IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i10p3984-d1391606.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Psychological Trust Dynamics in Climate Change Adaptation Decision-Making Processes: A Literature Review

Author

Listed:
  • Rubinia Celeste Bonfanti

    (Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University of Enna, 94100 Enna, Italy)

  • Stefano Ruggieri

    (Department of Psychology, Educational Science and Human Movement, University of Palermo, 90128 Palermo, Italy)

  • Adriano Schimmenti

    (Faculty of Human and Social Sciences, Kore University of Enna, 94100 Enna, Italy)

Abstract

There has been a growth in interest among academics and professionals in psychological trust dynamics during climate change adaptation. This literature review aimed to examine the research concerning trust dynamics in climate change adaptation from different levels of analysis, encompassing the different phases of adaptation and considering the importance of trust in climate change decision-making. The method consisted of systematically reviewing researches on this topic published in scientific articles, by using appropriate and relevant search keywords (e.g., trust, community, natural hazard, climate change adaptation, decision-making) in academic databases. A total of 25 studies met inclusion criteria. All the articles focused on the latter phases of the climate change adaptation cycle, specifically implementation and monitoring/evaluation, with limited attention devoted to decision-making related to earlier phases of preparation, assessment of risks, and identification and selection of adaptation options. The reviews also indicates that psychological trust is related to different adaptive actions (e.g., adoption of renewable energy technologies), and low- and high-impact mitigation behaviors (e.g., acceptance of paying taxes for actions that mitigate climate change). Therefore, this review underscores the significant role of psychological trust dynamics in shaping individuals’ decision-making processes concerning climate change adaptation, thereby yielding immediate and direct implications for climate systems. Therefore, it is essential to actively promote the culture of trust within the context of climate change adaptation.

Suggested Citation

  • Rubinia Celeste Bonfanti & Stefano Ruggieri & Adriano Schimmenti, 2024. "Psychological Trust Dynamics in Climate Change Adaptation Decision-Making Processes: A Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-20, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3984-:d:1391606
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3984/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/10/3984/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    2. Michael Siegrist & Heinz Gutscher & Timothy C. Earle, 2005. "Perception of risk: the influence of general trust, and general confidence," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 145-156, March.
    3. Rubinia Celeste Bonfanti & Benedetta Oberti & Elisa Ravazzoli & Anna Rinaldi & Stefano Ruggieri & Adriano Schimmenti, 2023. "The Role of Trust in Disaster Risk Reduction: A Critical Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, December.
    4. Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Trust and Risk Perception: A Critical Review of the Literature," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 480-490, March.
    5. Melanie De Vocht & Verolien Cauberghe & Mieke Uyttendaele & Benedikt Sas, 2015. "Affective and cognitive reactions towards emerging food safety risks in Europe," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 21-39, January.
    6. Bumsub Jin, 2023. "The Antecedents of Collaborative Behavior for Climate Change Mitigation among South Koreans: The Moderation Analyses of a Sense of Community as Responsibility, Neighborliness, and Trust," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-15, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    2. Ling Jia & Queena K. Qian & Frits Meijer & Henk Visscher, 2020. "Stakeholders’ Risk Perception: A Perspective for Proactive Risk Management in Residential Building Energy Retrofits in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-25, April.
    3. Liu Liu & Xiaotao Wang & Yang Xie & Wing-Hong Chui, 2022. "Using Illicit Drugs to Lose Weight among Recovering Female Drug Users in China: An Exploratory Qualitative Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-11, February.
    4. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.
    5. Lenka Mynaříková & Vít Pošta, 2023. "The Effect of Consumer Confidence and Subjective Well-being on Consumers’ Spending Behavior," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 429-453, February.
    6. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    7. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    8. Ding, Yulian & Veeman, Michele & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 2013. "Functional Food Choices: Impacts of Trust and Health Beliefs," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 149007, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    10. William J. Burns & Ellen Peters & Paul Slovic, 2012. "Risk Perception and the Economic Crisis: A Longitudinal Study of the Trajectory of Perceived Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 659-677, April.
    11. Minhyuk Cho & Youhyun Lee & Youngjin Kim & Min Chul Lee, 2024. "Strategic Public Relations Policy for Accelerating Hydrogen Acceptance: Insights from an Expert Survey in South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(17), pages 1-16, August.
    12. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    13. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    14. Michael Siegrist & Philipp Hübner & Christina Hartmann, 2018. "Risk Prioritization in the Food Domain Using Deliberative and Survey Methods: Differences between Experts and Laypeople," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(3), pages 504-524, March.
    15. Shay-Wei Choon & Hway-Boon Ong & Siow-Hooi Tan, 2019. "Does risk perception limit the climate change mitigation behaviors?," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 1891-1917, August.
    16. Timothy C. Earle, 2009. "Trust, Confidence, and the 2008 Global Financial Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(6), pages 785-792, June.
    17. Mohammed G. Ragab & Said J. Abdulkadir & Norshakirah Aziz & Qasem Al-Tashi & Yousif Alyousifi & Hitham Alhussian & Alawi Alqushaibi, 2020. "A Novel One-Dimensional CNN with Exponential Adaptive Gradients for Air Pollution Index Prediction," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-22, December.
    18. Han, Y. & Lam, J. & Guo, P. & Gou, Z., 2019. "What Predicts Government Trustworthiness in Cross-border HK-Guangdong Nuclear Safety Emergency Governance?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1989, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    19. Joshua D. Miller & Chad Staddon & Aaron Salzberg & Julius B. Lucks & Wändi Bruine de Bruin & Sera L. Young, 2024. "Self-reported anticipated harm from drinking water across 141 countries," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    20. Estefanía Palazuelos & Ángel Herrero Crespo & Javier Montoya del Corte, 2018. "Effect of perceived default risk and accounting information quality on the decision to grant credit to SMEs," Risk Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 20(2), pages 121-141, May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:10:p:3984-:d:1391606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.