Content uploaded by Marc O Williams
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Marc O Williams on Nov 06, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
Available online 28 August 2022
0272-4944/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Climate anxiety: What predicts it and how is it related to climate action?
Lorraine Whitmarsh
a
,
*
, Lois Player
a
, Angelica Jiongco
a
, Melissa James
b
, Marc Williams
c
,
Elizabeth Marks
a
, Patrick Kennedy-Williams
d
a
University of Bath, UK
b
University of Surrey, UK
c
Cardiff University, UK
d
Climate Psychologists, UK
ARTICLE INFO
Handling Editor: Mark Ferguson
Keywords:
Climate anxiety
CCAS
Generalised anxiety
Pro-environmental behaviour
ABSTRACT
As scientic evidence of the severity of climate change increases, there are indications that this represents a
signicant psychological burden in the form of climate anxiety on the public. So far very little research has
explored the prevalence, predictors, or effects of climate anxiety amongst the public. This study aims to address
this gap by exploring climate anxiety in the UK. It addresses the following questions: (a) How prevalent is climate
anxiety amongst adults in the UK? (b) What are the predictors of climate anxiety? and (c) Does climate anxiety
predict climate action? We report on ndings from an online survey of the UK public (N =1338) undertaken in
late 2020 (partially replicated in May 2022 with a sub-sample of 891 respondents) which found that while there
are high levels of concern about climate change, there are low levels of climate anxiety (measured using the
Climate Change Anxiety Scale). Climate anxiety was higher amongst younger age groups, those with higher
climate concern, higher generalised anxiety, lower mindfulness, higher nature relatedness, and more climate
change information seeking behaviour. In addition, climate anxiety predicted some (but not all) types of pro-
environmental action. Consistent with other recent research, these ndings indicate that climate anxiety may
not necessarily be a negative impact of, or maladaptive response to, climate change; but rather, at least to some
degree, be a motivating force for effective action.
1. Introduction
Climate change is increasingly being recognised as a major threat to
human health (Watts et al., 2019). Whilst climate change-related
physical health concerns and the impact of extreme weather events on
mental health have been widely documented, the indirect association
between climate change and mental health has not been equally
considered in the literature. There is growing evidence that extreme
weather events and natural disasters, such as oods and hurricanes, can
have detrimental effects on mental wellbeing and adverse community
health outcomes, for example, higher localised rates of post-traumatic
stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety, as well as increases in
alcohol misuse, domestic violence, and suicide (Bourque & Cunsolo
Willox, 2014, Palinkas & Wong, 2020; Cianconi et al., 2020; Doherty &
Clayton, 2011; Morganstein & Ursano, 2020). Certain communities may
be particularly at risk if their livelihoods or basic physical needs are
threatened (Hayes & Poland, 2018; Morrissey & Reser, 2007; Usher
et al., 2019). However, there is less empirical evidence to suggest
whether indirect exposure to climate change through increasing
awareness of climate change risks (e.g., due to media coverage), but
without direct experience of extreme weather events or other climate
hazards, relates to psychological stress (‘climate anxiety’ or ‘eco-anxi-
ety’). While there are growing media and anecdotal reports of climate
anxiety, little is known about how widespread or problematic it is.
One of few studies to date on climate anxiety (Clayton & Karazsia,
2020) found that 17–27% of their US sample reported a degree of
climate anxiety (using a novel ‘Climate Change Anxiety Scale’ [CCAS])
which they reported affecting their ability to function. Clayton and
Karazsia (2020) suggest that climate anxiety comprises two factors:
cognitive-emotional impairment and functional impairment (means =
1.75 and 2.09, respectively, using a ve-point scale, amongst an MTurk
sample, of which half were 25–34). Cognitive-emotional impairment
can be dened as the result of specic cognitions associated with feel-
ings of anxiety or depression, and functional impairment is when an
* Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK.
E-mail address: lw2253@bath.ac.uk (L. Whitmarsh).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Environmental Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101866
Received 28 November 2021; Received in revised form 6 June 2022; Accepted 13 August 2022
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
2
individual’s psychological state has detrimental consequences in living
their day-to-day life (e.g., difculty concentrating or sleeping). The
same CCAS applied in a German sample found low levels of climate
anxiety (mean 1.81 on a seven-point scale), although this correlated
with generalised anxiety and depressiveness (r =0.25, p <.01) (Wul-
lenkord et al., 2021). In a Filipino sample of 18–26-year-olds, Reyes
et al. (2021) reported a mean of 2.38 on the CCAS; again, the scale
correlated with psychological distress (r =0.39, p <.001). International
research using a different measure with 10,000 young people in 10
different countries reported a high rate of climate anxiety amongst
young people (aged 16–25), with 45% of the sample indicating their
feelings about climate change negatively affected their daily lives
(Hickman et al., 2021). This difference could be because this measure
(unlike the CCAS) used a binary scale and did not assess frequency or
severity of functional impairment.
UK-based research (Verplanken et al., 2020), using a measure of
‘global warming worry’ found that whilst this was associated with
psychological distress (clinical worry), it also associated strongly with
pro-environmental action, suggesting that it may be a constructive form
of worry. Similarly, Pihkala (2020a, 2020b) found that individuals re-
ported their climate anxiety had guided them in reecting on their
behaviour, information-seeking, and actively being more sustainable.
Likewise, research conducted in Germany, Australia and New Zealand
has found a positive relationship between eco-anxiety and
pro-environmental behaviour (Hogg et al., 2021; Wullenkord et al.,
2021). (Hogg et al. (2021), p.8) conclude that ‘eco-anxiety and climate
change anxiety are largely rational responses, given the enormity of the
crisis’. It remains unclear whether climate anxiety is broadly a
dysfunctional or adaptive response to the global climate crisis. More-
over, its antecedents and outcomes are little understood. The current
study aims to address this research gap by exploring the prevalence,
predictors, and behavioural correlates of climate anxiety within a
representative adult UK sample.
