Advertisement

Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 503–514 | Cite as

Vulnerability to climate change and the desire for mitigation

  • Ahmad Saleh SafiEmail author
  • William James SmithJr
  • Zhongwei Liu
Article

Abstract

The interrelationship between vulnerability and climate change is understudied. Through this research, we fill this relative gap using rural Nevada as a case study. In 2009/2010, we surveyed 1872 ranchers and farmers, investigating their climate change-related assumptions, experiences, knowledge bases, and policy preferences. Almost 26 % responded to our mail-based survey. We created a climate change vulnerability index as a function of physical vulnerability, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity and applied it for every respondent using demographic data from the survey and secondary Geographical Information System-based data on water availability and use, and population. In our research, we investigate the influence of vulnerability and its components on climate change mitigation policy support. The results show that vulnerability is an insignificant determinant of supporting climate change mitigation policies. Both physical vulnerability and adaptive capacity play no role in determining climate change mitigation policy support. However, sensitivity to climate change decreases support of stringent policies (i.e., taxation policies), but does not influence support of non-stringent policies (i.e., technological fixes). The most prominent determinants of climate change mitigation policy support are beliefs regarding the anthropogenic causes of climate change, beliefs regarding the causal relationship between drought and climate change in Nevada, and political orientations.

Keywords

Climate change policy support Vulnerability Ranchers and farmers 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was generously funded by the National Science foundation (NSF) and the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) (Agreement No. EPS-0814372).

Many organizations provided assistance during the pursuit of this research project by either providing secondary data or precious technical support. Those organizations include the Dessert Research Institute (DRI), the University of Nevada Cooperative Extension, the Center for Environmental Systems Research, Kassel University, Germany, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. This research would have never been completed without the generosity of Nevada’s ranchers and farmers, who spent considerable time reading, contemplating and completing a survey that formed the backbone of this research project.

The first author would like to thank his mother (Fatma Safi) who supported him restlessly in his career and scientific pursuits. He would also thank his wife Fatma and his children for providing love, patience and understanding. Dr. Smith would like to thank those at UNLV who provided a supportive environment and the creative space to complete this and many associated works. He also thanks Dr. Ross Guida and Dr. David Hassenzahl for their input, and his family for their support.

