Sustainability Science

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 131–138 | Cite as

Understanding island residents’ anxiety about impacts caused by climate change using Best–Worst Scaling: a case study of Amami islands, Japan

  • Takahiro KuboEmail author
  • Takahiro Tsuge
  • Hiroya Abe
  • Hiroya Yamano
Special Feature: Original Article Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Special Feature: Future Scenarios for Socio-Ecological Production Landscape and Seascape


Climate change poses significant risk to island communities; however, there has been limited quantitative investigation into local people’s perception toward the risk. This study applied Best–Worst Scaling (BWS) to understand residents’ anxieties about potential incidents caused by climate change in Amami islands, Japan. Through an interview with stakeholders, we selected five potential incidents for our BWS attributes: damage caused by typhoon and heavy rain (typhoon), damage caused by flood and a landslide (flood), damage from a drought (drought), damage from ciguatera fish poisoning (ciguatera), and incident caused by jellyfish (jellyfish). Changes in frequencies of the abovementioned incidents have already been observed in Japan. In 2016, we conducted a questionnaire survey of residents in Amami islands and received over 700 valid responses to BWS questions. Results showed that the average respondent was most anxious about the risk of typhoon, followed by flood, drought, ciguatera, and jellyfish. Furthermore, a comparative analysis did not find large variations among the islands in the residents’ anxiety ranking concerning the incidents, but the degrees of their anxieties were different. The Amami-Oshima residents, for example, had relatively higher anxieties about flood, whereas the Okinoerabujima residents showed higher anxiety about drought. These findings support that their risk perceptions are determined by their experience and surrounding environments. Understanding the sensitivity of residents to climate change risk will encourage stakeholders to communicate and enhance climate change adaptation in local communities.


Amami islands Best–Worst Scaling Climate change adaptation Climate change communication Island resident 



We acknowledge financial support from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (no. 16K00697), and the Ministry of the Environmental, Japan [Economics and Policy Study; ERTDF (S-15: Predicting and Assessing Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (PANCES)]. We appreciate the Ministry of the Environment, the local governments and all respondents to the survey in the Amami Islands for their kind cooperation. We also thank Miyamoto, R., Mitsui, S., Mameno, K., and Uryu, S. for their support conducting the research.


