34
views
1
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
       
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Climate Change Awareness and Risk Perceptions in the Coastal Marine Ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines

      Preprint
      In review
      research-article
      Bookmark

            Revision notes

            Article Revision Matrix

            Article Title: Climate Change Awareness and Risk Perceptions in the Coastal Marine Ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines

            Corresponding Author: Lutgardo Alcantara

            Note: I have revised the title to “Climate Change Awareness and Risk Perceptions in the Coastal Marine Ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines”. The previous title was “Perceptions of Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and Factors Affecting the Coastal Marine Ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines”

            Reviewer’s Comments and Suggestions

            Original Text

            Responses and Revisions

            It is important that the authors make it known at the beginning of the paper that the study is 1) part of a larger study evaluating perceptions toward different phenomena or factors affecting the coastal environment and community wellbeing; therefore 2) the present study only focuses on one component, which is perceptions toward climate change and anthropogenic factors affecting selected coastal habitats (i.e. coral reefs and seagrass beds). Because this was not declared up front, I expected a separate discussion on other vital aspects of the eDPSEEA framework, such as “human health and wellbeing” in relation to climate change, a vital component of the framework mentioned several times in the paper. Granted that “sunburn” and “heatstroke” are climate impacts attributed to “human health”, these impacts were discussed in general relative to other impacts such as local temperature rise, excessive rainfall etc. I was only made aware that this was part of a larger study toward the end in the Acknowledgements and after reading the referenced survey of Madarcos et. al (2021). The present study would benefit from drawing connections to Madarcos et. Al (2021) in the Discussion as well.

             

             

             

             

             

            Revised:

            Please see in the introduction in lines 78 – 87, text highlighted in red.

             

            The present study focuses on climate change awareness and risk perceptions of the impacts on coastal communities. Public opinion research finds that climate change awareness varies greatly [25]. The study on risk perceptions will focus on the climate change and sea-level rise impacts in the coastal areas which include the mangrove areas, as well as the climate change and anthropogenic pressures impact on the coral reefs and seagrass beds [25,33]. This is part of a larger survey of the GCRF Blue Communities project that aims to investigate the complex impacts of changes in the regulatory backdrop of marine spatial planning for coastal communities located in and around UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) across Southeast Asia. It was formed as part of Project 6 of this program, which assessed the well-being benefits and risks of coastal living.

             

             

            The significance of the study is limited to “adding empirical evidence to the existing knowledge…” (p. 5). The authors can expand on the significance of the paper, considering research gaps and potential applications for climate change capacity building and resilience.

            This study was therefore conducted to add empirical evidence to the existing knowledge of how coastal communities perceive climate change and its impacts, specifically on coastal communities within the Palawan biosphere

            Revised:

            Please see the introduction in lines 97 – 101, text highlighted in red.

             

            Answers to these questions will contribute to the knowledge gap in understanding the climate change awareness and risk perceptions of the coastal communities to design more effective mitigation measures to address climate change impacts at the local level and for policies, programs, and activities aimed at building resilience to climate change and managing marine resources.

            The subsequent paragraph on the impacts of climate change across the world, perceptions, and personal experiences seem a bit disconnected in this paragraph; perhaps move this up earlier in the Introduction.

             

            Revised:

            Please see in the introduction in lines 69 – 75, text highlighted in red.

             

            In Asia, the most important indicator of risk perception of climate change impacts is local temperature change [25,26], whereas globally, climate change awareness is determined by educational attainment [25], Furthermore, personal experiences of other extreme weather events and impacts of climate change also influence climate change risk perceptions [27–29], as well as socio-demographic characteristics which include gender, income [25,26], age [30], and geographical location [31,32]; and occupation [26]

            The authors provide a mere glance of the study site in this section. I recommend that the section in the Introduction about Palawan be moved here, and that the authors elaborate more on the social and ecological context of these areas. For example, it would be helpful to discuss the climate change exposure map briefly mentioned in Madarcos et. al to expound on the vulnerability of these municipalities relative to the entire Palawan.

