Content uploaded by Anne van Valkengoed
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anne van Valkengoed on Oct 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
As global temperatures increase, so do the frequency and severity of various natural hazards.1 Worldwide, climate
change can inuence incidences of natural hazards such as wildres, ooding, heatwaves, droughts, vector-borne
diseases, and mudslides.2 Such events can be deadly, traumatizing, and cause signicant economic damages.
Climate change adaptation, dened as the process of adjustment to reduce or avoid the negative impacts of climate
change3, is therefore of critical importance.
So far, the scientic literature on adaptation to climate change and climate change adaptation policies have over-
whelmingly focused on the role of governments. However, the efforts of governments alone will not be sufcient
to reduce or avoid the negative impacts of climate change.4,5 Climate change adaptation will need to take place at
all scales, including the private sector and civil society.6,7 Private individuals and households will also need to take
measures to reduce the risks of the negative impacts of climate change.8 In this background paper, we will focus
specically on the role of individuals and households in the process of climate change adaptation.
While adaptation by individuals and households can be highly effective in reducing the impact of climate-related
hazards, many people are not (yet) engaging in adaptive behavior, or they are taking insufcient or inappropriate
measures to adapt. For example, in an Australian study, fewer than 30% of the respondents had a household emer-
gency kit, evacuation plan, or had installed rainwater tanks to reduce the impacts of drought.9 In a survey among
more than 1,000 rural Czech residents, 58% of households had implemented no adaptive measures against ooding,
(e.g., moving possessions to higher stories, changing oor material, or using ood barriers); only 5.5% of households
had implemented more than three adaptive measures.10 In a study on wildre preparedness in the United States,
almost all homeowners cleaned surfaces/gutters to avoid the accumulation of needles and leaves, but less than half
CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION
BY INDIVIDUALS AND HOUSEHOLDS
A PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE
A.M. van Valkengoed & L. Steg, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, University of Groningen
BACKGROUND PAPER
About this paper
This paper is part of a series of background papers commissioned by the Global Commission on Adaptation
to inform its 2019 flagship report. This paper reflects the views of the authors, and not necessarily those of the
Global Commission on Adaptation.
Suggested Citation: van Valkengoed, A.M., and Steg, L. 2019. Climate change adaptation by individuals and
households: A psychological perspective. Global Commission on Adaptation Background Paper.
Available online at www.gca.org.
2 September 2019
had obtained additional information on wildre prepared-
ness, and just over 20% had attended community meetings
on wildland re.11 A study conducted in Bangladesh found
that over 75% of participants had received warnings from
the government to seek shelter before the onset of Cyclone
Sidr, but only 33% chose to do so.12
Since many people are not yet adapting adequately to
the effects of climate change, motivating people to adapt
represents a key challenge to successful adaptation. To
develop effective strategies to promote adaptive behavior,
the following steps are important:
1) Identify which changes in behavior are needed to
adapt adequately to the risks of climate change
2) Examine which factors affect (mal)adaptive behavior
3) Design interventions to promote adaptive behaviors
by targeting the relevant antecedents of the behavior
4) Evaluate the effects of the interventions on anteced-
ents and behavior, and adjusting intervention strategies
when appropriate.13
We structure this background paper in accordance with
these steps identied in the behavioral change literature.
First, we discuss why involving citizens and households
is critical for successful adaptation to climate change.
Second, we give an overview of the behaviors that individ-
uals and households can engage in to adapt to climate-re-
lated hazards. Third, we review the psychological factors
that motivate or hinder people to engage in these adaptive
behaviors. Importantly, we focus on explaining adaptive
behavior, that is, the behavior that people engage in to
reduce the risks of climate-related hazards. We do not
focus on adaptive capacity, which is the ability to adapt.14,15
Fourth, we show how interventions and policies can pro-
mote adaptation by individuals and households by target-
ing the key antecedents of adaptive behavior.
We note here that, while the focus of this paper is on
psychological factors, it is important to keep in mind that
individual behavior is also conditional upon the context in
which it is embedded, which includes institutional, societal,
cultural, legal, and physical factors.16-18 Long-lasting and
wide-spread behavioral change at the individual level may
thus also require changes at the systemic level.19 We will
come back to this point in the conclusion of this paper.
1. Why Are Individuals and
Households Important for
Successful Adaptation?
Individuals and households have rarely been considered
in the implementation of climate change adaptation
policies.20 For example, the United Kingdom’s National
Adaptation Programme states: ‘if adapting to climate
change is in the private interests of an individual… then it
should occur naturally and without the government’s inter-
vention.’21,22 An examination of adaptation policies from
402 cities around the world also showed that the majority
of the adaptation policies examined do not specify any
consideration of, or interaction with, citizens.23 Within the
scientic literature on climate change adaptation, individ-
uals and households are often also overlooked as relevant
actors.24-26 This is unfortunate, as there are three main rea-
sons why individuals and households are of critical impor-
tance in successful adaptation to climate change.
First, due to the increases in climate-related hazards,
governments will become overstrained in their capacity
to adequately respond to these hazards.27,28 Therefore,
governments cannot guarantee full reduction of the risks
of climate-related hazards, and individuals will still be at
risk of many climate-related hazards if they do not under-
take adaptive measures themselves (see Box 1). In order to
reduce strain on government resources and to effectively
reduce the risks from the impacts of climate change, it is
necessary that individuals take adaptive measures too.29,30
Second, adaptation actions by households are effec-
tive to reduce the negative impacts of climate-related
risks and are relatively cost-efcient to implement. For
example, clearing vegetation in a 10 to 20 meter (30 to
60 feet) parameter around one’s house can increase the
survivability of a house during a wildre to approximate-
ly 90%.31 Behaviors to reduce the impact of heatwaves,
such as wearing light clothing and using cooling devic-
es, signicantly reduces mortality for elderly, even when
accounting for other risk factors such as illness and lack of
mobility.32 Examples from the United Kingdom33, France34,
Germany35,36, and India37 show that ood-proong (i.e.,
installing measures to avoid oodwaters from entering the
house) can be a cost-effective way to reduce the impacts
of ooding. Individual adaptation actions can therefore
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 3
contribute signicantly to reducing the impacts of cli-
mate-related hazards, against relatively low costs.
Third, the adaptive actions of individual citizens can inu-
ence the effectiveness of governmental adaptation policies.
For example, government plans to renovate a street in
Quebec City in Canada motivated residents to plant trees
and ‘green’ the urban environment.38 In response to the suc-
cess of this citizen-led initiative, the city set up a program for
urban greening and reviewing roadwork practices39, resulting
in the implementation of more climate adaptive policy. In
Dutch cities, approximately 50 to 70% of the total surface
area is privately owned.40 Policies to reduce pluvial ooding
and urban heat island effects through green infrastructure
will therefore only be effective if private homeowners are
also actively involved in implementing such measures.
Conversely, if individuals fail to adapt, they can hinder or
obstruct the effectiveness of adaptation policies by gov-
ernments.41 For example, citizens that do not implement
adaptive measures may demand immediate assistance
from local governments during disasters, which can block
emergency lines and complicate effective institutional
response to an ongoing hazard.42
2. What Does Adaptation at
Individual and Household
Level Look Like?
There are many actions that people can take to reduce the
risk of climate-related hazards.57 Yet, what constitutes suc-
cessful adaptive action depends on the context in which
the behavior takes place. For example, removing trees may
reduce the risks of wildre in one context, but increase the
risk of ooding in another. In general, adaptive actions can
serve four different purposes: hazard reduction or avoid-
ance, vulnerability reduction (reducing susceptibility to be
affected by a hazard), preparedness for response (mea-
sures to respond to an ongoing hazard), and preparedness
for recovery (measures to bounce back after a hazard).58
To make these four categories more concrete in the con-
text of individuals and households, we present a catego-
rization of 6 types of adaptation behaviors performed by
individuals and households that have been studied in the
psychological literature: information seeking, preparative
measures, protective measures, evacuation/migration,
purchasing insurance, and political action.59 As we will see,
these 6 categories of behaviors can address the four aims
of adaptive behavior (see 60, for further examples of adap-
tive behavior by individuals and households).
Information seeking can increase people’s knowledge of cli-
mate change and how to adapt, which is often considered
an important condition that needs to be satised before
people can engage in other adaptive behaviors.61 For
example, people can look up information about whether
they are exposed to a hazard, what they can do to reduce
the impacts of a hazard, or monitor on-going circumstanc-
es during the approach or occurrence of a natural hazard.
Such information can help people adapt. For example,
heat warning systems can reduce heat-related mortality.62
Climate and weather information services can also help
farmers make adaptive decisions.63 However, providing
people with information is, in many cases, not sufcient to
promote adaptation, as we will discuss later in this review.
The aims addressed by information seeking are hazard
reduction or avoidance, vulnerability reduction, prepared-
ness for response, and preparedness for recovery.
Preparative measures consist of actions that people can
take before the onset of a climate-related hazard to reduce
possible negative impacts. For example, installing ood
covers over airbricks in a wall can prevent oodwater from
entering the house.64 People can install hurricane shutters
that can be closed during a hurricane to prevent damage
to windows from ying objects.65 The effects of drought
can be managed by using rainwater harvesting systems.66
To reduce the impacts of heatwaves, people can paint
their house in lighter colors to reect some of the heat
and lower indoor temperatures.67 As these actions need
to be taken before a hazard occurs, preparative actions
require deliberate planning, and may incur nancial costs.
The aims addressed by preparative measures are hazard
avoidance or reduction, vulnerability reduction, and pre-
paredness for response.
Some preparative actions are more effective if they are
implemented at the community level. For example, the
risks of local ooding caused by rainwater runoff in urban
areas can be reduced by replacing bricks and concrete
in private gardens with soil and plants. This measure
becomes more effective if more people implement it.68
Community actions to reduce malaria (for example by
clearing mosquito breeding sites) have also found to be
effective.69 Community actions can also involve helping
others to implement adaptive measures.70
4 September 2019
Protective measures refer to the actions taken during a
climate-related hazard to avoid damages or injuries. For
example, people can place sandbags in front of their door
or other openings in the house to prevent oodwater from
entering71, avoid ooded areas while driving a vehicle72,
or reduce water use during a drought.73 Some actions
may require deliberate planning, for example using insec-
ticide-treated nets and taking preventive medicine to
reduce the chances of being aficted by malaria.74 Other
actions may be more intuitive, such as reducing activity
or seeking out cool places during a heatwave.75 Protective
measures can also be prosocial, such as warning others
of an impending hazard76 or checking up on friends and
neighbors during a hazard to ensure their whereabouts
and safety.77 This can be especially important for vulner-
able populations such as the elderly, who are less able to
adapt by themselves.78 The aims addressed by protective
measures are vulnerability reduction, preparedness for
response, and preparedness for recovery.
