Abstract
Managing and reducing the impacts of climate change depends on efficient actions from all societal scales. Yet, the household component is often missing from climate research, debate, and policies. This is problematic because households have been found to significantly contribute to of global greenhouse gas emissions and therefore have the potential to be part of a solution to climate change by mitigating climate change. This study seeks to understand which factors drive household-level mitigation actions. We conducted a household survey in Nuevo Leon, located in northeastern Mexico, to explore the extent to which climate change perceptions and the sociodemographic characteristics of households influence their reported mitigation performances and their perceived mitigation efforts. Results from linear regression analyses and generalized linear models revealed that sociodemographic characteristics are key drivers of the households’ perceived mitigation efforts and reported mitigation performances and. We also found that climate change perceptions drive a household’s efforts to mitigate climate change. These results could partly explain why despite the efforts households take to mitigate climate change, achieving an effective reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is challenging without further access to resources such as education and financial support. If governments intend to realize substantial reductions in future emission pathways, then household-level mitigation should be addressed with proper support.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Climate change poses an enormous challenge as average annual temperatures in Latin America are expected to increase between 2.5 and 4.5 °C compared to pre-industrial levels by the end of this century. Projections indicate that rainfall patterns in the region will become more variable and natural disasters will become more intense and frequent (Reyer et al., 2017; Romero-Lankao et al., 2014). The resulting impacts will exacerbate pre-existing challenges related to the availability of basic necessities of human living conditions, such as food, fresh water, energy production, and manufacturing goods (IPCC, 2021). Considering this, action on climate change is required to achieve both reductions in emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and to reduce the impacts of climate change (IPCC, 2021). One of the key ways to prompt action on climate change is by understanding people’s perceptions of climate change, and how their perceptions in turn shape actions (Bouman et al., 2020; Clayton et al., 2015; Corner et al., 2014; Poortinga et al., 2019).
In Latin America, where advances to curb climate change are much needed, managing and reducing its impacts depends on efficient actions at all societal scales. However, the household, representing a foundational social unit, is often missing from climate research, debate, and policies (Dubois et al., 2019; Qin et al., 2015; Shittu, 2020). The value of incorporating a household perspective in the climate debate is evident as the household level contributes up to 70% of GHG emissions directly through the burning of fossil fuels associated with electricity use, transportation, and heating and indirectly through the consumption of resources and waste production (Ivanova, 2020; Ivanova et al., 2016; Schanes et al., 2018; Vita et al., 2019). In Latin America, a growth in population, coupled with increasing levels of industrialization and urbanization can have a large impact on the region’s carbon reduction target, as many countries still depend on oil and coal for electricity production (He et al., 2021; Waheed et al., 2019). Hence, household-level mitigation is vital in achieving substantial reductions in future emission pathways (Dubois et al., 2019; Ivanova, 2020; Wiedenhofer et al., 2018). A household is defined here as a person or a group of persons who live in the same dwelling and share food and other essentials and can therefore be regarded as a fundamental unit of demographic, social, and economic processes where complex decisions are made (Collins, 2015; Gibson et al., 2015; Glewwe & Grosh, 2000; Reid et al., 2010).
In order to effectively respond to climate change, households require a combination of approaches, which include mitigation, adaptation, and civic actions. If planned appropriately, these different types of actions can complement each other to reduce the adverse effects of climate change (Ayers & Huq, 2009; Sharifi, 2021; Thornton & Comberti, 2017). Because the main causes of climate change are anthropogenic in nature, mitigation is often considered one of the most important tasks in dealing with climate change (IPCC, 2021). Households can adopt a wide range of actions to mitigate climate change, which include reducing water and energy use, using public transportation, modifying food habits, reducing waste and recycling. Each of these practices have different impacts on climate change based on their potential reduction of CO2 emissions. For example, living car free and eating a plant-based diet have been classified as some of the most effective practices households can take based on mitigating climate change, whereas conserving water and planting trees are examples of practices considered to be effective in essence, but have a much lower impact on climate change (Lacroix, 2018; Vita et al., 2019; Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). Furthermore, even though some households do undertake mitigation practices, their actions might not be as efficient in reducing GHG emissions as they believe. As such, understanding household-level perceptions on climate change and their corresponding mitigation actions are crucial in order to improve and increase their effectiveness.
While several studies have investigated the potential for climate change mitigation among households, the majority of these have been carried out in high-income countries. In low-income income and middle-income countries of Latin America, the mitigation potential of households has not been comprehensively explored (Pardo Martínez et al., 2018; Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019). Furthermore, the challenge remains to understand what the drivers behind their decision-making to mitigating climate change are. Considering this gap, in this study we examine climate change perceptions alongside sociodemographic characteristics of households to determine what drives a household’s reported mitigation performance and perceived mitigation efforts on climate change. Our study provides insights that contribute to understanding which factors drive household-level mitigation on climate change by performing a case study in Nuevo Leon, a state in northeast Mexico.
2 Drivers of climate change action
Many different factors can influence a household to take action, including climate change perceptions and sociodemographic characteristics. In recent years, studies on perceptions of climate change have gained importance, as perceptions are crucial to understand how the public engages with a changing climate (Capstick & Pidgeon, 2014; Forero et al., 2014; Jia et al., 2019; Poortinga et al., 2019). Perceptions refer to the set of processes of recognizing and interpreting sensory stimuli to make sense of our environment, and include a range of psychological constructs, such as beliefs, knowledge, and perceived risk (Goldstein, 2010; Whitmarsh & Capstick, 2018). Nevertheless, perceptions of climate change differ across contextual realities (Heyd, 2010). The reasons for differences in perceptions are complex, but include cultural values, demographic factors, political contexts, media coverage, and the exposure to extreme weather events (Capstick et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2015; Poortinga et al., 2019).
