Effects of Sea Level on Coastal Enviornments Journal Peer Reviewed

• Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Public understanding of climate change-related bounding main-level rise

• Rebecca K. Priestley,
• Zoë Heine,
• Taciano Fifty. Milfont

ten

• Published: July 9, 2021
• https://doi.org/10.1371/periodical.pone.0254348

Figures

Abstract

Sea-level rise resulting from climate alter is impacting coasts effectually the planet. There is strong scientific consensus virtually the corporeality of sea-level ascension to 2050 (0.24–0.32 m) and a range of projections to 2100, which vary depending on the approach used and the mitigation measures taken to reduce carbon emissions. Despite this strong scientific consensus regarding the reality of climate change-related bounding main-level ascension, and the associated need to appoint publics in adaptation and mitigation efforts, there is a lack of empirical evidence regarding people's understanding of the issue. Here we investigate public understanding of the corporeality, charge per unit and causes of body of water-level rise. Data from a representative sample of New Zealand adults showed a suprising tendency for the public to overestimate the scientifically plausible corporeality of sea-level rise by 2100 and to identify melting sea ice as its master causal machinery. These findings will be valuable for scientists communicating nigh sea-level rising, communicators seeking to engage publics on the outcome of body of water-level rise, and media reporting on sea-level rise.

Citation: Priestley RK, Heine Z, Milfont TL (2021) Public agreement of climatic change-related sea-level rise. PLoS ONE 16(7): e0254348. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254348

Editor: Riccardo Riva, Technische Universiteit Delft, NETHERLANDS

Received: November 24, 2020; Accepted: June 25, 2021; Published: July 9, 2021

Copyright: © 2021 Priestley et al. This is an open access commodity distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Information Availability: The full ocean-level rise survey, every bit well as overall descriptive results produced by Horizon Enquiry, and the raw data, can be establish in the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/vcjuf/.

Funding: RKP and ZH: Supported past New Zealand Ministry of Concern, Innovation, and Employment Grant through Victoria Academy of Wellington (RTUV1705), NZ SeaRise Programme administered by the Antarctic Research Center. LM: Victoria University of Wellington sabbatical (222992). The funders had no role in study design, information collection and analysis, decision to publish, or training of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have alleged that no competing interests be.

Introduction

Between 1902 and 2015, global bounding main level rose by 16 cm [1]. In recent decades sea-level rise has been accelerating, due to increasing rates of ice loss from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The majority of the world'due south large cities are located on the coasts, and by 2050 one billion people could be at take a chance of coastal inundation or high-tide flooding [ane]. While public understanding of climatic change has been well canvassed in recent years [2–v], public understanding of bounding main-level rise is relatively unexplored.

Studies conducted in the U.s.a. and the Great britain show the public does not feel well informed nigh, and has difficulty agreement, bounding main-level ascension associated with climate change [half-dozen, 7]. Moreover, a review of international sea-level rise communication [8] noted sea-level rise has suffered from low media attention and salience equally a public issue. This lack of public understanding and salience every bit an effect is despite the fact that sea-level ascent is already causing increased coastal flooding [9], and there is relatively low uncertainty well-nigh the amount of bounding main-level rise that volition occur to 2050, which is projected to be between 0.24 and 0.32 g [x]. (Body of water-level rise is ever counted with respect to a reference engagement: in this paper nosotros have adopted the baseline used in reports by the IPCC [11] and the New Zealand Ministry for the Environment [12]. Projections in these reports are relative to mean sea level averaged over the ii-decade catamenia 1986–2005.) Moreover, nowadays day extreme water-level events will become commonplace within the side by side few decades [9] and sea-level rise of 0.39 thousand (0.26–0.53) past 2100 is probable fifty-fifty under the everyman emissions pathway (RCP2.6) [1]. While mitigation efforts are still important, adaptation to this coastal alter is essential and urgent, and will require meaning fiscal investments [9, 13]. Support from publics–as voters, taxpayers, coastal residents, and coastal business concern owners–is thus essential. This paper uses New Zealand equally a example study to gauge the public's current understandings of sea-level ascension.

New Zealand is an isle nation in the South Pacific, stretching one,500 km betwixt latitudes 34° and 47° due south. The state has 18,000 km of coastline with no point on land more than 130 km from the sea [14], and it has a population of five one thousand thousand people [15], virtually of whom live in coastal cities or districts. Most New Zealanders believe climate change is occurring, is anthropogenic, and is a serious concern [three, 16]. Notably, stories near sea-level ascension in the mainstream news media are largely consistent with the scientific consensus and reports issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) [17].

