Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 30, pp 30603–30613 | Cite as

Attitudes to climate change, perceptions of disaster risk, and mitigation and adaptation behavior in Yunlin County, Taiwan

  • Yung-Jaan LeeEmail author
  • Chuan-Ming Tung
  • Shih-Chien Lin
Water Environment Protection and Contamination Treatment


Issues that are associated with climate change have global importance. Most related studies take a national or regional perspective on the impact of climate change. Taiwan is constrained by its geographical conditions, which increase its vulnerability to climate change, especially in its western coastal areas. The county that is most affected by climate change is Yunlin. In 2013–2014, projects that were sponsored by Taiwan’s government analyzed the relationship among synthesized vulnerability, ecological footprint (EF) and adaptation to climate change and proposed 15 categories of synthesized vulnerability and EF values. This study further examines the relationship between vulnerability and EF values and examines how residents of four townships—Linnei, Sihu, Mailiao, and Huwei—cope with the effects of climate change. This study investigates whether the residents of the four townships vary in their attitudes to climate change, their perceptions of disaster risk, and their behavioral intentions with respect to coping with climate change. The structural equation model (SEM) is used to examine the relationships among attitudes to climate change, perceptions of disaster risk, and the behavioral intentions of residents in townships with various vulnerabilities to climate change. The results that are obtained using the SEM reveal that climate change mitigation/adaptation behavior is affected by attitudes to climate change and perceptions of disaster risk. However, the effects of attitudes and perceptions on mitigation and adaptation that are mediated by place attachment are not statistically significant.


Vulnerability Ecological footprint Risk perception Place attachment Structural equation model 



This study includes some of the results of research that was subsidized by the Ministry of Science and Technology under the projects, “From the Perspective of Vulnerability, Ecological Footprint and Risk Perception to the Construction of Resilient Urban and Rural Areas: a Case Study of Yunlin County” (Project Number: MOST104-2410-H-170-003) and “A Comparison Study of Urban-rural Resilience, Adaptation Strategies, Risk Perception and Place Attachment-Taipei and Yunlin” (Project Number: MOST105-2410-H-170-001-MY2). Special thanks to the Ministry of Science and Technology for this financial support and to Ms. Yu-Shiuan Lee for collecting and analyzing the data.