2. Literature review
2.1. Is climate anxiety pathological or adaptive?
Climate anxiety has been dened as ‘heightened emotional, mental
or somatic distress in response to dangerous changes in the climate
system’, which can result in symptoms such as panic attacks, loss of
appetite, and sleeplessness (Dodds, 2021). The broader literature on
clinical levels of anxiety shows that they entail negative affect and
chronic worry, often resulting in signicant distress and impairment
(Lawrence & Brown, 2008). Anxiety, when excessive, can impair an
individual’s ability to work, sleep and socialise. Clayton and Karazsia
(2020) found a positive correlation between generalised anxiety and
climate anxiety in their US sample. Others have questioned whether
eco-anxiety can be distinguished from generalised anxiety or anxiety
disorders (Helm, Pollitt, Barnett, Curran, & Craig, 2018; Swim et al.,
2009; Wullenkord et al., 2021). On the other hand, Hogg and colleagues’
(2021) study of climate anxiety within Australian and New Zealand
samples found it was characterised by affective symptoms, rumination,
behavioural symptoms, and anxiety about one’s negative impact on the
planet; but crucially that it was distinct from other mental health con-
ditions, including generalised anxiety disorder. Indeed, some have
argued that it might even be pathological to have too little climate
anxiety, as well as too much, given that we urgently need to address the
climate crisis (Dodds, 2021). However, there is currently limited
research into whether climate anxiety is a form of more generalised
anxiety or something distinct, and none that has been undertaken in the
UK population. Identifying whether a correlation exists can assist psy-
chologists in appropriate treatments, or conversely reconceptualising
climate anxiety as something potentially adaptive (Pihkala, 2020a,
2020b; Verplanken et al., 2020).
Differential responses to anxiety may be due to different forms of
coping. Emotion-focussed coping seeks to reduce negative affect rather
than effectively dealing with a problem, while problem-focussed coping
targets the cause of stress in more practical ways (Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). Studies show that children who cope through de-emphasizing the
seriousness of climate change, using avoidance and denial as coping
strategies, tend to be less engaged in pro-environmental behaviour and
report lower levels of negative affect. In contrast, children who use
problem-focused coping have been found to exhibit higher negative
affect, whilst children who employ meaning-focused coping (developing
trust in societal actors e.g. scientists to address climate change and
create solutions) have less negative affect, and more positive affect and
satisfaction (Ojala, 2012), with both problem-focused and
meaning-focused coping associated with more pro-environmental
behaviour (Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019). Hickman (2020) suggests that
climate anxiety can arise in different forms, with severe forms being
extremely debilitating, and that the existence of comorbid mental health
problems have the potential to interact with and exacerbate climate
anxiety. Together these studies indicate how climate anxiety may be
both a psychological stressor, with a potential impact on mental health
for some, whilst at the same time reecting a rational response that can
motivate pro-environmental behaviour. The current study explores this
by examining whether climate anxiety can be seen as distinct from
generalised anxiety, and whether it predicts positive beliefs and action
on climate change. Given the need for the public to change their
behaviour and adopt more pro-environmental habits to address climate
change (IPCC, 2022) we examine whether climate anxiety predicts a
range of green consumption behaviours.
2.2. What predicts climate anxiety?
Research shows demographic factors predict climate anxiety (Clayton
& Karazsia, 2020; Wullenkord et al., 2021). Verplanken et al. (2020)
found women to have signicantly higher scores in pathological worry,
and in a pro-ecological worldview, than men. Moreover, age had a sig-
nicant negative correlation with trait pathological worry. Young peo-
ple were found to have high levels of climate anxiety across ten countries
(although this was not compared with older age groups; Hickman et al.,
2021). Questionnaire data further suggests that young people are indeed
more likely to report higher levels of climate-related distress, in both UK
(Triodos Bank, 2019) and North American (Washington Post., 2019)
samples. Earlier research similarly found females and young people
were more anxious about climate change than men or older age groups,
and that those with stronger pro-environmental values were also more
anxious (Searle & Gow, 2010). Left-wing ideological values have also
been found to predict climate anxiety (Wullenkord et al., 2021). It may
be that lower income groups, who are typically more exposed to envi-
ronmental risks (Downey & Hawkins, 2008), experience higher climate
anxiety, but one study that examined this found no relationship (Wul-
lenkord et al., 2021).
Experiential factors are also relevant, with evidence that rst re-
sponders after extreme weather events and natural hazards may suffer
more from severe climate anxiety (Alexander & Klein, 2009). It seems
likely that those who directly experience such events may have higher
climate anxiety (cf. Reser & Bradley, 2020). Similarly, we explore
whether exposure to information about climate change risks from the
media or other sources (i.e., indirect experience of climate change) may
also cause climate anxiety, particularly since much media coverage is
negative and (at least in the UK) tends to emphasise the most dramatic
impacts (O’Neill, 2020). This might include passive exposure to infor-
mation as well as actively seeing information about climate change, both
of which we explore in this study.
Mental health might be another important factor: as noted, there is
some evidence of an association between generalised anxiety and
climate anxiety (Clayton & Karazsia, 2020), and it could be that those
with existing mental health disorders could be vulnerable to experi-
encing more severe levels of climate anxiety as the stress of climate
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
3
anxiety could exacerbate pre-existing psychological distress. In this
study we expect to nd that generalised anxiety is associated with higher
climate distress. In contrast, we predict that a key factor in resilience and
positive mental health, mindfulness, would be associated with less
climate and general anxiety. Mindfulness involves paying attention
purposefully and non-judgmentally to the present moment (Kabat-Zinn,
2009) and people who exhibit higher levels of trait mindfulness may be
better at accepting uncertainty and difcult feelings, including climate
anxiety (cf. Carpenter et al., 2019; Hofmann et al., 2010).
Environmental values may also be associated with climate anxiety.
Reporting climate anxiety in the rst instance requires acknowledging
the seriousness of climate change (Weintrobe, 2013). The New Ecolog-
ical Paradigm was developed as a measure of environmental values,
encompassing the belief that humans are having a negative inuence on
the environment and reecting the view that humans should attempt to
mitigate this impact (Dunlap et al., 2000). We investigate in this paper
whether such an environmental worldview is associated with climate
anxiety. Similarly, nature connectedness may be positively associated
with climate anxiety, as Galway et al. (2021) reported that connected-
ness to nature was associated with higher levels of worry about the
climate. It is possible that the implications of the climate crisis are more
keenly felt by those who see themselves as part of nature, which may
predict higher climate anxiety. Nature connectedness has also been
found to be associated with worse mental health more generally (Dean
et al., 2018), although some research has found it to be associated with
increased happiness (Capaldi et al., 2014). In view of these mixed
ndings, we seek to clarify whether nature connectedness is associated
with climate anxiety.
A confounding factor that might explain the mixed ndings sur-
rounding nature connectedness is the frequency of nature visits, which
might be associated with higher connectedness to nature as well as being
protective for mental health. Research has shown that interacting with
natural environments promotes mental health, and therefore a better
quality of life (Cianconi et al., 2020). Research shows nature engage-
ment can alleviate symptoms of anxiety (Maund et al., 2019), reduce
stress, and improve cognitive functioning (Barton & Rogerson, 2017;
White et al., 2021). Tester-Jones et al. (2020) found higher rates of
nature visits amongst those who reported having anxiety than those who
did not, concluding that some may use nature as a way of managing their
mental health. As such, we expect that more nature visits, as distinct
from a sense of nature connectedness, is associated with climate anxiety.
Finally, engaging in pro-environmental behaviour could also predict
climate anxiety: it is possible that engaging in pro-environmental
behaviour would give a sense of control over climate change, but it is
also possible that it would focus people in on climate change in a way
that increases anxiety. Building on previous research showing climate
anxiety is positively associated with pro-environmental behaviour
(Wullenkord et al., 2021; Hogg et al., 2021; Verplanken et al., 2020;
Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b), we examine how different pro-environmental
actions are associated with climate anxiety.
2.3. Present study
Overall, little is known is about the predictors of climate anxiety, and
its relationship to pro-environmental behaviours. The present study
therefore aims to understand the unique contributions of several vari-
ables to climate anxiety, and explore if these variables predict overall,
and different types of, pro-environmental behaviour.
Thirteen factors will be simultaneously investigated for their unique
association with climate anxiety: demographic factors (age, gender, and
household income), psychological factors (climate concern, environ-
mental values, generalised anxiety, mindfulness, and nature connect-
edness), experiential factors (exposure to climate change information,
seeking out information about climate change, and prior experience
with the impacts of climate change [specically, ooding]), and be-
haviours (pro-environmental behaviour, and frequency of visiting green
spaces).
3. Methods
We conducted an online survey of the UK public, using an online
participant panel (Prolic). In total, 1338 useable responses were
received.
1
Data was collected between 23rd October and November 28,
2020. Since this initial data was collected during the COVID-19
pandemic, potentially affecting climate anxiety levels, the sample was
recontacted in late May 2022 to complete the climate anxiety and
concern measures a second time; 891 respondents completed the mea-
sure. Ethical approval to conduct the study was obtained from Cardiff
University’s School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee (EC.20.
October 03, 5991).
3.1. Participants
The sample was broadly representative of the UK population in terms
of gender, age, and ethnicity, according to census data (ONS, 2011):
46.3% was male; 53% female; and 0.7% other; mean age was 47.1 years
(median =48.0; range 18–85); 82% were white and 14% were other
ethnicities. One-third was not currently employed or on furlough; and
14.8% had a disability.
2
In total, 56.7% had visited a park or public
green space in the last seven days; 3% had experienced ood damage to
their home or garden in the last ve years.
3.2. Measures
•Climate change concern was measured with an item used previously
(Poortinga et al., 2018): ‘How worried are you personally about the
following issues at present: Climate change’ (listed as one of 11
current issues, e.g., Coronavirus, Brexit, Terrorism, Plastic pollution)
with responses on a ve-point scale from ‘not at all worried’ (1) to
‘extremely worried’ (5).
•Climate anxiety was measured using Clayton and Karazsia’s (2020)
Climate Change Anxiety Scale (CCAS), comprising 13 statements
such as ‘Thinking about climate change makes it difcult for me to
concentrate’ (see Fig. 2 for all items) and a ve-point frequency
response scale from ‘never’ (1) to ‘almost always’ (5). The statements
were preceded with ‘Please rate how often the following statements
are true of you’. The scale was highly reliable,
α
[13] =0.93 at both
timepoints.
•Generalised anxiety was measured by the GAD-7 (Spitzer et al., 2006),
comprising seven statements (e.g., Feeling nervous, anxious, or on
edge; trouble relaxing) preceded by the root ‘Over the last two weeks,
how often have you been bothered by the following problems?’ and a
four-point response scale from ‘not at all’ (0) to ‘nearly every day’
(3);
α
[7] =0.94.
•Mindfulness was measured using the FFMQ-18 (Medvedev et al.,
2018) which captures the ve dimensions of mindfulness (Acting
with Awareness, Describing, Nonjudging, Nonreactivity, and
Observing) and includes items such as ‘I pay attention to sensations,
such as the wind in my hair or sun on my face’ and ‘I’m good at
nding words to describe my feelings’ on a ve-point frequency scale
from ‘Never or very rarely true’ (1) to ‘Very often or always true’ (5).
1
The survey was conducted in two waves. In May 2020, a representative
sample of 1500 adults was obtained from Prolic and completed an unrelated
questionnaire; in October 2020 we returned to the same sample for the current
study. The sample of 1338 therefore represents an 89.2% response rate from
our original sample.
2
The sample in 2022 was very similar in composition: 45.1% were male,
54.1% female, and 0.8% other. Mean age was 52.0 years (range 18–84); and
31.4% were not currently employed. Ethnicity and disability were not recorded.
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
4
Items 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 18 were reverse scored, and total
score calculated;
α
[18] =0.82.
•Environmental values were measured with a short version of the New
Environmental Paradigm (NEP) scale (Dunlap et al., 2000),
comprising statements such as ‘Humans have the right to modify the
natural environment to suit their needs’ (reverse-scored) and ‘The
balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset’, with a
seven-point response scale from ‘strongly disagree’ (1) to ‘strongly
agree’ (7);
α
[5] =0.73.
•Nature relatedness was measured using the NR-6 (Nisbet & Zelenski,
2013) which includes six statements, such as ‘My relationship to
nature is an important part of who I am’ and ‘I feel very connected to
all living things and the earth’ with a seven-point agreement scale (as
above);
α
[6] =0.86.
•Pro-environmental behaviour (PEB) was measured by summing fre-
quency of eight pro-environmental actions preceded by ‘At the
moment, roughly how many times per month do you do each of the
following?‘: Eat organic, locally-grown or in season food; Encourage
other people to save energy; Buy products with less packaging;
Recycle household waste (e.g. glass); Avoid wasting food (e.g. by
using leftovers); Buy second-hand items; Borrow or rent items (e.g.
tools, toys); and Repurpose something for a different use, instead of
throwing it away; and a response scale from ‘not at all’ (1) to ‘at least
once a day’ (7);
α
[8] =0.67. Since most of these actions are rela-
tively low environmental impact, we also include one high-impact
environmental action, red meat consumption (Ivanova et al., 2020),
with the question: ‘At the moment, how many days in a typical week
do you eat red meat (e.g., beef, lamb)?’ with response options:
‘Never’ (0), ‘Less than once a week’ (1), ‘1–2 days per week’ (2), ‘3–4
days per week’ (3), ‘5–6 days per week’ (4), ‘Everyday’ (5).
•Visits to green space was measured with the item ‘In the past 7 days,
have you visited a park or public green space?’ and response options
yes (1) or no (0).
•Experience of climate impacts was measured by asking ‘In the last 5
years have you experienced any form of ood damage (including
your home and garden)?’ with response options ‘Yes – once’ (1), ‘Yes
- 2–3 times’ (2), ‘Yes - 4 or more times’ (3), and ‘No’ (0). Flooding
was chosen to represent climate impacts, as it is one of the most
common impacts of climate change in the UK and frequently linked
to climate change in the media (Gavin et al., 2011).
•Information exposure was calculated by summing responses to ‘How
often do you come across information about climate change … ’ from
the following sources: ‘on TV’; ‘on streaming sources e.g. Netix’; ‘on
the radio’; ‘on social media e.g. Facebook, Twitter’; ‘in print news-
papers’; ‘in online newspapers’; and ‘from colleagues; from friends or
family’. The response scale went from ‘never’ (0) to ‘often’ (3),
α
[8]
=0.76.
•Information seeking was measured with the item ‘How often, in a
typical week, do you intentionally seek out information about
climate change?’ using a four-point scale from ‘not at all’ (0) to
‘every day’ (4).
3.3. Data analysis
For all analyses, we used the complete dataset collected in 2020, but
used the additional data collected in 2022 to compare prevalence rates.
For prevalence analysis, we examined frequencies, means and standard
deviations for the CCAS and climate concern measures, and estimated
total and stratied population prevalence of climate anxiety. Correla-
tional and regression analyses then explored relationships between the
various predictors and climate anxiety, and regression analysis exam-
ined the relative impact of climate anxiety on pro-environmental
actions.
4. Results
4.1. Prevalence rates of climate concern and climate anxiety
Although 46.2% in 2020 (43.3% in 2022) stated they were extremely
or very worried about climate change (Fig. 1), levels of climate anxiety
on the 13-item CCAS were comparatively low (see Fig. 2). Since climate
anxiety was measured on an ordinal Likert scale, prevalence was
determined by categorising responses into ‘mild’ (1.00 ≤M ≥2.33),
‘moderate’ (2.34 ≤M ≥3.66, and ‘severe’ (3.67 ≤M ≥5.00) levels of
anxiety, in line with previous work using Likert scales in the absence of
cut-off scores (De Vaus, 2002; Olsen et al., 2004). Prevalence rates were
calculated as a percentage for each category, and stratied for gender
and age (Table 1). Generally, climate anxiety was low, with an overall
mean score of 1.25 (SD =0.46) in 2020 and 1.28 (SD =0.48) in 2022,
and 96% in 2020 (95.4% in 2022) of participants reporting mild anxiety.
4.2. Correlational analyses
The means and variances were examined, and correlational analyses
showed that several variables were related to climate anxiety (Table 2).
Of the demographic factors, only younger age (r = − 0.16, p <.001)
predicted increased climate anxiety. Several psychological factors,
including increased climate concern (r =0.26, p <.001), higher
generalised anxiety (r =0.23, p <.001), lower levels of mindfulness (r =
−0.15, p <.001) and increased nature relatedness (r =0.21, p <.001)
were related to higher climate anxiety. Of the behavioural factors,
increased green behaviours (r =0.19, p <.001) and having visited a
green space in the last seven days (r =0.08, p <.01) were related to
higher climate anxiety. Two experiential factors, higher levels of infor-
mation exposure (r =0.23, p <.001) and higher information seeking (r
=0.39, p <.001), were associated with increased climate anxiety.
4.3. Regression analysis: predicting climate anxiety
Given that many variables were correlated with climate anxiety, a
multiple linear regression was conducted to understand the unique
contributions of each predictor to climate anxiety. As observed in
Table 3, younger age (β = − 0.05, p =.004), increased climate concern
(β =0.07, p <.001), increased generalised anxiety (β =0.01, p <.001),
lower mindfulness (β = − 0.01, p <.001), increased nature relatedness
(β =0.05, p <.001), and increased information seeking (β =0.19, p <
.001) uniquely predicted increased climate anxiety. Surprisingly, lower
environmental values predicted increased climate anxiety once other
variables had been controlled for (β = − 0.12, p <.001). Green behav-
iour, visits to green spaces, and information exposure no longer pre-
dicted increased anxiety.
In line with Clayton and Karazsia’s (2020) conceptualisation of
climate anxiety as a two-dimensional construct, we also independently
explored the predictors of cognitive-emotional and functional climate
anxiety. The predictors of both the cognitive-emotional and functional
dimensions were the same as overall climate anxiety (see Tables S1–2),
perhaps suggesting that these variables predict both emotional ‘rumi-
native’ anxiety responses, as well as more functional impairments.
4.4. Regression analysis: predicting pro-environmental behaviours
As observed in Table 2, increased climate anxiety appeared to be
related to more engagement with pro-environmental actions (r =0.19, p
<.01). To understand if climate anxiety uniquely predicted pro-
environmental action, we conducted a multiple linear regression, con-
trolling for all other variables. As observed in Table 4, when controlling
for all other variables, climate anxiety was not a unique predictor of
overall pro-environmental behaviour.
However, since a variety of different pro-environmental behaviours
were included in the overall index, it is possible that whilst climate
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
5
anxiety is not related to overall pro-environmental action, individual
pro-environmental actions may be.
To understand whether climate anxiety differentially predicts vary-
ing types of pro-environmental behaviours, we conducted eight further
exploratory regression analyses (see Tables S3–10). Five of the pro-
environmental actions were uniquely predicted by climate anxiety.
Climate anxiety predicted an increased tendency to encourage others to
save energy; buy second-hand items; borrow or rent items; and repur-
pose items, yet a decreased tendency to recycle. Climate anxiety did not
predict eating organic, local or seasonal food; buying products with less
packaging; or avoiding wasting food. Observing the lack of correlation
between climate anxiety and eating red meat (see Table 2), multivariate
analyses were not required to determine that climate anxiety did not
predict the higher impact pro-environmental behaviour of reducing red
meat consumption. These results give a more nuanced understanding,
and suggest that climate anxiety is related to many, but not all, pro-
environmental behaviours.
5. Discussion
5.1. Summary of ndings
The purpose of this study was to deepen understanding of the
prevalence and nature of climate anxiety, and to investigate its relation
to a range of individual, psychological, and behavioural variables.
Despite widespread levels of worry about climate change in the UK, we
nd climate anxiety, as measured by the Clayton and Karazsia scale, is
much less common. Almost half (46.2%) of participants reported being
very or extremely worried about climate change. However, overall
scores of climate anxiety were far lower (1.25 on a 1–5 scale). These
rates changed very little between 2020 and 2022, when we replicated
the CCAS and climate concern measures with a sub-sample of re-
spondents, reinforcing previous work showing the pandemic did not
suppress public worry about climate change (cf. Evensen et al., 2021).
This disparity between climate concern and anxiety may reect Clayton
Fig. 1. Concern about climate change, 2020 data (%).
Fig. 2. Mean scores on climate anxiety scale items (2020 data). Error bars show ±1 SD.
Table 1
Prevalence rates of climate anxiety (2020).
Mean Climate
Anxiety [SD]
Prevalence rates (%) [95% Condence
Intervals]
Mild Moderate Severe
All (N =1332) 1.25 [0.46] 96.0 [94.8,
97.0]
3.6 [2.7,
4.7]
0.4 [0.1,
0.9]
Female (N =
706)
1.24 [0.44] 96.6 [95.0,
97.8]
3.0 [1.9,
4.5]
0.4 [0.1,
1.2]
Male (N =616) 1.27 [0.47] 95.5 [93.5,
97.0]
4.2 [2.8,
6.1]
0.3 [0.0,
1.2]
Age <30 (N =
220)
1.40 [0.61] 90.9 [86.3,
94.4]
9.1 [5.6,
13.7]
0.0 [0.0,
0.2]
Age 30–59 (N
=725)
1.25 [0.45] 96.3 [94.6,
97.5]
3.2 [2.0,
4.7]
0.6 [0.2,
1.4]
Age >60 (N =
386)
1.17 [0.33] 98.4 [96.6,
99.4]
1.3 [0.4,
3.0]
0.3 [0.0,
1.4]
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
6
and Karazsia’s (2020) point about the distinction between “worry”
about climate change and the impact that climate anxiety may have on
someone’s life. The CCAS measures cognitive, emotional, and behav-
ioural impacts of climate anxiety. Since these were reported less
commonly than climate worry, we can infer people may be highly
concerned about the climate crisis, but not (yet) to the extent that this
concern usually affects their daily lives. This builds on the ndings of
Verplanken et al. (2020) that habitual climate change worry is signi-
cantly associated with pathological worry. Therefore, it may be that
individuals express worry regarding climate change when asked, though
do not engage with it habitually or to the degree that it constitutes a
form of disabling anxiety. Moreover, the experience of climate anxiety
has been connected to many other emotions including fear, anger, grief,
despair, guilt and shame (Pihkala, 2020a, 2020b), none of which are
assessed by the current scale. It is possible neither climate anxiety nor
climate worry as measured in our survey captured the full experience of
climate emotions in this population (cf. Davis et al., 2021).
Our results do suggest that climate anxiety is higher amongst certain
groups. As expected, those with higher generalised anxiety were found
also to have higher climate anxiety, echoing previous research indi-
cating an association between these two forms of anxiety (Clayton &
Karazsia., 2020; Reyes et al., 2021; Wullenkord et al., 2021). By sub-
stantiating previous research conducted in the US, Germany and the
Philippines, this result may suggest that those with generalised anxiety
are at particular risk of experiencing climate anxiety. It is also possible
that climate anxiety may lead to anxiety about an array of topics; a
longitudinal study design would be needed to test these causal path-
ways. Being younger was also uniquely predictive of higher climate
anxiety, which is in line with the assertion that these feelings are being
felt more ercely among younger populations (Hickman et al., 2021).
Hickman et al. (2021) suggest that powerlessness coupled with a lack of
trust in, and accountability from, governments is impacting climate
anxiety in young people. Lower levels of climate anxiety reported here
as compared to previous studies may be because our sample included a
broad range of ages. We found that gender and income did not predict
climate anxiety, mirroring recent research showing fear about climate
change are at similar levels across gender, location and class in the UK
(Davis et al., 2021, cf. Wullenkord et al., 2021). This may indicate that
eco-anxiety transcends social status, class, or wealth, being felt equally
among differing groups. However, it is important to recognise that
earnings are not the only indicator of wealth or privilege. Further
research into how climate anxiety presents among varying populations
is essential in our ability to understand this phenomenon.
Extending previous research on the links between mental health and
climate anxiety (e.g., Reyes et al., 2021), we included a measure of trait
mindfulness. Ours is the rst study to demonstrate a negative association
between mindfulness and climate anxiety, which is in keeping with
evidence that trait mindfulness is negatively correlated with anxiety in
general (Carpenter et al., 2019). This nding also echoes research
showing mindfulness to be negatively predictive of distress relating to
COVID-19 – another global emergency (Conversano et al., 2020).
Furthermore, a recent review has shown that mindfulness interventions
can reduce stress, anxiety and depression and increase well-being across
a range of non-clinical populations (Galante et al., 2021). Climate anx-
iety can entail cognitive and emotional impairment, including rumina-
tive and repetitive thinking about climate anxiety itself (Clayton &
Karazsia, 2020). Clayton (2020) noted that individuals who engage in
high levels of rumination about their climate anxiety could benet from
ways of developing some distance from the topic: as mindfulness entails
an attitude of non-judgemental observation toward one’s experiences
(Kabat-Zinn, 2009), it could guard against these repetitive thinking
patterns that exacerbate climate anxiety. Indeed, mindfulness may
represent a particularly helpful stance toward climate anxiety, as it
fosters a new relationship to experience (i.e., acceptance as opposed to
avoidance) and may provide an alternative or supplement to problem-
and meaning-focussed coping strategies (Ojala & Bengtsson, 2019). This
Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations.
Variable M (SD) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
1. Income 4.27 (2.01) –
2. Gender 1.53 (0.50) −.07* –
3. Age 2.13 (0.66) −.09** −.01 –
4. Climate Concern 3.36 (1.18) .01 .03 −.06* –
5. Generalised Anxiety 5.39 (5.39) −.12*** .15*** −.20*** .14*** –
6. Mindfulness 59.25 (9.35) .11*** −.03 .22*** −.04 −.51*** –
7. Environmental Values 5.45 (0.95) −.05 .11*** .02 .51*** .11*** .02 –
8. Nature Relatedness 4.63 (1.26) −.02 .04 .09** .36*** .10*** .19*** .41*** –
9. Green Behaviours 3.15 (0.85) .08** .16*** .06* .29*** .05 .13*** .18*** .39*** –
10. Eat Red Meat 1.70 (1.00) .08 −.14** .01 −.15** −.04 −.03 −.17** −.13** −.04 –
11. Green Space 0.57 (0.50) .13*** .01 .03 .04 −.08** .06* .02 .12*** .12*** .02 –
12. Flood Experience 0.03 (0.17) .03 .03 −.06* .01 .05 −.05 −.03 .02 .03 .01 −.02 –
13. Info Exposure 11.19 (4.62) .15*** −.09*** −.07* .25*** .04 .04 .10*** .28*** .23*** −.02 .16*** .02 –
14. Info Seeking 0.40 (0.66) .03 −.10*** −.12*** .37*** .09** .06* .18*** .31*** .27*** −.08** .12*** .00 .30*** –
15. Climate Anxiety 1.25 (0.46) .04 −.03 −.16*** .26*** .23*** −.15*** −.02 .21*** .19*** −.03 .08** .05 .23*** .39***
Note. * p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001.
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
7
could potentially be of use to practitioners helping individuals to
manage high levels of climate anxiety; however, as levels of climate
anxiety were comparatively low in our sample, this would need to be
replicated in a sample of those with higher levels of anxiety about
climate change.
Interestingly, while nature relatedness positively predicted climate
anxiety, environmental values were a negative predictor in the regres-
sion analysis. This is in line with recent ndings that nature relatedness
is a stronger predictor of pro-environmental behaviours than measures
of environmental concern (Mackay & Schmitt, 2019), suggesting the
NR-6 may be a more diagnostic measure of strong pro-environmental
responses than the NEP which is more widely endorsed. It may also be
possible that individuals with high environmental values are less
anxious about climate change, since they tend to engage in more
pro-environmental behaviours (see Table 2), which has been shown to
attenuate climate anxiety (Schwartz et al., 2022). If this nding was
replicated, future work may seek to disentangle the relationship be-
tween environmental values, pro-environmental behaviour, and climate
anxiety.
Another interesting nding was that visits to green spaces were not
predictive of lower climate anxiety, despite the correlational analysis
showing it predicted lower generalised anxiety as expected (e.g., Cian-
coni et al., 2020). This might be because for those with high nature
relatedness, visiting natural spaces activated climate anxiety by
reminding them of the threat to something they value, while for others
the effect of spending time in natural environments served to reduce
anxiety. Further work would be needed to clarify the association
between nature visits, nature connectedness, and climate anxiety, and
provide a more granular assessment of nature visits than we used here
(see Limitations section). Given the differential effects of nature visits on
generalised anxiety and climate anxiety in our sample, these ndings
highlight an important distinction between these two types of anxiety,
and how they manifest. This is of particular importance for those
studying the effects of nature engagement and relatedness on mental
wellbeing. It also indicates the care that should be taken when advising
people with climate anxiety on how best to manage their distress, as for
some the common advice to spend time in nature may not always be the
most supportive action they can take.
5.2. Direct and indirect information exposure
We examined the roles of direct and indirect climate change expe-
rience. One explanation for the dissonance between climate change
worry and climate anxiety scores may be that direct experiences of
climate change are not (yet) triggering climate anxiety to a measurable
degree. Experiencing extreme weather events, like oods, are known to
predict PTSD, depression, violence, and substance abuse (e.g., Cianconi
et al., 2020). However, our nding of a non-signicant difference in
climate anxiety between those who had, and had not, experienced
ooding may indicate that this relationship needs to be explored in more
depth. This relationship may not be indicative of general populations as
just 3% of participants within this study had experienced a ood within
the past ve years. Further, data was not collected on the attribution of
ooding to climate change or on individuals’ coping capacity, which
Table 3
Multiple regression showing the predictors of climate anxiety.
Variable B SE
B
β t p sr
2
95% BCa CI
Lower Upper
Income 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.76 .450 0.000 −0.007 0.015
Gender −0.01 0.02 −0.01 −0.51 .609 0.000 −0.058 0.035
Age −0.05 0.02 −0.07 −2.90 .004 0.005 −0.086 −0.016
Climate Concern 0.07 0.01 0.19 6.24 <.001 0.022 0.043 0.098
Generalised Anxiety 0.01 0.00 0.11 3.93 <.001 0.009 0.004 0.016
Mindfulness −0.01 0.00 −0.12 −4.05 <.001 0.009 −0.008 −0.003
Environmental Values −0.12 0.01 −0.25 −8.44 <.001 0.040 −0.150 −0.083
Nature Relatedness 0.05 0.01 0.14 4.61 <.001 0.012 0.030 0.070
Green Behaviours 0.02 0.01 0.03 1.25 .213 0.001 −0.011 0.050
Visits to Green Spaces 0.03 0.02 0.03 1.29 .197 0.001 −0.016 0.070
Flood Experience 0.06 0.06 0.02 0.90 .369 0.000 −0.092 0.248
Information Exposure 0.01 0.00 0.06 2.31 .021 0.003 0.000 0.012
Information Seeking 0.19 0.02 0.28 10.38 <.001 0.060 0.143 0.252
Model Fit: F(13,1300) =38.34, p <.001, R
2
=0.28, R
2
adj
=0.27
Note. 95% bootstrapped bias-corrected and accelerated condence intervals (95% BCa CI) with 1000 resamples are reported.
Table 4
Multiple regression showing predictors of pro-environmental behaviour.
Variable B SE
B
β t p sr
2
95% BCa CI
Lower Upper
Income 0.03 0.01 0.07 2.70 .007 0.004 0.008 0.051
Gender 0.30 0.04 0.18 7.02 <.001 0.029 0.217 0.376
Age 0.09 0.03 0.07 2.73 .006 0.004 0.028 0.146
Climate Concern 0.10 0.02 0.15 4.69 <.001 0.013 0.063 0.145
Generalised Anxiety 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.66 .507 0.000 −0.007 0.013
Mindfulness 0.01 0.00 0.08 2.69 .007 0.004 0.001 0.013
Environmental Values −0.04 0.03 −0.05 −1.57 .116 0.001 −0.099 0.017
Nature Relatedness 0.17 0.02 0.26 8.64 <.001 0.043 0.134 0.215
Visits to Green Spaces 0.08 0.04 0.05 1.80 .072 0.002 −0.002 0.160
Flood Experience 0.11 0.12 0.02 0.88 .378 0.000 −0.097 0.306
Information Exposure 0.01 0.01 0.08 2.89 .004 0.005 0.004 0.025
Information Seeking 0.15 0.04 0.12 4.07 <.001 0.010 0.080 0.222
Climate Anxiety 0.07 0.05 0.04 1.25 .213 0.001 −0.044 0.193
Model Fit: F(13,1300) =32.26, p <.001, R
2
=0.24, R
2
adj
=0.24
Note. 95% bootstrapped bias-corrected and accelerated condence intervals (95% BCa CI) with 1000 resamples are reported.
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
8
may inuence whether these direct experiences contribute to climate
anxiety scores (Ogunbode et al., 2019; Reser & Bradley, 2020). Other
impacts of climate change, such as heat stress and sea-level rise, were
also not explored here, but could be examined in future climate anxiety
research.
Indirect experience of climate change was explored through both
passive exposure to climate change information and active information-
seeking about the issue. Exposure to information about climate change
continued to predict climate anxiety after controlling for other variables.
This suggests that the media have an important role to play in climate
anxiety, which ts with previous research showing much media
coverage is negative and focusses on the most dramatic impacts (O’Neill,
2020). Clarifying what sorts of media content and channels trigger or
exacerbate climate anxiety would be a helpful step for future research.
We also found that climate anxiety was particularly high amongst those
who actively sought out climate change information; indeed, this was
the strongest predictor of climate anxiety in our multivariate analysis.
This is consistent with previous research on environmental risks
showing information-seeking behaviour is associated with anxiety
(Hmielowski et al., 2019; Williams, 2020). Future experimental work
may extend these correlational ndings by establishing directionality; i.
e., whether climate anxiety leads individuals to seek out climate-related
information or vice versa (Williams, 2020). Engaging with information
reecting the realities of climate change is likely to engender some stress
and anxiety, as there is a very real threat. However, it is likely that there
will be a balance to be struck in terms of seeking out reliable information
at an appropriate frequency to inform one’s decisions and understand-
ing, in a way that may lead to adaptive climate anxiety, but without
engaging in repetitive checking behaviours at an unhelpful frequency, as
these are known to exacerbate anxiety and could lead to less helpful
forms of climate anxiety.
5.3. Relationship between climate anxiety and pro-environmental action
A series of exploratory regressions indicated that higher climate
anxiety is predictive of higher frequency of some pro-environmental
behaviours: encouraging others to save energy, buying second-hand
items, borrowing or renting items, and repurposing items. It is inter-
esting that these behaviours entail a degree of effort, whereas behav-
iours that were not predicted by climate anxiety were those that could be
carried out with more ease, such as making slightly different consumer
choices (e.g. buying products with less packaging) or avoiding wasting
food. In fact, climate anxiety was negatively predictive of recycling,
which is a behaviour that is carried out by many and made quite
convenient by local councils. On the other hand, we found no relation-
ship between climate anxiety and avoiding red meat consumption, one
of the most effective PEBs, although this could be because there is
relatively low awareness of the impact on the climate of dietary choices
(Steentjes et al., 2021). Moreover, our regression analysis of the PEB
index found PEBs were most strongly predicted by nature relatedness,
gender, and climate concern, while climate anxiety did not predict them.
These ndings are broadly consistent with recent research indicating
that climate anxiety could be an adaptive, motivating response to
climate change that encourages effective action (Verplanken et al.,
2020) although other psychological and socio-demographic factors may
be stronger predictors of pro-environmental behaviours (cf. Whitmarsh
et al., 2021). For the rst time, we disaggregated PEBs into a range of
green consumption and dietary actions and found climate anxiety pre-
dicted some but not other actions. This might explain the mixed ndings
from previous research exploring links between climate anxiety and
PEBs. Specically, Clayton and Karazsia (2020) found no relationship
between climate anxiety and PEB. However, they reported much higher
levels of climate anxiety than we did; it might therefore also be possible
that the level of impairment is associated with one’s ability to engage
with their climate anxiety in an adaptive manner so as to allow it to
motivate action. Taken together, these studies may suggest that a
threshold for adaptive, motivating climate anxiety exists, though future
research will need to explore this among samples with varying degrees
of climate anxiety.
5.4. Limitations
This study is not without limitations. The regression analysis indi-
cated a low level of variance for climate anxiety was explained by the
model used, highlighting that there may more inuential factors which
have not been accounted for in this study. Incorporating data such as
ethnicity (which was not directly measured, but rather used by the panel
provider to derive a representative sample) may have led to some useful
insights, particularly in light of consistent ndings in the environmental
justice literature of increased exposure to environmental risks amongst
minority ethnic groups (e.g., Downey & Hawkins, 2008).
A recent review also indicates the lack of conceptual clarity
regarding eco-anxiety, which involves a far broader range of emotions
than simply anxiety (Coffey et al., 2021). Thus, the use of a scale focused
on the anxiety-based responses to climate change may have failed to
capture the range of emotions and distress reported by people concerned
about climate change, but this does reect the availability of appropriate
measures within the literature at this time. It is also noteworthy that the
two sub-scales of the CCAS were predicted by the same factors, sug-
gesting at least that social-cognitive (ruminative) and functional im-
pairments are closely related.
Of course, it may be that social desirability encourages people to say
that they are worried about the climate when they indeed are not, so
other forms of measure (e.g., physiological, observational) would be
helpful to triangulate self-reports of climate anxiety. We also need to
move beyond correlational analysis to explore how climate anxiety is
evolving over time, and what may cause or mitigate it. Many useful
suggestions have been made for how climate anxiety might be managed
or ‘treated’ (e.g., Baudon & Jachens, 2021), but there has so far been no
experimental evidence of intervention efcacy. As we have shown here,
we should also rmly establish at what levels or in what forms climate
anxiety may need ‘treatment’ and when it may in fact be a healthy and
adaptive response to the climate crisis.
We did not measure levels of neighbourhood green in our study. Van
den Berg et al. (2016) noted that the literature has tended to investigate
the role of green space less in terms of nature visits and more in terms of
neighbourhood green spaces; these authors found a positive association
between visits to a green space and mental health. Some research in-
dicates that the benet of neighbourhood green spaces on mental health
may be partly, but not wholly, mediated by a higher frequency of nature
visits (Van den Berg et al., 2017). Measuring levels of neighbourhood
green could have provided a more nuanced understanding of the role
that nature plays in climate anxiety aside from its association with
formal nature visits. Our measure of visits to nature also did not allow
for a full assessment of its association with climate anxiety, such as the
amount of time spent in green space; a recent review indicated that as
little as 10 min spent in nature can have a positive impact on mental
health (Meredith et al., 2020), but there may be a dose-response effect of
nature visits that could have been explored with a more detailed mea-
sure. Assessing the quality of time spent in nature, such as specic ac-
tivities undertaken, or the interactive effect between nature activities
and levels of mindful awareness, could also have been illuminating.
Finally, the lack of association between direct experience of climate
change and climate anxiety may have been due to only a small minority
having had a personal experience of ooding, reducing the variability in
this measure. More comprehensive measures of direct experience of
climate impacts would help in investigating its relationship with climate
anxiety.