            This study was conducted in 10 coastal barangays or villages from the municipalities of Aborlan, Taytay, and Puerto Princesa City of Palawan, Philippines (Figure 1). The target populations were households within coastal marine areas in our three selected geographic regions; and the respondents were restricted to 18 years old and above. Literacy rates among the target populations were variable which is why we decided to use a face-to-face survey, rather than self-completion. Despite the apparent simplicity of these individuals’ lifestyles, they were highly knowledgeable about local environmental conditions and causes, as we witnessed during the stakeholder workshops and in discussions with locals on site visits, so the topics of the survey were very familiar to them.

            Revised:

            Please see the Materials and Methods (Study Area and Sample) in lines 104 – 142, text highlighted in red.

             

            The Palawan province, known as the “last ecological frontier” of the Philippines, is an archipelago composed of the main island and more than 1,700 islands [19]. Its coastal marine ecosystems include coral reefs, seagrass meadows, mangroves, and several marine mammals [19]. The province was declared as Mangrove Reserve Swamp in 1981 by virtue of Presidential Proclamation No. 2152 for having the largest remaining mangrove forest in the country that was estimated at 63,532 hectares in 2010.  In 1991, it was also declared by UNESCO as a Man and Biosphere Reserve (MAB) to serve as a learning area to promote sustainable development and conservation of biodiversity [19]. The projected population of Palawan in 2022 is 1,254,111 [35]. The major economic activities are agriculture, fisheries, tourism, on-shore, and off-shore mining, the gathering of minor forest products, and pearl farming [19].

            The three study areas are Aborlan, Puerto Princesa City, and Taytay (Fig. 1). Aborlan is a coastal municipality located in the southern part of the province; Puerto Princesa City is a coastal highly urbanized city located in the central part; while Taytay is a coastal municipality located in the northern part. Ten (10) coastal villages from these areas were chosen as study sites. In the simulation conducted by Lapidez et al. (2015) it was shown that Palawan, due to its low coastal elevation zones, is one of the most vulnerable provinces in the Philippines to coastal flooding [36]. In the climate change exposure map from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), it was shown that Aborlan, Puerto Princesa City, and the rest of southern Palawan are vulnerable to sea level rise; while Taytay and the rest of Northern Palawan are vulnerable to extreme heating events, unstable water supply, and sea-level rise [37]. Additionally, Taytay and the rest of northern Palawan as a “hotspot areas of exposure to climate hazards”, with extreme human sensitivity to climate change. Puerto Princesa City and Aborlan were also identified as highly vulnerable to landslides, further Puerto Princesa has the highest population vulnerable to storm surges [38]. Both areas also have their mainstream economic activities including airport, seaport, malls, schools, and populated urban areas situated on the east coast where storms land first, making them more vulnerable than other areas.  On the other hand, the province of Palawan is the largest producer of seaweed in the country, and Taytay is one of the main producers of the province [39]. The most recent onslaught of Typhoon Odette caused unprecedented losses to seaweed farmers, which environmentalists identified as an escalating issue fueled by climate change [39]. Thus, due to the vulnerability of the chosen study areas, they are ideally suited to explore how coastal communities perceive climate change and anthropogenic pressures that impact the coastal ecosystems.

            The target populations were households within coastal marine areas in our three selected study areas, and the respondents were restricted to 18 years old and above. Literacy rates among the target populations were variable which is why we decided to use a face-to-face survey, rather than self-completion. Despite the simplicity of these individuals’ lifestyles, they were highly knowledgeable about local environmental conditions and causes, as we witnessed during the stakeholder workshops and in discussions with locals during on-site visits, so the topics of the survey were very familiar to them. 

            Supplementary materials mentioned in the Results are missing.

             

             

            Provided:

            Attached

            Since there are no page numbers and line by line numbers, referencing the sentences and paragraphs are made more difficult.

             

            Revised:

            Line numbers and page numbers were inserted.

             

             

            Headers of the sections (particularly Results and Discussion) appear to be written according to the “research questions”, but I had difficulty following what exactly is being measured under each perception category. Because the OLS model specification was not indicated, it was difficult to follow along which predictors were included. I recommend including a short explanation of what is being measured under each type of perception for easier reader recall.

             

            Revised:

            Please see Table 2-5, text highlighted in red.

             

            Table 2. Results of linear regression model exploring the association between participants’ personal experience and climate change awareness and risk perception of climate change impacts in the coastal marine ecosystem in Palawan, Philippines (standard errors in parenthesis).

             

            Table 3. Results of linear regression model exploring the association between participants’ socio-demographic characteristics and their awareness and risk perceptions of climate change impacts in the coastal marine ecosystem in Palawan, Philippines (standard errors in parenthesis)

             

            Table 4. Results of linear regression predicting the participants’ risk perception of climate change impact, anthropogenic pressures, and marine livelihood from their personal experiences of climate-related events in the coastal marine environment of Palawan, Philippines (standard error in parenthesis)

             

            Table 5. Results of linear regression analysis predicting the participants risk perceptions of climate change impact, anthropogenic pressures, and marine livelihood from key socio-demographic characteristics

            The reduced variables (6 for perceptions of climate change; 17 for perceptions of factors affecting coral reefs and seagrass beds) should also be referenced both in the text and in the tables since this was unclear to me until I had to manually count and indicate what they were in the tables.

             

            Revised:

             

            See line 260

            See line 269

            See lines 282 – 283 highlighted in red.

            See lines 297 – 298 highlighted in red.

            See lines 328 – 330 highlighted in red.

            See referencing in Table 2 (page 11); Table 3 (page 12); Table 4 (page 16)

            Table 5 (page 17)

             

             

             

            Climate change terms also seem to be read as interchangeable. For example, under the section as “Perception on climate change as a coastal threat” – what do “threat”, “risk perception”, and “impacts” mean and how do they differ from one another? The IPCC Glossary of Terms (2018) may provide guidance to distinguish these terms.

             

             

             

             

            Revised: (Reference used: The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report: a summary of cross-working Group discussions)

             

            I have replaced threat with risk as it is more appropriate as per IPCC.

             

            In IPCC use, risk refers only to negative (“adverse”) consequences; the potential for positive outcomes should be described using other terminology (such as ‘opportunity’ or ‘potential benefit/co-benefit’)

             

            Use of ‘risk’ in the context of climate change impacts

            • This sub-definition is based on earlier definitions centred on the interaction between hazard, vulnerability and exposure (building on the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation).

            • The current definition of ‘risk’ related to climate change impacts has retained the notion of ‘hazard’ to describe the climatic driver of a risk. This is consistent with the definition of The concept of risk in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report 7 ‘hazard’ (see online glossary) also being focused on the potential for negative consequences. Referring to a climatic event or trend as ‘hazard’ thus relies on an assessment of the potential consequences of this climatic change, not only an assessment of the observed or projected change in a climate variable on its own.

             

            Climate Change Impact - The consequences of realised risks on natural and human systems, where risks result from the interactions of climate-related hazards (including extreme weather and climate events), exposure, and vulnerability. Impacts generally refer to effects on lives, livelihoods, health and wellbeing, ecosystems and species, economic, social and cultural assets, services (including ecosystem services), and infrastructure. Impacts may be referred to as consequences or outcomes and can be adverse or beneficial.

            I recommend that the sections in the Discussion are reworked; that is, to have different headers compared with the Results section. For example, I suggest discussing in terms of 1) The role of socio-economic factors on perceptions; 2) The role of climate change and anthropogenic impacts on perceptions.

             

            Revised:

             

            New headers:

            See page 18, highlighted in red

            4.1.         Role of Personal Experiences in Climate Change Awareness and Shaping Risk Perceptions

             

            See page 22, highlighted in red

            4.2.         Role of Socio-Demographic Factors in Climate Change Awareness and Shaping Risk Perceptions

             

             

             

             

            I would have liked to see how the study’s findings come full circle in the Conclusions with the eDPSEEA framework, especially how it leads to Action. I see how perceptions can pave the way for education, communication, and a “knowledge management system”, but how these can be areas of intervention can be further connected to the framework. This relates to my previous comment regarding identifying “Perception” as “Action”. Explaining why this is so at the beginning and at the end can make the framework more meaningful and also distinct from Madarcos et. al. The authors may want to consider how else the study could be distinguished from Madarcos et. al and subsequent papers.

             

            Revised:

             

            I have revised the conceptual framework. This study focuses only on awareness and perceptions, analyzing their association with personal experiences and socio-demographic variables. We have another group writing the paper about the Actions – consolidating/integrating previous research on the drivers, pressures, state, exposure, and effects.

             

            See page 9

             

            In the Introduction, “four research questions” – not questions but aims. If question, please rephrase as a research question. Consider also re-organizing the Introduction since the background on perception studies appear to be disjointly distributed in the section.

             

            Revised:

             

            Change the word “questions” to “aims”. See introduction line 92-93, highlighted in red.

             

            Also revised the introduction.

            In Materials and Methods, “Despite the apparent simplicity of these individuals’ lifestyles, they are highly knowledgeable about local environmental conditions…” – the use of apparent simplicity is derogatory and implies a bias and untoward power dynamic between the researchers and community (Bennett et. al, 2019). This description is unnecessary.

            Despite the apparent simplicity of these individuals’ lifestyles, they were highly knowledgeable about local environmental conditions and causes, as we witnessed during the stakeholder workshops and in discussions with locals during on-site visits, so the topics of the survey were very familiar to them. 

            Revised:

            See lines 146 - 148

             

            However, it was evident during the stakeholder workshops and discussions that they have good knowledge of the local environmental conditions and causes, so the topics of the survey were more familiar to them.

            eDPSEEA framework Figure 2: the model illustrates a very linear pathway when relationships between each component are interrelated. I am not convinced that “Action” is synonymous with Perception. Perhaps the authors can further elaborate on how perception is viewed as an “Action” and how it fits with Reis et. al (2015, p. 1386) where action has “knock-on’ effects… directed at specific intervention points throughout the model and process ‘pathway.’

             

            Revised:

            See page 9. I have revised the framework.

             

            I have revised the conceptual framework. This study focuses only on awareness and perceptions, analyzing their association with personal experiences and socio-demographic variables. We have another group writing the paper about the Actions – consolidating/integrating previous research on the drivers, pressures, state, exposure, and effects.

            In Results, “only significantly correlated predictors with perceptions were used” caption on some tables – inconsistent presentation. Not all tables consistently present predictors that are (not) significant. I think some tables can also be considered for the supplementary materials, depending on how the authors choose to re-organize their presentation of their results.

             

            Revised:

             

            See Table 2-5.

            In Results, Table 1: poor vs. not poor (change to USD rather than PHP; or add PHP or USD in parenthesis for comparison); age (not sure why it is relevant to put “Gen Z”, “Millenials” etc); education (lower/higher education – what does this mean?

             

            Revised:

             

            See Table 1. Page 10

            Replaced the presentation of age group with 19-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59; 60-99 same as used in other studies under the GCRF Blue Communities project

             

            Also revised the presentation of the educational group to Elementary, High School, and College.

            In Results, “Personal observations or experiences was the strongest predictor of the perception of sea level rise impact (β = 0.35, p < 0.001)” (p.15) – is this “Sea Level Rise” on Table 5? Unclear what the indicator is for how these personal observations or experiences. Also unclear as to why β is used instead of B, compared with other predictors which use unstandardized coefficients.

            Personal observations or experiences was the strongest predictor of the perception of sea level rise impact (β = 0.35, p < 0.001).

            Revised:

             

            See lines 318-319

             

            In our analysis, the personal experiences or observations of rising sea level was the strongest predictor of the risk perception of sea level rise impact (B = 0.36, p < 0.001).

             

            Revised. In all my results and discussions, I am now using unstandardized coefficients B.

            In Discussion, “…adds knowledge to the debate about how to involve the public” (p.19) – what debate? Clarify why there is a debate or replace word.

             

            Revised:

             

            I have deleted it and revised the whole Discussion section.

             

            In Discussion, “although previous studies found that the younger generation in  the  USA…” (p. 20), I suggest rephrasing to something like “in contrast to other studies that report the younger generation…” rather than a direct geographic comparison. There is a similar pattern in the Discussion, hence it would be good if the authors review these comparisons (e.g. Palawan statistics vs. Philippines statistics; Singapore, New Zealand studies) for rephrasing.

             

            Revised:

             

            See lines 542-544, highlighted in red

            The 19-29 years old have higher climate change awareness and risk perception of marine livelihood impact on coral reefs and seagrasses compared with other age groups (see Table 3 &5), in line with other studies that report the younger generation in the USA worries more about the effects of global warming than the older generation [30]. In contrast, for the risk perception of sea-level rise impact on the mangrove ecosystem, the older generations group.

             

            In New Zealand, revised, see lines 420-431, highlighted in red

            that mangroves can prevent coastal erosion (Fig. 7). The skeptical perception of sea level rise as a coastal risk is in line with findings that public perceptions of sea level rise in the US Gulf Region remain to be a temporally distant issue among coastal residents [62]. In contrast, the research in New Zealand found that adults were overestimating the amount of sea-level rise expected by 2100 which can result in feeling anxious rather than being motivated to mitigate and adapt [61]. Overestimation of sea-level rise impact in New Zealand results from indiscriminate media reporting of the sea level rise warning that it could reach 5 meters by 2100 [61]. While, in contrast, we could attribute the skeptical risk perceptions of sea level rise impact in the Philippines to a lack of prominence given by the media outlets [63]. Additionally, coastal residents in the Philippines tend to disregard the risk of sea level rise possibly because of their fisheries’ livelihood causing them to generally prefer in situ adaptation strategies rather than relocation to the mainland [64].

            In Discussion, “The  perception  of  the  respondents  that  marine  livelihood,  especially overfishing…” (p. 24) – overfishing does not seem to be included in the list of variables under marine livelihood.

             

            Revised:

             

            I have deleted it and revised the whole discussion.

            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?).

             

            Thank you very much for your comment. We set a minimum of 300 participants based on a rule of thumb needing at least 100 samples to run reasonably robust simple regression analyses. Although this value was not met, our final number of samples is still appropriate to allow us to run models stratified on splits in socio-demographic variables (e.g., male vs. female; older vs younger participants, etc.). We recognize that the fund available and the difficulty of accessing communities and interviewees make it possible to ensure a representative probability sample and thus we will have to treat any conclusion with caution.

            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?

             

            Generally, in the Philippines, women are more aware of the current issues and news as they are the ones staying at home, especially in rural areas. Thus, they have higher chances of getting the news from radio and recently from television and social media. It would be interesting to validate this assumption in future studies.

            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?

             

            Revised:

             

            I have revised my regression analysis. I only used the heatstroke and sunburn variables as predictors in climate change awareness, but I did not use them anymore in other outcome variables. The reason is that heatstroke and sunburn may not be logical anymore to use in other outcome variables.

             

            I have also revised the presentation of age groups with 19-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50-59; 60-99 same as used in other studies under the GCRF Blue Communities project.

             

             

            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

             

            Revised:

             

            See lines 542-544, highlighted in red

             

            The 19-29 years old have higher climate change awareness and risk perception of marine livelihood impact on coral reefs and seagrasses compared with other age groups (see Table 3 &5), in line with other studies that report the younger generation in the USA worries more about the effects of global warming than the older generation [30]. In contrast, for the risk perception of sea-level rise impact on the mangrove ecosystem, the older generations group.

