Advertisement

Effectiveness of Communication Strategies in Confronting Climate Change: The Views of the Citizens of Greece

  • Aikaterini Zerva
  • Evangelos ManolasEmail author
  • Constantina Skanavis
  • Georgios Tsantopoulos
Chapter
  • 688 Downloads
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to identify groups of citizens and their characteristics so that effective climate change communication strategies can be designed. The research was carried out from January 2014 to June 2015, 1536 questionnaires were completed which were evaluated on the basis of the co-efficient α-Cronbach, descriptive statistics, Friedman’s non-parametric criterion, factor analysis and cluster analysis. The research showed that Greek citizens think that the most important concerned parties for taking action against climate change are environmental organizations, scientists and local citizen environmental groups. In addition, two groups of citizens were identified. In the first group belong mostly citizens aged 31–40 and less citizens aged 41–50, married, mainly graduates of secondary and tertiary education, most are public servants or unemployed and satisfied from governmental activities regarding municipal projects concerning adaptation, energy saving and lifelong learning. In the second group of citizens also belong young to middle age citizens, unmarried, who mainly work in the public and private sector, who are satisfied both from the activities of non-governmental concerned parties as well as governmental activities regarding adaptation to extreme environmental phenomena, mitigation and waste management.

Keywords

Climate change Concerned parties State Groups of citizens Activities 

References

  1. Boehmer-Christiansen SA (1994) Global climate protection policy: the limits of scientific advice, part II. Glob Environ Change 4(3):185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Bruin W, Bostrom A (2013) Assessing what to address in science communication. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(3):14062–14068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins JG (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in US 2002-2010. Clim Change 114(2):169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bulkeley H (2000) Common knowledge? Public understanding of climate change in Newcastle, Australia. Public Understand Sci 9(3):313–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bulkeley H, Betsill M (2005) Cities and climate change: urban sustainability and global environmental governance. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Bulkeley H, Kern K (2006) Local government and the governing of climate change in Germany and the UK. Urban Stud 43(12):2237–2259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho A (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: re-reading news on climate change. Public Understand Sci 16(2):223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cattell RB (1978) The scientific use of factor analysis in behavioral and life sciences. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Corbett JB (2006) Communicating nature: how we create and understand environmental messages. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Corner A, Randall A (2011) Selling climate change? The limitations of social marketing as a strategy for climate change public engagement. Glob Environ Change 21(3):1005–1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Demeritt D (2001) The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 91(2):307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dimendo JF, Doughman P (2007) Climate change: what it means for us, our children, and our grandchildren. MIT Press, Cambridge. http://books.google.gr/books?id=PXJIqCkb7YIC&lpg=PP1&hl=el&pg=PR4#v=onepage&q&f=false. Last Accessed 1 Nov 2014
  14. Djoufras I, Karlis D (2001) Elements of multivariate data analysis. Notes on course “Data Analysis I”. Department of Business Administration University of the Aegean, Chios (in Greek)Google Scholar
  15. Earle TC, Cvetkovich GT (1995) Social trust: toward a Cosmopolitan Society. Praeger, Westport, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2004) The attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, Special Eurobarometer 217/Wave 62.1 European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2004. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_217_en.pdf. Last Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  17. European Commission (2007) Attitudes of European citizens towards the environment, Special Eurobarometer 295/Wave 68.2; European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_295_en.pdf. Last Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  18. European Commission (2010) National report-executive summary—Greece, Standard Eurobarometer 72; European Commission, Brussels, Belgium, 2010.Διαθέσιμο: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/eb/eb73/eb73_vol1_en.pdf. Last Accessed 20 Oct 2016
  19. European Commission (2013) Climate change, special Eurobarometer 409/Wave EB80.2; European Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Διαθέσιμο: http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_409_en.pdf . Last Accessed 27 Oct 2016
  20. European Commission (2015) Citizen support for climate action, Special Eurobarometer 435/ Wave EB83.4. Commission, Brussels, Belgium. Διαθέσιμο: https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/support/docs/gr_climate_en.pdf. Last Accessed 27 Oct 2016
  21. Eveland Jr WP, Cooper KE (2013) An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. RNAS Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 10(3):14088–14095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frangos CK (2004) Methodology of market research and data analysis with the use of the Statistical Package SPSS for Windows. Interbooks Publications, AthensGoogle Scholar
  23. Freese F (1984) Forest sampling elements (trans. Karteris MA (ed) Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki) (in Greek)Google Scholar
  24. Freund R, Wilson W (2003) Statistical methods. Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Hagen B (2016) Public perception of climate change: policy and communication: Routledge Studies in Environmental Communication and Media, pp 1–183Google Scholar
  26. Harman H (1976) Modern factor analysis. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Ho R (2006) Handbook of univariate and multivariate data analysis and interpretation with SPSS. Chapman & Hall, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2008) Climate change and local, regional and devolved government, HC225. The Stationery Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Jolliffe I (2002) Principal component analysis, Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference OnlineGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalamatianou AG (2000) Social statistics, methods of one-dimensional analysis. The Economic Publications, Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  32. Kloser M, Bofferding L (2014) Middle and high school students’ conceptions of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. Environ Educ Res 21(2):275–294Google Scholar
  33. Lassen I, Horsbøl A, Bonnen K, Grethe A, Pedersen J (2011) Climate change discourses and citizen participations: a case study of the discursive construction of citizenship in two public events. Environ Commun J Nat Culture 5(4):411–427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2011.610809. Last Accessed 25 Aug 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leiserowitz AA (2005) American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal 25(6):1433–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lupton R (1993) Statistics in theory and practice. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  36. Marin A, Berkes F (2013) Local people’s accounts of climate change: to what extent are they influenced by the media? Wiley Interdisc Rev Climate Change 4(1):1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mariolopoulos EG (1938) The cimate of Greece. A.A. Papaspyrou Press, AthensGoogle Scholar
  38. Mariolopoulos EG (1982) Climate epicenter of Greece. Center for Atmospheric Physics and Climatology Academy of Athens, Publication 7, AthensGoogle Scholar
  39. Matis K (2001) Forest sampling. 2nd ed. Democritus University of Thrace, XanthiGoogle Scholar
  40. Murtagh F, Heck A (1987) Multivariate data analysis. D. Reidel Publishing Company, HollandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA (2009) What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot 96(10):1767–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Obani PC, Gupta J (2016) The impact of economic recession on climate change: eight trends. Climate Dev 8(3):211–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pagano M, Gauvreau K (2000) Principles of biostatistics. Ellin, AthensGoogle Scholar
  44. Papoulis D, Kaika D, Bampatsou C, Zervas E (2015) Public perceptions of climate change in a period of economic crisis. Climate 3(3):715–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pearce W (2014) Scientific data and its limits: rethinking the use of evidence in local climate change policy. Evidence Policy 10(2):187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rangou P (2013) Economy and environment: a framework for “re-reading” environmental education. Forestry and Management of Environment and Natural Resources Issues 5th Volume: International Environmental Policy, Confrontations with the Future. Democritus University of Thrace, pp 114–124Google Scholar
  47. Risbey JS (2008) The new climate discourse: alarmist or alarming? Glob Environ Change 18(1):26–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scruggs L, Benegal S (2012) Declining public concern about climate change: can we blame the great recession? Global Environmental Change. http://sp.uconn.edu/~scruggs/gec11.pdf. Last Accessed 15 Dec 2017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharma S (1996) Applied multivariate techniques. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Siardos G (1998) Multivariate statistical analysis methods. Part one, investigating relationships between variables. Ziti Publications, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  51. Siardos G (2005) Methodology of sociological research. Enhanced and completed, 2nd edn. Ziti Publications, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  52. Souchon C, Raichvarg D, Goffin L (1996) Module d’Autoformation à Distance en Education pour l’Environnement (M.A.D.E.R.E.). Document de travail. Association Didactique, Innovation, Recherche en Education Scientifique (D.I.R.E.S.), ParisGoogle Scholar
  53. Sterman JD (2011) Communicating climate change risks in a skeptical world. Clim Change 108(4):811–826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tampakis S (2000) Forest fires in Greece from a forest policy point of view. PhD thesis. Aristotle University of ThessallonikiGoogle Scholar
  55. Toma L, Barnes A, Revoredo-Giha C, Tsitsoni V, Glenk K (2014) A behavioural economics analysis of the impact of information and knowledge on CO2 capture and storage acceptance in the European Union. Proc Econ Finance 14(14):605–614CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tsantopoulos G, Arabatzis G, Tampakis S (2014) Public attitudes towards photovoltaic developments: case study from Greece. Energy Policy 71:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Valenti JK (1995) Commentary how well do scientists communicate to media? Sci Commun 21(2):172–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Waddell P (2000) Towards a behavioural integration of land use and transportation modelling. International Association of Travel Behaviour Research Tri-annual conference, Gold Coast, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  59. Weber EU (2016) What shapes perceptions of climate change? New research since 2010. WIREs Climate Change 7(1):125–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. World Bank (2010) World development report 2010. Public attitudes towards climate change: finding from a multi-country poll. World Bank, Washington, DC. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/Background-report.pdf. Last Accessed 2 Sept 2015
  61. YPEKA (2016) National strategy for adapatation to climate change. Ministry of Environment and Energy. http://www.ypeka.gr/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=crbjkiIcLlA%3D&tabid=303&language=el-GR. Last Accessed 15 Dec 2017
  62. 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
  • Evangelos Manolas
    • 1
    Email author
  • Constantina Skanavis
    • 2
  • Georgios Tsantopoulos
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forestry and Management of the Environment and Natural Resources, School of Agricultural and Forestry SciencesDemocritus University of ThraceOrestiadaGreece
  2. 2.Department of EnvironmentUniversity of the Aegean, University HillMytilene, LesvosGreece

Personalised recommendations