Climate change impacts are escalating globally, highlighting the urgent need for climate change adaptation (hereafter referred to as adaptation), which includes all activities aimed at responding to current or anticipated climatic conditions and their effects, with the goal of minimising potential harm and enhancing resilience (e.g., IPCC, 2014). Increasing temperatures, altered precipitation, extreme weather, and rising sea levels present unprecedented challenges to ecosystems and human communities, demanding societal responses. Central to these challenges are the public: They are both vulnerable to climate impacts, experiencing changes to their living environments and societal structures, and key agents of change through public engagement. Whitmarsh and colleagues (2013: 9) have defined public engagement as “what people think, feel, and do about climate change”, encompassing knowledge, emotions, and behaviour. Public engagement manifests in diverse ways – from individual actions, such as purchasing flood insurance or fostering community resilience, to collective efforts driving political and social change. For example, city planning can incorporate climate resilience by designing infrastructure to withstand extreme weather and ensuring equitable access to resources. Ultimately, climate resilience requires both individual actions and societal adaptation to support coexistence with inevitable change.
Despite the public’s essential role in adaptation, its limited presence in public discourse hinders engagement (e.g., Brink & Wamsler, 2019; Brügger et al., 2015; Hagen et al., 2016). At the policy-level, adaptation planning and implementation have progressed over the years around the world, but much remains to be done (IPCC, 2022). Media coverage of adaptation is limited and often vague (Perälä, 2023; see also Ford & King, 2015). In addition, there is a knowledge gap regarding adaptation among the public (e.g., Bruine de Bruin et al., 2021; Glaas et al., 2015; Harcourt et al., 2019). However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2022) has highlighted rising public awareness as crucial for adaptation. Therefore, adaptation communication can be considered a means of enabling public engagement in climate change adaptation. Building on Wirth and colleagues (2014) and Heinrichs (2010), in this study I define adaptation communication as goal-oriented societal communication that promotes awareness and preparedness for climate change impacts. This involves fostering informed understanding of risks, their consequences and measures to address them, connecting emotionally with the issue, and motivating action through individual, community, and policy-level engagement. In essence, adaptation communication seeks to enhance public engagement through the interplay of knowledge, emotion, and behaviour.
In this article, adaptation communication is approached through the public’s meaning-creation process. Following Ballantyne (2016), adaptation communication is analysed from the perspective of constitutive communication, where the meaning of the message resides in interpretation rather than in the message itself. In this way, this article complements the existing literature on adaptation communication, which has primarily focused on the quantifiable effects of messages, measured indirectly through attitudinal changes or behavioural intentions resulting from message manipulations (e.g., Bazart et al., 2020; Carrico et al., 2015; Evans et al., 2014; Lieske et al., 2014; Mildenberger et al., 2019). While these studies have provided valuable insights into the attitudinal and behavioural changes associated with different message manipulations, they do not capture what goes through people’s minds when they see the messages or how they interpret them. However, to fully address all the dimensions of public engagement, qualitative inquiries into message reception are needed, particularly regarding the realms of thinking and feeling. To address this research gap, in this article I concentrate on the message interpretations of the public. To foster meaningful public engagement with the complex issue of climate change adaptation, a nuanced understanding of public perceptions is essential. The overall aim of this study is to provide insights into how to communicate about the emerging phenomenon of climate change adaptation by understanding the public’s cognitive and emotional responses.
This study is based on a focus group design in which the participants were shown four fictional messages by a city organisation situated in their respective geographical area in Finland and asked to discuss what they made of those messages. The messages introduced the concept of climate change adaptation and depicted common local climate effects and measures or considerations for adaptation. In the next section, the existing literature on adaptation communication is reviewed from the perspective of public engagement. This is followed by a presentation of the focus group design and its rationale. A detailed explanation of the data collection and analysis, including the analytical framework employed, is provided in the relevant section. Finally, the main results are presented and discussed.
This study focuses on public interpretations of messages, examining two of Whitmarsh and colleagues’ (2013) three dimensions of public engagement: knowledge and emotion. While behaviour is equally important, it lies outside the direct scope of this research. However, there is a body of experimental research specialising in the relationship between messages and behavioural changes, many of which are referenced below. In this section, I review the literature on public awareness and emotional responses to climate change adaptation communication.