References

  1. Adger N (2006) Vulnerability. Global Environ Chang 16:268–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aitken C, Chapman R, McClure J (2011) Climate change, powerlessness and the commons dilemma: assessing New Zealander’ preparedness to act. Global Environ Chang 21:752–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett T, Pierce D (2008) When will Lake Mead go dry? J Water Resour 44. doi: 10.1029/2007WR006704
  4. Barnett T, Malone R, Pennell W, Stammer D, Semtner B, Washington W (2004) The effect of climate change on water resources in the West: introduction and overview. Clim Chang 62:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blake DE (2001) Contextual effects of environmental attitudes and behavior. Environ Behav 33:708–725CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borick CP, Lachapelle E, Rabe BG (2011) Climate compared: public opinion on Climate Change in the United States and Canada. Governance Studies at Brookings; Brookings http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2011/04_climate_change_opinion.aspx. Accessed 15 February 2012
  7. Brewer PR, Pease A (2010) Federal Climate Politics in the United States: Polarization and Paralysis. In: Compston H, Bailey I (eds) Turning Down the Heat: The Politics of Climate Policy in Affluent Democracies. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 85–103Google Scholar
  8. Brikmann J, Cardona OD, Carreno ML, Barber AH, Pelling M, Schneiderbauer S, Kienberger S, Keiler M, Alexander D, Zeil P, Welle T (2013) Framing vulnerability, risk, and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Nat Hazards 67:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CIER (2008) Economic impacts of climate change in Nevada. University of Maryland, Center of Integrative Environmental http://www.cier.umd.edu/climateadaptation/Nevada%20Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf/. Accessed 24 Feb 2010Google Scholar
  10. Cirino PT, Chin CC, Sevcik RA, Wolf M, Lovett M, Morris RD (2002) Measuring socioeconomic status: reliability and preliminary validity for different approaches. Assessment 9:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson JD, Haan M (2011) Gender, political ideology, and climate change beliefs in an extractive industry community. Popul Environ. doi: 10.1007/s11111-011-0156-y Google Scholar
  12. Dietz T, Dan A, Shwom R (2007) Support for climate change policy: social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociol 72(2):185–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2010) Climate change denial: sources, actors, and strategies. In: Lever-Tracy C (ed) The Routledge International Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Routledge Press, New York, pp. 240–259Google Scholar
  14. Dunlap RE, McCright AM (2008) A widening gap: republican and democratic views on climate change. Environment http://earthleaders.org/projects/psf/Dunlap%20%20McCright%202008%20A%20widening%20gap%20Environment.pdf. Accessed 15 February 2012.
  15. Falkenmark M, Widstrand C (1992) Population and water resources: a delicate balance. Population Bulletin 47(3):1–36Google Scholar
  16. Fussel H, Klein RJ (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Chang 75:301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gallopin GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environ Chang 16:293–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hahn MB, Riederer AM, Foster SO (2009) The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change- a case study in Mozambique. Global Environ Chang 19:74–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hamilton C (2010) Requiem for a species: why we resist the truth about climate change. Earthscan, London and Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. Hollingshead AB (1975) Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, New Haven, CTGoogle Scholar
  21. IPCC (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. contribution of Group III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. contribution of Group II to the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Jamison A (2010) Climate change knowledge and social movement theory Wiley International Reviews. Clim Chang 1(6):811–823Google Scholar
  24. Jaeger C, Durrenberger G, Kasteholz H, Truffer B (1993) Determinants of environmental actions with regard to climate change. Clim Chang 23:193–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jenkins-Smith H, Goebbert K, Klockow K, Nowlin M (2010) Seeing the world through a political lens: The connection between weather and climate change perceptions and beliefs. A paper presented at the 5th Symposium on Policy and Socio-Economic Research, AMS, Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J Risk Res 14(2):147–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kallbekken S, Saelen H (2011) Public acceptance for environmental taxes” self-interest, environmental and distributional Concerns. Energy Policy 39:2966–2973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kasperson RE, Kasperson JX (1996) The Social Amplification and Attenuation of Risk. ANNALS, AAPSS 545:95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kellstedt PM, Zahran S, Vedlitz A (2008) Personal Efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal 28(1):113126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly P, Adger N (2000) Theory and Practice in Assessing Vulnerability to Climate Change and Facilitating Adaptation. Clim Chang 47:325–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kim J, Kim T, Arritt RW, Miller NL (2002) Impacts of increased atmospheric CO2 on the hydroclimate of the Western United States. J Clim 15:1926–1942CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krosnick JA, Holbrook AL, Lowe L, Visser PS (2006) The origins and consequences of democratic citizens’ policy agenda: a study of popular concern about global warming. Clim Chang 77:7–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kulshreshtha SN (1998) A global outlook for water resources to the year 2025. Water Resour Manage 12:167–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: the role of affect imagery, and values. Clim Chang 77:45–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leiserowitz A (2005) American risk perceptions: is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis 25(6):1433–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leiserowitz A (2003) Global warming in the American mind: the roles of affect imagery, and the worldviews in Risk Perception, policy preference and behavior. University of Oregon, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  37. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Smith N (2010) Climate change in the American mind: public policy support for climate and energy policies in June 2010. Yale University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/PolicySupportJune2010.pdf. Accessed at 10 March 2012
