IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/jenvss/v13y2023i3d10.1007_s13412-023-00841-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The use of qualitative research to better understand public opinions on climate change

Author

Listed:
  • Scott Kleinberg

    (Pace University)

  • Anne H. Toomey

    (Pace University
    American Museum of Natural History)

Abstract

The science and practice of climate change communication have significantly evolved over the last two decades, leading to a subfield of environmental communication focused on perception, awareness, and risk associated with climate change. This body of literature has demonstrated the importance of recognizing the differences among individuals and social groups in terms of cultural, psychological, and political reasons for their perceptions regarding climate change and has provided guidance for communicating with target audiences. However, most of the research in this subfield has relied on quantitative data from nationally representative survey instruments. While such metrics are essential to understanding longitudinal trends in public perceptions, they are limited in providing deeper understanding of how an individual perceives climate change in relation to other environmental and social issues. Qualitative data, elicited through techniques such as focus groups and semi-structured interviews, can help to provide these insights. In addition, qualitative research can support a more relational approach to climate change communication, which emphasizes the importance of seeing science communication as an opportunity to connect, rather than to persuade. In this paper, we present findings from semi-structured interviews (“environmental conversations”) with fifteen individuals based in the United States regarding their opinions, knowledge, and perceptions of climate change and other environmental issues. The findings demonstrate nuance and diversity in people’s opinions on climate change and how they are connected to other priorities and values. We recommend the value of qualitative research as a tool not only to better understand different environmental perspectives, but additionally to support two-way science communication among the broader public.

Suggested Citation

  • Scott Kleinberg & Anne H. Toomey, 2023. "The use of qualitative research to better understand public opinions on climate change," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(3), pages 367-375, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:jenvss:v:13:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s13412-023-00841-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s13412-023-00841-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13412-023-00841-w
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s13412-023-00841-w?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    2. Daniel A. Chapman & Brian Lickel & Ezra M. Markowitz, 2017. "Reassessing emotion in climate change communication," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 7(12), pages 850-852, December.
    3. Kalla, Joshua L. & Broockman, David E., 2022. "Voter Outreach Campaigns Can Reduce Affective Polarization among Implementing Political Activists: Evidence from Inside Three Campaigns," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 116(4), pages 1516-1522, November.
    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. Katarzyna Sanak-Kosmowska & Jan W. Wiktor, 2021. "The Morphology and Differentiation of the Content of International Debate on Renewable Energy. A Bibliometric Analysis of Web of Science, Scopus, and Twitter," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-23, October.
    2. Lisette Beek & Manjana Milkoreit & Linda Prokopy & Jason B. Reed & Joost Vervoort & Arjan Wardekker & Roberta Weiner, 2022. "The effects of serious gaming on risk perceptions of climate tipping points," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-23, February.
    3. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Michel, Hanno, 2020. "From local to global: The role of knowledge, transfer, and capacity building for successful energy transitions," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2020-603, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    5. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    6. Kevin Wong & Geoff Walton & Gavin Bailey, 2021. "Using information science to enhance educational preventing violent extremism programs," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 72(3), pages 362-376, March.
    7. Rebecca Page & Lisa Dilling, 2020. "How experiences of climate extremes motivate adaptation among water managers," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 499-516, August.
    8. E. Keith Smith & Adam Mayer, 2019. "Anomalous Anglophones? Contours of free market ideology, political polarization, and climate change attitudes in English-speaking countries, Western European and post-Communist states," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 17-34, January.
    9. Morrison, Mark & Duncan, Roderick & Parton, Kevin A., 2013. "Targeting segments in the Australian community to increase support for climate change policy," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 212-217.
    10. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    11. Ester Faia & Andreas Fuster & Vincenzo Pezone & Basit Zafar, 2024. "Biases in Information Selection and Processing: Survey Evidence from the Pandemic," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 106(3), pages 829-847, May.
    12. Leung, B. T. K., 2018. "Limited Cognitive Ability and Selective Information Processing," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1891, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    13. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    14. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    15. Agneman, Gustav & Henriks, Sofia & Bäck, Hanna & Renström, Emma, 2024. "On the nexus between material and ideological determinants of climate policy support," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 219(C).
    16. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    17. Erik C. Nisbet & Kathryn E. Cooper & R. Kelly Garrett, 2015. "The Partisan Brain," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 36-66, March.
    18. Debra Javeline & Tracy Kijewski-Correa & Angela Chesler, 2019. "Does it matter if you “believe” in climate change? Not for coastal home vulnerability," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 511-532, August.
    19. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    20. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.

    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:spr:jenvss:v:13:y:2023:i:3:d:10.1007_s13412-023-00841-w. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.