             

            In New Zealand, revised, see lines 420-431, highlighted in red

            that mangroves can prevent coastal erosion (Fig. 7). The skeptical perception of sea level rise as a coastal risk is in line with findings that public perceptions of sea level rise in the US Gulf Region remain to be a temporally distant issue among coastal residents [62]. In contrast, the research in New Zealand found that adults were overestimating the amount of sea-level rise expected by 2100 which can result in feeling anxious rather than being motivated to mitigate and adapt [61]. Overestimation of sea-level rise impact in New Zealand results from indiscriminate media reporting of the sea level rise warning that it could reach 5 meters by 2100 [61]. While, in contrast, we could attribute the skeptical risk perceptions of sea level rise impact in the Philippines to a lack of prominence given by the media outlets [63]. Additionally, coastal residents in the Philippines tend to disregard the risk of sea level rise possibly because of their fisheries’ livelihood causing them to generally prefer in situ adaptation strategies rather than relocation to the mainland [64].

            Additional Revision

            Original Text

            Revised Text

            Changed the Title

             “Perceptions of Climate Change, Sea Level Rise and Factors Affecting the Coastal Marine Ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines”

            Revised to:

            “Climate Change Awareness and Risk Perceptions in the Coastal Marine Ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines”.

            Abstract

             

            On coral reefs and seagrass ecosystems, anthropogenic pressures and climate change were perceived to have a high impact, while marine livelihoods had a low impact. Furthermore, local temperature rise, excessive rainfall and declining income were found to be significant risk predictors of climate change impact perceptions. Climate change perceptions were found to vary with household income, education, age group, and geographical location.

            Revised line 21 – 27, highlighted in red

            On coral reefs and seagrass ecosystems, anthropogenic pressures and climate change were perceived to have a high impact, while marine livelihoods had a low impact. In addition, we found that climate change risk perceptions were influenced by direct experiences of extreme weather events (i.e., temperature rise and excessive rainfall), and climate-related livelihood damages (i.e., declining income). Climate change risk perceptions were also found to vary with household income, education, age group, and geographical location.

             

            Abstract

            Understanding the coastal communities’ awareness and risk perceptions of climate change impact is essential in developing effective risk communication tools and in developing mitigation strategies to reduce the vulnerability of coastal communities. In this study, we examined the coastal community’s climate change awareness and risk perceptions of climate change impact on the coastal marine ecosystem, sea level rise impact on the mangrove ecosystem, and as a factor affecting coral reefs and seagrass beds. The data were gathered by conducting face-to-face surveys with 291 respondents from the coastal areas of Taytay, Aborlan, and Puerto Princesa in Palawan, Philippines. Results showed that most participants (82%) perceived that climate change is happening and a great majority (75%) perceived it as a risk to the coastal marine ecosystem. Sea level rise was perceived by most participants (60%) to cause coastal erosion and affect the mangrove ecosystem, but they also perceived that coastal erosion can be prevented by mangroves. On coral reefs and seagrass ecosystems, anthropogenic pressures and climate change were perceived to have a high impact, while marine livelihoods had a low impact. In addition, we found that climate change risk perceptions were influenced by direct experiences of extreme weather events (i.e., temperature rise and excessive rainfall), and climate-related livelihood damages (i.e., declining income). Climate change risk perceptions were also found to vary with household income, education, age group, and geographical location. The results suggest that addressing poverty, and effectively communicating climate change risks can improve climate change awareness and risk perceptions.

            Content

            Author and article information

            Journal
            UCL Open: Environment Preprint
            UCL Press
            14 September 2022
            Affiliations
            [1 ] College of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Western Philippines University, Puerto Princesa City, 5300, Palawan, Philippines
            [2 ] School of Biological and Marine Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
            Author notes
            Article
            10.14324/111.444/000150.v2
            c01bb564-e26a-4463-9be8-551034a7023e

            This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

            Funding
            This project has received funding from the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF), United Kingdom Research and Innovation (UKRI) NE/P021107/1

            The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
            Environmental change,Environmental management, Policy & Planning,Atmospheric science & Climatology
            Environmental protection,Policy and law,climate change awareness, risk perception, exposure, experience, impact, policy,Climate change,Environmental policy and practice

            Comments

            Date: 15 September 2022

            Handling Editor: Dr Marlos Goes

            The article has been revised, this article remains a preprint article and peer-review has not been completed. It is under consideration following submission to UCL Open: Environment for open peer review.

            2022-09-16 10:14 UTC
            +1

            Comment on this article