Evacuation or migration from an area can be an effective
way of reducing the impacts of hazards such as ooding,
hurricanes, and wildres. While governments often recom-
mend or even order evacuation, people may fail to heed
Climate change poses a wide array of concrete risks for the health and well-being of individuals and households.43
Individuals and households therefore play a central role in climate change adaptation. Some of the projected
impacts of climate change that people may face at different degrees of global warming include:
• Flooding: At 1.5 °C of global warming, the number of people affected by ooding is expected to double com-
pared to current levels.44
• Sea-level rise: At 2 °C of global warming, sea-level rise will cause lands to be permanently ooded in 2150 that
now are home to 60 million people.45
• Drought: 195 to 277 million more people than today (especially urban populations) will be affected by drought
when global temperature increases with 2 °C.46 The availability of freshwater will decrease by up to 30% under
a 2 °C global temperature increase.47
• Hurricanes: The expected damage of hurricanes due to climate change will double in 2100 compared to cur-
rent levels.48 Tropical cyclones could form in regions where they have not been recorded before, such as the
Persian Gulf.49
• Heatwaves: By 2100, 48% (under conditions of strong mitigation) to 74% (if no mitigation takes place) of
the world’s population could be exposed to conditions of deadly heat (i.e., a combination of critical heat and
humidity levels where exposure can lead to fatality) for more than 20 days a year.50
• Wildres: Wildre potential is expected to increase in the United States, South America, southern Europe, south-
ern Africa, Australia, and Central Asia when global temperatures increase.51
• Vector-borne disease: The region inhabited by mosquitos transmitting diseases such as malaria, dengue,
yellow-fever, amongst others, will expand when global temperature increases, exposing an increasing number
of people to these diseases.52,53 For example, 6.1 million additional yearly cases of dengue fever are expected in
Latin America by 2050 under 2 °C of global temperature increase.54
• Loss of coral reefs: 99% of coral reefs will disappear under 2 °C of global temperature increase.55 The loss of
coral reefs will make coastal communities more vulnerable to sea-level rise and ooding and will have negative
economic impacts for sheries and tourism industries.56
BOX 1 Individuals and households at risk of climate change.
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 5
these instructions.79 People may not want to evacuate for a
variety of reasons, such as the fear of looters or not want-
ing to leave behind pets that are not allowed in evacuation
centers.80 Financial resources can also prevent people
from evacuating; some people may not be able to take
time off work or lack the resources to travel.81 In collectivist
cultures, previous negative impacts at the community level
(rather than the individual level) may also be an important
predictor of evacuation.82 Furthermore, previous experi-
ences with unnecessary evacuation can reduce people’s
intention to evacuate in the future.83,84
The impacts of climate change can also render areas
permanently uninhabitable. For example, increases in tem-
perature and humidity could cause conditions that exceed
the human body’s capacity to cool down in regions in the
Middle East, India, and Bangladesh.85,86 Some atoll islands
that are part of Small Island Developing States (such as the
Marshall Islands, Maldives, and Seychelles) could become
uninhabitable due to rising sea levels and wave-driven
ooding.87 In such cases of slow-onset but chronic cli-
mate hazards, migration (i.e., permanent relocation) may
be required. While migration has been recognized as an
important adaptive strategy by some88-91, others are more
critical as to whether migration constitutes successful
adaptation, describing migration as a failure to adapt.92,93
For example, migration may have negative impacts, such
as the losses in cultural heritage and severing important
people-place relationships94, which may have differential
impacts on men and women within the same house-
hold.95,96 Migration may therefore not be preferred by all
communities or individuals, but may be necessary if certain
areas become uninhabitable. The aim addressed by evacu-
ation and migration is hazard reduction or avoidance.
The purchase of insurance can form an effective strategy to
reduce economic losses from climate-related hazards by
distributing the risk among policyholders.97,98 Insurance is
used as a measure of preparedness for recovery, but can
also have other benets. For example, the Kilimo Salama
FIGURE 1 Categories of adaptive behavior at the level of individuals and households.
Source: Authors.
6 September 2019
microinsurance program implemented in Kenya and
Rwanda resulted in 16% more earnings for insured farm-
ers compared to their non-insured counterparts.99 Insured
farmers were more willing to invest their savings into farm
productivity, as they no longer needed to save money for
recovering from climatic shocks. This also resulted in the
uptake of more adaptive farming practices.100
However, insurance also has its limits as an adaptive
strategy, since it does not reduce the risks of the physi-
cal or emotional impacts of hazards.101 Insurance is also
not available to many people in developing countries, as
the know-how to calculate probabilities and set up insur-
ance policy prices may not be available to their govern-
ments.102,103 An increase in natural hazards due to climate
change may increase premiums signicantly and therefore
make insurance unaffordable or even make particular
properties entirely uninsurable.104,105 Insurance may also
decrease people’s motivation to engage in the other types
of adaptive actions discussed here106, or could lead to
maladaptation. For example, government-subsidized ood
insurance may lead to the continued occupancy of ood-
plains, which exposes many people to the risks of ood-
ing.107 Insurance may therefore not always be an effective
adaptation strategy. The aim addressed by insurance is
preparedness for recovery.
Political action refers to active citizen involvement in
political processes regarding climate change adaptation.
Predominantly, climate change adaptation has been man-
aged by governments at the local, regional or national level.
In democratic countries, citizens can take political action
to promote adaptation, for example by voting in favor of
climate change adaptation policies or supporting parties
that put climate change adaptation on the agenda and
are likely to implement adaptation policy. People can also
try to inuence policy by, for example, contacting national
or local politicians, attending meetings with local govern-
ment ofcials, or engaging in different forms of collective
action, such as signing a petition.108 We will also discuss
public participation in decision-making later in this review.
The aims addressed by political actions are reducing or
avoiding hazards, vulnerability reduction, preparedness for
response, and preparedness for recovery.
Knowledge gaps
The overview presented here summarizes adaptive behav-
iors that have been studied in the literature and may there-
fore not fully cover all types of actions that are important
for successful adaptation.109 For example, psychological
adaptation to climate change, that is, effectively coping
with the stress and anxiety associated with climate-relat-
ed hazards, can be an important adaptive response.110,111
Moreover, some adaptive responses are unique to a partic-
ular group, such as farmers’ use of livelihood diversication
and adaptive farming strategies.112 Maladaptive behaviors,
such as denial of the problem, wishful thinking, and fatal-
ism, that are likely to inhibit or obstruct successful adap-
tation, are under-researched and commonly overlooked.113
This represents an important knowledge gap, as research
suggests that the drivers of maladaptation may be differ-
ent from the drivers of adaptive behavior.114
3. What Motivates People to
Adapt?
A meta-analysis that summarized the results of more than
100 studies identied various motivational factors that can
encourage or inhibit individuals’ and households’ adap-
tation to climate change115; we will summarize the most
relevant insights below.
Knowledge
Policy makers often assume that people do not adapt to
climate change because they lack information; they hold
the assertion that if people were aware of the risks of a
hazard and how to adapt, they would undertake the nec-
essary measures to adapt.116 Yet, a meta-analysis found
only a weak positive relationship between knowledge and
adaptation.117 Similarly, studies show that providing infor-
mation is often not sufcient to motivate people to under-
take adaptive measures.118 Hence, while having knowledge
about climate-related hazards and adaptive actions may be
a necessary factor for adaptation, it is often not sufcient
to motivate people to engage in adaptive actions.
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 7
Risk perceptions and negative
emotions
Risk perception refers to a judgment that people make of
the probability and severity of a particular hazard.119 Such
judgments are subjective and can vary from person to
person; while one person may nd a particular hazard quite
risky, another may not nd it risky at all. A meta-analytic
summary showed that, overall, the more people perceive
risks of climate change and climate-related hazards, the
more likely they are to implement adaptive measures, but
the pattern of results was highly variable across studies.120
Specically, while some studies found that people who
perceive more risks are more likely to implement adaptive
measures, other studies found no signicant relationship
between risk perception and adaptation.121 Importantly, risk
perception was more strongly related to intended behaviors
than to behaviors that had already occurred in the past.122
This is likely because people felt less at risk after they
implemented adaptive measures.123
People may also respond emotionally to a climate-related
risk.124 Such emotional and affective reactions appear to
play a role in adaptation to climate change. For example,
in a survey conducted in Switzerland and Great Britain,
respondents who had a stronger negative emotional
response to climate change were more likely to support
adaptation policies.125 Especially concern about climate
change or climate-related hazards has been found to
be consistently related to adaptation.126 For example,
people that were more concerned about climate change
were more likely to support adaptation policies.127,128
Interestingly, negative emotions (e.g., concern, fear) are
generally more strongly related to adaptive behavior than
risk perception.129
FIGURE 2 Key psychological variables that play a role in climate change adaptation.
Source: Authors.
8 September 2019
Perceived efcacy: Can I do it and
will it help?
As indicated above, perceiving a risk may not be suf-
cient to motivate people to undertake adaptive measures.
People also need to believe they are capable of engaging
in adaptive measures, and that such measures will be
effective in reducing or avoiding the risk.130,131 Two types
of efcacy are relevant in this respect. Self-efcacy refers
to whether people think they are capable of implement-
ing a particular adaptive behavior or course of action.132
Importantly, it refers to people’s perceived capability, and
therefore differs from (but is related to) adaptive capacity,
which reects people’s objective capabilities to adapt to
climate change.133 Self-efcacy can play an important role
in whether or not people undertake adaptive actions. For
example, coastal residents in Cambodia who had more
condence in their personal abilities to adapt were more
likely to engage in adaptive actions.134 People who had
more condence that they were able to do what is need-
ed to evacuate were more likely to report the intention to
evacuate in the event of a hurricane.135 Self-efcacy was
also positively associated with taking preventive measures
against malaria, such as using insect repellent and wearing
long-sleeved clothing at night.136
Outcome efcacy reects whether people perceive an
action to be effective at reducing the risks from climate-re-
lated hazards.137 This is important, as perceiving a measure
as ineffective can demotivate people to undertake such a
measure in the rst place. For example, an interviewee in
Canada who had just lost their home in a wildre said the
following about using re-resistant building materials:
So ... it makes no difference whether the outside [of the
house] is clad in cedar or everybody you see has got
plastic, which melts, and as soon as it melts it’s just
back to cedar ... You know, not allowing the homeowner
to do what they want and then the end result it wouldn’t
make a darn good of difference, because we had a
cement block house and it blew apart.138
This respondent was not planning to rebuild their house
using re-resistant materials because they perceived this
measure to be ineffective. On the other hand, perceiving
high outcome efcacy of a measure may increase the
likelihood of implementing it. Indeed, a higher perceived
outcome efcacy was found to be associated with
more preparedness for ooding139,140, wildres141,142, and
drought143,144. In fact, outcome efcacy has been found to
be overall one of the key motives for adaptive behavior.145
The inuence of other people
Perceptions of what other people are doing, referred to as
‘descriptive norms’146, play a role in the process of adapta-
tion to climate change. For example, people were more like-
ly to purchase ood insurance if they thought that others
would buy it too.147 Sri Lankan farmers who perceived that
other farmers were engaging in adaptive farming practices
were more likely to report the intention to engage in these
practices.148 Similarly, seeing neighbors evacuating and
businesses closing during a hurricane motivates people to
evacuate.149
People are also sensitive to what they believe others expect
them to do, reecting ‘injunctive norms’.150 Injunctive norms
can inhibit or promote adaptation, depending on whether
people believe that others approve or disapprove of adap-
tation. For example, a study in Australia found that people
who thought others expected them to get a rainwater tank
had stronger intentions to install one.151 Similarly, in China,
people who perceived that their friends, family, and com-
munity expected them to prepare for ooding were more
likely to do so.152 On the other hand, a British interviewee
said the following about why she did not want to imple-
ment ood-protection measures in her house, even though
she had been affected by ooding in the past:
I think we don’t really want to […] change it—I like my
house to look nice—I don’t want to have a door that is
like a bit daft because I raise the [doorway]. And each
time when we have friends or people coming through,
you say well, you know, ‘can you please step higher’’
That just, um—I don’t know.153
The idea of raising the doorway was unappealing to this
respondent because she worried that it would make her
house look ‘a bit daft’ and that it could inconvenience
guests. A sherman in India said the following about why
he did not want to use hand-held cast nets or crab traps,
which could be an effective adaptive strategy to supple-
ment and diversify the income gained from using a more
traditional, large-scale shing method called ‘Padu’:
It is our birth right to have a productive lagoon and Padu
system, rights which should not be compromised by
adopting shing styles of lower status shermen.154
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 9
This sherman perceived the smaller scale shing meth-
ods as behavior that is associated with a lower status
group, and that there is a strong social norm that people
from a high social status group do not adopt this behavior.
Another study also found that people who thought family
members would not like the idea of wildre preparation
were less likely to take preparatory measures such as
clearing foliage around the house.155 Overall, both injunctive
and descriptive norms appear to be an important inuence
on adaptation behavior.156
Responsibility
Perceived responsibility refers to the extent that people
believe they themselves are responsible for taking adaptive
measures. The lack of feeling a personal responsibility to
reduce the risks of climate-related hazards has been recog-
nized as an important barrier to successful adaptation.157
Research suggests that many people seem to accept, at
least, some responsibility to adapt to climate change. For
example, a Dutch study found that most people perceived
an equal distribution of responsibility to adapt to ooding
between themselves and the government.158 Similarly,
most respondents of a study conducted in Colorado,
United States, perceived moderate or great responsibility
to prevent wildres.159 In contrast, a study conducted in the
UK found that most interviewees perceived the government
as responsible for preventing ooding; they rejected their
own responsibility as they did not perceive themselves as
capable of avoiding the impacts of ooding.160 Perceived
responsibility may therefore be related to perceived self-ef-
cacy; if people perceive low self-efcacy to adapt, they
may also reject their personal responsibility to adapt.
Overall, people who perceive more responsibility for adapt-
ing are more likely to engage in adaptive behavior.161-164
If people deny personal responsibility and perceive gov-
ernments as primarily responsible, they are less likely to
implement adaptive measures.165
Knowledge gaps
We have reviewed whether knowledge and different psy-
chological motives play a role in adaptive behavior. Yet, the
literature on this topic is still very much in development,
and many questions remain to be addressed. Notably,
some motivational variables have been studied much more
extensively than others. For example, while risk perception
and experience with climate-related hazards have been
studied frequently in the literature, there is little research
on the effect of descriptive and injunctive norms in adap-
tation.166 The question therefore remains how robust the
effects of social norms on behavior are, since our review
was based on relatively few studies.167 In a similar vein,
some types of adaptive actions, such as preparative
measures, have been studied more extensively than others,
such as migration.168 More research is therefore needed
on how different psychological motives relate to different
types of adaptive actions.
Moreover, the effects of different motivational factors on
adaptive behavior are not consistent across studies.169
Future research is needed to understand under which
conditions different psychological motives may be more or
less predictive of adaptive actions. For example, it may be
that the predictive power of different motives varies across
different types of adaptive behaviors or different types of
climate-related hazards.170 Most of the studies have also
been conducted in the United States, Europe, and Australia
(see Figure 3), so the question remains whether similar
motives drive adaptive behavior in different countries and
cultures. Addressing this question is particularly important
as the most vulnerable populations live in the Global South,
and adaptation is therefore urgent in these regions.
Furthermore, studies have scarcely looked at how different
motivational factors are interrelated. Therefore it is not
clear how different factors jointly determine how people
adapt to climate change. Hence, future studies are needed
to gain a more comprehensive understanding of how these
motives are related, and under which circumstances partic-
ular motives may be more or less relevant. As an example
of how psychological variables may jointly explain adaptive
behavior, a study conducted in France and Germany found
that descriptive social norms may be relevant in adaptation
because people who perceived that others had already
implemented adaptive measures also perceived higher
self- and outcome efcacy of adaptive measures.171
Finally, the studies that we reviewed focused on a specif-
ic type of climate-hazard, namely acute hazards that are
expected to intensify due to climate change. However, cli-
mate change can also cause slow-onset chronic hazards,
such as rising sea levels and drought. People’s responses
to such slow-onset hazards may rely on different motives
than responses to acute hazards. Climate change may
also cause ‘novel’ acute hazards in areas that have not
10 September 2019
historically been exposed to such risks. For example,
climate change may cause malaria to migrate into new
territories.172 Studying whether the psychological motives
discussed here are also applicable to adaptation to such
‘novel’ hazards is of critical importance.173
4. How Can Individuals and
Households Be Encouraged
to Engage in Adaptation?
In addition to understanding what motivates or hinders
people to engage in adaptive behaviors, it may also be rel-
evant to know how adaptation behavior can be promoted.
Behavioral change interventions are more effective if they
target the key antecedents of the behavior they are trying
to promote.174,175 We will discuss how two strategies used
by governments (communication and public participation
in decision-making176) can promote adaptive behavior by
targeting the key antecedents of adaptive behavior dis-
cussed in Section 3.
Communication
Communication strategies are the most frequently used
strategy by governments in motivating private adaptation
to climate change.177 This mostly entails providing citi-
zens with information on climate change risks or how to
adapt.178 Examples of communication strategies include
yers providing information on how to adapt to climate
change, climate information services that provide localized
climate information for farmers, and warning systems. Yet,
as indicated above, knowledge about climate change and
adaptation was only weakly positively related to adaptive
behavior, which suggests that information campaigns
may not be very effective in promoting adaptive behavior.
Already in 1983 a literature review concluded that there
was little evidence for the effectiveness of information
campaigns to promote adaptive behavior against natural
hazards.179 A recent study in the United States found that
providing coastal residents with maps that showed how
their ZIP-code area would be affected by rising sea-lev-
els did not increase participants willingness to pay for
the implementation of adaptation policies, compared to
FIGURE 3
Source: “Meta-Analyses of Factors Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.” and van Valkengoed, A.M., and Steg, L. 2019. “The Psychology of
Climate Change Adaptation.”
Locations of the studies on factors motivating adaptation behavior reviewed in van
Valkengoed and Steg. 2019
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 11
a control group that saw no sea-level rise information.180
Similarly, same-day exposure to television, radio, and print
information on heatwaves did not reduce heatwave-related
mortality in Indiaa.181 Hence, policy makers should be aware
that information campaigns are typically not sufcient to
encourage behavioral change.
The ndings discussed in Section 3 suggest that commu-
nications strategies may be more effective if they target
people’s perceptions of risks of and negative emotions
associated with climate change or climate-related hazards,
perceived self-efcacy, perceived outcome efcacy of
adaptive actions, injunctive and descriptive norms towards
adaptation, and perceived responsibility to adapt. Empirical
studies support this assumption. For example, a Dutch
study compared the effects of messages stating that
people were either in the 10% of the population most at
risk of ooding, or the 10% of the population least at risk of
ooding. People who saw the high-risk message reported
stronger intentions to look for information on ood reduc-
tion and to implement ood reduction measures, and were
more likely to click on links with information on ood pre-
paredness.182 This study also tested the effects of informa-
tion targeting self-efcacy and outcome efcacy. People
read an article about ood-preparedness, which either
stressed the ease and effectiveness of different ood-pre-
paredness measures (targeting self- and outcome efcacy,
respectively), or that only mentioned ood-preparedness.
People who read the article which stressed the ease and
effectiveness of ood-preparedness reported stronger
intentions to look for information on ways to reduce the
risks of ooding, to implement ood reduction measures,
and were more likely to click on the links about ood pre-
paredness, compared to people who read the article that
only mentioned ood-preparedness.
A study in Australia found that providing people with a mes-
sage stating that many people in the participants’ area had
already taken adaptation measures (targeting descriptive
norms) was more effective in promoting wildre evacu-
ation planning than giving people information on how to
prepare (targeting knowledge).183 Importantly, providing
a Interestingly, this study showed that cumulative exposure to the infor-
mation over a 7-year period did predict a reduction in heatwave-related
mortality. The effectiveness of information campaigns may therefore
depend on whether the information becomes collective knowledge after
a longer period of time. This nding may also hint towards the gradual
development of social norms surrounding heat-protection behavior that
followed as a result of yearly information campaigns.
information on how to prepare did not increase adaptive
actions compared to a control group that received no infor-
mation, again showing that simply providing information is
often not sufcient to promote adaptation.
A study in the United Kingdom found that reminding people
of the negative emotions they experienced during a previ-
ous heatwave could increase their intention to take adap-
tive measures during the next heatwave.184 In an Australian
study, more than 1,000 respondents rated the likelihood
that they would follow the advice of different real-life
adaptation campaigns. The results showed that, overall,
campaigns were most effective if they gave concrete
suggestions of appropriate adaptive behaviors (targeting
knowledge and self-efcacy), and conveyed relatively
strong negative emotional content (targeting negative
emotions).185 Combining the provision of knowledge with
appeals to other motives such as negative emotions and
self-efcacy can thus be effective in promoting adaptive
behavior. Interestingly, this study also found that people
were less likely to follow the advice in the campaigns if
the messages explicitly mentioned climate change, but
only if people were skeptical about climate change.186 For
people that were concerned about or indifferent towards
climate change, the reference to climate change in the
adaptation campaign did not inuence the likelihood that
they would follow the advice, suggesting that the role of
climate change in causing different hazards does not seem
to matter much. More generally, tailoring the content of
adaptation appeals or information to specic audiences
may increase the effectiveness of information provision
strategies.187
Overall, targeting key antecedents of adaptation behavior
appears to be an effective way to promote adaptation
behavior. One example of how an intervention was devel-
oped to target various relevant antecedents of adaptive
behavior is the ‘VisAdaptTM’ tool.188 We highlight this exam-
ple in Box 2.
Public participation in decision-
making
In addition to communicating to citizens, governments
may consider including citizens more intensively in their
decision-making processes. Citizen participation has been
described as a ‘ladder’ that consists of different levels of
public participation in governmental decision-making, rang-
12 September 2019
ing from non-participation (not listening to, nor informing
citizens), to tokenism (informing and listening to citizens,
but government takes decisions), to citizen power (yielding
power to citizens to inuence government decision-mak-
ing).194 The ladder of citizen participation considers the
communication strategies described previously as ‘token-
ism’, because they do not grant citizens power to actually
inuence governmental decision-making. True public
participation in decision-making occurs when governments
actively engage citizens in the decision-making process
by ensuring two-way communication and offering citizens
the possibility to inuence the policy or project that is to be
implemented.195,196
Policy makers may be reluctant to include citizens in adap-
tation planning, for example because they believe it is ‘too
technical for citizens to be interested in’.197 Also, municipal-
ities may not have the capacity to accommodate citizens
in adaptation planning.198 Yet, adaptation policy can benet
greatly from including citizens in its planning, for three
main reasons.199 First, citizens have a right to inuence
decisions that affect them directly. Second, citizens can
contribute important localized knowledge that can increase
the effectiveness and acceptability of the policy. For exam-
ple, if governments wish to implement measures to reduce
local pluvial ooding in a neighborhood, residents of that
neighborhood will be the most knowledgeable about which
areas in the neighborhood ooded in the past during cloud-
bursts, and can therefore advise which areas are most vul-
nerable.200 Third, by including citizens in decision-making,
people may perceive the decision-making process as fairer,
and therefore nd the overall policy more acceptable.201
Public participation in adaptation policy can also be an
important pathway to stimulating private adaptation by
individuals and households, as it can play into the key
motives of adaptive behavior introduced earlier. Inviting
citizens to participate in adaptation planning can initiate a
conversation between governments and citizens to deter-
mine each actor’s responsibilities associated with adapta-
tion. This may make citizens more aware of their personal
responsibility to adapt to climate change. Second, adapta-
VisAdaptTM is a web-page tool designed to help Nordic homeowners adapt to climate change.189 The tool aims to
address important barriers to climate change adaptation amongst Nordic homeowners. To identify these barriers,
a series of focus group interviews were held with homeowners in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark. Based on these
focus groups, ve key barriers to adaptation were identied: low levels of perceived risk, high levels of psycholog-
ical distance (the idea that climate change will happen only in the future or in faraway locations), lack of clarity
regarding what constitutes adaptation, high perceived nancial costs, and low levels of perceived responsibility.190
The VisAdaptTM tool was subsequently developed to reduce these barriers.
The tool consists of a web-page with three panels (see Figure 4). First, homeowners enter their address to visualize
their home on Google Maps, and select the relevant features of their house (e.g., having a basement, a at roof,
etc.). Second, homeowners are able to see projected local impacts of climate change in their local area. These
two panels are designed to make people aware of the local impacts of climate change and to reduce the psycho-
logical distance of climate change. In the third panel, users are shown different adaptation measures that can be
implemented around their house, highlighting the measures that are most relevant to the homeowner based on the
projected local impacts shown in the second panel and the features of the home selected in the rst panel.191 The
aim of the information shown in the third panel is to provide an overview of adaptive actions that people can take,
to demonstrate that some adaptive measures are low cost, and to highlight that these actions are the responsibili-
ty of homeowners.
Preliminary tests have shown that the VisAdaptTM tool helped homeowners to make climate change and adaptation
more personally relevant and to make adaptive actions more closely associated with day-to-day home mainte-
nance192,193, but its effectiveness in changing real-life adaptive behavior still needs to be assessed.
BOX 2 VisAdaptTM: Visualising adaptation for Nordic homeowners
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 13
tion measures that are implemented through collaboration
between government and citizens are likely more extensive
and effective than measures implemented by single house-
holds alone, which can raise people’s perceived outcome
efcacy of adaptation measures. Public participation in
decision-making can also increase perceived autonomy
and empower citizens202, which can increase their self-ef-
cacy to further undertake individual adaptive measures.
Additionally, as mentioned previously, public participation
can increase the perceived fairness of adaptation planning,
which may increase people’s trust in the government.203
Higher trust in government has been found to be positively,
albeit weakly, associated with more engagement in private
adaptation behavior.204 Furthermore, public participation
may change perceived descriptive and injunctive norms
related to adaptation. Specically, convening a group of
citizens can establish a descriptive norm that others are
willing to engage in adaptation behavior. This may even
spread to people who are not actively participating them-
selves, but hear that different community members are
involved in adaptation planning. Similarly, if citizens are
actively involved in adaptation planning, adaptation to cli-
mate change may be perceived as part of a ‘citizens’ duty’
or a ‘community value’, which may strengthen people’s
injunctive norm that adaptation is desirable and approved
by members of the community.
Public participation may also increase the effective-
ness of communication strategies. For example, PICSA
(Participatory Integrated Climate Services for Agriculture) is
a climate information system that combines climate data
with localized knowledge using participatory approaches,
such as active discussion and joint interpretation of climate
data with trained facilitators.205 Most farmers perceived
the PICSA approach as very useful, and that it could assist
them in making adaptive decisions.206,207
Yet, public participation may have two important pitfalls.
First, participatory approaches can fail if governments
assume that a local community is a homogenous group
where all individuals have similar needs and desires208,
thereby not acknowledging diversity in demographics (e.g.,
FIGURE 4 The VisAdaptTM interface.
Source: Taken with permission from www.visadapt.info.
14 September 2019
economic status, ethnicity, gender, age209) and in political
orientation and personal values.210 Local communities typi-
cally consist of diverse stakeholders that will have different
preferences for adaptation policies, as they are likely to
benet or suffer to different extents from climate change
adaptation policies.211
Second, well-educated and wealthy citizens are more
inclined to participate.212,213 Participatory approaches could
therefore lead to an ‘illusion of inclusion’, where they serve
an already privileged group rather than the entire com-
munity.214 This can lead to ‘elite capture’, where the needs
and position of inuential actors are further reinforced and
entrenched.215
To overcome these pitfalls, it is recommended that gov-
ernments engage as many stakeholders as possible,
share information openly with all parties, engage stake-
holders in meaningful interaction, and attempt to satisfy
multiple viewpoints.216,217Adaptive measures and policies
that appeal to different kinds of values that people may
endorse, such as traditionalism, the importance of commu-
nity, and protecting the environment, may be required for
wide-spread public participation in decision-making.218,219
Knowledge gaps
We have reviewed how communication and public partic-
ipation in decision-making can promote adaptation. We
identify three key knowledge gaps in motivating adaptive
behavior. First, very few studies so far have tested which
strategies are effective to promote adaptive behavior.
The studies we discussed represent relatively small-scale
studies that relied on self-report measures. While these
results are promising, more systematic research is needed
to better understand the effects of different interventions
to promote adaptation in different contexts. Notably, to
strengthen the evidence base of adaptation policy, it is
important that such interventions are evaluated properly.
It is key to not only assess whether an intervention was
able to promote adaptation behavior, but also to examine
whether the antecedents of the behavior that were sup-
posed to be targeted by the intervention changed in the
expected direction220, and whether the impacts of climate
risks were actually reduced. Measuring changes in behav-
ioral antecedents is important in order to understand why
an intervention did (not) work, and yields important insights
into how interventions can be improved.221 Additionally,
measuring changes in the targeted antecedents can inform
theory, as it represents an experimental test of the causal
pathways within a theoretical framework.222
Second, it is not yet clear whether people’s participation in
public adaptation projects also leads to them implement-
ing private adaptation measures. One study conducted
in Sweden found that people who had interacted with the
municipality regarding adaptation matters (for example,
trying to inuence long-term urban planning or lobbying
against erosion) were more likely to implement private
adaptation measures.223 This suggests that public partic-
ipation may indeed be related to people’s private adapta-
tion behavior. However, this correlational study does not
allow drawing rm conclusions about the causality of this
relationship. That is, people who already have implement-
ed more private adaptive measures may be more likely to
participate in public adaptation projects too. There may
also be a third variable in play that motivates people to
engage in both private adaptation and participation in deci-
sion-making, such as perceived social norms or perceived
risks. Future research is required to untangle whether, why,
and under which conditions public participation can lead
to more acceptable adaptive policies as well as motivate
private adaptation to climate change.
Third, we discussed communication and public participa-
tion in decision-making as strategies to promote behav-
ioral change. Yet, other modes of city-citizen interaction
may also promote adaptation, such as nancial incen-
tives (e.g., the provision of subsidies or lowering taxes to
motivate adaptation224), social inuence strategies (e.g.,
commitment strategies, implementation intentions, using
role-models225) and other structural strategies (e.g., imple-
menting laws or removing bureaucracy in order to make it
easier for people to implement adaptive measures them-
selves).226 Future research could examine the effectiveness
of such strategies in promoting adaptation behavior by
individuals and households.
5. Conclusion
In this background paper, we discussed the role of individ-
uals and households in climate change adaptation from
a psychological perspective. The role of individuals and
households is often overlooked in climate change science
and adaptation policymaking. Yet, individuals and house-
holds have an important role to play in successful adap-
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 15
tation to the impacts of climate change. Six categories
of adaptive behavior have been studied in the literature:
information seeking, preparative measures, protective
measures, purchasing insurance, evacuation/migration,
and political action. People are more likely to engage in
these adaptation behaviors if they: perceive higher risks
and experience stronger negative emotions from climate
change and climate-related hazards; feel that they are able
to implement adaptive measures and perceive such mea-
sures as effective to reduce climate risks; think that other
people are also adapting and that other people approve of
adaptation; and think that they are personally responsible
for undertaking adaptive measures. Adaptive behavior can
be promoted by designing interventions to target these
motives, for example via communication campaigns or
public participation in adaptation decision-making.
Based on our review, we offer the following three recom-
mendations for policy makers. First, adaptation planning
will be more successful if the behavior of individuals and
households are systematically considered. Individuals and
households can play a critical role in protecting themselves
and close others against the risks of climate change.
Additionally, individuals can contribute to the effective-
ness and fairness of adaptation policies through public
participation in decision-making. Individuals and house-
holds therefore represent an important force in the ght
against climate change risks that has so far been mostly
overlooked.
Second, there are multiple factors underlying people’s
decisions to (not) adapt and different strategies can be
implemented that target key factors to promote adaptive
behavior. Importantly, adaptation behavior is not just a
function of a person’s knowledge or perceived risks of
climate change. Rather, people are motivated or hindered
by a variety of psychological factors, such as perceived
responsibility and the perceived expectations and behavior
of others. These different psychological factors likely inter-
act and determine adaptation behavior in ways that are still
poorly understood, and which will require future studies
to disentangle. To increase the effectiveness of interven-
tions aimed at promoting adaptation behavior, systematic
monitoring and evaluation of both the target behavior as
well as the targeted antecedents of adaptation behavior are
necessary.
Third, individual adaptation is a necessary, but not a
sufcient, condition for successfully reducing the risks
of climate change. The effects of individual adaptation
will be marginal if governments and industry fail to imple-
ment large-scale, infrastructural adaptation measures. For
example, the effects of individual measures to reduce the
impacts of heatwaves will be futile if urban heat-island
effects are not addressed via climate-proof urban planning.
More generally, the behavior of individuals is determined
by the institutional, societal, cultural, legal, and physical
context in which it takes place. Attempts to change behav-
ior through informational or motivational campaigns may
therefore be futile if there are key structural or systematic
barriers to adaptive behavior. It is therefore imperative that
governments create enabling environments that support
individuals’ decision-making for effective climate change
adaptation. Overall, we hope that this background paper
will inspire more consideration for the role of individuals
and households in the overall discourse on climate change
adaptation.
16 September 2019
1 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2012. Managing
the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F.
Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.
Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Geneva: IPCC.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/managing-the-risks-of-extreme-events-and-
disasters-to-advance-climate-change-adaptation/
2 Sauerborn, R. and Ebi, K. 2012. “Climate Change and Natural Disasters:
Integrating Science and Practice to Protect Health.” Global Health Action 5:
19295. https://doi.org/10.3402/gha.v5i0.19295.
3 IPCC. 2014. Annex II: Glossary [Mach, K.J., S. Planton and C. von Stechow
(eds.)]. In: Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working
Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A.
Meyer (eds.)]. Geneva: IPCC. pp. 117-130. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/
uploads/2018/02/AR5_SYR_FINAL_Annexes.pdf
4 Lund, D.H. 2018. “Governance Innovations for Climate Change
Adaptation in Urban Denmark.” Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning
20(5): 632–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2018.1480361.
5 Brink, E., and Wamsler, C. 2019. “Citizen Engagement in Climate
Adaptation Surveyed: The Role of Values, Worldviews, Gender and Place.”
Journal of Cleaner Production 209: 1342–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2018.10.164.
6 Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., and Tompkins, E. L. 2005. “Successful
Adaptation to Climate Change across Scales.” Global Environmental
Change 15: 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005.
7 Wamsler, C. 2017. “Stakeholder Involvement in Strategic
Adaptation Planning: Transdisciplinarity and Co-Production at Stake?”
Environmental Science and Policy 75: 148–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.03.016.
8 Brink and Wamsler. 2019. “Citizen Engagement in Climate Adaptation
Surveyed: The Role of Values, Worldviews, Gender and Place.”
9 Elrick-Barr, C. E., Smith, T.F., Preston, B.L., Thomsen, D.C., and Baum, S.
2016. “How Are Coastal Households Responding to Climate Change?”
Environmental Science & Policy 63: 177–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2016.05.013.
10 Stojanov, R., Duží, B., Daněk, T., Němec, D., and Procházka, D. 2015.
“Adaptation to the Impacts of Climate Extremes in Central Europe: A Case
Study in a Rural Area in the Czech Republic.” Sustainability 7: 12758–86.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su70912758.
11 Kyle, G.T., Theodori, G.L., Absher, J.D., and Jun, J. 2010. “The
Inuence of Home and Community Attachment on Firewise
Behavior.” Society and Natural Resources 23: 1075–92. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08941920902724974.
12 Paul, B.K. 2012. “Factors Affecting Evacuation Behavior: The Case
of 2007 Cyclone Sidr, Bangladesh.” The Professional Geographer 64(3):
401–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2011.609780.
13 Steg, L., and Vlek, C. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour:
An Integrative Review and Research Agenda.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 29: 309–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2008.10.004.
14 Mortreux, C., and Barnett, J. 2017. “Adaptive Capacity: Exploring
the Research Frontier.” WIREs Climate Change 8: e467. https://doi.
org/10.1002/wcc.467.
15 Engle, N.L. 2011. “Adaptive Capacity and Its Assessment.” Global
Environmental Change 21: 647–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2011.01.019.
16 Singh, C., Osbahr, H., and Dorward, P. 2018. “The Implications of Rural
Perceptions of Water Scarcity on Differential Adaptation Behaviour in
Rajasthan, India.” Regional Environmental Change 18: 2417–32. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10113-018-1358-y.
17 Steg and Vlek. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An
Integrative Review and Research Agenda.”
18 Adger, Arnell, and Tompkins. 2005. “Successful Adaptation to Climate
Change across Scales.”
19 Moloney, S., Horne, R.E., and Fien, J. 2010. “Transitioning to Low
Carbon Communities-from Behaviour Change to Systemic Change:
Lessons from Australia.” Energy Policy 38: 7614–23. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.058.
20 Klein, J., Araos, M., Karimo, A., Heikkinen, M., Ylä-Anttila, T., Juhola,
S. 2018. “The Role of the Private Sector and Citizens in Urban Climate
Change Adaptation: Evidence from a Global Assessment of Large Cities.”
Global Environmental Change 53: 127–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2018.09.012.
21 Porter, J.J., Dessai, S., and Tompkins, E.L. 2014. “What Do We Know
about UK Household Adaptation to Climate Change? A Systematic
Review.” Climatic Change 127: 371–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-014-1252-7.
22 DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs). 2013.
The National Adaptation Programme: Making the Country Resilient to
a Changing Climate. London. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/
government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/le/727259/
pb13942-nap-20130701.pdf.
23 Klein et al. 2018. “The Role of the Private Sector and Citizens in Urban
Climate Change Adaptation: Evidence from a Global Assessment of Large
Cities.”
24 Reser, J.P., Bradley, G.L., and Ellul, M.C. 2012. “Coping with Climate
Change: Bringing Psychological Adaptation in from the Cold.” in Handbook
of Psychology and Coping: New Research, ed. B. Molinelli and V. Grimaldo.
New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1093/
ajae/aas075.
25 Hamilton M., Fischer, A.P., Guikema, S.D., and Keppel-Aleks, G. 2018.
“Behavioral Adaptation to Climate Change in Wildre-Prone Forests”
WIREs Climate Change 9: e553. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.553.
ENDNOTES
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 17
26 Elrick-Barr et al. 2016. “How Are Coastal Households Responding to
Climate Change?”
27 Klein, J., Juhola, S., and Landauer, M. 2017. “Local Authorities and
the Engagement of Private Actors in Climate Change Adaptation.”
Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 35(6): 1055–74. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0263774X16680819.
28 Wamsler, C., and Brink, E. 2014. “Interfacing Citizens’ and Institutions’
Practice and Responsibilities for Climate Change Adaptation.” Urban
Climate 7: 64–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2013.10.009.
29 Brink and Wamsler. 2019. “Citizen Engagement in Climate Adaptation
Surveyed: The Role of Values, Worldviews, Gender and Place.”
30 Wamsler, C. 2014. Cities, Disaster Risk and Adaptation. Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203486771.
31 Cohen, J.D. 2000. “Preventing Disaster Home Ignitability in the
Wildland-Urban Interface.” Journal of Forestry 98: 15–21. https://doi.org/
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2000_cohen_j002.pdf.
32 Vandentorren, S., Bretin, P., Zeghnoun, A., Mandereau-Bruno, L., Croisier,
A., Cochet, C., et al. 2006. “Heat-Related Mortality August 2003 Heat
Wave in France : Risk Factors for Death of Elderly People Living at Home”
European Journal of Public Health 16(6): 583–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/
eurpub/ckl063.
33 Three Regions Climate Change Group. 2008. Your Home in a Changing
Climate: Retrotting Existing Homes for Climate Change Impacts. London:
Greater London Authority.
34 Poussin, J.K., Botzen, W. J. W., and Aerts, J. C. J. H. 2015.
“Effectiveness of Flood Damage Mitigation Measures: Empirical Evidence
from French Flood Disasters.” Global Environmental Change 31: 74–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.007.
35 Kreibich, H., Christenberger, S., and Schwarze, R. 2011. “Economic
Motivation of Households to Undertake Private Precautionary Measures
against Floods.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Science 11(2): 309–21.
https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-11-309-2011.
36 Kreibich, H., Christenberger, S., and Schwarze, R. 2012. “Corrigendum
to ‘Economic Motivation of Households to Undertake Private
Precautionary Measures against Floods’ Published in Nat. Hazards Earth
Syst. Sci., 11, 309–321, 2011.” Natural Hazards and Earth System Science
12(2): 391–92. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-12-391-2012.
37 Hochrainer-Stigler, S., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., and Mochizuki, J. 2019.
“Flood Proong Low-Income Houses in India: An Application of Climate-
Sensitive Probabilistic Benet-Cost Analysis.” Economics of Disasters and
Climate Change 3: 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41885-018-0032-7.
38 Cloutier, G., Papin, M., and Bizier, C. 2018. “Do-It-Yourself (DIY)
Adaptation: Civic Initiatives as Drivers to Address Climate Change
at the Urban Scale.” Cities 74: 284–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
cities.2017.12.018.
39 Cloutier, Papin, and Bizier. 2018. “Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Adaptation: Civic
Initiatives as Drivers to Address Climate Change at the Urban Scale.”
40 Bor, A., and Mesters, C. 2018. Financiële Prikkels Voor Klimaatadaptatie:
Inventarisatie Financiële Beloningen Voor Klimaatbestendige Gebouwen En
Tuinen [Financial Incentives for Climate Change Adaptation: Assessment
Financial Rewards for Climate Proof Buildings and Gardens]. NextGreen &
Stroom en Onderstroom.
41 Wamsler, C. 2016. “From Risk Governance to City–Citizen
Collaboration: Capitalizing on Individual Adaptation to Climate Change.”
Environmental Policy and Governance 26(3): 184–204. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eet.1707.
42 Wamsler. 2016. “From Risk Governance to City–Citizen Collaboration:
Capitalizing on Individual Adaptation to Climate Change.”
43 Mora, C., Spirandelli, D., Franklin, E.C., Lynham, J., Kantar, M.B., Miles,
W., et al. 2018. “Broad Threat to Humanity from Cumulative Climate
Hazards Intensied by Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” Nature Climate
Change 8: 1062-1071. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0315-6.
44 Lorenzo, A., Bisselink, B., Dottori, F., Naumann, G., de Roo, A., Salamon,
P., et al. 2016. “Global Projections of River Flood Risk in a Warmer World.”
Earth’s Future 5(2): 171–82. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000485.
45 Rasmussen, D.J., Bittermann, K., Buchanan, M. K., Kulp, S., Strauss,
B.H., Kopp, R.E., et al. 2018. “Extreme Sea Level Implications of 1.5 °C,
2.0 °C, and 2.5 °C Temperature Stabilization Targets in the 21st and 22nd
Centuries.” Environmental Research Letters 13(3): 034040.
46 Liu, W., Sun, F., Lim, W.H., Zhang, J., Wang, H., Shiogama, H. et al.
2018. “Global Drought and Severe Drought-Affected Populations in 1.5
and 2° C Warmer Worlds.” Earth System Dynamics 9: 267–83. https://doi.
org/10.5194/esd-9-267-2018.
47 Schleussner, C.-F., Lissner, T.K., Fischer, E.M., Wohland, J., Perrette,
M., Golly, A., et al. 2016. “Differential Climate Impacts for Policy-Relevant
Limits to Global Warming: The Case of 1.5 °C and 2 °C.” Earth System
Dynamics 7(2): 327–51. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-7-327-2016.
48 Mendelsohn, R., Emanuel, K., Chonabayashi, S., and Bakkensen,
L. 2012. “The Impact of Climate Change on Global Tropical Cyclone
Damage.” Nature Climate Change 2(3): 205–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate1357.
49 Lin, N., and Emanuel, K. 2016. “Grey Swan Tropical Cyclones.” Nature
Climate Change 6: 106–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2777.
50 Mora, C., Dousset, B., Caldwell, I.R., Powell, F.E., Geronimo, R.C., Bielecki,
C.R., et al. 2017. “Global Risk of Deadly Heat,” Nature Climate Change 7:
501–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3322.
51 Liu, Y., Stanturf, J., and Goodrick, S. 2010. “Trends in Global Wildre
Potential in a Changing Climate.” Forest Ecology and Management 259(4):
685–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2009.09.002.
52 Caminade, C., Kovats, S., Rocklov, J., Tompkins, A.M., Morse, A.P.,
Colón-González, F.J., et al. 2014. “Impact of Climate Change on Global
Malaria Distribution.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
111(9): 3286–91. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1302089111.
18 September 2019
53 Campbell-Lendrum, D., Manga, L., Bagayoko, M., and Sommerfeld,
J. 2015. “Climate Change and Vector-Borne Diseases: What Are the
Implications for Public Health Research and Policy?” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B 370(1665): 1-8. https://doi.
org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0552.
54 Colón-González, F.J., Harris, I., Osborn, T.J., Steiner São Bernardo, C.,
Peres, C.A., Hunter, P.R., et al. 2018. “Limiting Global-Mean Temperature
Increase to 1.5–2 °C Could Reduce the Incidence and Spatial Spread of
Dengue Fever in Latin America.” Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences 115(24): 6243–48. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1718945115.
55 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2018. Summary
for Policymakers. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on
the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and relat-
ed global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthen-
ing the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable devel-
opment, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai,
H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia,
C. Péan, R. Pidcock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I.
Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Watereld (eds.)]. Geneva:
IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/summary-for-policy-makers/
56 Chen, P.-Y., Chen, C.-C., Chu, L., and McCarl, B. 2015. “Evaluating
the Economic Damage of Climate Change on Global Coral Reefs.”
Global Environmental Change 30: 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2014.10.011.
57 Wamsler and Brink. 2014. “Interfacing Citizens’ and Institutions’
Practice and Responsibilities for Climate Change Adaptation.”
58 Wamsler. 2014. “Cities, Disaster Risk and Adaptation.”
59 van Valkengoed, A.M., and Steg, L. 2019. The Psychology of Climate
Change Adaptation. In: Elements in Applied Social Psychology [Clayton, S.,
(ed.)]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
60 Wamsler. 2014. “Cities, Disaster Risk and Adaptation.”
61 Kellens, W., Zaalberg, R., and De Maeyer, P. 2012. “The Informed
Society: An Analysis of the Public’s Information-Seeking Behavior
Regarding Coastal Flood Risks.” Risk Analysis 32(8): 1369–81. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01743.x.
62 Toloo, G., Fitzgerald, G., Aitken, P., Verrall, K., and Tong, S. 2013. “Are
Heat Warning Systems Effective?” Environmental Health 12: 27. https://
doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-27.
63 Singh, C., Daron, J., Bazaz, A., Ziervogel, G., Spear, D., Krishnaswamy, J.,
et al. 2018. “The Utility of Weather and Climate Information for Adaptation
Decision-Making: Current Uses and Future Prospects in Africa and India.”
Climate and Development 10(5): 389–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565
529.2017.1318744.
64 Bramley, M.E., and Bowker, P.M. 2002. “Improving local ood protection
to property.” Civil Engineering 150(5): 49-55.
65 Fernandez, G., Masters, F.J., and Gurley, K.R. 2010. “Performance of
Hurricane Shutters under Impact by Roof Tiles.” Engineering Structures 32:
3384–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.07.012.
66 Aladenola, O., Cashman, A., and Brown, D. 2016. “Impact of El Niño
and Climate Change on Rainwater Harvesting in a Caribbean State.”
Water Resources Management 30(10): 3459–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11269-016-1362-2.
67 Suehrcke, H., Peterson, E.L., and Selby, N. 2008. “Effect of Roof Solar
Reectance on the Building Heat Gain in a Hot Climate.” Energy and
Buildings 40: 2224–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.06.015.
68 Zölch, T., Henze, L., Keillholz, P., and Pauleit, S. 2017. “Regulating
Urban Surface Runoff through Nature-Based Solutions – An Assessment
at the Micro-Scale.” Environmental Research 157: 135–44. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envres.2017.05.023.
69 Ingabire, C.M., Hakizimana, E., Kateera, F., Rulisa, A., Van Den Borne,
B., Nieuwold, I., et al. 2016. “Using an Intervention Mapping Approach for
Planning, Implementing and Assessing a Community-Led Project towards
Malaria Elimination in the Eastern Province of Rwanda.” Malaria Journal
15: 594. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12936-016-1645-3.
70 McGee, T.K., and Russell, S. 2003. “‘It’s Just a Natural Way of Life...’ an
Investigation of Wildre Preparedness in Rural Australia.” Environmental
Hazards 5: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hazards.2003.04.001.
71 Padgham, L., Horne, R., Singh, D., and Moore, T. 2014. “Planning
for Sandbagging as a Response to Flooding: A Tool and Case Study.”
Australian Journal of Emergency Management 29(4): 26–31.
72 Hamilton, K., Price, S., Keech, J.J., Peden, A.E., and Hagger, M.S. 2018.
“Drivers’ Experiences during Floods: Investigating the Psychological
Inuences Underpinning Decisions to Avoid Driving through Floodwater.”
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 28: 507–18. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2017.12.013.
73 Deng, Y., Wang, M., and Yousefpour, R. 2017. “How Do People’s
Perceptions and Climatic Disaster Experiences Inuence Their Daily
Behaviors Regarding Adaptation to Climate Change? — A Case Study
among Young Generations.” Science of the Total Environment 581–582:
840–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.01.022.
74 Tizifa, T.A., Kabaghe, A.N., McCann, R.S., van den Berg, H., Van Vught,
M., and Phiri, K.S. 2018. “Prevention Efforts for Malaria.” Current Tropical
Medicine Reports 5: 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40475-018-0133-y.
75 Akompab, D.A., Bi, P., Williams, S., Grant, J., Walker, I.A., and
Augoustinos, M. 2013. “Heat Waves and Climate Change: Applying the
Health Belief Model to Identify Predictors of Risk Perception and Adaptive
Behaviours in Adelaide, Australia.” International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 10(6): 2164–84. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijerph10062164.
76 Hong, S., Park, E.H., and Cameron, G. 2019. “Look Who Is Warning:
Individual Differences in Motivation Activation Inuence Behaviors during
Disasters.” Journal of Risk Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.20
19.1569100.
77 Kim, Y.-C., and Kang, J. 2010. “Communication, Neighbourhood
Belonging and Household Hurricane Preparedness.” Disasters 34(2):
470–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.2009.01138.x.
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 19
78 Carter, T.R., Fronzek, S., Inkinen, A., Lahtinen, I., Lahtinen, M., Mela, H., et
al. 2016. “Characterising Vulnerability of the Elderly to Climate Change in
the Nordic Region.” Regional Environmental Change 16: 43–58. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10113-014-0688-7.
79 Kim, J., and Oh, S.S. 2015. “Condence, Knowledge, and Compliance
with Emergency Evacuation”. Journal of Risk Research 18(1): 111–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2014.880728.
80 Lazo, J.K., Bostrom A., Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., and Lazrus, H. 2015.
“Factors Affecting Hurricane Evacuation Intentions.” Risk Analysis 35(10):
1837–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12407.
81 Eisenman, D.P., Cordasco, K.M., Asch, S., Golden, J.F., and
Glick, D. 2007. “Disaster Planning and Risk Communication With
Vulnerable Communities: Lessons From Hurricane Katrina.” American
Journal of Public Health 97(S1): S109–15. https://doi.org/10.2105/
ajph.2005.084335.
82 Sharma, U., and Patt, A. 2012. “Disaster Warning Response: The Effects
of Different Types of Personal Experience.” Natural Hazards 60: 409–23.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-0023-2.
83 Tinsley, C.H., Dillon, R. L., and Cronin, M. A. 2012. “How Near-Miss
Events Amplify or Attenuate Risky Decision Making.” Management Science
58(9): 1596–1613. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1120.1517.
84 Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M.K., Prater, C.S., Wu, H.-C., and Siebeneck, L.K.
2012. “Household Evacuation Decision Making in Response to Hurricane
Ike.” Natural Hazards Review 13(4): 283–96.
85 Pal, J.S., and Eltahir, E.A.B. 2016. “Future Temperature in Southwest
Asia Projected to Exceed a Threshold for Human Adaptability.” Nature
Climate Change 6(2): 197–200. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2833.
86 Im, E. S., Pal, J.S., and Eltahir, E.A.B. 2017. “Deadly Heat Waves
Projected in the Densely Populated Agricultural Regions of South Asia.”
Science Advances 3: e1603322. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1603322.
87 Storlazzi, C.D., Gingerich, S.B., van Dongeren, A., Cheriton, O.M.,
Swarzenski, P.W., Quataert, E., et al. 2018. “Most Atolls Will Be
Uninhabitable by the Mid-21st Century Because of Sea-Level Rise
Exacerbating Wave-Driven Flooding.” Science Advances 4: eaap9741.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aap9741.
88 Black, R., Bennet, S.R.G., Thomas, and S.M., Beddington, J.R.
2011. “Migration as Adaptation.” Nature 478: 447–49. https://doi.
org/10.1038/478477a.
89 Birk, T., and Rasmussen, K. 2014. “Migration from Atolls as
Climate Change Adaptation: Current Practices, Barriers and Options
in Solomon Islands.” Natural Resources Forum 38: 1–13. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1477-8947.12038.
90 A, T., Milan, A., Etzold, B., Schraven, B., Rademacher-Schulz, C.,
Sakdapolrak, P., et al. 2016. “Human Mobility in Response to Rainfall
Variability: Opportunities for Migration as a Successful Adaptation
Strategy in Eight Case Studies.” Migration and Development 5(2): 254–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2015.1022974.
91 Singh, C. 2019. “Migration as a Driver of Changing Household
Structures: Implications for Local Livelihoods and Adaptation.” Migration
and Development. https://doi.org/10.1080/21632324.2019.1589073.
92 Hartmann, B. 2008. “Rethinking Climate Refugees and Climate
Conict: Rhetoric, Reality and the Politics of Policy Discourse.” Journal of
International Development 22: 233–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.
93 Upadhyay, H., Kelman, I., Lingaraj, G.J., Mishra, A., Shreve, C., and
Stojanov, R. 2015. “Conceptualizing and Contextualizing Research and
Policy for Links between Climate Change and Migration.” International
Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 7(3): 394–417.
94 Maldonado, J.K., Shearer, C., Bronen, R., Peterson, K., and Lazrus, H.
2013. “The Impact of Climate Change on Tribal Communities in the US:
Displacement, Relocation, and Human Rights.” Climatic Change 120:
601–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05266-3_8.
95 Rao, N. 2012. “Breadwinners and Homemakers: Migration and
Changing Conjugal Expectations in Rural Bangladesh.” The Journal of
Development Studies 48(1): 26–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.20
11.629648.
96 Singh. 2019. “Migration as a Driver of Changing Household Structures:
Implications for Local Livelihoods and Adaptation.”
97 Botzen, W. J W, and van den Bergh, J. C. J. M. 2008. “Insurance against
Climate Change and Flooding in the Netherlands: Present, Future, and
Comparison with Other Countries.” Risk Analysis 28(2): 413–26. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01035.x.
98 Surminski, S., and Oramas-Dorta, D. 2014. “Flood Insurance Schemes
and Climate Adaptation in Developing Countries.” International Journal
of Disaster Risk Reduction 7: 154–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijdrr.2013.10.005.
99 Hansen, J., Hellin, J., and Rose, A. 2017. Prospects for Scaling up the
Contribution of Index Insurance to Smallholder Adaptation to Climate Risk:
Harnessing Innovations to Protect and Promote Farmers’ Livelihoods. Info
Note. CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture, and Food
Security. https://ccafs.cgiar.org/publications/prospects-scaling-contribu-
tion-index-insurance-smallholder-adaptation-climate-risk#.XROC8iIzaM8
100 Hansen, Hellin, and Rose. 2017. Prospects for Scaling up the
Contribution of Index Insurance to Smallholder Adaptation to Climate Risk:
Harnessing Innovations to Protect and Promote Farmers’ Livelihoods.
101 Warner, K., Ranger, N., Surminski, S., Arnold, M., Linnerooth-Bayer,
J., Michel-Kerjan, E., et al. 2009. Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking
Disaster Risk Reduction and Insurance. Geneva: UNISDR. https://doi.
org/10.18421/GP19.02-05.
102 Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Mechler, R., and Hochrainer-Stigler, S. 2011.
“Insurance against Losses from Natural Disasters in Developing Countries.
Evidence, Gaps, and the Way Forward.” Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk
Management 1(1): 59–81. https://doi.org/10.5595/idrim.2011.0013.
103 M. Giugale. 2017. “Time to Insure Developing Countries
Against Natural Disasters.” (blog) October 11. https://
www.worldbank.org/en/news/opinion/2017/10/11/
20 September 2019
time-to-insure-developing-countries-against-natural-disasters
104 Herweijer, C., Ranger, N., and Ward, R.E.T. 2009.“Adaptation to Climate
Change: Threats and Opportunities for the Insurance Industry.” Geneva
Papers on Risk and Insurance: Issues and Practice 34: 360–80. https://doi.
org/10.1057/gpp.2009.13.
105 Lamond, J., and Penning-Rowsell, E. 2014. “The Robustness of
Flood Insurance Regimes given Changing Risk Resulting from Climate
Change.” Climate Risk Management 2: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
crm.2014.03.001.
106 Annan, F., and Schlenker, W. 2015. “Federal Crop Insurance and the
Disincentive to Adapt to Extreme Heat.” American Economic Review
105(5): 262–66. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20151031.
107 Mcleman, R., and Smit, B. 2006. “Vulnerability to Climate Change
Hazards and Risks: Crop and Flood Insurance” Canadian Geographer/Le
Géographe Canadien 50(2): 217–26.
108 Elrick-Barr et al. 2016. “How Are Coastal Households Responding to
Climate Change?”
109 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “The Psychology of Climate Change
Adaptation.”
110 Helm, S.V., Pollitt, A., Barnett, M.A., Curran, M.A., and Craig, Z.R. 2018.
“Differentiating Environmental Concern in the Context of Psychological
Adaption to Climate Change.” Global Environmental Change 48: 158–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.012.
111 Wamsler, C., and Brink, E. 2018. “Mindsets for Sustainability:
Exploring the Link Between Mindfulness and Sustainable Climate
Adaptation.” Ecological Economics 151: 55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2018.04.029.
112 Howden, S.M., Soussana, J.-F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop,
M., and Meinke, H. 2007. “Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change.”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(50): 19691–96,
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0701890104.
113 Grothmann, T., and Patt, A. 2005. “Adaptive Capacity and Human
Cognition: The Process of Individual Adaptation to Climate Change.”
Global Environmental Change 15: 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2005.01.002.
114 Paton, D., Bürgelt, P. T., and Prior, T. 2008. “Living with Bushre Risk:
Social and Environmental Inuences on Preparedness.” The Australian
Journal of Emergency Management 23(3): 41–48.
115 van Valkengoed, A.M., and Steg, L. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.” Nature Climate Change 9:
158–63. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0371-y.
116 Fox-Rogers, L., Devitt, C., O’Neill, E., Brereton, F., and Clinch, P. 2016.
“Is There Really ‘Nothing You Can Do’? Pathways to Enhanced Flood-
Risk Preparedness.” Journal of Hydrology 543: 330–43. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.009.
117 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
118 Paton, D., Kelly, G., Burgelt, P.T., and Doherty, M. 2006. “Preparing for
Bushres: Understanding Intentions,” Disaster Prevention and Management
15(4): 566–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/09653560610685893.
119 Paek, H.-J., and Hove, T. 2017. “Risk Perceptions and Risk
Characteristics.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication. https://
doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.283.
120 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
121 Wachinger, G., Renn, O., Begg., C., and Kuhlicke, C. 2013. “The Risk
Perception Paradox-Implications for Governance and Communication
of Natural Hazards.” Risk Analysis 33(6): 1049–65, https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01942.x.
122 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
123 Weinstein, N.D., Rothman, A. J., and Nicolich, M. 1998. “Use of
Correlational Data to Examine the Effects of Risk Perceptions on
Precautionary Behavior.” Psychology & Health 13: 479–501. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08870449808407305.
124 Slovic, P., and Peters, E. 2006. “Risk Perception and Affect.”
Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(6): 322–25. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00461.x.
125 Brügger, A., Morton, T. A., and Dessai, S. 2015. “Hand in Hand: Public
Endorsement of Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation.” PLoS ONE
10(4): e0124843. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124843.
126 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “The Psychology of Climate Change
Adaptation.”
127 Hagen, B., Middel, A., and Pijawka, D. 2016. “European Climate
Change Perceptions: Public Support for Mitigation and Adaptation
Policies.” Environmental Policy and Governance 26: 170–83. https://doi.
org/10.1002/eet.1701.
128 Ray, A., Hughes, L., Konisky, D.M., and Kaylor, C. 2017. “Extreme
Weather Exposure and Support for Climate Change Adaptation.”
Global Environmental Change 46: 104–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2017.07.002.
129 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
130 Rogers, R.W., and Prentice-Dunn, S. 1997. Protection Motivation
Theory. In: Handbook of Health Behaviour Research. I:Personal and Social
Determinants [Gochmann, D., (ed.)]. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
131 Grothmann and Patt. 2005. “Adaptive Capacity and Human Cognition:
The Process of Individual Adaptation to Climate Change.”
132 Samaddar, S., Chatterjee, R., Misra, B., and Tatano, H. 2014. “Outcome-
Expectancy and Self-Efcacy: Reasons or Results of Flood Preparedness
Intention?” International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 8: 91–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.02.002.
133 Siders, A.R. 2019. “Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change: A Synthesis
of Concepts, Methods, and Findings in a Fragmented Field.” WIREs Climate
Change 10: e573. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.573.
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 21
134 Ung, M., Luginaah, I., Chuenpagdee, R., and Campbell, G. 2016.
“Perceived Self-Efcacy and Adaptation to Climate Change in Coastal
Cambodia.” Climate 4: 1. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli4010001.
135 Demuth, J.L., Morss, R.E., Lazo, J.K., and Trumbo, C. 2016. “The
Effects of Past Hurricane Experiences on Evacuation Intentions
through Risk Perception and Efcacy Beliefs: A Mediation Analysis.”
Weather, Climate, and Society 8: 327–44. https://doi.org/10.1175/
WCAS-D-15-0074.1.
136 Hung, W.-S., Hu, S.C., Hsu, Y.-C., Chen, K.-L., Chen, K.-H., Yu, M.-C., et
al. 2014. “Factors Affecting the Use of Anti-Malaria Preventive Measures
among Taiwan Immigrants Returning to Malaria-Endemic Regions.” Travel
Medicine and Infectious Disease 12: 370–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tmaid.2013.07.001.
137 Samaddar et al. 2014. “Outcome-Expectancy and Self-Efcacy:
Reasons or Results of Flood Preparedness Intention?”
138 McGee, T.K., McFarlane, B.L., and Varghese, J. 2009. “An Examination
of the Inuence of Hazard Experience on Wildre Risk Perceptions and
Adoption of Mitigation Measures.” Society and Natural Resources 22:
308–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920801910765.
139 Działek, J., Biernacki, W., Fiedeń, Ł., Listwan-Franczak, K., and
Franczak., P. 2016. “Universal or Context-Specic Social Vulnerability
Drivers – Understanding Flood Preparedness in Southern Poland.”
International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction 19: 212–23. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.08.002.
140 Terpstra, T. and Lindell, M. K. 2012. “Citizens’ Perceptions of Flood
Hazard Adjustments: An Application of the Protective Action Decision
Model.” Environment and Behavior 45(8): 993–1018. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013916512452427.
141 Hall, T.E., and Slothower, M. 2009. “Cognitive Factors Affecting
Homeowners’ Reactions to Defensible Space in the Oregon Coast
Range.” Society and Natural Resources 22: 95–110. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08941920802392187.
142 Martin, I.M., Bender, H., and Raish, C. 2007. “What Motivates
Individuals to Protect Themselves from Risks: The Case of
Wildland Fires.” Risk Analysis 27(4): 887–900. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2007.00930.x.
143 Deng, Wang, and Yousefpour. 2017. “How Do People’s Perceptions
and Climatic Disaster Experiences Inuence Their Daily Behaviors
Regarding Adaptation to Climate Change? — A Case Study among Young
Generations.”
144 Gebrehiwot, T., and van der Veen, A. 2015. “Farmers Prone to Drought
Risk: Why Some Farmers Undertake Farm-Level Risk-Reduction Measures
While Others Not?” Environmental Management 55 (2015): 588–602.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0415-7.
145 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019.“Meta-Analyses of Factors Motivating
Climate Change Adaptation.”
146 Cialdini, R.B. 2007. “Descriptive Social Norms as under Appreciated
Sources of Social Control.” Psychometrika 72(2): 263–68. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11336-005-1495-y.
147 Lo, A.Y. 2013. “The Role of Social Norms in Climate Adaptation:
Mediating Risk Perception and Flood Insurance Purchase.” Global
Environmental Change 23: 1249–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2013.07.019.
148 Truelove, H.B., Carrico, A.R., and Thabrew, L. 2015. “A Socio-
Psychological Model for Analyzing Climate Change Adaptation: A Case
Study of Sri Lankan Paddy Farmers.” Global Environmental Change 31:
85–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.010.
149 Huang, S.-K., Lindell, M.K., and Prater, C.S. 2016. “Who Leaves
and Who Stays? A Review and Statistical Meta-Analysis of Hurricane
Evacuation Studies.” Environment and Behavior 48(8): 991–1029. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0013916515578485.
150 Cialdini. 2007. “Descriptive Social Norms as under Appreciated
Sources of Social Control.”
151 Mankad, A., Greenhill, M., Tucker, D., and Tapsuwan, S. 2013.
“Motivational Indicators of Protective Behaviour in Response to Urban
Water Shortage Threat.” Journal of Hydrology 491: 100–107. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.04.002.
152 Lo, A.Y., Xu, B., Chan, F.K.S., and Su, R. 2015. “Social Capital and
Community Preparation for Urban Flooding in China.” Applied Geography
64 (2015): 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.08.003.
153 Harries, T. 2008. “Feeling Secure or Being Secure? Why It Can Seem
Better Not to Protect Yourself against a Natural Hazard.” Health, Risk &
Society 10(5): 479–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698570802381162.
154 Coulthard, S. 2008. “Adapting to environmental change in artisanal
sheries –Insights from a South Indian Lagoon.” Global Environmental
Change 18: 479-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.003
155 McFarlane, B.L., McGee, T. K., and Faulkner, H. 2011. “Complexity
of Homeowner Wildre Risk Mitigation: An Integration of Hazard
Theories.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 20(8): 921–31. https://doi.
org/10.1071/WF10096.
156 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
157 Adger, W.N., Quinn, T., Lorenzoni, I., Murphy, C., and Sweeney, J. 2012.
“Changing Social Contracts in Climate-Change Adaptation,” Nature Climate
Change 3(4): 330–33. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1751.
158 Terpstra, T., and Gutteling, J.M. 2008. “Households’ Perceived
Responsibilities in Flood Risk Management in the Netherlands.”
International Journal of Water Resources Development 24(4): 555–65.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07900620801923385.
159 Schulte, S., and Miller, K. A. 2010. “Wildre Risk and Climate Change:
The Inuence on Homeowner Mitigation Behavior in the Wildland–
Urban Interface.” Society & Natural Resources 23: 417–35. https://doi.
org/10.1080/08941920903431298.
160 Butler, C. and Pidgeon, N. 2011. “From ‘Flood Defence’ to ‘Flood
Risk Management’: Exploring Governance, Responsibility, and Blame.”
Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 29(3): 533–47.
https://doi.org/10.1068/c09181j.
22 September 2019
161 McNeill, I.M., Dunlop, P.D., Heath, J.B., Skinner, T.C., and Morrison,
D.L. 2013. “Expecting the Unexpected: Predicting Physiological and
Psychological Wildre Preparedness from Perceived Risk, Responsibility,
and Obstacles.” Risk Analysis 33(10): 1829–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/
risa.12037.
162 McFarlane, McGee, and Faulkner. 2011. “Complexity of Homeowner
Wildre Risk Mitigation: An Integration of Hazard Theories.”
163 Mulilis, J.P., Duval, T.S., and Bovalino, K. 2000. “Tornado Preparedness
of Students, Nonstudent Renters, and Nonstudent Owners: Issues of PrE
Theory.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30(6): 1310–29. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02522.x.
164 Bateman, T.S., and O’Connor, K. 2016. “Felt Responsibility and
Climate Engagement: Distinguishing Adaptation from Mitigation.”
Global Environmental Change 41: 206–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2016.11.001.
165 Begg, C., Ueberham, M., Masson, T., and Kuhlicke, C. 2017.
“Interactions between Citizen Responsibilization, Flood Experience
and Household Resilience: Insights from the 2013 Flood in Germany.”
International Journal of Water Resources Development 33(4): 591–608.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07900627.2016.1200961.
166 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
167 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
168 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
169 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
170 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
171 Bubeck, P., Botzen, W.J.W., Laudan, J., Aerts, J.C.J.H., and Thieken,
A.H. 2018. “Insights into Flood-Coping Appraisals of Protection Motivation
Theory: Empirical Evidence from Germany and France.” Risk Analysis
38(6): 1239–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12938.
172 Caminade et al. 2014. “Impact of Climate Change on Global Malaria
Distribution.”
173 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “The Psychology of Climate Change
Adaptation.”
174 Michie, S., Carey, R.N., Johnston, M., Rothman, A.J., de Bruin, M., Kelly,
M.P., et al. 2018. “From Theory-Inspired to Theory-Based Interventions:
A Protocol for Developing and Testing a Methodology for Linking
Behaviour Change Techniques to Theoretical Mechanisms of Action.”
Annals of Behavioral Medicine 52: 501–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12160-016-9816-6.
175 Pelletier, L.G., and Sharp, E. 2008. “Persuasive Communication and
Proenvironmental Behaviours: How Message Tailoring and Message
Framing Can Improve the Integration of Behaviours through Self-
Determined Motivation.” Canadian Psychology 49(3): 210–17. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0012755.
176 Moser, S.C., and Pike, C. 2015. “Community Engagement on
Adaptation: Meeting a Growing Capacity Need.” Urban Climate 14: 111–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2015.06.006.
177 Klein et al. 2018. “The Role of the Private Sector and Citizens in Urban
Climate Change Adaptation: Evidence from a Global Assessment of Large
Cities.”
178 Lund, D.H., Sehested, K., Hellesen, T., and Nelleman, V. 2012. “Climate
Change Adaptation in Denmark: Enhancement through Collaboration and
Meta-Governance?” Local Environment 17(6–7): 613–28. https://doi.org/1
0.1080/13549839.2012.678318.
179 Sims, J.H., and Baumann, D.D. 1983. “Educational Programs and
Human Response to Natural Hazards.” Environment & Behavior 15(2):
165–89.
180 Mildenberger, M., Lubell, M., and Hummel, M. 2019. “Personalized Risk
Messaging Can Reduce Climate Concerns.” Global Environmental Change
55: 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.002.
181 Das, S. 2016. “Television Is More Effective in Bringing Behavioral
Change: Evidence from Heat-Wave Awareness Campaign in India.” World
Development 88: 107–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.07.009.
182 Kievik, M., and Gutteling, J.M. 2011. “Yes, We Can: Motivate
Dutch Citizens to Engage in Self-Protective Behavior with Regard to
Flood Risks.” Natural Hazards 59: 1475–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-011-9845-1.
183 Howe, P.D.L., Boldero, J., McNeill, I.M., Vargas-Sáenz, A., and Handmer,
J. 2018. “Increasing Preparedness for Wildres by Informing Residents
of Their Community’s Social Norms.” Natural Hazards Review 19(2):
04017029. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000279.
184 Bruine de Bruin, W., Lefevre, C.E., Taylor, A.L., Dessai, S., and Fischhoff,
B. 2016. “Promoting Protection against a Threat That Evokes Positive
Affect: The Case of Heat Waves in the United Kingdom.” Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Applied 22(3): 261–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/
xap0000083.
185 Hine, D.W., Phillips, W.J., Cooksey, R., Reser, J.P., Nunn, P., Marks,
A.D.G., et al. 2016. “Preaching to Different Choirs: How to Motivate
Dismissive, Uncommitted, and Alarmed Audiences to Adapt to
Climate Change?” Global Environmental Change 36: 1–11. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.11.002.
186 Hine et al. 2016. “Preaching to Different Choirs: How to Motivate
Dismissive, Uncommitted, and Alarmed Audiences to Adapt to Climate
Change?”
187 Bostrom, A., Böhm, G., and O’Connor, R. E. 2013. “Targeting and
Tailoring Climate Change Communications.” WIREs Climate Change 4:
447–55. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.234.
188 Glaas, E., Gammelgaard Ballantyne, A., Neset, T.-S., Linnér, B.-J.,
Navarra, C., Johansson, J., et al. 2015. “Facilitating Climate Change
Adaptation through Communication: Insights from the Development of a
Visualization Tool.” Energy Research & Social Science 10: 57–61. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.06.012.
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 23
189 Glaas et al. 2015. “Facilitating Climate Change Adaptation through
Communication: Insights from the Development of a Visualization Tool.”
190 Glaas et al. 2015. “Facilitating Climate Change Adaptation through
Communication: Insights from the Development of a Visualization Tool.”
191 Neset, T.-S., Glaas, E., Gammelgaard Ballantyne, A., Linnér, B.-J.,
Opach, T., Navarra, C., et al. 2016. “Climate Change Effects at Your
Doorstep: Geographic Visualization to Support Nordic Homeowners in
Adapting to Climate Change.” Applied Geography 74: 65–72. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.07.003.
192 Glaas, E., Gammelgaard Ballantyne, A., Neset, T.-S., and Linnér, B.-J.
2017. “Visualization for Supporting Individual Climate Change Adaptation
Planning: Assessment of a Web-Based Tool.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 158: 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.09.018.
193 Neset et al. 2016. “Climate Change Effects at Your Doorstep:
Geographic Visualization to Support Nordic Homeowners in Adapting to
Climate Change.”
194 Arnstein, S.R. 1969. “A Ladder Of Citizen Participation.” Journal
of the American Planning Association 35(4): 216–24. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944366908977225.
195 Perlaviciute, G. In Press. Public Participation in Decision Making on
Energy Projects: When Does It Lead to Better and More Acceptable Energy
Projects? In: Managing facts and feelings in environmental governance
[Squintani, L., Darpö, J., Lavrysen, L., & Stoll, P.T. (eds.)]. Edward Elgar
Publishing.
196 Wamsler. 2016. “From Risk Governance to City–Citizen Collaboration:
Capitalizing on Individual Adaptation to Climate Change.”
197 Lund et al. 2012. “Climate Change Adaptation in Denmark:
Enhancement through Collaboration and Meta-Governance?”
198 Brink, E., and Wamsler, C. 2018. “Collaborative Governance for
Climate Change Adaptation: Mapping Citizen–Municipality Interactions.”
Environmental Policy and Governance 28: 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/
eet.1795.
199 Uittenbroek, C.J., Mees, H.L.P., Hegger, D.L.T., and Driessen, P.P.J.
2019. “The Design of Public Participation: Who Participates, When and
How? Insights in Climate Adaptation Planning from the Netherlands.”
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. https://doi.org/10.10
80/09640568.2019.1569503.
200 McEwen, L., and Jones, O. 2012. “Building Local/Lay Flood
Knowledges into Community Flood Resilience Planning after the July
2007 Floods, Gloucestershire, UK.” Hydrology Research 43(5): 675–88.
https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2012.022.
201 Perlaviciute, G., and Steg, L. 2014. “Contextual and Psychological
Factors Shaping Evaluations and Acceptability of Energy Alternatives:
Integrated Review and Research Agenda.” Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 35: 361–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.04.003.
202 Kuhlicke, C., Steinführer, A., Begg, C., Bianchizza, C., Bründl, M.,
Buchecker, M., et al. 2011.”Perspectives on Social Capacity Building for
Natural Hazards: Outlining an Emerging Field of Research and Practice
in Europe.” Environmental Science and Policy 14(7): 804–14. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2011.05.001.
203 Brink and Wamsler. 2018. “Collaborative Governance for Climate
Change Adaptation: Mapping Citizen–Municipality Interactions.”
204 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “Meta-Analyses of Factors
Motivating Climate Change Adaptation.”
205 Dorward, P., Clarkson, G., and Stern, R. 2015. Participatory Integrated
Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA): Field Manual. Walker Institute,
University of Reading.
206 Dayamba., D.S., Ky-Dembele, C., Bayala, J., Dorward, P., Clarkson, G.,
Sanogo, D., et al. 2018. “Assessment of the Use of Participatory Integrated
Climate Services for Agriculture (PICSA) Approach by Farmers to Manage
Climate Risk in Mali and Senegal.” Climate Services 12: 27–35. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.cliser.2018.07.003.
207 Steinmuller, S., and Cramer, L. 2017. Evaluation of Climate Services
Interventions in the GFCS Adaptation Programme for Africa. Statistics for
Sustainable Development.
208 Measham, T.G., Preston, B.L., Smith, T.F., Brooke, C., Gorddard, R.,
Withycombe, G., et al. 2011. “Adapting to Climate Change through Local
Municipal Planning: Barriers and Challenges.” Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 16: 889–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11027-011-9301-2.
209 Lane, M.B., and McDonald, G. 2005. “Community-Based
Environmental Planning: Operational Dilemmas, Planning Principles and
Possible Remedies.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Management
48(5): 709–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560500182985.
210 Perlaviciute. In Press. “Public Participation in Decision Making on
Energy Projects: When Does It Lead to Better and More Acceptable Energy
Projects?”
211 Measham et al. 2011. “Adapting to Climate Change through Local
Municipal Planning: Barriers and Challenges.”
212 Few, R., Brown, K., and Tompkins, E.L. 2016. “Public Participation and
Climate Change Adaptation: Avoiding the Illusion of Inclusion.” Climate
Policy 7: 46–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685637.
213 Mees, H.L.P., Uittenbroek, C.J, Hegger, D.L.T., and Driessen, P.P.J. 2019.
“From Citizen Participation to Government Participation: An Exploration
of the Roles of Local Governments in Community Initiatives for Climate
Change Adaptation in the Netherlands.” Environmental Policy and
Governance 29: 198– 208. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1847.
214 Few, Brown, and Tompkins. 2016. “Public Participation and Climate
Change Adaptation: Avoiding the Illusion of Inclusion.”
215 Buggy, L., and McNamara, K.E. 2016. “The Need to Reinterpret
‘Community’ for Climate Change Adaptation: A Case Study of Pele Island,
Vanuatu.” Climate and Development 8(3): 270–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2015.1041445.
216 Few, Brown, and Tompkins. 2016. “Public Participation and Climate
Change Adaptation: Avoiding the Illusion of Inclusion.”
217 Webler, T., and Tuler, S. 2006. “Four Perspectives on Public
Participation Process in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making.”
The Policy Studies Journal 34(4): 699–722.
24 September 2019
218 Wamsler and Brink. 2014. “Interfacing Citizens’ and Institutions’
Practice and Responsibilities for Climate Change Adaptation.”
219 Perlaviciute. In Press. “Public Participation in Decision Making on
Energy Projects: When Does It Lead to Better and More Acceptable Energy
Projects?”
220 Steg and Vlek. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An
Integrative Review and Research Agenda.”
221 Abrahamse, W., Steg, L., Vlek, C., and Rothengatter, T. 2005. “A Review
of Intervention Studies Aimed at Household Energy Conservation.” Journal
of Environmental Psychology 25(3): 273–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvp.2005.08.002.
222 van Valkengoed and Steg. 2019. “The Psychology of Climate Change
Adaptation.”
223 Brink and Wamsler. 2019. “Citizen Engagement in Climate Adaptation
Surveyed: The Role of Values, Worldviews, Gender and Place.”
224 Henstra, D. 2016. “The Tools of Climate Adaptation Policy: Analysing
Instruments and Instrument Selection.” Climate Policy 16(4): 496–521.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2015.1015946.
225 Cialdini, R.B. 2009. Inuence: Science and Practice. London, UK:
Pearson Education.
226 Steg and Vlek. 2009. “Encouraging Pro-Environmental Behaviour: An
Integrative Review and Research Agenda.”
Climate change adaptation by individuals and households 25
ABOUT AUTHORS’ RESEARCH
INSTITUTION
The University of Groningen is an ambitious international
research university with strong roots in the north of the
Netherlands. The University creates and shares knowledge
through its outstanding research, scholarship and
education. With an academic tradition dating back to 1614
and a rich heritage, the University is a unique academic
community with a strong sense of belonging and a culture
of innovative education and research.
The Geodienst is the only organization-wide university
spatial expertise center in the Netherlands. The Geodienst
is the central point of contact for technological innovation
in the eld of applications of spatial information
technology (data, software, visualization). Multidisciplinary
specialists in the eld ofspatial computingand Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) supportscientic research with
customized software, analytics and visualisations.
ABOUT THE GLOBAL
COMMISSION ON ADAPTATION
The Global Commission on Adaptation seeks to accelerate
adaptation action and support by elevating the political
visibility of adaptation and focusing on concrete solutions.
It is convened by 20 countries and guided by more than 30
Commissioners, and co-managed by the Global Center on
Adaptation and World Resources Institute.
Copyright 2019 Global Commission on Adaptation. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
To view a copy of the license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Anne van Valkengoed: University of Groningen
a.m.van.valkengoed@rug.nl
Linda Steg: University of Groningen
e.m.steg@rug.nl
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Chandni Singh (Indian Institute for
Human Settlements, India), Susan Clayton (The College
of Wooster, United States), Christine Wamsler (Lund
University, Sweden), Edith Camerink (Municipality of
Zwolle, the Netherlands), and Martine Kreuger (Municipality
of Breda, the Netherlands) for reviewing our paper and
providing us with helpful and insightful comments. We
would like to thank Steph Johnson Zawadzki (University
of Groningen, the Netherlands) for copyediting this paper.
We would like to thank the Geodienst of the University of
Groningen for providing us with the map shown in Figure 3.
