Rated 3.5 of 5.
Level of importance:
Rated 4 of 5.
Level of validity:
Rated 3 of 5.
Level of completeness:
Rated 4 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:
Rated 3 of 5.
|ScienceOpen disciplines:||Environmental change, Environmental management, Policy & Planning, Atmospheric science & Climatology|
|Keywords:||climate change knowledge, coastal threat, exposure, experience, impact, policy, Policy and law, Climate change, Environmental policy and practice, Environmental protection|
The paper is a very good effort in showcasing how coastal communities in a mainly fishery-dependent region of the Philippines perceive climate change, as it impacts the community integrity, coastal habitats, and livelihoods. The effort is to be lauded for the field approach it adopts and for the level of analyses utilized in explaning the findings. The authors do well also to interpret their findings with other, ongoing events and activities (ex., mangrove planting) and wealth disparities, among othe explanatory factors.
Where I find that the paper could be upgraded is via a better explanation on the findings themselves, as these relate to response rates, confidence levels on the total surveys, and related items. For example, 291 in-person surveys represents a high number, but what is that in relation to, and how representative is that of the overall population? There are demographic and economic data collected by the team that could be used to determine sample to population representativeness. This may seem like a quibble, but because the authors use the survey returns to derive conclusions about the communities, it is important that the results show to the extent that the findings represent the larger communities (ex., did anyone reject the survey and if so, then why?).
There are also some other findings that the authors present as prima facie and do not investigate further. For example, more women than men in the communities tended to believe that climate change represented an issue, which the authors point out also exists in other areas. However, a more pressing question is why would women feel this way? Similarly, although the authors point out that sunstroke or exposure leads to higher rates of belief in climate change, there is also a generational difference; but one might also state that the increased exposure should also affect younger generations. So, is this a shifting baseline or is it prolonged exposure that is creating the generational shift? These and other questions (ex., differences between the Philippines and the US) are discussed but left somewhat unanswered, whereas the authors could certainly build the case further by looking at the why rather than just the what.
Overall, a very good effort that provides an excellent snapshot of coastal communities in the flux of climate change.