According to the literature, belief in anthropogenic climate change has a positive effect on behavior, including the willingness to address climate change (Arbuckle et al., 2015; Bouman et al., 2020). Similarly, a high environmental concern has been shown to motivate behavior to a considerable degree (Bouman et al., 2020; Hornsey et al., 2016). Findings from surveys conducted in high-income countries such as Australia and the USA have indicated that climate change is perceived by many as temporally and spatially distant (Jones et al., 2017; Singh et al., 2017; Spence et al., 2012; Xie et al., 2019). However, studies among Latin American populations present different findings with respect to trends in high-income countries. In general, Latin American populations believe in climate change, believe it is already occurring and believe it has already had an impact on their lives (Ahumada-Cervantes & García-López, 2018; González-Hernández et al., 2019a, 2019b; Pardo Martínez et al., 2018).
Among Latin Americans, evidence shows that concern about climate change is relatively high and that they consider it to be a serious threat not only to themselves, but also to their families (González-Hernández et al., 2019a; Lee et al., 2015). Interestingly, despite their expressed concern, the issue of climate change is often superseded by other matters such as corruption and the economy, which are perceived to be more pressing issues (González-Hernández et al., 2019b; INECC & PNUD, 2016; Pardo Martínez et al., 2018) However, studies argue that it is vital that the public considers and perceives climate change as an issue, as people who prioritize climate change are more likely to change their behavior for instance by supporting public policies that promote climate strategies (Hornsey et al., 2016; O’Connor et al., 1999).
Climate knowledge has been identified as a key driver for action on climate change (Shi et al., 2016). To date, several studies have found it is useful to draw a distinction between different types of knowledge. For instance, knowing about the causes of climate change has been found to play a role in shaping concern and action (Akrofi et al., 2019; Bord et al., 2000; O’Connor et al., 1999; Shi et al., 2015). A relationship has also been observed between having more knowledge on the issue and people’s willingness to adopt climate-friendly behaviors (Shi et al., 2015). Perceived knowledge has also been found to have a positive effect on reported mitigation and adaptation action (González-Hernández et al., 2019a). Furthermore, when presented with tailored information, households are more likely to demonstrate mitigation behaviors (Abrahamse et al., 2007; Salo et al., 2016). However, there are barriers that inhibit people’s motivation and their use of information, such as the lack of accessible and translatable scientific information (Lorenzoni et al., 2007).
The previous literature reveals that action on climate change is also related to sociodemographic characteristics of individuals and households, including gender, age, levels of education, household size, household location, and household income (Abrahamse & Steg, 2011; Lee et al., 2015; Thaller et al., 2020). For example, studies have shown significant gender-related differences, in which women tend to consider climate change as a more serious issue than men and are more likely to take measures toward it (Brody et al., 2012; Weber, 2016). In regard to age, younger adults usually hold stronger pro-environmental attitudes compared to seniors and believe that the issue of climate change ought to be taken more seriously (Semenza et al., 2008; Weber, 2016). Education has also been identified to have an effect on climate change action. Thus far, research has shown that higher education plays an important role in people’s adaptive capacities and their willingness to reduce their carbon emissions (De Silva & Pownall, 2014; Semenza et al., 2008; Wamsler et al., 2012).
Given that perceptions have been found to influence behavior in the literature, we hypothesize that higher mitigation efforts and performances will be reported in households where a pro-environment sentiment is prioritized, and who believe in climate change, believe it is happening now, consider it as a risk, have knowledge on the issue and have the knowledge on how to respond accordingly. We also expect that sociodemographic factors such as women respondents, highly educated respondents, and households in an urban area with a higher monthly income will also be predictors of household-level mitigation efforts and performances.
3 Case study and methods
3.1 Approach
We conducted a case study in the state of Nuevo Leon in northeastern Mexico. While being highly vulnerable to climate change, Mexico is also one of the highest emitting countries of GHG in Latin America. Emissions are expected to rise even further due to population growth, economic development, energy supply growth, technological change, and land use change (IEA, 2021). Furthermore, there are three main reasons why we used households from Nuevo Leon as our case study. Firstly, studies on climate change at the household level are limited, especially within a Mexican and a Latin American context (González-Hernández et al., 2019a). Second, Nuevo Leon is particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change (Sisto et al., 2016) and third, its urban center, the Monterrey Metropolitan Area (MMA), drives a significant share of Mexico’s GHG emissions (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2010). To test the hypothesis, we employed a household survey, in which we collected information on household’s perceptions of climate change, sociodemographic characteristics and reported actions on climate change. We then estimated the influence of the perceptions and the sociodemographic characteristics on a household’s mitigation performance and perceived mitigation efforts (Fig. 1).
Framework of research methods
3.2 Case study: Nuevo Leon, Mexico
The state of Nuevo Leon is located in northeast Mexico and presents diverse climate types that range from arid to semi-arid in the north and more humid in the south (Contreras Delgado, 2007). Nuevo Leon is significant because it holds the second largest metropolitan area in the country, the MMA, which is considered the most important financial, commercial, and industrial hub of the northern region of Mexico. As a highly industrialized area, the state generates close to 10% of the national anthropogenic GHG emissions (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2010). Future climate change projections for the region indicate an increase in the number and severity of extreme weather events such as droughts and torrential rains (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2010; Sisto & Ramírez-Orozco, 2015; Sisto et al., 2016). Recent major climatic events in the form of droughts, hurricanes and flash floods have highlighted the vulnerability of Nuevo Leon to weather events (Sisto & Ramírez-Orozco, 2015). Given these projections, the state has taken steps to reduce their contribution to climate change by developing the Nuevo Leon Climate Change Action Program 2010–2015 with the objective of reducing over 1000 million tons of CO2 equivalent. However, the state program fails to address behavioral changes at the smallest societal scales, i.e., the household level. These events and projections demonstrate the importance of understanding the household-level and their potential for emissions reductions.
3.3 Data collection and household survey
A household survey was designed to explore perceptions of climate change, in addition to collecting sociodemographic data and reported actions on climate change. The survey was conducted using a hardcopy questionnaire and an online version in order to maximize the number of responses and to reach a wide range of the population. The online survey, which was implemented using the Qualtrics platform, ran from August 2016 to January 2017. Potential respondents were recruited through social networks, where they received a general invitation with a link to the survey. Fieldwork in Nuevo Leon was conducted from November 2016 to January 2017 to recruit respondents for the hardcopy version of the survey. A researcher approached potential respondents in various municipalities throughout the state. The survey was in the Spanish language and both survey modes were self-administered without intervention from the researchers. The data from both surveys was combined to create a working dataset.
For this study, respondents were first asked to express in their own words what were the main concerns in their household. This was later recoded into the nominal variable, environmental concern. The intention of this question was to see if they included any climate change issues or environment-related topics in their response (González-Hernández et al., 2019a). Respondents were then asked to rate to what extent they believed climate change is real through a 5-point scale and to indicate when they believe climate change will take place (either already occurring or in future). Next, we asked whether they considered climate change to be caused by natural causes, human activities, or both. On a 5-point scale ranging from serious consequences to beneficial effects, respondents assessed the effects of climate change on their household. We then asked the respondents to reflect on the level of perceived knowledge of their household about climate change and its effects, followed by the level of perceived knowledge of responses to climate change. Both variables were also measured using a 5-point Likert scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Near the end of the survey, respondents were asked through an open question to write down, if any, actions they take in their household toward climate change and its effects.
A range of household sociodemographic data was also obtained comprising household location, size, working members, and monthly income. Household location determined whether the household was located in an urban or rural area. Household income was measured in increments and then recategorized in seven classes. Household size asked about the number of members in the household. Working members recorded the number of actively working members in the household. A few questions were asked about the age (recorded in years), gender (nominal), and education level (ordinal) of the person answering the survey.
For the statistical analyses, the ordinal items with five categories, which included belief in climate change, timing of climate change, perceived climate change risk on household, knowledge of climate change effects, and knowledge of climate change action were treated as numeric values (Robitzsch, 2020). Education and household income, which were also measured through ordinal items were treated in a similar manner.
3.4 Classification of household-level actions on climate change
We first dichotomized the respondents’ open-ended responses into whether they reported taking any household-level climate change action or not. Responses left blank were not considered for the rest of the analyses. From those who did report action, we subjected their responses to content analysis to count and classify the types of actions they reported. This resulted in five main categories: mitigation action, adaptation action, civic action, other types of action, and not specified. In the mitigation action category, we included actions that aim to reduce GHG emissions; whereas the adaptation action category encompassed efforts that aim to prevent or reduce the risks posed by the effects of climate change. The civic action category focused not so much on either mitigation or adaptation, but rather on raising awareness of climate change. The other category included practices that are perceived, but are effectively neither mitigation or adaptation action; albeit are related to environmental issues. The not specified category represented times when the participant mentioned indeed taking action, however, did not go into detail into what they did, for example by writing down: “Yes, we do take action.” A full description of each of the categories is shown in Appendix.
The reported actions from the mitigation category were classified into effectiveness classes (EC) from least to most effective at reducing CO2. This classification was based on a range of estimates of emissions reductions of multiple practices from individual and household behaviors identified from literature (Table 1). The practices were ordered from having the least to the highest potential to reduce CO2 emissions equivalents and were defined as follows: low-impact (< 0.1 tCO2e), lower moderate (0.1–0.2 tCO2e), moderate (0.2–0.3 CO2e), upper moderate-(0.3–0.8 tCO2e), and high-impact actions (> 0.7 tCO2e). Actions that were not quantifiable, such as those from the adaptation, civic, other, and not specified categories were considered as potential actions and were left in the analyses. We believe it is important to leave the potential actions in the analyses because when properly planned these types of actions can complement mitigation strategies and result in a reduction in GHG emissions (Ayers & Huq, 2009; Thornton & Comberti, 2017). All things considered, the potential action category was given the lowest score in order to include these types of actions, but not to give them much weight in the analyses. As a result, each of the classes (potential, low, lower moderate, moderate, upper moderate, and high) yielded an ordinal scale from 1 to 6.
3.5 Statistical analyses
We then examined which factors predicted a household’s mitigation performance through linear regression analyses. We calculated a household’s mitigation performance by summing the scores of each of their EC (1–6) per reported action, as described above. Based on our proposed conceptual theory, seven perceptions variables and seven sociodemographic variables were evaluated in three different linear regression models: a model only using the perceptions of climate change (perceptions model), a model only comprising the sociodemographic variables (sociodemographic model), and a model that encompassed both the perceptions and the sociodemographic variables (combined model).
Next, we examined a household’s perceived mitigation efforts, which refers to the actions a household believes are useful against climate change. A household’s mitigation performance on its own is not able to provide an adequate measurement of which types of factors influence a household’s perceived mitigation efforts. As such, we proposed the use of an aggregated score, which we defined as the perceived mitigation efforts index (PMEI). PMEI is defined as the mitigation performance multiplied by the number of actions per household:
where EC describes a household’s mitigation performance per action taken and A equals the number of reported actions per household. Finally, we used generalized linear model (GLM) fitting a Poisson distribution to evaluate three models: a perceptions model, a sociodemographic model, and a combined model. All statistical analyses were performed with R statistical language (version 3.5.1).
4 Results
4.1 Households’ sociodemographic characteristics and how they perceive climate change
The survey resulted in 393 hardcopy and 229 online surveys. From the 622 surveys received, 11% (n = 66) of responses were left blank when asked to report what climate change actions take place in their household. These responses were left outside of the rest of the analyses. From the 558 valid responses, 61% (n = 384) of respondents reported taking action or have taken action on climate change in their household. A total of 28% (n = 172) explicitly stated that they did not take or have not taken action in their household to address climate change.
With regards to the sociodemographic characteristics of valid survey responses (n = 558), the respondents were made up of 55% women and the average age of those surveyed was 34 (Table 2). The average household size was 3.7. The predominant income per month range was $10,000–20,000 MXN (around 480–960 USD). Concerning the employment situation, the majority of households had at least one working member, and 4% had other sources of income. Among households, 91% were located in an urban area, whereas 6% were located in rural areas. At large, results show that almost half the respondents had at least a bachelor's degree.
As to how respondents perceived climate change, we observed that 92% agreed that climate change is real (Table 3). When asked about the main concerns in their household, 16% of respondents indicated a concern related to climate change or the environment. Regarding the causes of climate change, 52% believed that human activities are the main cause of climate change, 41% believed that both natural and human activities are to blame, whereas 6% believed it is explained by natural causes. Concerning the effects of climate change on their household, a total of 82% of those who responded felt that climate change would have serious consequences for their households. Approximately 58% of those surveyed agreed to some extent that their household has at least some knowledge about climate change and its effects, whereas 53% felt that their household is adequately informed about how to respond to climate change.
4.2 Reported household-level action, mitigation practices and their impact on climate change
Since respondents could provide more than one action, the numbers of actions reported (n = 939) was higher than the number of valid respondents (n = 558). As seen in Fig. 2, mitigation actions were mentioned 747 times, adaptation actions were reported a total of 90 times, civic actions were only described eight times, other types of pro-environmental actions were mentioned 72 times, and the “not specified” category comprised 22 responses. For further information refer to Appendix.
Regarding mitigation practices, the most frequently mentioned were related to the categories reduce energy use (n = 187), recycle (n = 174) and reduce water use (n = 149). Other mitigation actions mentioned were from the categories of reduce waste (n = 65), reduce emissions from vehicles (n = 35), heat or cool home efficiently (n = 31). The full list is shown in Fig. 2.
Classification of household actions
4.3 Factors that influence a household’s mitigation performance
The results of the linear regression analysis showed that both the sociodemographic model and the combined model yielded associations between age, household size, and household income per month with a household’s mitigation performance (Table 4). We observed that age (β = −3.155, p < 0.001) and household size (β = −3.118 p < 0.001) displayed a negative association with a household’s mitigation performance in the combined model. Thus, younger-aged household members and smaller-sized households are more likely to have a higher mitigation performance. Household income per month presented a positive relationship with a household’s mitigation performance (β = 1.647, p ≤ 0.1). This means that upper-income households are much more likely to have a higher mitigation performance than lower-income households. In contrast, we did not identify any perceptions significantly associated with a household’s mitigation performance in the perceptions model or in the combined model (Table 4).
4.4 Households’ perceived mitigation efforts on climate change
The results of GLM analyses showed that climate change perceptions influence a household’s perceived mitigation efforts (Table 4). In the perceptions model, five variables were observed to be positively and significantly associated with the PMEI (p < 0.05): environmental concern, causes of climate change, belief in climate change, perceived climate change risk and the knowledge of responses to climate change. Whereas timing of climate change and perceived knowledge of climate change effects did not significantly contribute to the PMEI. The combined model presented similar results, with the only exception being that causes of climate change lost its significant status: environmental concern (β = 2.036, p < 0.05), belief in climate change (β = 2.631, p ≤ 0.01), perceived climate change risk (β = 3.708, p = < 0.00) and the knowledge of responses to climate change (β = 3.626, p < 0.00). While timing of climate change and perceived knowledge of climate change effects had no significant effects on PMEI. These results imply that efforts to mitigate climate change will likely take place in households whose members are concerned about the environment, believe in climate change, perceive it as a risk for themselves, and believe they have the knowledge on how to respond to climate change.
The results of the sociodemographic model showed that all sociodemographic variables, with the exception of household location were significantly related to the PMEI (p ≤ 0.05). However, in the combined model all seven sociodemographic variables presented significant association with the PMEI. There was a positive significant association between the PMEI and gender (β = 4.929, p = < 0.00), level of education (β = 4.640, p = < 0.00), working members (β = 2.027, p = < 0.05) and household income per month (β = 4.563, p = < 0.00). This means that women respondents, higher educated respondents, household with more working members and upper-income households are more likely to put more effort into mitigating climate change. In contrast, a negative significant association was observed between PMEI and age (β = −7.485, p = < 0.00), household location (β = −2.153, p = < 0.00), and household size (β = −9.569, p = < 0.00). Thus, younger-aged respondents, smaller-sized households and households located in urban areas are more likely to channel their efforts into mitigating climate change.
5 Discussion
Our analysis revealed that the majority of households reported taking action on climate change, with many households adopting more than one practice. We observed that the focus of a household’s actions was mainly on mitigation practices. When taking a closer look into the different types of mitigation actions, many of the reported actions were the ones which are be relatively easy to perform, such as switching off lights and unplugging electrical devices. However, these types of actions usually have a small-to-moderate effect on the reduction of CO2 emissions and consequently have a limited impact on climate change mitigation (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). We also observed that mitigation practices that have a higher impact on climate change, were less mentioned by the respondents. This may be due to the fact that higher impact actions require more effort and sacrifices to produce (Dubois et al., 2019; Sköld et al., 2018). Building from these findings, we observe that households have the potential to make a larger contribution to emissions reduction, therefore communications are needed to motivate households to adopt more high-impact actions to keep track of national and global emissions targets set in place.
Adaptation and civic actions were described by respondents with less frequency than mitigation practices. This may be explained by the fact that climate policies and debate have thus far predominantly been characterized by addressing its causes, rather than its effects (Sharifi, 2021). Furthermore, we observed that a substantial number of households are reporting not taking any type of action on climate change. These findings indicate that more attention should be paid to encourage households to take diverse actions to reduce the adverse effects of climate change.
With respect to a household’s mitigation performance, we provide evidence that their mitigation performances are dependent on their sociodemographic characteristics. Our results support the contentions of others (e.g., Abrahamse & Steg, 2011; Lee et al., 2015) that mitigation actions are more likely to take place among younger-aged household members, smaller-sized households and upper-income households. We did not observe a significant link between the perceptions of climate change and a household’s mitigation performance.
Our findings indicate that all seven sociodemographic variables in our analysis are significantly associated with household’s perceived mitigation effects. Our study found that women respondents and highly educated individuals are more likely to put effort into mitigating climate change. Similar results have been found in earlier observations, which showed that women and highly educated individuals are more willing to adopt actions (Brody et al., 2008; De Silva & Pownall, 2014; Wamsler et al., 2012; Weber, 2016). The results reveal that efforts to mitigate climate change decrease with age, which seems to be consistent with other research that has found that older individuals are less willing to adopt mitigation practices, compared to younger individuals (Semenza et al., 2008; Weber, 2016).
Another finding was that urban households were more likely to take mitigation efforts, which contrasts to previous research indicating that urban households consume more energy than their rural counterparts (Heinonen & Junnila, 2014). It seems possible that these results are due to the small number of rural households in our study, as such it would be useful to examine a larger group of rural households. Household size presents a strong effect, albeit negatively, on a household’s mitigation efforts. Somewhat similar findings have been observed when analyzing a household’s energy use, as households larger in size tend to use more resources than households smaller in size (Abrahamse & Steg, 2011). Furthermore, we observed that the greater the number of working members in the household, the less likely mitigation efforts will take place. This may be explained by the fact that working members are spending less time at home, which in turn makes it harder for them to adopt action (González-Hernández et al., 2019b). In addition, the importance of household income in shaping a household’s mitigation efforts concurs with previous findings (Lee et al., 2015). It appears that higher income households have the choice and assets to perform more effective mitigation practices (i.e., by investing in solar panels). These findings confirm that sociodemographic characteristics are key factors that drive effective mitigation actions at the household level. For that reason, it is important to strengthen a household’s sociodemographic profile, which would require support from the government, the private sector, or community-based organizations.
Our results proved that, even though sociodemographic characteristics are strong predictors of a household’s perceived mitigation performance, climate change perceptions also play an important role in the explanation of a household’s perceived mitigation efforts. This highlights the importance of incorporating insights from the social and behavioral sciences, since many policies and debate focus on economic and technological incentives (Clayton et al., 2015; Nielsen et al., 2020).
Even though less than 20% of respondents referenced an environmental concern or climate change issue, we found that being concerned about issues related to the environment or climate change is important as it presented a positive and significant link with a household’s mitigation efforts. These results present similarities to previous research that suggest that environmental concern increases the willingness to address climate change (Hornsey et al., 2016; O’Connor et al., 1999). The great majority of respondents in this study (over 90%) believe to some extent in climate change and over half consider that climate change presents a risk to their household. Moreover, we found that these two factors, believing in climate change and perceiving it as a risk on the household, had a positive and significant impact on a household’s mitigation efforts. This indicates that there is a general awareness on the issue and that it is believed to be a serious problem, reflecting previous research (González-Hernández et al., 2019a). It may be that because the Nuevo Leon population has already been exposed to a wide range of extreme weather events (Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León, 2010; Sisto & Ramírez-Orozco, 2015), the respondents already perceive climate change as a high risk on their household. In this context, we believe that risk communications can play a crucial role in increasing a household’s mitigation performance.
In general, households who assigned themselves as having high levels of knowledge of the responses to climate change were more likely to express having taken efforts to mitigate climate change. These findings provide supportive evidence that knowledge is a crucial predictor of the adoption of mitigation actions (Akrofi et al., 2019; Bord et al., 2000; Shi et al., 2015). However, it becomes apparent that different types of knowledge play certain roles in explaining mitigation action, as only the perceived knowledge of responses to climate change was found to have a positive association with a household’s perceived mitigation efforts, whereas perceived knowledge of the effects was not significant. These results are consistent with previous findings (Abrahamse et al., 2007; Shi et al., 2015). Accordingly, we strongly recommend that future interventions facilitate clear information to households on how to take effective action (Table 5).
Despite our contributions, there are inevitable limitations in our study. First, these results do not imply that household action is only dependent on the aforementioned perceptions and sociodemographic characteristics. Other research has shown that experience, media exposure, political affiliations, among other factors are correlated to the willingness to engage with climate change. As such, future work should incorporate other factors into their research design. Second, a self-reported questionnaire was used to determine a household’s mitigation performance, which may differ from observed measures of actual behavior. However, research has shown that individuals have a good grasp on recalling their behavior (Jones & Tanner, 2017; Short et al., 2009), therefore we believe we can rely on the self-reported measures. Third, we did not examine actual CO2 levels emitted by households, only the potential emissions that may be reduced, which were based on lists of developed countries. However, these findings may help us understand how CO2 emissions from the household sector in Latin America can be reduced, which is an issue that needs to be urgently addressed. Fourth, certain groups are over- or underrepresented, as we find that in comparison to the general population of Nuevo Leon, a disproportionately high share of respondents have obtained a higher education degree, which makes these findings limited in generalizability.
6 Conclusion
We can conclude that our study provides an important opportunity to advance the understanding of how households perceive climate change, and how their perceptions in turn shape their mitigation action on climate change. We focused on households in Latin America, specifically in the state of Nuevo Leon in Mexico, a scale and place which have greatly unattended in the climate literature thus far.
Our results emphasize the importance of distinguishing between a household’s mitigation performances and their perceived mitigation efforts. In doing so, we identified the pivotal role of sociodemographic characteristics on a household’s mitigation performance, while finding that perceptions, alongside sociodemographic characteristics, influence a household’s mitigation efforts. Although households are making efforts to mitigate climate change, achieving a higher mitigation performance is difficult for a household to achieve without access to resources, such as education and financial support. These findings have implications for policy making and the communication of climate change in Mexico, as household-level mitigation can be an option to achieve substantial reductions in future emission pathways with proper support.
References
Abrahamse, W., & Steg, L. (2011). Factors related to household energy use and intention to reduce it: The role of psychological and socio-demographic variables. Human Ecology Review, 18(1), 30–40.
Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Rothengatter, T. (2007). The effect of tailored information, goal setting, and tailored feedback on household energy use, energy-related behaviors, and behavioral antecedents. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(4), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.08.002
Ahumada-Cervantes, R., & García-López, P. A. (2018). Conocimiento y percepción acerca del cambio climático en comunidades Costeras Del Municipio de Guasave, Sinaloa, México. Investigación y Ciencia, 26(75), 38–45.
Akrofi, M. M., Antwi, S. H., & Gumbo, J. R. (2019). Students in climate action: A study of some influential factors and implications of knowledge gaps in Africa. Environments - MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments6020012
Arbuckle, J. G., Morton, L. W., & Hobbs, J. (2015). Understanding farmer perspectives on climate change adaptation and mitigation. Environment and Behavior, 47(2), 205–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916513503832
Ayers, J. M., & Huq, S. (2009). The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: A case study of Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 43(5), 753–764. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-008-9223-2
Bord, R. J., O’Connor, R. E., & Fisher, A. (2000). In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change? Public Understanding of Science, 9(3), 205–218. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/9/3/301
Bouman, T., Verschoor, M., Albers, C. J., Böhm, G., Fisher, S. D., Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., & Steg, L. (2020). When worry about climate change leads to climate action: How values, worry and personal responsibility relate to various climate actions. Global Environmental Change, 62(April), 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102061
Brody, S., Grover, H., & Vedlitz, A. (2012). Examining the willingness of Americans to alter behaviour to mitigate climate change. Climate Policy, 12(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.579261
Brody, S. D., Zahran, S., Vedlitz, A., & Grover, H. (2008). Examining the relationship between physical vulnerability and public perceptions of global climate change in the United States. Environment and Behavior, 40(1), 72–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916506298800
Capstick, S., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). What Is climate change scepticism? Examination of the concept using a mixed methods study of the UK public. Global Environmental Change, 24(1), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.08.012
Capstick, S., Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., Pidgeon, N. F., & Upham, P. (2015). International trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.321
Clayton, S., Devine-Wright, P., Stern, P. C., Whitmarsh, L., Carrico, A., Steg, L., Swim, J. K., & Bonnes, M. (2015). Psychological research and global climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(7), 640–646. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2622
Collins, R. (2015). Keeping It in the Family? Re-Focusing household sustainability. Geoforum, 60, 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2015.01.006
Contreras Delgado, C. (2007). Geografía de Nuevo León. Monterrey, Nuevo León: Fondo Editorial de Nuevo León.
Corner, A., Markowitz, E., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2014). Public engagement with climate change: The role of human values. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.269
Dubois, G., Sovacool, B., Aall, C., Nilsson, M., Barbier, C., Herrmann, A., Bruyère, S., et al. (2019). It starts at home? Climate policies targeting household consumption and behavioral decisions are key to low-carbon futures. Energy Research and Social Science. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.02.001
Forero, E. L., Hernández, Y. T., & Zafra, C. A. (2014). Latin American perceptions of climate change: methodologies, tools and adaptation strategies in local communities. A review. Revista u.d.c.a Actualidad & Divulgación Científica, 17(1), 73–85.
Gibson, C., Head, L., & Carr, C. (2015). From incremental change to radical disjuncture rethinking everyday household sustainability practices as survival skills. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105, 416–424.
Glewwe, P, and Grosh, M. eds. (2000). Designing household survey questionnaires for developing countries: Lessons from 15 years of the living standards development study. Washington, DC: Oxford University Press (for the World Bank). Quoting United Nations, Household income and expenditure surveys: A technical study (New York: National Household Survey Capability Program, 1989).
Gobierno del Estado de Nuevo León (2010). Programa de Acción Ante El Cambio Climático Para El Estado de Nuevo León. Monterrey, Nuevo León.
Goldstein, E. B. (2010). Sensation and Perception. Eighth Edi. Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
González-Hernández, D. L., Meijles, E. W., & Vanclay, F. (2019a). Household barriers to climate change action: Perspectives from Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(15), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11154178
González-Hernández, D. L., Meijles, E. W. and Vanclay, F. (2019b). Factors that influence climate change mitigation and adaptation action: A household study in the Nuevo Leon Region, Mexico. Climate MDPI.
He, X., Adebayo, T. S., Kirikkaleli, D., & Umar, M. (2021). Consumption-based carbon emissions in Mexico: An analysis using the dual adjustment approach. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 27, 947–957. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2021.02.020
Heinonen, J., & Junnila, S. (2014). Residential energy consumption patterns and the overall housing energy requirements of urban and rural households in Finland. Energy and Buildings, 76, 295–303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2014.02.079
Heyd, T. (2010). Climate change, individual responsibilities and cultural frameworks. Human Ecology Review, 17(2), 86–95.
Hornsey, M. J., Harris, E. A., Bain, P. G., & Fielding, K. S. (2016). Meta-Analyses Of The Determinants And Outcomes Of Belief In Climate Change. Nature Climate Change, 6(6), 622–626. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2943
IEA. (2021). Mexico. International Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/countries/mexico.
INECC and PNUD (2016). Estudo de Opinión. Sexta Comunicación Nacional Ante La Convención Marco de Las Naciones Unidas Sobre El Cambio Climático.
IPCC (2021). Assessment report 6 climate change 2021: The physical science basis. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/.
Ivanova, D. (2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption options. Environmental Research Letters.
Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., Steen-Olsen, K., Wood, R., Vita, G., Tukker, A., & Hertwich, E. G. (2016). Environmental impact assessment of household consumption. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 20(3), 526–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/jiec.12371
Jia, L., Evans, S., & van der Linden, S. (2019). Motivating actions to mitigate plastic pollution. Nature Communications, 10(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12666-9
Jones, C., Hine, D. W., & Marks, A. D. G. (2017). The future is now: Reducing psychological distance to increase public engagement with climate change. Risk Analysis, 37(2), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12601
Jones, L., & Tanner, T. (2017). Subjective resilience: Using perceptions to quantify household resilience to climate extremes and disasters. Regional Environmental Change, 17(1), 229–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-016-0995-2
Lacroix, K. (2018). Comparing the relative mitigation potential of individual pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195, 1398–1407. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.05.068
Lee, T. M., Markowitz, E. M., Howe, P. D., Ko, C.-Y., & Leiserowitz, A. A. (2015). Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nature Climate Change Advance on (november). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2728
Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2007). Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK Public and their policy implications. Global Environmental Change, 17(3–4), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.01.004
Nielsen, K. S., Clayton, S., Stern, P. C., Dietz, T., Capstick, S., & Whitmarsh, L. (2020). How psychology can help limit climate change. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000624
O’Connor, R. E., Bord, R. J., & Fisher, A. (1999). Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs and willingnedss to address climate change. Risk Analysis, 19(3), 461–471. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007004813446
Pardo Martínez, C. I., Alfonso Piña, W. H., & Moreno, S. F. (2018). Prevention, mitigation and adaptation to climate change from perspectives of urban population in an emerging economy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 178, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.246
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., & Fisher, S. (2019). Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determinants: A cross-European analysis. Global Environmental Change, 55, 25–35.
Qin, H., Romero-Lankao, P., Hardoy, J., & Rosas-Huerta, A. (2015). Household responses to climate-related hazards in four latin American Cities: A conceptual framework and exploratory analysis. Urban Climate. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.05.003
Reid, L., Sutton, P., & Hunter, C. (2010). Theorizing the Meso level: The household as a crucible of pro-environmental behaviour. Progress in Human Geography, 34(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132509346994
Reyer, C. P. O., Adams, S., Albrecht, T., Baarsch, F., Boit, A., Canales Trujillo, N., Cartsburg, M., et al. (2017). Climate change impacts in latin America and the Caribbean and their implications for development. Regional Environmental Change, 17(6), 1601–1621. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0854-6
Robitzsch, A. (2020). Why ordinal variables can (Almost) always be treated as continuous variables: Clarifying assumptions of robust continuous and ordinal factor analysis estimation methods. Frontiers in Education, 5, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.589965
Romero-Lankao, P, Smith, J. B., Davidson, D. J., Diffenbaugh, N. S., Kinney, P. L., Kirshen, P., Kovacs, P., and Villers Ruiz, L. (2014). 2014: North America. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regionals Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernamental Panel on Climate Changes, edited by Barros, V.R., Field, C.B., Dokken, D.J., Mastandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., et al., 1439–98. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
Salo, M., Nissinen, A., Lilja, R., Olkanen, E., O’Neill, M., & Uotinen, M. (2016). Tailored advice and services to enhance sustainable household consumption in Finland. Journal of Cleaner Production, 121, 200–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.092
Schanes, K., Dobernig, K., & Gözet, B. (2018). Food waste matters - a systematic review of household food waste practices and their policy implications. Journal of Cleaner Production, 182, 978–991. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.030
Semenza, J. C., Hall, D. E., Wilson, D. J., Bontempo, B. D., Sailor, D. J., & George, L. A. (2008). Public perception of climate change. Voluntary mitigation and barriers to behavior change. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.08.020
Sharifi, A. (2021). Co-benefits and synergies between urban climate change mitigation and adaptation measures: A literature review. Science of the Total Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.141642
Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., & Siegrist, M. (2015). Public perception of climate change: The importance of knowledge and cultural worldviews. Risk Analysis, 35(12), 2183–2201. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12406
Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., Siegrist, M., & Arvai, J. (2016). Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2997
Shittu, O. (2020). Emerging sustainability concerns and policy implications of urban household consumption: A systematic literature review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 246, 119034. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119034
Short, M. E., Goetzel, R. Z., Pei, X., Tabrizi, M. J., Ozminkowski, R. J., Gibson, T. B., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G. (2009). How accurate are self-reports? Analysis of self-reported health care utilization and absence when compared with administrative data. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 51(7), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e3181a86671
Silva, D. G. D., & Pownall, R. A. J. (2014). Going green: Does it depend on education, gender or income? Applied Economics, 46(5), 573–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2013.857003
Singh, A. S., Zwickle, A., Bruskotter, J. T., & Wilson, R. (2017). The perceived psychological distance of climate change impacts and its influence on support for adaptation policy. Environmental Science & Policy, 73, 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.04.011
Sisto, N. P., and Ramírez-Orozco A. I. (2015). Flash Floods in the Monterrey Metropolitan Area: Mexico Lessons from Hurricane Alex. In Water and cities in Latin America: Challenges for sustainable development (Earthscan Studies in Water Resource Management), 1st ed., 320. Monterrey: Routledge.
Sisto, N. P., Ramírez-Orozco, A. I., Aguilar-Barajas, I., & Magaña-Rueda, V. (2016). Climate threats, water supply vulnerability and the risk of a water crisis in the Monterrey Metropolitan Area ( Northeastern Mexico ). Journal of Physics and Chemistry of the Ear, 91, 2–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.08.015
Sköld, B., Baltruszewicz, M., Aall, C., Andersson, C., Herrmann, A., Amelung, D., Barbier, C., Nilsson, M., Bruyère, S., & Sauerborn, R. (2018). Household preferences to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint: A comparative study from four European cities. Sustainability (switzerland). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114044
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2012). The Psychological distance of climate change. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 957–972. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x
Thaller, A., Fleiß, E., & Brudermann, T. (2020). No glory without sacrifice — drivers of climate (in)action in the general population. Environmental Science and Policy, 114(March), 7–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.07.014
Thornton, T. F., & Comberti, C. (2017). Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, mitigation and development. Climatic Change, 140(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0884-3
Valkengoed, A. M. V., & Steg, L. (2019). Meta-analyses of factors motivating climate change adaptation behaviour. Nature Climate Change, 9(2), 158–163. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y
Vita, G., Lundström, J. R., Hertwich, E. G., Quist, J., Ivanova, D., Stadler, K., & Wood, R. (2019). The environmental impact of green consumption and sufficiency lifestyles scenarios in Europe: Connecting local sustainability visions to global consequences. Ecological Economics, 164, 106322. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.05.002
Waheed, R., Sarwar, S., & Wei, C. (2019). The survey of economic growth, energy consumption and carbon emission. Energy Reports, 5, 1103–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egyr.2019.07.006
Wamsler, C., Brink, E., & Rentala, O. (2012). Climate change, adaptation, and formal education: The role of schooling for increasing societies adaptive capacities in El Salvador and Brazil. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04645-170202
Weber, E. U. (2016). What shapes perceptions of climate change? New research since 2010. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(1), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.377
Whitmarsh, L., & Capstick, S. (2018). Perceptions of Climate Change. Elsevier Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-813130-5.00002-3
Wiedenhofer, D., Smetschka, B., Akenji, L., Jalas, M., & Haberl, H. (2018). Household time use, carbon footprints, and urban form: A review of the potential contributions of everyday living to the 1.5 °C climate target. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 30, 7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.02.007
Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: Education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 048001.
Wynes, S., Nicholas, K. A., Zhao, J., & Donner, S. D. (2018). Measuring what works: Quantifying greenhouse gas emission reductions of behavioural interventions to reduce driving, meat consumption, and household energy use. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aae5d7
Xie, B., Brewer, M. B., Hayes, B. K., McDonald, R. I., & Newell, B. R. (2019). Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65, 101331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2019.101331
Acknowledgements
Support for this study was obtained from CONACYT-I2T2, through a doctorate scholarship to the first and second authors.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Classification of actions
Appendix: Classification of actions
Type of action | Subtype | n | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
Mitigation | Reduce energy use | 187 | Comprised efforts to reduce the consumption of energy. This was often perceived to be achieved by decreasing the amount of service used, for example turning off a light switch, unplugging electric appliances and hanging clothes to dry. |
Recycle | 144 | Included practices devoted to recycling materials such as plastic, paper and aluminum. | |
Reduce water use | 149 | Described activities such as keeping showers short, fixing a dripping tap, turning the tap off while brushing teeth. | |
Reduce consumption | 65 | Represented conscious efforts to reduce the consumption of resources and reduce the amount of waste disposed in landfills. This was indicated for example by buying less food to minimize food waste, buying less clothes throughout the year, carrying a water bottle, and taking bags to the supermarket to reduce the number of plastic bags being used. | |
Reduce emissions from vehicles | 34 | Covered practices that were believed to reduce emissions produced by vehicles by carpooling, decreasing driving speed, and driving a fuel-efficient vehicle. | |
Heat or cool home efficiently | 31 | Described practices that reduce the number of appliances needed in a home to make it feel comfortable, for instance by insulating walls and windows | |
Plant trees | 29 | Described planting trees to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. | |
Upgrade light bulbs | 24 | Consisted of replacing standard light bulbs with incandescent light bulbs. | |
Reduce gas use | 16 | Covered activities to reduce the consumption of natural gas in the household, for example by cutting the time of use of stove and space heating and taking a bath or washing clothes in cold water. | |
Purchase eco-friendly products | 11 | Described buying environmentally friendly alternatives of common products. | |
Purchase energy efficient appliance | 9 | Respondents indicated purchasing energy efficient appliances like washing machines and fridges. | |
Install solar panels | 8 | Respondents indicated installing solar panels in their households as a renewable energy source. | |
Use public transport | 6 | Respondents described using public transport (metro or bus). | |
Reduce meat consumption | 3 | Respondents reported actively reducing their family’s overall intake of meat and ranged from reducing the times they eat meat in a week/month or going vegetarian. | |
Adaptation | Coping with extreme temperatures | 28 | Covered practices to stay cool in warm weather or to stay warm in cold temperatures. For the warm temperatures, examples included using fans or air conditioning, wearing adequate clothes for comfort, and drinking plenty of liquids to stay hydrated. As for the cold temperatures, respondents mentioned using heaters and multiple layers of clothes. |
Emergency preparedness | 25 | Encompassed practices related to preparing for or dealing with natural disasters. Actions included were having non-perishable food on hand, having a first-aid kit, staying informed, collecting water, and purchasing household insurance. | |
Household maintenance | 22 | Covered home repairs activities such as clearing shrubs, inspecting roofs for damages, and waterproofing to prevent leakages or damage, especially in preparation for the rainy season. | |
Adapting gardens | 11 | Considered practices where respondents described adapting their gardens to climate change, for example by using plants native to the region and using plants that require less water. | |
Civic actions | – | 8 | Considered practices where respondents indicated becoming an activist, spreading awareness on the issue, and educating children about climate change and its effects. |
Other types of environmental actions | – | 72 | Included practices that are perceived but are effectively neither mitigation nor adaptation action; albeit are related to environmental issues. This category included practices such as suspending the use of hairsprays, the proper disposal of batteries, and avoiding littering the streets |
Not specified | – | 22 | Represented times when the participant mentioned indeed taking action, however, did not go into detail into what they did, for example by writing down: “Yes, we do take action.” |
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
González-Hernández, D.L., Aguirre-Gamboa, R.A. & Meijles, E.W. The role of climate change perceptions and sociodemographics on reported mitigation efforts and performance among households in northeastern Mexico. Environ Dev Sustain 25, 1853–1875 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02093-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-02093-6