  1. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. In: Kuhl J, Beckman J (eds) Action-control: from cognition to behavior. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 11–39. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ajzen I, Fishbein M (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson-Sköld Y, Thorsson S, Rayner D, Lindberg F, Janhäll S, Jonsson A, Moback U, Bergman R, Granberg M (2015) An integrated method for assessing climate-related risks and adaptation alternatives in urban areas. Clim Risk Manag 7:31–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armas I (2006) Earthquake risk perception in Bucharest, Romania. Risk Anal 26(5):1223–1234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett NJ, Dearden P, Murray G, Kadfak A (2014) The capacity to adapt? Communities in a changing climate, environment, and economy on the northern Andaman coast of Thailand. Ecol Soc 19(2):5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bernardo F (2013) Impact of place attachment on risk perception: exploring the multidimensionality of risk and its magnitude. Estud Psicol 34(3):323–329. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonaiuto M, De Dominicis S, Fornara F, Ganucci Cancellieri U, Mosco B (2011) Flood risk: the role of neighbourhood attachment. In: Zenz G, Hornich R (eds) Proceedings of the international symposium UFRIM. Urban flood risk management - approaches to enhance resilience of communities. Verlag der Technischen Universitat Graz, Graz, pp 547–558Google Scholar
  8. Burck J, Marten F, Bals C, Hoehne N (2017) Climate change performance index: results 2018. Germanwatch, BonnGoogle Scholar
  9. Casakin H, Hernandez B, Ruiz C (2015) Place attachment and place identity in Israeli cities: the influence of city size. Cities 42:224–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang H-S, Chen T-L (2016) Spatial heterogeneity of local flood vulnerability indicators within flood-prone areas in Taiwan. Environ Earth Sci 75(23):1484. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chu R-L, Yang S-W (2013) Taiwanese pro-environmental attitudes and behavior: the role of values and guilt. J Environ Educ Res 9(2):91–129 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. De Dominicis S, Fornara F, Ganucci Cancellieri U, Twigger-Ross C, Bonaiuto M (2015) We are at risk, and so what? Place attachment, environmental risk perceptions and preventive coping behaviours. J Environ Psychol 43:66–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Devine-Wright P (2013) Dynamics of place attachment in a climate changed world. In: Manzo LC, Devine-Wright P (eds) Place attachment: advances in theory, methods and applications. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 165–177Google Scholar
  14. Devine-Wright P, Batel S (2017) My neighbourhood, my country or my planet? the influence of multiple place attachments and climate change concern on social acceptance of energy infrastructure. Global Environ Chang 47:110–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eckstein D, Künzel V, Schäfer L (2017) Global climate risk index 2018: who suffers most from extreme weather events? Weather-related loss events in 2016 and 1997 to 2016. Germanwatch, BonnGoogle Scholar
  16. Fornell C, Larcker DF (1981) Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 18(1):39–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Giuliani V (2003) Theory of attachment and place attachment. In: Bonnes M, Lee T, Bonaiuto M (eds) Psychological theories for environmental issues. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 137–170Google Scholar
  18. Hair JF (1998) Multivariate Data Analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  19. Hatfield J, Job R (2001) Optimism bias about environmental degradation: the role of the range of impact of precautions. J Environ Psychol 21(1):17–30. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hong RZ, Fu HY (2012) A study on the intention of energy saving and carbon reduction in college students. J Educ Psychol 44(2):373–388 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  21. Huang F-M (2002) Structural equation model: theory and application (1st edn). Wunan Books, Taipei (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  22. Hung HC, Yang CY, Chien CY, Liu YC (2016) Building resilience: mainstreaming community participation into integrated assessment of resilience to climatic hazards in metropolitan land use management. Land Use Policy 50:48–58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. IPCC (2014) Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. IPCC Working Group II Contribution to AR5Google Scholar
  24. Kelman I, Gaillard JC, Mercer J (2015) Climate change’s role in disaster risk reduction’s future: beyond vulnerability and resilience. Int J Disaster Risk Sci 6(1):21–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Khima I, Phearanich H (2012) Climate resilience in rural Cambodia: adaptation mainstreaming, water resource management and agricultural practice. Asian J Environ Disaster Manag 4(4):447–468Google Scholar
  26. Lee Y-J (2017) Building resilient cities through community empowerment: principles and strategies for Taiwan. Int Rev Spatial Plann Sustain Dev 5(2):35–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lee Y-J, Lin S-C, Chen C-C (2016) Mapping cross-boundary climate change vulnerability–case study of the Hualien and Taitung area, Taiwan. Sustainability 8(1):64. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee Y-J, Peng L-P, Lee T-J (2017) Relationships between floods and social fragmentation: a case study of Chiayi, Taiwan. Tecnologia y Ciencias del Agua (J Water Technol Sci) VIII(2):5–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liao KM (2009) Analysis of the Public's Disaster Preparedness from the Perspective of Risk Perception - Taking Earthquake Disasters as an Example. ( (in Chinese)
  30. Lin C-C, Lockwood M (2014) Assessing sense of place in natural settings: a mixed-method approach. J Environ Plan Manag 57(10):1441–1464. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Safety Council (2013) Risk perception: theories, strategies, and next steps. Campbell InstituteGoogle Scholar
  32. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) (2016) Community resilience planning guide for buildings and infrastructure systems (volume 1). NIST special publication 1190. U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Raaijmakers R, Krywkow JR, van der Veen A (2008) Flood risk perceptions and spatial multi-criteria analysis: an exploratory research for hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 46:307–322Google Scholar
  34. Ruiz C, Hernández B (2014) Emotions and coping strategies during an episode of volcanic activity and their relations to place attachment. J Environ Psychol 38:279–287. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scannell L, Gifford R (2010) Defining place attachment: a tripartite organizing framework. J Environ Psychol 30(1):1–10. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scannell L, Gifford R (2013) Personally relevant climate change the role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ Behav 45(1):60–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schultz PW, Gouveia VV, Cameron LD, Tankha G, Schmuck P, Franěk M (2005) Values and their relationship to environmental concern and conservation behavior. J Cross-Cult Psychol 36(4):457–475. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schultz PW, Milfont T, Chance R, Tronu G, Luís S, Ando K (2014) Cross-cultural evidence for spatial bias in beliefs about the severity of environmental problems. Environ Behav 46(3):267–302. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. The Institute of Medicine (2015) Healthy, resilient, and sustainable communities after disasters: strategies, opportunities, and planning for recovery. National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  40. Twigger-Ross CL, Uzzell DL (1996) Place and identity processes. J Environ Psychol 16(3):205–220. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNFCCC (2017). First steps to a safer future: introducing the United Nations framework convention on climate change.
  42. UNISDR (2012) Reducing vulnerability and exposure to disasters: the Asia-Pacific disaster report 2012. United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, BangkokGoogle Scholar
  43. Uzzell DL (2000) The psycho-spatial dimension of global environmental problems. J Environ Psychol 20(4):307–318. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Veelen B, Haggett C (2017) Uncommon ground: the role of different place attachments in explaining community renewable energy projects. Sociol Rural 57(S1):533–554. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Yang C-H, Lin Y-C (2010) Values, cognition and con-greenhouse-effect behaviors--empirical test of the Taipei metropolitan area. City Plann 37(1):13–45 (in Chinese)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yung-Jaan Lee
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chuan-Ming Tung
    • 2
  • Shih-Chien Lin
    • 3
  1. 1.Chung-Hua Institution for Economic ResearchTaipei CityTaiwan
  2. 2.Ming Chuan UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan
  3. 3.Chinese Culture UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations