Responses to climate change adaptation messages: A focus group study on the potential for public engagement with climate adaptation

Highlights the inevitable progression of climate change as the rationale for adapting

Emphasises the necessity for both adaptation and mitigation, without prioritising one over the other

Provides an abstract definition of adaptation that resembles the definition given by the IPCC

Addresses the risk posed by heatwaves, particularly to vulnerable populations

Presents practical and mostly accessible adaptive measures for individuals

Introduces a new context for familiar methods by framing them within the concept of adaptation

Discusses the increasing incidence of heavy rainfall and urban flooding

References past flooding events in the study region

Outlines both concrete actions taken by the city and the challenges faced in preparedness

Describes future winters in a more vivid style than in previous messages

Broadens the understanding of adaptation to include climate change impacts on health, and identifies new adaptive actors

Mentions Nature’s capacity for both adaptation and maladaptation

– How do people interpret the term and concept of adaptation?

– How do people interpret adaptation depicted in concrete terms?

– How do people interpret the larger sociocultural context of the messages?

1. Awareness: Expressions indicating an understanding (or lack) of terminology and concepts related to adaptation.

1.1. Comprehension: Statements reflecting understanding (or lack thereof) of the content of adaptation.

1.2. Expansion: Expressions of ability (or inability) to expand the concept of adaptation beyond the content of the messages.

1.3. Sociocultural context: Expressions of ability (or inability) to understand the messages within their broader societal, cultural, and economic context.

– What kind of affective attitude do people have toward adaptation (e.g., opportunity–resignation)?

– How do people interpret the relationship between adaptation and mitigation or adaptation and climate issues in general?

– How do people interpret the localised climate risks?

2. Affection: Expressions of evaluative feelings toward the messages or adaptation overall.^b

3. Experienced relationship between adaptation and mitigation or climate issues. Perceptions of the relationship between adaptation and mitigation efforts or climate issues in general.

4. Local risks: Interpretations of local climate risks displayed in the messages or in general.

2.1. Positive affect: Expressions where adaptation messages are interpreted to convey a constructive and/or affirmative perspective on climate change (e.g., perceived necessity, logicality).

2.2. Negative affect: Expressions where adaptation messages are interpreted to convey discouragement and/or resignation.

3.1. Interconnectedness: Interpretations of the complementarity relationship between adaptation and mitigation.

3.2. Disparity or disconnection: Perceived tensions between adaptation messages and mitigation/broader climate action.

4.1. Descriptive accounts: Declarative statements about local climate risks, based on observations or information.

4.2. Reflexive accounts: Reflective accounts considering the meaning, significance, likelihood, and communication of local climate risks, including subjective interpretations and comparisons.

Outside of the direct scope of the research; however, links to indirectly to behaviour.

Knowledge, emotion, and behaviour are intertwined dimensions of public engagement, supporting each other.