In a 2015 study, the New Zealand Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment noted, "It is certain that the sea is rising and will continue to practice and then for centuries to come up. Only much is uncertain–how rapidly it will ascension, how different coastal areas volition be affected, and how we should fix" [18, p5]. The NZ SeaRise Programme aims to address this uncertainty with a 5-year (2018–2023) government-funded research initiative [nineteen]. Its goal is to produce a ready of location specific sea-level rising projections for New Zealand'southward coastline, taking into business relationship global and regional sea-level rise projections and new knowledge of local vertical land movements.

This study is part of the public engagement workstream of the NZ SeaRise Programme. Too oftentimes, evolution of outreach activities is dominated past intuitive approaches and personal or institutional motivations [20]. Relevant literature, though, advises that designing a public engagement campaign involves offset understanding your audience and determining what they already know [21, 22]. Survey data is one class of show that can be used to inform the design of public enagement programmes on body of water-level rise [23]. To gauge current agreement of ocean-level rise, we therefore conducted a airplane pilot study followed past a representative survey to identify what New Zealanders knew well-nigh the amount, charge per unit and causal mechanisms of sea-level rise. The survey was initiated with an awareness that while media coverage in New Zealand tends to focus on IPCC projections and government reports, there is also vocalization given to climatic change deniers and to people who warn of catastrophic sea-level rise [17]. Results of the survey will inform NZ SeaRise Program researchers who are planning, or undertaking, efforts to appoint publics with the event of bounding main-level rise. Rather than starting with assumptions near what publics know and sympathize, researchers can utilize the survey results to approximate the knowledge and perspectives of the publics they are seeking to engage with.

Regarding the rate and timing of time to come sea-level rising, projections from the Fifth IPCC Cess Written report (AR5) put likely mean global sea-level rise by 2100 at between 0.26 to 0.98 k [11]. In 2017, the New Zealand Ministry building for the Environment published projections for New Zealand of 0.46–ane.05 g of sea-level rise past 2100, depending on how quickly global carbon emissions are reduced [12]. These projections did factor in a modest Antarctic ice melt contribution that was not assessed in the AR5; however, a subsequent study using a structured expert judgment approach that evaluated all the latest projections [24] plant that global sea-level rise could exceed 2 m by 2100 under a low-probability, high-emissions scenario. The 2019 IPCC Special Study on the Oceans and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate [ane], which reviewed more recent studies [25–27] than did AR5, assessed likely global bounding main-level rise past 2100 as ranging from 0.29 m to ane.x grand under the different IPCC scenarios. In the same report, thermal expansion, melting of the Greenland water ice sheet, and melting of land-based glaciers were identified as the main contributors to body of water-level ascension to date, with greater contributions from melting of the Antarctic ice sheets for the rest of the century and across [x].

To understand the public's cognition nearly the amount, rate and causal mechanisms of sea-level ascension, we commissioned a national survey. To reverberate the New Zealand population, survey responses were weighted past historic period, sex, highest education, ethnicity and region using census data. The percentage results shown beneath are thus weighted to be representive of the New Zealand population.

Method

Information were collected from a representative sample of 1100 New Zealanders aged 18 and over conducted by Horizon Research in September 2019. Participants, who were part of the company's research console, completed xv multichoice questions plus demographic questions online in their ain time. In the information provided at the commencement of the survey, participants were advised that by continuing the survey they were giving consent for their responses to exist used in this research, and were bodacious that it was an bearding survey and they would not be identifiable. The research was approved by the Human Ideals Committee at Victoria Academy of Wellington in August 2019 (reference number 0000027157).

The majority of respondents were male (50.5%), inside the 45–54 years age subclass (22.7%), with a household income between $70,001 and $100,000 per year (17.9%), employed (69.five%), and indicated a personal income betwixt $xxx,001 and $fifty,000 per twelvemonth (xix.6%), an undergraduate (Bachelor) degree as the highest qualification (29.i%), Auckland Council every bit their local government (32.8%), and NZ European/Pakeha every bit their self-identified ethnicity (64.2%).

Prior to the representative survey, a pilot online survey, comprising 27 multi-choice and brusk answer questions plus demographic questions, was conducted in July 2019 and received 665 respondents, with respondents aged between xviii and 87, most of whom (58%) were female.

The pilot survey was useful for informing the final representative survey and helping u.s. to select the 15 most critical questions (scaling down the initial survey was necessary because of the fiscal constraints involved in using a company to collect information). We acknowledge Akerlof's points that "some fraction of the public has no prior opinion on questions asked in surveys, simply feels impelled to provide an reply" [23, p. 423] and that "reported beliefs and attitudes may either be randomly chosen by the respondent or selected based on cues from the question format" [23, p. 423]. Nosotros excluded 'I don't know' answers in many of the response options, though, because we wanted participants to indicate their view, or all-time approximate, even if they didn't take full noesis of the topic, and too considering 'I don't know' response options tin yield unwanted methodological issues [28].

The S1 File provides more detail about survey design and findings from other questions included in the survey (S1 File–representative and pilot surveys). The full survey, raw data, as well as overall descriptive results produced by Horizon Inquiry, tin can be obtained in the Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/vcjuf/.

Public overestimates bounding main-level rise possible past 2100

We start examined New Zealanders' agreement of current sea-level rising. Every bit noted, average global body of water level has risen by more than xvi cm since 1900 [one]. Respondents were thus asked to identify, from options ranging from 'non at all' to 'more than xl cm', how much they thought global sea level has risen since 1900. More than than a quarter of respondents answered '10–20 cm' (26.nine%), a figure that is in line with current understanding of sea-level rise to date. Only a larger proportion (38.2%) of respondents either underestimated the corporeality of ocean-level ascent, selecting 'not at all' (xi.2%) or 'five–ten cm' (27%), or overestimated (35%) the corporeality of body of water-level rise from 1900 to date, selecting '20–30 cm' (13.4%), 'thirty–40 cm' (8.4%) or 'more than than twoscore cm' (13.2%).

We then examined knowledge of sea-level rise projections to 2100 (see Fig 1A). While a minority (half dozen.8%) of respondents said that ocean level was not projected to rise by 2100, nearly 75% of respondents selected options that were in line with scientifically-plausible projections, selecting 'upwards to 40 cm' (28.6%), 'upwardly to 1 1000' (30.9%), and 'upwardly to 2 m' (fourteen.ix%). But a large grouping of respondents (18.9%) overestimated body of water-level rise projections to 2100, selecting 'upwardly to five m' (10.seven%) or 'more than than 5 m' (8.2%).

Fig 1. Ocean-level rise projections to 2100.

(a): Respondents were asked 'How much practice you think global sea level is projected to rise by 2100?' (b): Respondents were asked 'How much could global average sea level rise under 'a scientifically credible worst-case scenario'?.

https://doi.org/ten.1371/journal.pone.0254348.g001

To further explore the amount of sea-level rising respondents idea was possible past 2100, we asked how much global sea level could rise by 2100 nether 'a scientifically apparent worst-case scenario' (run across Fig 1B). While a like small number of respondents said that sea-level ascent was not going to happen at all (seven%), and 22.5% of respondents underestimated the worst-case scenario by selecting 'upwardly to 1 metre', this time only 33.1% of respondents gave an respond broadly in line with current science, answering 'ane k or more' (16.seven%) or '2 m or more' (sixteen.four%). Some other 37.4% of respondents essentially overestimated sea-level ascent past 2100, selecting 'five grand or more' (18%), 'viii m or more' (7.3%), '12 m or more than' (five.three%) or '15 thousand or more' (6.8%).

To appraise what respondents thought was physically possible, we then asked what they thought would be the 'maximum amount of bounding main-level rise' that could occur if 'all of the glaciers and ice sheets and ice caps on planet Globe melted', and what was the fastest fourth dimension catamenia over which this could occur. The largest grouping (38.8%) of respondents underestimated the maximum amount of sea-level rising possible, selecting 'almost thirty one thousand'. The side by side largest group (22.3%) chose a figure broadly in line with current estimates of 66.07 m [29], selecting 'near 60 k'. The remaining 38.9% of respondents overestimated total maximum ocean-level ascent, selecting 'about 120 chiliad' (17%), 'about 240 chiliad' (10.nine%) and 'more than than 500 m' (11%).

In selecting the 'fastest flow of fourth dimension' over which their perceived maximum corporeality of body of water-level rise could occur, respondents overestimated the speed at which all the planet's water ice could cook. While scientists advise that such melting could take identify nether a sustained warming climate over a menstruum of thousands of years [thirty, 31], the majority of respondents overestimated how fast the planet'south ice could melt, selecting 'decades' (33.1%) or 'centuries' (39%). A smaller grouping (11.6%) of respondents answered in line with the science by selecting 'thousands of years'. The remaining respondents selected 'tens of thousands' (iii.2%) or 'hundreds of thousands' (2.7%) of years, or acknowledged that 'I really don't know' (ten.four%).

Public identified melting sea water ice every bit causing sea-level ascension

Respondents were also asked to identify and rank the major causes of sea-level rise from a ten-item list that included melting water ice sheets, melting land-based glaciers, melting bounding main ice, thermal expansion, and land subsidence. No definitions of these phrases were provided equally our intention was to gauge people's understanding of sea-level rise from existing sources of information, such every bit the media. While climate scientists and the media make efforts when communicating with publics to not place melting of Arctic and Antarctic body of water ice (which is widely covered in the media) as causing bounding main-level rise, 28.vii% of respondents identified this as their tiptop ranked cause of sea-level rise (see Fig 2A). Encouragingly, other respondents' top ranked causal mechanisms that exercise contribute to sea-level rise, selecting melting ice sheets (24%), thermal expansion of the oceans (7%), and melting of land-based glaciers (4.2%).

