Leiden, pp 77–105Google Scholar
  29. Ho R (2006) Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Chapman & Hall, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2008) Climate change and local, regional and devolved government, HC225. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Howe PD, Markowitz EM, Lee TM, Ko C-Y, Leiserowitz A (2012) Global perceptions of local temperature change. Nat Clim Change 3:352–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hulme M (2010) Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Glob Environ Change 20(4):558–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. IPCC (2013) Summary for Policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M, Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V, Midgley PM (eds) Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. contribution of working group i to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Jakob M, Luderer G, Steckel J, Tavoni M, Monjon S (2012) Time to act now? Assessing the costs of delaying climate measures and benefits of early action. Clim Change 114(1):79–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jayawardena AW (2015) Climate change: is it the cause or the effect? KSCE J Civil Eng 19(2):359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jolliffe I (2002) Principal component analysis. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Jones N, Clark J, Tripidaki G (2012) Social risk assessment and social capital: a significant parameter for the formation of climate change policies. Soc Sci J 49(1):33–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kalamatianou AG (2000) Social statistics, methods of one—dimensional analysis. The Economic, AthensGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim SY (2011) Public perceptions of climate change and support for climate policies in Asia: evidence from recent polls. J Asian Stud 70(2):319–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lorenzoni I, Hulme M (2009) Believing is seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and in Italy. Public Underst Sci 18(4):383–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 77(1–2):73–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lubell M, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2007) Collective action and citizen responses to global warming. Polit Behav 29(3):391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lupton R (1993) Statistics in theory and practice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  44. Matis K (2001) Forest sampling, 2nd edn. Democritus University of Thrace, XanthiGoogle Scholar
  45. McCright AM, Dunlap RE, Marquart-Pyatt ST (2016) Political ideology and views about climate change in the European Union. Environ Polit 25(2):338–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Midden CJH, Huijts NMA (2009) The role of trust in the affective evaluation of novel risks: the case of CO2 storage. Risk Anal 29(5):743–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Murtagh F, Heck A (1987) Multivariate data analysis. D. Reidel Publishing Company, HollandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. O’Neill SJ, Boykoff M, Niemeyer S, Day SA (2013) On the use of imagery for climate change engagement. Glob Environ Change 23(2):413–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Obani PC, Gupta J (2016) The impact of economic recession on climate change: eight trends. Clim Dev 8(3):211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pagano M, Gauvreau K (2000) Principles of biostatistics. Ellin, AthensGoogle Scholar
  51. Pearce G, Cooper S (2011) Sub-national responses to climate change in England: evidence from local area agreements. Local Gov Stud 37(2):199–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Persson J, Sahlin NE, Wallin A (2015) Climate change, values, and the cultural cognition thesis. Environ Sci Policy 52:1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pielke RA Jr (2005) Attribution of disaster losses. Science 310(5754):1615–1616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Prins G, Galiana I, Green C, Grundmann R, Hulme M, Korhola A, Laird F, Nordhaus T, Pielke Jr, Rayner S, Shellenberger M, Stehr N, Hiroyuki T (2010) The Hartwell paper: a new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009. Available: Accessed 20 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  55. Shanahan M (2007) Talking about a revolution: climate change and the media. International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Available: Accessed 13 Feb 2013
  56. Sharma S (1996) Applied multivariate techniques. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  57. Siardos G (1998) Multivariate statistical analysis methods. Part one, investigating relationships between variables. Ziti Publications, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  58. Siardos G (2005) Methodology of sociological research, 2nd edn. Enhanced and completed. Ziti Publications, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  59. Stern DI, Kaufmann RK (2014) Anthropogenic and natural causes of climate change. Clim Change 122(1–2):257–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tampakis S (2000) Forest fires in Greece from a forest policy point of view. Ph.D. thesis. Aristotle University of ThessallonikiGoogle Scholar
  61. Terwel BW, Daamen DDL (2012) Initial public reactions to carbon capture and storage (CCS): differentiating general and local views. Clim Policy 12(3):288–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tjernström E, Tietenberg T (2008) Do differences in attitudes explain differences in national climate change policies? Ecol Econ 65(2):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. UNFCCC (2009) The Copenhagen Accord 2/CP.15.FCCC/CP/2009/11/Add.1, United Nations Framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC), Bonn, Germany. Available: Accessed 20 Sept 2017
  64. WCED (1987) Our common future. World Commission on environment and development. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  65. YPEKA (2016) National strategy for adaptation to climate change. Ministry of Environment and Energy, pp 1–115. Available: Accessed 22 Sept 2017
  66. Zerva A, Tsantopoulos G, Grigoroudis E, Arabatzis G (2018) Perceived citizens’ satisfaction with climate change stakeholders using a multicriteria decision analysis approach. Environ Sci Policy 82:60–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aikaterini Zerva
    • 1
  • Georgios Tsantopoulos
    • 1
  • Evangelos Manolas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stilianos Tampakis
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, School of Agricultural and Forestry SciencesDemocritus University of ThraceOrestiadaGreece

Personalised recommendations