  1. Adger WN (2006) Vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16:268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change 93:335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Jones AK, Jones DL, Edwards-Jones G, Cross P (2013) Informing decision making in agricultural greenhouse gas mitigation policy: a Best–Worst Scaling survey of expert and farmer opinion in the sheep industry. Environ Sci Policy 29:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Albert S, Leon JX, Grinham AR, Church JA, Gibbes BR, Woodroffe CD (2016) Interactions between sea-level rise and wave exposure on reef island dynamics in the Solomon Islands. Environ Res Lett 11:054011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brulle RJ, Carmichael J, Jenkins JC (2012) Shifting public opinion on climate change: an empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the US, 2002–2010. Clim Change 114:169–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buckley PJ, Pinnegar JK, Painting SJ, Terry G, Chilvers J, Lorenzoni I, Gelcich S, Duarte CM (2017) Ten thousand voices on marine climate change in Europe: different perceptions among demographic groups and nationalities. Front Mar Sci 4:206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chateau-Degat M-L, Chinain M, Cerf N, Gingras S, Hubert B, Dewailly É (2005) Seawater temperature, Gambierdiscus spp. variability and incidence of ciguatera poisoning in French Polynesia. Harmful Algae 4:1053–1062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cinner JE, McClanahan TR, Graham NAJ, Daw TM, Maina J, Stead SM, Wamukota A, Brown K, Bodin Ö (2012) Vulnerability of coastal communities to key impacts of climate change on coral reef fisheries. Glob Environ Change 22:12–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cinner JE, Adger WN, Allison EH, Barnes ML, Brown K, Cohen PJ, Gelcich S, Hicks CC, Hughes TP, Lau J, Marshall NA, Morrison TH (2018) Building adaptive capacity to climate change in tropical coastal communities. Nat Clim Change 8:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dai J, Kesternich M, Löschel A, Ziegler A (2015) Extreme weather experiences and climate change beliefs in China: an econometric analysis. Ecol Econ 116:310–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Finn A, Louviere JJ (1992) Determining the appropriate response to evidence of public concern: the case of food safety. J Public Policy Marketing 11:12–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischhoff B (2006) Risk perception and communication unplugged: 20 years of process 1. Risk Anal 15:137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frondel M, Simora M, Sommer S (2017) Risk perception of climate change: empirical evidence for Germany. Ecol Econ 137:173–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fukuyo Y (1981) Taxonomical study on benthic dinoflagellates collected in coral reefs. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 47:967–978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glenk K, Eory V, Colombo S, Barnes A (2014) Adoption of greenhouse gas mitigation in agriculture: an analysis of dairy farmers’ perceptions and adoption behaviour. Ecol Econ 108:49–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hatayama Y, Ishikawa A, Natsuike M, Takeichi Y, Ajisaka T, Sawayama S, Imai I (2011) First report of the benthic dinoflagellate of the genus Gambierdiscus from western Wakasa Bay in the Sea of Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 77:685–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoegh-Guldberg O, Bruno JF (2010) The impact of climate change on the world’s marine ecosystems. Science 328:1523–1528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. IUCN (2018) IUCN World Heritage Evaluations 2018 (IUCN evaluations of nominations of natural and mixed properties to the World Heritage List). Accessed 16 Oct 2018
  19. Jiang C, Shaw KS, Upperman CR, Blythe D, Mitchell C, Murtugudde R, Sapkota AR, Sapkota A (2015) Climate change, extreme events and increased risk of salmonellosis in Maryland, USA: evidence for coastal vulnerability. Environ Int 83:58–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, Mandel G (2012) The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nat Clim Change 2:732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keller C, Siegrist M, Gutscher H (2006) The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Anal 26:631–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koike K, Ishimaru T, Murano M (1991) Distributions of benthic dinoflagellates in Akajima Island, Okinawa, Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi 57:2261–2264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lazrus H (2012) Sea change: island communities and climate change. Ann Rev Anthropol 41:285–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee TM, Markowitz EM, Howe PD, Ko C-Y, Leiserowitz AA (2015) Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat Clim Change 5:1014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lewis C, Bentlage B (2009) Clarifying the identity of the Japanese Habu-kurage, Chironex yamaguchii, sp. nov. (Cnidaria: Cubozoa: Chirodropida)Google Scholar
  26. Louviere J, Lings I, Islam T, Gudergan S, Flynn T (2013) An introduction to the application of (case 1) Best–Worst Scaling in marketing research. Int J Res Mark 30:292–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Louviere JJ, Flynn TN, Marley AA (2015) Best–Worst Scaling: theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Marley AAJ, Louviere JJ (2005) Some probabilistic models of best, worst, and best–worst choices. J Math Psychol 49:464–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McMichael AJ, Woodruff RE, Hales S (2006) Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet 367:859–869CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Education, C., Sports, Science and Technology, Ministry of Agriculture, F.a.F., Ministry of Land, I.a.T., the Japan Meteorological Agency (2018) Integrated report on observation, prediction and impact assessment of climate change 2018—climate change and its impacts in Japan, p 138Google Scholar
  31. Mizuta R, Matsueda M, Endo H, Yukimoto S (2011) Future change in extratropical cyclones associated with change in the upper troposphere. J Clim 24:6456–6470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mori T, Tsuge T (2017) Best–Worst Scaling survey of preferences regarding the adverse effects of tobacco use in China. SSM Popul Health 3:624–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Neil Adger W, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15:77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nerem RS, Beckley BD, Fasullo JT, Hamlington BD, Masters D, Mitchum GT (2018) Climate-change-driven accelerated sea-level rise detected in the altimeter era. Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesGoogle Scholar
  35. Nishimura T, Sato S, Tawong W, Sakanari H, Uehara K, Shah MMR, Suda S, Yasumoto T, Taira Y, Yamaguchi H, Adachi M (2013) Genetic diversity and distribution of the ciguatera-causing dinoflagellate Gambierdiscus spp. (Dinophyceae) in coastal areas of Japan. PLOS One 8:e60882CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rachman SJ (1990) Fear and courage. WH Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Rudd MA (2014) Scientists’ perspectives on global ocean research priorities. Frontiers in Marine Science. Google Scholar
  38. Rudd MA, Fleishman E (2014) Policymakers’ and scientists’ ranks of research priorities for resource-management policy. Bioscience 64:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rudd MA, Lawton RN (2013) Scientists’ prioritization of global coastal research questions. Mar Policy 39:101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rudd MA, Ankley GT, Boxall AB, Brooks BW (2014) International scientists’ priorities for research on pharmaceutical and personal care products in the environment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 10:576–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sjöberg L (2000) Perceived risk and tampering with nature. J Risk Res 3:353–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Slovic P (1987) Perception of risk. Science 236:280–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smit B, Burton I, Klein RJT, Wandel J (2000) An anatomy of adaptation to climate change and variability. In: Kane SM, Yohe GW (eds) Societal adaptation to climate variability and change. Springer, Netherlands, pp 223–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M, Yohe GW, Hare W, Mastrandrea MD, Patwardhan A, Burton I, Corfee-Morlot J, Magadza CHD, Füssel H-M, Pittock AB, Rahman A, Suarez A, van Ypersele J-P (2009) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:4133–4137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stevanović M, Popp A, Lotze-Campen H, Dietrich JP, Müller C, Bonsch M, Schmitz C, Bodirsky BL, Humpenöder F, Weindl I (2016) The impact of high-end climate change on agricultural welfare. Sci Adv 2(8):e1501452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
  47. Thieken AH, Kreibich H, MüLler M, Merz B (2007) Coping with floods: preparedness, response and recovery of flood-affected residents in Germany in 2002. Hydrol Sci J 52:1016–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weber EU (2006) Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (Yet). Clim Change 77:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yoshida K, Sugi M, Mizuta R, Murakami H, Ishii M (2017) Future changes in tropical cyclone activity in high-resolution large-ensemble simulations. Geophys Res Lett 44:9910–9917CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zaalberg R, Midden C, Meijnders A, McCalley T (2009) Prevention, adaptation, and threat denial: flooding experiences in the Netherlands. Risk Anal 29:1759–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Environmental Biology and Ecosystem StudiesNational Institute for Environmental Studies (NIES)TsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of EconomicsKonan UniversityKobeJapan

Personalised recommendations