  38. Leung LR, Qian Y, Bian X, Washnigton WM, Han J, Roads JO (2004) Mid-century ensemble regional climate change scenarios for the Western United States. Clim Chang 62:75–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Luers A (2005) The surface of vulnerability: an analytical framework for examining environmental change. Global Environ Chang 15:214–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011a) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001-2010. Sociol Quart 52:155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011b) Cool dudes: the denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Global Environ Chang 21(4):1163–1172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Messner F, Mayer V (2006) Flood damage, vulnerability and risk perception-challenges for flood damage research. In: Schanze J, Zeman E, Marsalek J (eds) Flood risk management: hazards, vulnerability and mitigation measures. Springer, The Netherlands, pp. 149–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Metzger MJ, Leemans R, Schroter D (2005) A multidisciplinary multi-scale framework for assessing vulnerabilities to global change. Int J Appl Earth Observ Geoinformation 7:253–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miller WP, Piechota T (2008) Regional analysis of trend and step changes observed in hydroclimatic variables around the Colorado River Basin. J Hydrometeorol 9:1020–1034CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Sygna L, Naess LO (2006) Questions complacency: climate change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. Ambio 35(2):50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal 19(3):461–447Google Scholar
  47. O’Connor RE, Bord RJ, Yarnal B, Wiefek N (2002) Who wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? Soc Sci Quart 83(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Perveen S (2008) Multi-scale effects on spatial metrics in global water resource data: implication to water stress. University of South Carolina, DissertationGoogle Scholar
  49. Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B (2011) The role of social and decision science in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Chang 1:35–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Piechota T, Timilsena J, Tootle G, Hidalgo H (2004) The western U.S. drought: how bad is it? EOS 85(2):301–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pielke RS Jr (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Poortinga W, Spence A, Whitmarsh L, Capstick S, Pidgeon N (2011) Uncertain climate: an investigation into public skepticism about anthropogenic climate change. Global Environ Chang 21:1015–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rogers RW (1975) a protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. J Psychol 91(1):93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Safi A, Smith W Jr, Zhongwei L (2012) Rural Nevada and climate change: vulnerability, beliefs, and risk perception. Risk Anal. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01836.x Google Scholar
  55. Satterfield TA, Mertz CK, Slovic P (2004) Discrimination, vulnerability and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal 24(1):115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scheraga J, Grambsch AE (1998) Risks, opportunities and adaptation to climate change. Clim Res 10:85–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Semenza JC, Hall DE, Wilson DJ, Bontempo BD, Sailor D, George LA (2008) Public perception of climate change voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. Am J Prev Med 35(5):479–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Shwom R, Dietz T, Dan A (2008) The effects of information and state of residence on climate change policy support. Clim Change 90:343–358Google Scholar
  59. Shwom R, Bidwell D, Dan A, Dietz T (2010) Understanding U.S. public support for domestic. Clim Chang Policies 20:472–482Google Scholar
  60. Slimak MW, Dietz T (2006) Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal 26(6):1689–1705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smit B, Wandal J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity, and vulnerability. Global Environ Chang 16:282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Smith W Jr, Liu Z, Safi A, Chief K (2014) Climate change perception, observation and policy support in rural nevada: a comparative analysis of Native Americans, non-native ranchers and farmers and mainstream America. Environ Sci Policy 42:101–122. Free article access provided funded the NSF at http://authors.elsevier.com/sd/article/S1462901114000641. Video documentary at http://epscorspo.nevada.edu/native-american-indian-video/. Accessed at 26 Feb 2016
  63. Smith W, Davis-Colley C, Mackay A, Bankoff G (2011) Social impact of the 2004 Manawatu floods and the ‘hallowing out’ of rural New Zealand. Disasters 35(3):540–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. SNWA (2007) Drought plan. Southern Nevada Water Authority. http://www.snwa.com/html/drought_plan.html/. Accessed 01 March 2008
  65. Spence A, Poortinga W, Butler C, Pidgeon NF (2011) Perceptions of climate change and willingness to save energy related to flood experience. Nat Clim Chang 1(1):46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Steg L, de Groot JI, Dreijerink L, Wokje A, Siero F (2011) General antecedents of personal norm, policy acceptability, and intentions: the role of values, worldviews, and environmental concern. Society and Natural Resources 24:349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Steg L, Dreijerink L, Abrahamse W (2005) Factorsi the acceptability of energy policies: a test of VBN theory. J Environ Psychol 25:415–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stern P (2000) Towards a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. J Soc Issues 56(3):4707–4424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tobler C, Visschers VHM, Seigrist M (2012) Addressing climate change: determinants of consumers’ willingness to act and to supply policy measures. J Environ Psychol 32:197–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2011) Secure Water Act Section 9502©-reclamation climate change and water 2011. http://www.usbr.gov/climate/SECURE/docs/SECUREWaterReport.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2011
  71. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2010) Economic research services. Sate fact sheets: Nevada, 2010. http://www.ers.usda.gov/StateFacts/NV.htm. Accessed 10 February 201 0
  72. United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) (2009) Climate change impacts on the united states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. Accessed 15 May 2010.
  73. Weber EU (2011) Climate change hits home. Nature Climate Change 1(1):25–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Whitmarsh L (2009) Behavioral responses to climate change: asymmetry of intentions and impacts. J Environ Psychol 29:13–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zahran S, Brody S, Grover H, Vedlitz A (2006) Climate change vulnerability and policy support. Soc Nat Resour 19:771–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zia A, Todd AM (2010) Evaluating the effects of ideology on public understanding of climate change science: how to improve communication across ideological divide. Public Underst Sci 19(6):743–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ahmad Saleh Safi
    • 1
    Email author
  • William James SmithJr
    • 2
  • Zhongwei Liu
    • 3
  1. 1.Al Azhar UniversityGazaEgypt
  2. 2.University of Nevada, Las Vegas Department of AnthropologyLas VegasUSA
  3. 3.Department of Geography and Regional PlanningIndiana University of PennsylvaniaIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations