Do Spatial Analogs Improve A Survey of Centre Region,

David P. Retchless,

An Online Survey •  3094 members of 11 environmentally-minded organizations •  444 valid responses •  Random assignment to one of six survey forms •  Each form presented projected 5°F increase in different way •  Assessments made before and after presentation of projection

Figure 1. Projection of Centre Region temperature change as presented in forms 3 (left) and 6 (right). Temperature projection produced using the CRCM regional model, the CGCM3 GCM, and the A2 emissions scenario.

Change in Temperature Survey Forms

Spatial Analog Survey Forms

Text Text describing change in temperature (Form 1) Text describing spatial analog (Form 4)

Map Map of change in temperature (Form 2) Map of spatial analog (Form 5)

Map &

text

Map & text describing change in temperature (Form 3, Figure 1L)

Map & text describing spatial analog (Form 6, Figure 1R)

Assessment Item Measure Pre-test or Post-test?

Subjective temperature prediction

7-point Likert scale, “much colder” … “much warmer” Both

Objective temperature prediction

9-point Likert scale, “more than 6° F colder” … “more than 6° F warmer”

Both

Prediction of spatial analog location (forms 4-6 only)

Latitude and longitude from clickable map, or selection of state from drop-down menu

Both

Concern about climate change Sum of five 7-point Likert scale questions Pre-test only

Beneficial or harmful effects of scientific temperature change projection on everyday life

Sum of four 7-point Likert scale questions Post-test only

Impact of scientific temperature change projection on purchasing decisions

Sum of eight 5-point Likert scale questions Post-test only

Table 1. Survey assessment items. Table 2. Six survey forms.

Please direct questions or comments about this poster to David Retchless, dpr173@psu.edu.

Improving Understanding and Engagement? Spatial analogs may help meet two widely recognized goals of communicating climate change to the public: (1) improving understanding; and (2) increasing engagement (Kopf et al. 2008, Lorenzoni et al., 2007).

Research Questions Are temperature change data…

•  …more understandable or engaging when expressed directly as a change in temperature or indirectly in terms of a spatial analog? •  …more understandable or engaging when presented using only text, only a map, or both a map and text?

Results Understanding Change in Temperature

Figure 2. Post-test predictions of change in temperature in ° F

With the exception of spatial analog forms, post-test predictions agreed with the projected temperature increase of about 5° F. Median post-test objective temperature predictions: •  Change in Temperature, Text, Map,

and Map & Text survey forms: “4-6° F warmer”

•  Spatial Analog survey forms: “2-4° F warmer.”

Acknowledgments ank you to the following organizations for participating in the survey: ClearWater Conservancy; Penn State Eco-Action Club; Unitarian Universalist; State College Bird Club; Trout Unlimited - Spring Creek Chapter; University Baptist and Brethren; Sierra Club, Moshannon Group; League of Women Voters; UNA-USA Centre County Chapter; Good Shepherd Catholic Church (Social Justice Group); Penn State Center for Sustainability (Staff). Map of change in temperature produced using Panoply software (NASA). Climate data courtesy of the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP); see Mearns et al. (2009).

References Kopf, S., M. Ha-Duong, and S. Hallegatte. 2008. Using maps of city analogues to display and interpret climate change

scenarios and their uncertainty. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci 8: 905–918. Lorenzoni, I., S. Nicholson-Cole, and L. Whitmarsh. 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the

UK public and their policy implications. Global environmental change 17, no. 3: 445–459. Mearns, L. O., W. Gutowski, R. Jones, R. Leung, S. McGinnis, A. Nunes, and Y. Qian. 2009. A regional climate change

assessment program for North America. Eos Trans. AGU 90, no. 36: 311.

Conclusions Respondents appeared to understand the spatial analog concept, but not the amount of temperature change represented by the analog. e lower “effect” scores for spatial analog forms suggest that respondents found these forms less engaging than change in temperature forms. Forms with maps tended to have higher subjective temperature change predictions and engagement scores than textual forms, but these effects were generally smaller and less signi#cant than the effect of assignment to analog or change in temperature survey forms.

Understanding Spatial Analog

Respondents understood that analogs for warmer future temperatures are generally found at lower latitudes. .

Engagement Logistic regression was used model the effects of form assignment on scores for post-test assessment items. Respondents in spatial analog forms were less likely to increase their subjective prediction of change in temperature from pre- to post-test (p<0.01).

Figure 4. Pre- & post-test analog predictions

Climate Change Communication? Pennsylvania Residents MS student

Correlation between (1) southerly component of distance from the Centre Region to predicted spatial analog locations and (2) predicted change in temperature in °F: •  Pre-test: r=0.641, p<0.001 •  Post-test: r=0.452, p<0.001

Figure 3.

Shift in location from:

•  Centre Region to pre-test analog prediction (3a)

•  Centre Region to post-test analog prediction (3b)

•  Pre-test to post-test analog predictions (3c)

3a 3b

3c

Figure 5. Post-test predictions of change in temperature on subjective scale

Figure 6. Sum of post-treatment items assessing effects of projected temperature change on everyday life, by quartile. Quartiles 1 and 2 are associated with beneficial effects, 3 and 4 with harmful effects.

Spatial analog respondents were also less likely to predict harmful effects on everyday life (p<0.001). Respondents in forms with maps were more likely to increase their subjective prediction of change in temperature (p<0.01). Low levels of pre-test concern were predictive of lower scores on the “effects” (p<0.001) and “impact” (p<0.01) assessment items.