Despite the growing scientific consensus about the risks of global warming and climate change, the mass media frequently portray the subject as one of great scientific controversy and debate. And yet previous studies of the mass public's subjective assessments of the risks of global warming and climate change have not sufficiently examined public informedness, public confidence in climate scientists, and the role of personal efficacy in affecting global warming outcomes. By examining the results of a survey on an original and representative sample of Americans, we find that these three forces-informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy-are related in interesting and unexpected ways, and exert significant influence on risk assessments of global warming and climate change. In particular, more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. We also find that confidence in scientists has unexpected effects: respondents with high confidence in scientists feel less responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming. These results have substantial implications for the interaction between scientists and the public in general, and for the public discussion of global warming and climate change in particular.

Although there is a growing body of research examining public perceptions of global climate change, little work has focused on the role of place and proximity in shaping these perceptions. This study extends previous conceptual models explaining risk perception associated with global climate change by adding a spatial dimension. Specifically, Geographic Information Systems and spatial analytical techniques are used to map and measure survey respondents' physical risk associated with expected climate change. Using existing spatial data, multiple measures of climate change vulnerability are analyzed along with demographic, attitudinal, and social contextual variables derived from a representative national survey to predict variation in risk perception. Bivariate correlation and multivariate regression analyses are used to identify and explain the most important indicators shaping individual risk perception. Analysis of the data suggests that the relationship between actual and perceived risk is driven by specific types of physical conditions and experiences.

No abstract

Introduction Climate change is an environmental problem with considerable social, economic, and ecological risks (Scheraga and Grambsch, 1998). The thermometric instrumental record indicates that the global average surface temperature is increasing, and is up by about 0.6 8C in the last one hundred years. Proxy data from ice cores and tree rings suggest that the`abrupt' warming trend of the 20th century is`unique' by historical standards (North, 2003). The impacts of temperature change are many, and include coastal flooding and beach erosion, extreme weather events, continental drying and drought, loss of habitat and species, decreased revenue for commercial fisheries, fluctuations in crop yields, and increased spread of vector-borne diseases

This paper expands the relevance of the collective interest model of mass political action to explain collective-action behavior in the context of global warming and climate change. The analysis is an attempt to answer Ostrom's call for a behavioral model of collective action that can be generalized beyond political protest to other collective-action problems. We elaborate, specify, and empirically test a collective interest model approach to citizen policy support, environmental political participation, and environmental behavior related to the issue of global warming. Key elements of the collective interest model-perceived risk, personal efficacy, and environmental values-are found to be directly, and positively, related to support of government policies and personal behaviors that affect global warming. We