Fig two. Major contributors to body of water-level rise.

Respondents were asked to identify and rank the major contributors to sea-level rise. In (a) nosotros prove respondents' height ranked cause of sea-level rise (causes selected by fewer than 2% of respondents are not shown). In (b) we show the sum of the top three causes identified past respondents (causes ranked by fewer than 10% of respondents are not shown).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254348.g002

When we grouped respondents' height three rankings for causes of sea-level rise (Fig 2B), melting ice sheets (62.iii%) was first, followed by melting sea ice (59.viii%), melting of land-based glaciers (44.ane%), thermal expansion of the oceans (23.half dozen%) and land subsidence in some areas (14.2%). There were as well large proportions of respondents ranking some other mechanisms that practice not affect on ocean-level rise, such equally 'increased slash and sediment runoff due to deforestation' (14.3% ranked information technology in their top three), 'dumping of rubbish/waste material into the body of water' (xiv%), 'increased rainfall in the tropics' (9.nine%) and 'submarine landslides' (7.five%).

Notably, 25.9% of respondents also ranked 'something else' as one of the top three causes of sea-level ascent. When asked to specify what these causes might be, more than half (54%) were unsure or gave no answer, while 23.5% attributed sea-level rise broadly to climate change, global warming or human activities, and xvi.v% gave answers such as 'solar activity', 'earthquakes', or 'storms', suggesting these respondents believe natural processes are responsible for sea-level rise.

Challenges of projecting and communicating body of water-level ascension

Projecting sea-level rise is complicated [32]. Dissimilar climate, mountain glacier and polar water ice sheet models produce unlike results. This is particularly the example for Antarctic ice canvass models, which tin range from projecting a net proceeds in mass to a significant loss. Thus, the IPCC approach is to have the hateful of ensembles of model experiments, that all use broadly similar purlieus weather condition and climate forcings. Moreover, glacier melting, vertical land move, gravitational effects, and ocean dynamics all contribute to bounding main-level rise beingness dissimilar in different locations; and calculations must be fabricated for a number of dissimilar scenarios representing different mitigation pathways [33]. Sea-level ascension projections are therefore usually scenario dependent and framed in terms of a probablistic range, rather than a unmarried figure, to reflect the uncertainty in the projections.

Communicating about bounding main-level rise, given the uncertainties inherent in projections, is likewise complicated [8]. IPCC reports, which appraise and interpret all the latest scientific discipline, contain jargon and caveats about 'uncertainty ranges' with evidence that publics misunderstand verbal probability expressions, known as calibrated doubtfulness language [34], such as 'likely' and 'unlikely' [35]. Even the IPCC summaries for policymakers have been criticised for their formal structure and use of jargon [36]. This is a complex challenge for science communicators. As noted past Seethhaler et al, communicating about uncertainty is "i of the greatest challenges in scientific discipline communication, ane that raises ethical issues including, but not constrained to, finding a middle ground in prognostication betwixt imitation assurances and doomsday scenarios" [37, p. 381].

Media interpretations of the science adds to the problem. While the New Zealand media gives all-encompassing coverage to IPCC projections, it also gives vocalization to more extreme and catastrophic views from local and international scholars. For example, in 2016 New Zealand media reported on research that projected several metres of sea-level rising past 2100 [38–40], and in 2017 there was significant media coverage when a philosophy professor warned that sea-level rise could accomplish 5 m or more by 2100 [41–43]. These stories, though, also included comments from scientists who communicated the IPCC projections and from politicians who underestimated the importance of sea-level rising equally an effect. Such indiscriminate media coverage, and attempts at journalistic balance, draw the uncertain nature of bounding main-level rising projections to the public'due south attending and detract from the certainties that exist out to 2050. This could therefore be contributing to public defoliation on the event. While our pilot study revealed that the majority of respondents (68%; n = 518) felt somewhat or pretty well informed about sea-level rise, only 38% (n = 519) felt somewhat or extremely clear virtually the rate/timing/extent of ocean-level rising to 2100.

Some of the most farthermost projections selected by our respondents go beyond the 5 m of sea-level rising by 2100 that some media have reported. For example, the 6.8% of respondents who thought sea-level rise could accomplish 'fifteen m or more than' past 2100 and the 33.1% who believed that all the planet's ice could melt over a period of 'decades,' selected options that are unprecedented in the geological record and defy concrete laws around how fast ice can melt, even nether farthermost temperature forcing [44, 45].

Across the more than descriptive analysis of the answers, nosotros also examined the extent to which overestimation was associated with level of concern about sea-level rise. Results from t-tests confirmed that respondents who were more likely to overestimate the amount of sea-level rise and how fast this would occur were significantly more likely to limited greater concern nearly sea-level rising to 2100 in New Zealand, and globally, compared to their counterparts (i.e., t > 5, p < .001; Cohen's d > .fifty; see Department 1.4 of the S1 File for item).

When assessing the severity of environmental issues for geographically afar places, individuals tend to rate the severity of these problems as worse 'there' than 'here' [46–48]. Hence, we as well examined whether such spatial bias would be observed in relation to business organization for sea-level ascent. The spatial bias effect was operationalized every bit the difference between ratings of national business organization and global concern (i.e., average Aotearoa New Zealand minus average global). A departure score equal to zero represents sentence of no nation–global distinction, while values other than zero stand for biased comparative judgements. Values above null represent the expected spatial bias consequence with global sea-level rise judged as more apropos than national sea-level rising, and values below nada correspond an opposite effect. For near respondents (78.8%) a biased judgement was absent-minded (i.e., the difference score was nix) but results from a ane-sample t-examination indicate the mean departure score of .08 (SD = .59) was statistically different from nothing, t(1034) = iv.28, p < .001, Cohen's d = .14. A spatial bias effect was thus observed for sea-level rise: respondents judge global sea-level rise as more than apropos than national sea-level rise.

The public'due south association of melting ocean ice with sea-level rise, equally well as its selection every bit the top-ranked crusade of body of water-level ascent, provides further show of public confusion on this effect, which may be due to the significant media coverage given to melting sea ice in the Arctic. It is possible, though, that some respondents might have been influenced by science that says the flow of water ice sheets can be modulated by the presence or absenteeism of sea ice [49–51].

Inquiry into how publics understand sea-level rise is withal an emerging field [eight] and at that place are few international studies with which to compare our results. Notwithstanding, nosotros note that our findings that respondents tend to overestimate the amount of sea-level ascent possible, contrast with a 2019 Australian study showing that New South Wales coastal users and businesses tended to underestimate the amount and rate of ocean-level rising along the NSW coast with 45% of respondents predicting a ascension of i–25 cms in the next 20–50 years [52]. Similarly to our results a 2016 American report institute that individuals were concerned by the impacts of bounding main-level ascent just were uncertain nigh its timing [53]. This survey did not ask respondents to guess the projected amount of sea-level rise, but asked "When do you believe the effects of sea-level rise will significantly bear on the county, if ever?" Finally, a 2016 report of residents of New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy showed that while participants believed body of water-level rising was occurring, they did not view ocean-level ascent as a current threat to themselves [54]. This survey did not ask well-nigh the projected amount of sea-level rise or its timing, but asked participants whether they believed sea-level rise was occurring and whether it was affecting them. These studies and our own show that there is enough of space to develop more in-depth understanding of how the public perceives the threat of ocean-level rise.

The nowadays inquiry revealed the unexpected finding that one key audience for public engagement with sea-level ascension is the concerned public who overestimate sea-level rise past 2100 as beingness catastrophic (and scientifically implausible). While there are obvious dangers associated with a public that underestimates or minimises the dangers of sea-level rise–such every bit not taking adaptation measures, or not supporting governments committed to mitigation and adaptation–there are also dangers associated with a public that overestimates ocean-level rising. A focus on farthermost (and often unsound) projections of sea-level rising can upshot in public anxiety and feelings of helplessness, rather than motivation to have action to mitigate and adapt [55, 56]. All the same, the present inquiry shows that publics are aware of, and concerned about, 21^st century sea-level rise, which is already impacting on coastal dwellers and infrastructure. Whatsoever public engagement efforts will therefore demand to exist more focused and nuanced than raising awareness of the effect, and could include, for example, provision of ongoing and credible sea-level rise data that is accessible to a wide range of publics and decision-makers. With the knowledge that overestimating can lead to failure to human activity, communicating with this segment of the audience could focus on providing scientifically plausible projections of body of water-level ascent and communicating that both accommodation and mitigation–to avoid the well-nigh farthermost sea-level ascension scenarios–are necessary.

Conclusion

Equally noted by Akerlof [23] in relation to a project focused on customs accommodation to sea-level rising, 'communication programs and public consultation past governments can benefit from the use of survey information to support bear witness-based controlling' (p 406). Overall, our survey findings indicate that New Zealanders take a trend to overestimate the amount of bounding main-level rise possible past 2100, with those more than likely to overestimate future projections disposed to exist most concerned almost sea-level ascent. They also have a mistaken association of sea-level rise with melting of sea ice, and judge global sea-level rise projections as higher, and more than concerning, than national sea-level ascent projections.

Criticisms of the 'deficit model' of science communication show that encouraging activity on an issue–such as sea-level rise–is not as uncomplicated as ensuring that publics are fully informed [57]. All the same, information technology is essential that publics have access to data that can inform their determination making, particularly with an event such as body of water-level ascension that has widespread consequences for coastal livelihoods. If publics have a better understanding of the scale and rate of sea-level rise projected over this century and beyond, and the accommodation measures necessary to respond to this, there is testify they will be more than willing to besides adopt mitigation measures [58]. Hence, having publics informed about body of water-level rise and its impact volition enable them to be involved in decisions near both adaptation and mitigation strategies; that is, to gear up for the 0.24 to 0.32 g of sea-level rise we know is coming past 2050, as well as to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the higher sea levels possible by 2100 and across. The inclusion of informed publics in these decisions (and discussions) is an essential part of democratic decision making [59].

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank NZ SeaRise Programme researchers Nick Golledge, Judy Lawrence, Richard Levy, and Tim Naish for reviewing drafts of this manuscript.

References

1. i. IPCC, 2019. Summary for Policymakers. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Tignor G, Poloczanska EK, et. al., editors. IPCC Special Report on the Body of water and Cryosphere in a Irresolute Climate. 2019. https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/summary-for-policymakers/
2. 2. Sundblad East-L, Biel A, Gärling T. Knowledge and Confidence in Knowledge About Climate change Amongst Experts, Journalists, Politicians, and Laypersons. Environ. Behav. 2009; 41: 281–302.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
3. 3. Milfont TL, Wilson MS, Sibley CG. The public'southward belief in climate alter and its human cause are increasing over time. PLOS ONE. 2017; 12: e0174246. pmid:28319190
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Whitmarsh L. What's in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of "climate alter" and "global warming". Public Underst. Sci. 2009; eighteen: 401–420.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. 5. Gilden J, Peters E. Public Cognition, Scientific Literacy, Numeracy, and Perceptions of Climate Alter. in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science (Oxford University Press, 2017) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.305.
6. six. Covi MP, Kain DJ. Sea-Level Ascent Take a chance Communication: Public Understanding, Risk Perception, and Attitudes virtually Data. Environ. Commun. 2016; x: 612–633.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Thomas G, Pidgeon N, Whitmarsh L, Ballinger R. Mental models of body of water-level alter: A mixed methods assay on the Severn Estuary, UK. Glob. Environ. Change. 2015; 33: 71–82.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. 8. Akerlof G, Covi MP. Rohring East. Communicating Sea Level Ascent. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science.Oxford Academy Press; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.417
9. 9. Taherkhani M, Vitousek S, Barnard P, Frazer Due north, Anderson T, Fletcher C. Sea-level rising exponentially increases coastal inundation frequency. Sci. Rep. 2020; ten: 6466. pmid:32300112
   • View Article
   • PubMed/NCBI
   • Google Scholar
10. 10. Oppenheimer M, Glavovic BC, Hinkel J, van de Wal R, Magnan AK, Abd-Elgawad A, et al. Body of water Level Rising and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Tignor M, Poloczanska EK, et. al. editors. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. 2019. Bachelor from: https://www.ipcc.ch/srocc/chapter/chapter-iv-sea-level-ascent-and-implications-for-low-lying-islands-coasts-and-communities/
11. eleven. Church J, Clark P, Cazenave A, Gregory J, Jevrejeva S, Levermann A, et. al. Bounding main level change. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK, Tignor 1000, Allen SK, Boschung J, et. al., editors. Climate change 2013: The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the 5th Assessment Written report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Modify. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press. 2013. Avaliable from: https://world wide web.ipcc.ch/written report/ar5/wg1/bounding main-level-change/
12. 12. Bell RG, Lawrence JH, AllanS, Blackett P, Stephens S. Coastal hazards and climate change: guidance for local regime. Wellington: Ministry for the Environment; 2017. Avaliable from: https://environment.govt.nz/publications/preparing-for-coastal-modify-a-summary-of-coastal-hazards-and-climate-change-guidance-for-local-regime/
13. 13. Boston J, Lawrence J. Funding Climate Change Adaptation. Policy Q. 2018; 14: 40–49. https://www.victoria.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/1500857/Boston_Lawrence.pdf
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
14. 14. Walrond, C. Natural environment. 2005 February viii [cited 13 April 2021]. In Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand [Internet]. Available from: https://teara.govt.nz/en/natural-environs (2005).
15. fifteen. Statistics New Zealand. National population estimates: At 31 March 2020 –Infoshare tables. Stats NZ. 2020 May 31 [cited thirteen April 2021]. Available from: https://www.stats.govt.nz/data-releases/national-population-estimates-at-31-march-2020-infoshare-tables
16. 16. Milfont TL. The Interplay Between Knowledge, Perceived Efficacy, and Concern About Global Warming and Climate Change: A I-Year Longitudinal Study. Hazard Anal. 2012; 32:1003–1020. pmid:22489642
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Salmon RA, Priestley RK, Fontana One thousand, Milfont T. Climate change Communication in New Zealand. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Oxford:Oxford University Press; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.475
18. 18. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Preparing New Zealand for ascension seas: Certainty and Incertitude. 2015 November. Bachelor from: https://www.pce.parliament.nz/media/1390/preparing-nz-for-ascent-seas-web-pocket-size.pdf
19. xix. NZ SeaRise Programme. NZ SeaRise Program [Internet]. No date [cited 17 Nov 2020.]. Avaliable from: https://www.searise.nz.
20. 20. Salmon RA, Priestley RK & Goven J. The reflexive scientist: an approach to transforming public engagement. J Environ Stud Sci; 2017 7: 53–68.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
21. 21. Fischhoff B. The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013, 110 (Supplement iii) 14033–14039. pmid:23942125
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Cooke S, Gallagher A, Sopinka North, Nguyen V, Skubel R, Hammerschlag N, et al. Considerations for effective science communication. Facets (Ottawa). 2017; 2(1), 233–248.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Akerlof K, Merrill J, Yusuf J-E, Covi M, Rohring E. Fundamental beliefs and attitudes for sea-level ascent policy. Declension. Manag. 2019; 47:406–428.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Bamber JL, Oppenheimer K, Kopp RE, Aspinall WP, Cook RM. Ice sheet contributions to future bounding main-level ascent from structured expert judgment. PNAS. 2019; 116:11195–11200. pmid:31110015
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
25. 25. Kopp R, Horton R, Piffling C, Mitrovica J, Oppenheimer 1000, Rasmussen D, et al. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global network of tide-approximate sites. Earths Hereafter. 2014; 2:383–406.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
26. 26. Nauels A, Rogelj J, Schleussner C-F, Meinshausen Thousand, Mengel M. Linking sea level rise and socioeconomic indicators under the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. Environ. Res. Lett. 2017; 12:114002.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
27. 27. Slangen A, van de Wal R, Reerink T, de Winter R, Hunter J, Woodworth P, et al. The Impact of Uncertainties in Water ice Sheet Dynamics on Sea-Level Allowances at Tide Gauge Locations. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2017; 5:21.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Denman DC, Baldwin AS, Betts AC, McQueen A & Tiro JA. Reducing "I Don't Know" Responses and Missing Survey Data: Implications for Measurement. Med Decis Making. 2018; 38:673–682. pmid:29962272
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
29. 29. Vaughan DG, Comiso JC, Allison I, Carrasco J, Kaser Grand, Kwok R, et. al. Observations: Cryosphere. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner K-1000, Tignor Yard, Allen SK, Boschung J, editors. Climatic change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Cess Written report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge Academy Press; 2013. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/written report/ar5/wg1/observations-cryosphere/
30. xxx. Golledge NR, Kowalewski DE, Naish TR, Levy RH, Fogwill CJ, Gasson EGW. The multi-millennial Antarctic delivery to futurity sea-level rise. Nature. 2015; 526(7573): 421–425. pmid:26469052
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Golledge NR. Long-term projections of bounding main-level rise from ice sheets. WIREs Clim. Change. 2020; 11: e634.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Falter D, van de Wal R, Nicholls R, Church J, Le Cozannet G, Lowe. et. al. Framework for Loftier-Terminate Estimates of Sea Level Ascension for Stakeholder Applications. Earths Future 2019; vii:923–938.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. van de Wal R, Zhang Ten, Minobe S, Jevrejeva S, Riva R, Little C, et al. Uncertainties in Long-Term Twenty-First Century Process-Based Coastal Body of water-Level Projections. Surv. Geophys. 2019; 40:1655–1671.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. Mastrandrea Dr., Field CB, Stocker TF, Edenhofer O, Ebi KL, Frame DJ, et al. Guidance Note for Lead Authors of the IPCC Fifth Cess Written report on Consequent Treatment of Uncertainties. IPCC; 2010. Available from: https://annal.ipcc.ch/pdf/supporting-textile/uncertainty-guidance-note.pdf
35. 35. Løhre E, Juanchich M, Sirota Yard, Teigen KH, Shepherd TG. Climate Scientists' Broad Prediction Intervals May Exist More than Likely but Are Perceived to Be Less Certain. Weather Clim. Soc. 2019; 11:565–575.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Black R. No more summaries for wonks. Nature Clim. Change. 2015; 5:282–284.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Seethaler South, Evans JH, Gere C, Rajagopalan RM. Science, Values, and Science Communication: Competencies for Pushing Across the Deficit Model. Science Advice. 2019;41(3):378–388.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Hansen J, Sato M, Hearty P, Ruedy R, Kelley Yard, Masson-Delmotte 5, et al. Ice melt, body of water level rise and superstorms: show from paleoclimate information, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2°C global warming could be dangerous. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2016; xvi:3761–3812.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. James Hansen: sea level rise [audio]. Sabbatum Morn RNZ. 2016 March 26. Avaliable from: https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sabbatum/audio/201794687/james-hansen-bounding main-level-rising
40. 40. Setherley, D. Climate pioneer warns ocean level could rising 9m. Newshub. 2016 March iii. Available from: https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/globe/2016/03/climate-pioneer-warns-body of water-level-could-rise-9m.html.
41. 41. Loughrey, D. Academic warns of sea threat. Otago Daily Times Online News. 2017 March 14. Avaliable from: https://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/bookish-warns-sea-threat.
42. 42. Nicholls, J. No place to hide: Jim Flynn on climate change. North and South. 2017 March vii. Available from: https://world wide web.noted.co.nz/planet/planet-planet/no-identify-to-hide-jim-flynn-on-climate-change
43. 43. Tefler, I. South Dunedin could sink below sea level in 17 years. RNZ. 2017 March xiv. Avaliable from: https://world wide web.rnz.co.nz/news/national/326568/south-dunedin-could-sink-below-sea-level-in-17-years.
44. 44. Deschamps P, Durand Northward, Bard E, Hamelin B, Camoin G, Thomas AL, et al. Ice-sheet collapse and sea-level ascent at the Bølling warming 14,600 years ago. Nature. 2012; 483:559–564. pmid:22460900
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
45. 45. Pfeffer WT, Harper JT,O'Neel S. Kinematic Constraints on Glacier Contributions to 21st-Century Ocean-Level Ascent. Science 2008; 321:1340–1343. pmid:18772435
    • View Commodity
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
46. 46. Gifford R, Scannell L, Kormos C, Smolova L, Biel A, Boncu S, et al. Temporal pessimism and spatial optimism in environmental assessments: An 18-nation study. J Environ Psychol. 2009; 29: 1–12.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
47. 47. Milfont TL, Thomson R. A within-country study of biased comparative judgements about the severity of environmental problems. Social Psychol Bull. 2020; fifteen: ane–22.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. Schultz PW, Milfont TL, Chance RC, Tronu G, Luís S, Ando K, et al. Cross-cultural evidence for spatial bias in beliefs about the severity of environmental problems. Environ Behav. 2014; 46: 267–302.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
49. 49. Miles BWJ, Stokes CR, Jamieson SSR. Pan–ice-sheet glacier terminus modify in East Antarctica reveals sensitivity of Wilkes Land to body of water-water ice changes. Sci. Adv. 2016; 2:e1501350. pmid:27386519
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
50. 50. Miles BWJ, Stokes CR, Jamieson SSR. Simultaneous disintegration of outlet glaciers in Porpoise Bay (Wilkes Country), Due east Antarctica, driven by sea water ice pause-up. The Cryosphere. 2017; 11:427–442.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Greene CA, Young DA, Gwyther DE, Galton-Fenzi BK, Blankenship DD. Seasonal dynamics of Totten Water ice Shelf controlled by sea icebuttressing. The Cryosphere. 2018; 12:2869–2882.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Attard A, Brander R, Fitzgerald T. MyCoast NSW Study: New South Wales Community Perceptions of Coastal Erosion and Inundation. UNSW Sydney; 2019. Available from: https://www.bees.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/MyCoast-NSW-Final-Report.pdf
53. 53. Akerlof 1000, Rowan K, La Porte T, Batten B, Ernst H, Sklarew D. Risky concern: Engaging the public on sea level rising and inundation. Environ. Sci. Policy. 2016; 66:314–323.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Burger J, Gochfeld Grand, Pittfield T & Jeitner C. Perceptions of Climatic change, Body of water Level Ascension, and Possible Consequences Relate Mainly to Self-Valuation of Scientific discipline Cognition. Free energy Power Eng. 2016; 8:250–262. pmid:29051798
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
55. 55. Aitken C, Chapman R, McClure J. Climate change, powerlessness and the commons dilemma: Assessing New Zealanders' preparedness to act. Glob. Environ. Change. 2011; 21:752–760.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Landry N, Gifford R, Milfont TL, Weeks A, Arnocky South. Learned helplessness moderates the human relationship between environmental concern and beliefs. J. Environ. Psychol. 2018; 55:18–22.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Irwin A. From deficit to commonwealth (re-visited). Public Underst Sci. 2014; 23:71–76. pmid:24434715
    • View Article
    • PubMed/NCBI
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Evans 50, Milfont TL, Lawrence J. Considering local adaptation increases willingness to mitigate. Glob. Environ. Modify 2014; 25:69–75.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Chilvers J, Lorenzoni I, Terry G, Buckley P, Pinnegar J, Gelcich Southward. Public engagement with marine climate modify issues: (Re)framings, understandings and responses. Glob. Environ. Change. 2014; 29:165–179.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar

morganfassescarde.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0254348

Share this post