First, public awareness of climate change adaptation is fundamental to engagement. Without this awareness, related actions are difficult to envision. Research on the public understanding of adaptation has focused on terminology. Studies by Harcourt and colleagues (2019) and Bruine de Bruin and colleagues (2021) tested the public’s understanding of the term “climate change adaptation”, among other climate-related terms in the UK and US, respectively. While the British public associated adaptation with “preparing” and “making changes”, they often used the term more broadly to encompass all climate action. Similarly, the American study participants understood the general meaning of adaptation but struggled with its specific application to climate change. Other studies, such as those by Ettinger and colleagues (2021), Glaas and colleagues (2015), and Lenzholzer and colleagues (2020), have also identified parallel knowledge gaps regarding the practical understanding of adaptation. In conclusion, the use of expert language is cautioned against because it may not effectively convey its original meaning to the public (e.g., Harcourt et al., 2019). However, less is known about how the public interprets messages depicting concrete adaptation actions and how they are interpreted within their larger sociocultural context. Heinrich (2010), for instance, has advocated for a systemic-transformative approach to adaptation communication, emphasising that climate change is not confined to isolated risks or catastrophes in one sector.
Second, public engagement with climate change adaptation requires fostering positive feelings – positive affects toward the concept of adaptation. Affect refers to evaluative feelings toward a stimulus, categorised as positive (liking) or negative (disliking) (Slovic et al., 2007). In the literature, there has been speculation about the so-called resignation hypothesis, which posits that adaptation can be interpreted as a failure of mitigation and a signal of giving up in the fight against climate change (see, e.g., Moser, 2018). Experimental studies have investigated the resignation hypothesis by assessing whether climate adaptation messages decrease support for mitigation or concern about climate issues. The results from these studies have seemed to refute the resignation hypothesis; for instance, one study found that discussing adaptation does not reduce support for mitigation or concern about the climate (Carrico et al., 2015). Other studies have discovered that adaptation messages can positively affect respondents’ willingness to mitigate climate change in general (Evans et al., 2014) or in relation to specific groups (Howell et al., 2016). However, it is important to highlight that these studies have primarily examined how adaptation messages influence concern for climate issues and attitudes toward mitigation policies. They have not addressed the direct interpretations of adaptation or even the indirect effects on adaptation-related attitudes and behaviours. For instance, some people might interpret adaptation messages negatively, supporting mitigation and expressing climate concern but opposing the allocation of resources to adaptation.
Echoes of such negative interpretations of adaptation were documented in an interview study with French and Canadian stakeholders involved in local climate policy (Simonet & Fatorić, 2015). Whereas the majority (62%) of interviewees perceived adaptation as an opportunity to enter a more sustainable future, a sizeable portion (38%) interpreted adaptation negatively, perceiving it as “resignation”, “passivity”, “human failure”, and “detrimental to mitigation”. It is worth noting that the study is based on relatively outdated data from 2008 and 2009, making it possible that perceptions of adaptation have shifted as the issue has gained more societal attention both nationally and globally. At the same time, the study population consisted of individuals with professional ties to climate policy, which may make them more knowledgeable about climate issues than the average member of the public.
Third, public engagement with adaptation also involves perceiving its significance, at least to some extent. For adaptation communication, the essential question is how the relationship between adaptation and mitigation is expressed and interpreted, with mitigation being the more recognised (e.g., Ettinger et al., 2021), and often, prioritised (e.g., Cone et al., 2013; Cotton & Stevens, 2019). One aspect to consider is how significant adaptation – and especially specific adaptive measures – appears within the broader context of climate change and in light of the prevailing societal narrative focused on “stopping” or at least “mitigating” its effects. In certain cases, members of the public may see a contradiction between the apparently small-scale nature of certain adaptive actions and the large-scale scope of climate change (e.g., Ballantyne et al., 2018). Mitigative actions may also appear to be more effective in addressing local climate impacts than adaptive measures (e.g., Velautham et al., 2019).
In the literature, the question of the perceived significance of adaptation by the public has been approached from the perspective of locality and locally focused adaptation. From one perspective, communication on the local effects of climate change and ways to protect community members can serve as a means to make global climate change more personally and geographically tangible, bridging the spatial and temporal divide (Cantrill et al., 2019; Moser, 2014; Wirth et al., 2014). As Susanne C. Moser (2014) aptly stated in the title of her seminal review of the field, communicating about climate change occurs when “climate change comes home”. However, experimental studies have shown that localised messages do not necessarily provide a competitive advantage over distant or global message frames (Brügger et al., 2016; Halperin & Walton, 2018; Schoenefeld & McCauley, 2016). Some studies have even indicated that local messages can reduce concern and perceived risk regarding local climate effects (Mildenberger et al., 2019; Spence & Pidgeon, 2010). A Nordic focus group study revealed that participants generally understood climate impacts but perceived local risks as low (Glaas et al., 2015).
From the perspective of goal-oriented adaptation communication, it is essential that communication efforts produce a meaningful depiction of change that supports the proposed adaptive measures. There is something compelling about the notion that adaptation communication deals with intimate and personal matters and could thus influence “what people think, feel, and do about climate change” (Whitmarsh et al., 2013: 9). For example, a public poll by the European Investment Bank (2024b) found that 61 per cent of Finnish respondents reported experiencing at least one extreme weather event, and about half indicated that they had suffered at least one direct consequence of such an event. At the same time, it is evident that the most drastic impacts of climate change are located outside the Nordics, as has also been noted by the public in polls (e.g., Finnish Government, 2023; YouGov, 2019).
The data for this study were collected through focus group discussions in which participants collectively interpreted four sample messages on climate change adaptation. The focus group methodology was selected because the topic might be unfamiliar to some participants (see, e.g., Glaas et al., 2015; Harcourt et al., 2019). This assumption had two key implications for the research design. First, the study employed short, simple example messages addressing various aspects of climate change adaptation that were already present in national discourse. These messages served as conversation starters, enabling discussion regardless of prior knowledge levels. Second, the group setting aimed to encourage participation and recruitment, particularly considering that the topic might seem remote and unintuitive to individuals lacking a background in climate issues, potentially hindering participation. In a group setting, the independent contributions of individual participants are typically smaller, and participants can draw inspiration and support for their reflections from others. The focus group method’s primary strength is fostering discussion through participant interaction (Hennink, 2014), although it was noted that the novelty, complexity, and sensitivity of the discussion topic might hinder the vividness of the discussion.
The collective interpretations made in focus groups are shaped by both the sociocultural context and geographic location, reflecting observed climate impacts and associated risks. The messages were designed for relevance within the Tampere region of Finland, the country’s second-largest region situated inland. As a nation, Finland provides a unique context for this study for several reasons. While Finnish citizens demonstrate high climate awareness (Finnish Government, 2023) and knowledge (European Investment Bank, 2024a), their experience with direct climate impacts and the perceived need for adaptation are lower compared with other EU nations (European Investment Bank, 2024b). This discrepancy is likely due to Finland’s relative insulation from the most severe global impacts of climate change (Aalto University, 2024), although, as a northern country, Finland is likely to experience greater than average warming (Climate-ADAPT, 2023). Within Finland, the inland study region is less vulnerable to climate risks than coastal areas (Gregow et al., 2021).
The four presented sample messages ranged from four to eight sentences and were designed for easy processing during the focus group discussions. All messages were fictional and intended only to stimulate discussion, not for publication. The messages depicted the most common climate impacts observed nationally, including average warming, heatwaves, increased rainfall, and changing winter patterns, as well as individual and societal responses and considerations for adaptation (see Table 1 and full text in the Appendix). The first message addressed adaptation in abstract terms, while the subsequent messages presented adaptation in a more concrete form. The messages represented fictional examples of climate adaptation communication from the city organisation, which was chosen as the communicator to provide a relevant and recognisable source for context. The messages were developed through an iterative process. I established the foundation in prior research, in which I identified common public discourses of adaptation (Perälä, 2023). These were crafted based on ideas and indirect excerpts from authentic sources, including reports from the Finnish Climate Change Panel and the city of Tampere, as well as newspaper articles and popular scientific literature. Feedback from a mock group and experts led to adjustments for clarity, context, and variety.
Themes and main content of the sample messages
| Message 1: Introducing the concept of climate change adaptation |
|
| Message 2: Heatwaves and individual adaptive strategies |
|
| Message 3: Urban flooding and the city’s adaptive strategies |
|
| Message 4: Future winters and expanding adaptation |
|
The specific theme of “climate change adaptation” was not initially disclosed to the participants to avoid possible pre-screening of the topic; instead, they were recruited for “a group discussion on climate communication by officials”. This approach provided sufficient information for informed consent, given that adaptation is a subtheme of climate change, and, in all cases, the messages would have adhered to a more specific theme. Moreover, the participants were not put in a position where they might feel discomfort due to a perceived lack of knowledge on the topic (e.g., being asked to define the term in front of others). The specific theme of adaptation was highlighted for the participants before showcasing the sample messages.
Six online focus groups were conducted in February and March 2024 using the Zoom teleconferencing software, with each lasting one hour. The online format was chosen to facilitate participation for working-aged individuals with busy lives. Zoom also provided a suitable platform for displaying sample messages. All sessions were recorded, transcribed, and anonymised, with participants providing written consent for their participation and the handling of personal data. The sessions were moderated by myself, and I designed the study utilising previous experience facilitating such groups in online settings. In Finland, ethical review is not required for this type of research (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity Tenk, 2023).
The sampling strategy aimed at recruiting working-aged adults, given their significant influence on various societal aspects pertinent to addressing climate change, such as politics, employment, and parenting. Recruitment targeted individuals without prior engagement with climate issues through education, occupation, or affiliations with environmental groups. There was no pre-screening or preference for climate-related attitudes, but the aim was to create focus groups of ordinary people who might engage with this kind of communication in real life. The only formal sampling criteria for participation were that individuals should be adults and living in the Tampere region, which was chosen as the study region due to its local significance and practicality. Participants were recruited through my own networks as well as a commercial service. The initial three groups consisted mainly of highly educated women from a local career-oriented organisation for women, where I volunteer. The remaining participants were recruited with the assistance of a recruiting firm to ensure diversity in gender and education. The group compositions are detailed in Table 2.
Overview of the six focus groups
| Focus Group | Gender | Age | Education level and field | Profession | Recruitment channel | Reward |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 (n = 5) | Female | Mostly 25–34 years | Highly educated, mainly social and human sciences | Mostly white-collar workers | Author’s networks | Movie ticket |
| Group 2 (n = 7) | Female | Mostly 35–44 years | Highly educated, mostly commerce and admin | Mostly white-collar workers | Author’s networks | Movie ticket |
| Group 3 (n = 5) | Female | Mostly 25–34 years | Highly educated, mainly social sciences | Mostly white-collar workers | Author’s networks | Movie ticket |
| Group 4 (n = 4) | Female | Mostly 35–44 years | Upper secondary school, several fields | Various positions | Recruitment service | 30-euro gift card |
| Group 5 (n = 4) | Male | Mostly 45–54 years | Highly educated, several fields | Mostly white-collar workers | Recruitment service | 30-euro gift card |
| Group 6 (n = 5) | Male | Mostly 45–54 years | Vocational school, mostly commerce and admin | Mostly blue-collar workers | Recruitment service | 30-euro gift card |
Comments: None of the participants were city officials.
The transcribed data were analysed using content analysis (see Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2023). The framework for the analysis is presented in Table 3. The main categories for the analysis were developed deductively from the existing literature (e.g., Harcourt et al., 2019; Mildenberger et al., 2019; Simonet & Fatorić, 2015; see more in the previous section) and included awareness, affection, experienced relationship between adaptation and mitigation or climate issues, and local risks. The data were coded under the main categories during the first round of coding. The subcategories were created inductively from the empirical data during the second round of coding. All of the categories and their descriptions are provided in Table 3.
Framework for analysing the public’s interpretations of adaptation
| Adaptation communication as a means to enhance public engagement | The main scope of inquiry based on the key insights of previous literature | The main categories for analysis and their descriptions, developed through a deductive approach | The subcategories for analysis and their descriptions, developed inductively after the first round of coding |
|---|---|---|---|
| What does the public think of adaptation? (knowledge)a |
|
|
|
| What does the public feel about adaptation? (emotion)a |
|
|
|
| What does the public do for adaptation? (behaviour)a |
| ||
Following Whitmarsh et al., 2013.
Following Slovic et al., 2007.
The analysis focused on the participants’ interpretations, with individual statements serving as the unit of analysis. Interpretations were viewed as products of collective meaning-making, not solely individual opinions. Although the discussion topic was somewhat unintuitive, and lively exchanges were limited, clear signs of collective engagement were evident. Participants frequently expressed agreement, offered similar observations, paraphrased each other, and built upon each other’s ideas. Disagreements also occurred, suggesting a comfortable environment for expressing diverse perspectives. In short, the interpretations arose from the social interactions within the focus groups and would not have taken this specific form without that context.
The results are organised into two sections, reflecting the main themes of public engagement: knowledge and emotion (see Whitmarsh et al., 2013). The aim of the analysis is to present and analyse the interpretations made in the focus groups, which included all-female and all-male groups, with variations in educational and professional levels. Direct quotations from the data are used to illustrate the interpretations made by the participants, adding transparency to the analysis. The quotations were translated from Finnish to English with the assistance of ChatGPT-4, and the key points relevant to the analysis are highlighted in bold.
The term “climate change adaptation” was unfamiliar to most of the participants, and they were unable to comprehend its practical implications based on the short, abstract definition provided in the first message. Only two participants, in different focus groups, explicitly stated that they were aware of adaptation, while many others expressed their unfamiliarity with the term. Some characterised the term to convey a “bureaucratic top-down” or “very official” undertone. In several of the focus groups, the participants paid attention to the definition section, “benefiting from potential advantages”. Some participants were intrigued to hear more, as they were unaware of any positive outcomes of climate change. In contrast, in some focus groups, this section was interpreted within the larger context of climate change and its tragic nature, leading to its vocal rejection. Additionally, many participants expressed a desire to have concrete examples to complement the abstract definition. Notably, the participants did not engage in speculation or guesswork regarding the potential meaning of adaptation.
However, when the focus group discussion progressed from the first messages to the concrete examples, the participants demonstrated more awareness of adaptation. Participants in different focus groups stated that the latter messages conveyed to them what adaptation is in practice, indicating clarification and, hence, increased comprehension. In the following example, a participant from Focus Group 2 described how the second message clarified the initially unknown term:
I’m not really that much… that whole adaptation concept, it’s just more about mitigating climate change, you know? I’ve gotten used to hearing that, or it just stands out more to me that it’s important to tackle climate change. Just that adaptation perspective, I haven’t really… I don’t feel like I’ve been exposed much to that concept or word. Content-wise, this seems quite concrete, like preparation or adaptation. Or when we were just talking about adaptation, there are kind of very concrete ways here when thinking about extreme temperatures. […] I think this makes concrete what was discussed in that earlier message on a more general level.
Notably, the awareness that the participants demonstrated for the concept of adaptation later in the conversation did not solely derive from the messages presented. Many of them had different levels of pre-existing understanding of the phenomenon, despite their unfamiliarity with the specific terminology. This was indicated by the way participants were able to expand the concept of adaptation outside of the content of the messages.
First, the participants mentioned a range of adaptation measures outside of the messages, some of which were traditional (e.g., planting and preserving trees in cities, building high enough), while others were more innovative (e.g., using food delivery platforms to assist the elderly during heatwaves). Participants also had some ideas for communication, such as adding flood spots in an interactive map or repurposing the heatwave message to serve as a reminder to take care of family and community members.
Second, the participants demonstrated their understanding of the implications that climate effects can have for societies. In the following examples, some of the underlying consequences of increasing rainfall and heatwaves were brought up in the conversation:
Agreed. Especially when it comes to marketing to outsiders, like new residents – would you buy a house in an area that floods and won’t be fixed for 30 or 40 years? Your property would lose value. [Another participant continues:] Yeah, and insurance premiums would go up. But then there’s the continuity – if it starts to feel as tough here as it does in Central Europe with thirty- or forty-[degree] heatwaves, then working, all of daily life, becomes pretty heavy.
The participants were also able to reflect on the messages within their wider sociocultural context. In particular, the message regarding heatwaves and personal protective measures elicited critical assessments from multiple perspectives. The message on city floods prompted similar critical reflection, albeit to a lesser extent, perhaps due to the less familiar and more technical nature of the issue. Regarding heatwaves, the participants were quick to highlight the structural aspect of adaptation. They noted that many local buildings have not been designed to withstand heat due to the cold winters, emphasising the need for extensive preparations to enhance climate resilience. In the example below, one participant calls for action from the city, highlighting the importance of systemic approaches to individual action:
How are these generalised heatwaves taken into account in building codes and planning and other things, such as whether it’s required in building regulations or if trees are planned for residential areas and so on – bigger issues. This might not really relate to this message, though. But maybe a message that would be good from the city is that we are also preparing for this in ways other than just closing the windows in the middle of the day.
Additionally, social equality was brought up in all the focus groups. Many participants observed that mechanical cooling and air conditioning were not available options for all social groups, especially the most vulnerable ones. In Focus Group 2, it was highlighted that the reasons and means presented for adaptation showcased the privileged position of Finland, bringing up the global context of social (in)equality. In two focus groups, discussions occurred regarding the negative climate impact of certain adaptation measures, namely mechanical air conditioning and seeking sunlight by traveling abroad during the winter. In Focus Group 6, the participants critically reflected on the state of city planning, suggesting that adaptation could have been better integrated into recent developments in the city and that adaptive measures might not be as difficult to implement as indicated in the sample message.
Among the focus group participants, both positive and negative affects emerged while interpreting the sample messages on climate change adaptation. Those who had a supportive view of adaptation perceived it as a realistic assessment of the current climate situation, aligning with what they already knew about the state of climate change. They also regarded the underlying idea of preparing for change as sensible. In part this was intuitive, as adaptation to climate change was not already familiar to most. Some participants also noted that adaptation offered a new perspective on climate issues. The compatibility of adaptation and mitigation seemed to be silently accepted and was not further discussed. The following three quotations illustrate these supportive evaluative interpretations:
I think it’s kind of good that we have to actively combat this, but when those changes are already visible in some way here, it’s really about how we adapt to them and how we can prepare for something unusual that hasn’t happened before. It’s kind of just that maybe the disadvantages wouldn’t be so great that we could somehow prepare for them. It’s basically quite good. What comes to mind for me is that the realities have also been taken into account, that it may not really be possible to influence it. Specifically, it’s about adaptation and that there’s no going back to anything like it was, say, 20 years ago. Now it’s time to think about how to get along with these new rules. This is quite a nice approach to the issue. Probably it’s good to think about those options, what will happen and, of course, a quick response to it, like what options there are, how we can respond to them, and what can be done.
The more critical evaluations of the messages demonstrated echoes of the resignation hypothesis, which warns that adaptation communication can suggest giving up in the fight against climate change. In two focus groups, direct references to resignation were made (“like throwing in the towel a bit” and “we won’t stop anything, we will just let it come”). Although these interpretations were not widely repeated among the participants, they remain noteworthy, particularly because the opening message highlighted the need for both mitigation and adaptation, explicitly stating that mitigation would not be forgotten or marginalised. This implies that, for some individuals, the connotation of resignation is so pervasive that they ignore cues for compatibility. The sample messages were also described as “submissive” and “reactive” in depicting how they had succumbed to a rather pessimistic future vision. These interpretations withhold aspects of the resignation idea. In the following quote, a participant in Focus Group 1 presents an interpretation of choosing between the presented scenarios of adaptation and more ambitious visions for the future:
And choose those actions that support the chosen future vision, where we want to end up, which maybe isn’t about expanding stormwater drains and needing to install air conditioning units and then having to allocate more resources to occupational health and healthcare, because everyone is just getting sick in the winters when it’s dark. In a way, these texts are submissive or declarative; that’s characteristic of bureaucratic language – they are very matter-of-fact and aim for a neutral expression. But in these cases, it might backfire: well, there’s really nothing we can do here, now we just have to funnel money into these remedial actions.
Critical evaluations intertwined together with the perceived tensions between adaptation messages and mitigation or broader climate action. The messages were criticised for neglecting the bigger picture of climate change and being fragmented. The participants wished for both a clearer link between the presented effect and climate change and concentration on the core problem, which to them was stopping or at least mitigating the presented effects of climate change. The following three samples from different focus groups illustrate how the concrete sample messages were interpreted as incomplete or insufficient forms of climate communication:
This message does not in any way promote the mitigation of climate change. I would hope for Facebook updates where it would concretely advise on how to prevent climate change. Ok, here we’re only being provided with guidelines for preparedness, and the task was to consider ways to adapt to climate change, but here it just states that heatwaves are becoming more common. There’s a bit of a contradiction in what can be done about it. Of course, it’s not really intended to take a stance on the issue, but … [end of comment]. But what [name of the other participant] pointed out is that the city is missing the opportunity to communicate that… Could there have been at the end some additional information about what you can do to, in a way, make yourself feel better or what you could do in your own life to still tackle climate change, or at least slow it down, whatever it may be.
There was a strong indication that the more critical interpretations of the adaptation messages stemmed from concerns about climate change. However, when considering whether the messaging aligned with these participants’ overall views of the state of climate change, some tensions emerged. On the one hand, even in the more critical focus groups, the passage on the inevitable progression of climate change was welcomed as “honest” and “realistic” by some. On the other hand, there were signs of a more optimistic vision for the future where some of the climate effects could still be reversed.
When analysing the interpretations of the local climate risks, most of the participants seemed to accept the presented climate risks in the messages, although there were some discussions on how risks should be communicated. The participants also shared some of their own experiences with flood water, for example. The tone of the conversation was quite descriptive, and emotional expression was scarce. However, there was one interpretative line that stood out regarding local climate risk. In one focus group, there were participants who did not recognise the presented climate risks and were, therefore, indifferent toward adaptation. Following the underlying logic of adaptation, low perception of risk is a significant obstacle for adaptation, as the overall rationale and motivation is weak or nonexistent (see, e.g., Grothmann & Patt, 2005). In a similar manner, the adaptive considerations in the sample messages were questioned because the core problem was considered nonexistent or exaggerated, as in these examples:
I actually have the same feeling. These urban floods haven’t really been visible in my life. Sure, maybe it rains a lot a couple of times a year, and there can be some deeper puddles. But heavy downpours haven’t really shown up or disturbed my life at all. I haven’t known that this is really any problem whatsoever. [Same speaker concerning a later message:] Is it really certain that winters will be like that in the future? I don’t know, and I wonder if someone really knows for sure. I maybe don’t understand the problem at all in this, like. It feels a bit far-fetched, like climate change, and now we already have to prepare for it in healthcare as well… It seems like a bit of a stretch. There might be something to it, but I think it’s a bit of an exaggeration.
In summary, the identified indifferent perspective on adaptation emerged from low-risk perception and did not indicate a rejection of the core idea of adaptation. The indifference was not linked to interpretations of adaptation as resignation nor to the interconnectedness of adaptation and mitigation (or broader climate issues). Expressed views on climate change in general ranged from sceptical to rather accepting.
In this article, adaptation communication has been approached as a means to promote public engagement with climate change adaptation. The study concentrated on analysing the collectively produced interpretations of adaptation messages in focus groups. Thus, it directly focused on two of the three dimensions of public engagement with climate change – knowledge and emotion – as defined by Whitmarsh and colleagues (2013). Behaviour was excluded from the primary scope of the research; however, all three dimensions were understood to be intertwined and supportive of one another. The article contributes to a deeper understanding of adaptation communication reception by identifying three distinct interpretive perspectives, each carrying its own implications for public engagement on the matter.
The first of the identified perspectives is supportive, viewing adaptation as a reasonable stance aligned with the realities of climate issues. In terms of public engagement with adaptation, this interpretation is seen as compatible with and generally supportive of holistic engagement. The second perspective is somewhat more critical, perceiving echoes of resignation in adaptation and interpreting solely adaptation-focused messages as an incomplete response to the threat of climate change. These critical interpretations limit engagement with adaptation. However, it is important to note that critical views do not reflect indifference or scepticism regarding climate issues; rather, they indicate a recognition of the importance of mitigation. In this context, possible solutions for engaging the public could involve better contextualising the role and significance of adaptation in the fight against climate change. Alternatively, a more transformative approach to adaptation could help engage those with critical interpretations. A transformative understanding of adaptation entails a more holistic view of climate vulnerabilities and aims to address the underlying systemic issues (Bassett & Fogelman, 2013). Finally, the third perspective fails to recognise the rationale for adaptation, thereby representing an indifferent view toward it. From the standpoint of public engagement, low risk perception acts as a hindering force. Effective risk communication offers potential remedies, but it is not a simple task. There is an indication of a knowledge gap; however, merely providing information is unlikely to bridge this gap.
When adaptation communication is considered from the viewpoint of knowledge, the results indicate that a similar kind of terminological unawareness is found among Finns, as demonstrated in other national contexts (Bruine de Bruin et al., 2021; Harcourt et al., 2019). This has important practical implications for climate communicators and journalists, who should consider this while communicating adaptation. For example, in these settings, the common practice of referring to adaptation in a very abstract manner in news media (see Perälä, 2023) is challenging for awareness-building. However, when the issue of awareness was not approached solely from the perspective of term recognition and comprehension, it was shown that the concept of adaptation was, in many ways, comprehensible, implicating that there are no distinct cognitive challenges to deal with when communicating on adaptation. A similar kind of observation was made in another focus group study where the participants were reported to have elaborated adaptation to its “full complexity” without prompting, even though many were not initially familiar with the term (Moser, 2013, 2014). The results of the study imply that the public is cognitively able to engage with adaptation communication and reflect critically on it. Of course, knowledge gaps also exist, and adaptation communication can try to address them. Raising awareness remains one of the main goals of adaptation communication.
This study also highlights that adaptation communication can inadvertently convey a sense of resignation in the fight against climate change, at least to some segments of the public. These critical interpretations have been overlooked when adaptation communication has been approached solely as a measurable means of addressing climate change concerns or promoting mitigation-related attitudes and behaviours (e.g., Carrico et al., 2015; Evans et al., 2014; Howell et al., 2016). The results of this study showed that these critical interpretations did, in fact, align with concerns for climate change. Based on the discussions, it seems counterintuitive that individuals expressing such critical interpretations would also exhibit decreased concern or willingness to combat climate change in response to the messages shown. Moreover, from the adopted research perspective, that is not even the most relevant question. In this article, adaptation communication is approached as a means of enhancing public engagement with climate change adaptation itself, while acknowledging that, in reality, the aims of climate communication might not be so segmented and could encompass multiple perspectives (e.g., both mitigation and adaptation). In the context of this research, these critical interpretations are considered incompatible with full engagement with adaptation, which has implications for both research and practice. The results warrant finding new and compelling ways to integrate adaptation as a necessary and interconnected remedy for climate change through practice or research, or at least incorporating these dynamics into research designs.
There are limitations to this research. First, focus group studies do not yield results that are easily generalisable to broader populations. Additionally, the participant sample in this study was biased toward highly educated professional women, although efforts were made to include participants from other socioeconomic groups. While there were indications of gender differences in the interpretation processes, the nature of the sample precludes a definitive conclusion on this matter and underscores the need for further research. Moreover, all the participants were drawn from one geographical location that is relatively safe from the worst effects of climate change on a global scale, which may affect their sense of risk and their modest emotional responses. In this sense, the results echoed previous findings that suggest that localised messaging about climate change may not be particularly effective in terms of tangibility (e.g., Brügger et al., 2016; Mildenberger et al., 2019).
The study used specific fictional sample messages, which may have influenced the discussion and results. Different messages could have yielded different interpretations. Future research could explore how participants interpret more transformative adaptation examples, expanding beyond the traditionally framed examples used here. However, using sample messages was justified because many participants lacked familiarity with the term “adaptation”, and responses to the open-ended concluding question (“To sum up, what advice would you give a city communication manager about climate change adaptation?”) offered limited insight into adaptation communication itself.