5.4. 5.5 Future research
This study points toward some important questions for further
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
9
research. Firstly, it will be important to identify a clear distinction be-
tween climate anxiety and climate concern or worry, to gain a clearer
insight into what constitutes climate anxiety that is signicant enough to
impact on an individual’s health and functioning. For researchers un-
derstanding the impact of nature on mental wellbeing, it will be
important to distinguish whether for some people climate anxiety may
be exacerbated by visits to a green space, and what role nature relat-
edness might play in this relationship. Although climate anxiety was
associated with higher pro-environmental behaviour in our study, it
would be helpful to determine the association between these constructs
when there are higher levels of climate anxiety. It might also be helpful
to examine other ways in which people are taking action on climate
change that were not assessed with the current scale, for example col-
lective or social action through activism, inuencing others such as in
schools and workplaces, lobbying MPs and those in power, and choosing
nance options that avoid fossil fuels.
More generally, longitudinal research is essential to show whether
climate anxiety is increasing over time. We found little change within a
two-year timeframe (2020–2022), but longer-term analysis is now
needed. In order to gain more insight into the direct versus indirect ef-
fects of climate change on mental wellness, it would be benecial to
study climate anxiety levels cross-culturally, beyond the limited samples
so far studied in the US, Germany, and the Philippines.
Ultimately, the utility of this research translates to our ability to
design effective ways of supporting people, individually and collec-
tively, to manage climate change-related psychological distress, in such
a way as to promote wellbeing and pro-environmental behavior. Due to
the infancy of our understanding of the intersection between psycho-
logical health and the climate emergency, studies such as this are
essential in developing our understanding of climate anxiety, and
informing evidence-based psychological approaches for clinicians, and
at a community health level (see Baudon & Jachens, 2021). Furthering
our understanding of the psychological impacts of climate change,
therefore, remains a high priority.
Author statement
Lorraine Whitmarsh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investiga-
tion, Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing - Original Draft, Writing -
Review & Editing. Lois Player: Formal Analysis, Visualization, Writing-
Reviewing and Editing. Angelica Jiongco: Formal Analysis, Writing -
Original Draft. Melissa James: Formal Analysis, Writing - Original
Draft. Marc Williams: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing.
Elizabeth Marks: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing. Patrick
Kennedy-Williams
:
Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing.
Funding
This work was supported by funding from the European Research
Council (ERC) as part of the MOCHA Consolidator Grant (grant no:
820235).
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101866.
References
Alexander, D. A., & Klein, S. (2009). First responders after disasters: a review of stress
reactions, at-risk, vulnerability, and resilience factors. Prehospital & Disaster
Medicine, 24, 87–94.
Barton, J., & Rogerson, M. (2017). The importance of greenspace for mental health.
BJPsych International, 14(4), 79–81.
Baudon, P., & Jachens, L. A. (2021). Scoping review of interventions for the treatment of
eco-anxiety. International Journal Of Environmental Research & Public Health, 18,
9636.
Bourque, F., & Cunsolo Willox, A. (2014). Climate change: The next challenge for public
mental health? International Review of Psychiatry, 26(4), 415–422.
Capaldi, C. A., Dopko, R. L., & Zelenski, J. M. (2014). The relationship between nature
connectedness and happiness: a meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 976(5), 1–15.
Carpenter, J. K., Conroy, K., Gomez, A. F., Curren, L. C., & Hofmann, S. G. (2019). The
relationship between trait mindfulness and affective symptoms: A meta-analysis of
the ve facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ). Clinical Psychology Review, 74,
Article 101785.
Cianconi, P., Betr`
o, S., & Janiri, L. (2020). The impact of climate change on mental
health: A systematic descriptive review. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 74, 1–15.
Clayton, S. (2020). Climate anxiety: Psychological responses to climate change. Journal
of Anxiety Disorders, 74, Article 102263.
Clayton, S., & Karazsia, B. T. (2020). Development and validation of a measure of climate
change anxiety. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 69(101434), 1–11.
Coffey, Y., Bhullar, N., Durkin, J., Islam, M. S., & Usher, K. (2021). Understanding eco-
anxiety: A systematic scoping review of current literature and identied knowledge
gaps. The Journal of Climate Change and Health, 3, Article 100047.
Conversano, C., Di Giuseppe, M., Miccoli, M., Ciacchini, R., Gemignani, A., & Orrù, G.
(2020). Mindfulness, age and gender as protective factors against psychological
distress during Covid-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 1900.
Davis, R., Levi, S., Robinson, J., & Vasilopoulos, P. (2021). A Crisis in Common: How eco-
anxiety is shared across our country. Global Future, 28th November, 2021 https://ou
rglobalfuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/A-Crisis-in-Common-1.pdf.
De Vaus, P. D. (2002). Analyzing social science data: 50 key problems in data analysis.
SAGE.
Dean, J. H., Shanahan, D. F., Bush, R., Gaston, K. J., Lin, B. B., Barber, E., … Fuller, R. A.
(2018). Is nature relatedness associated with better mental and physical health?
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(7), 1371.
Dodds, J. (2021). The psychology of climate anxiety. BJPsych Bulletin, 45(4), 222–226.
Doherty, T. J., & Clayton, S. (2011). The psychological impacts of global climate change.
American Psychologist, 66(4), 265–276.
Downey, L., & Hawkins, B. (2008). Race, income, and environmental inequality in the
United States. Sociological Perspectives, 51(4), 759–781.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). New trends in
measuring environmental attitudes: Measuring endorsement of the new ecological
paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56(3), 425–442.
Evensen, D., Whitmarsh, L., Bartie, P., et al. (2021). Effect of “nite pool of worry” and
COVID-19 on UK climate change perceptions. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences, 118(3), Article e2018936118.
Galante, J., Friedrich, C., Dawson, A. F., Modrego-Alarc´
on, M., Gebbing, P., Delgado-
Su´
arez, I., … Jones, P. B. (2021). Mindfulness-based programmes for mental health
promotion in adults in nonclinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of
randomised controlled trials. PLoS Medicine, 18(1), Article e1003481.
Galway, L. P., Beery, T., Buse, C., & Gislason, M. K. (2021). What drives climate action in
Canada’s Provincial North? Exploring the role of connectedness to nature, climate
worry, and talking with friends and family. Climate, 9(10), 146.
Gavin, N. T., Leonard-Milsom, L., & Montgomery, J. (2011). Climate change, ooding
and the media in Britain. Public Understanding of Science, 20(3), 422–438.
Hayes, K., & Poland, B. (2018). Addressing mental health in a changing climate:
Incorporating mental health indicators into climate change and health vulnerability
and adaptation assessments. International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 15(9), 1806.
Helm, S. V., Pollitt, A., Barnett, M. A., Curran, M. A., & Craig, Z. R. (2018).
Differentiating environmental concern in the context of psychological adaption to
climate change. Global Environmental Change, 48, 158–167.
Hickman, C. (2020). We need to (nd a way to) talk about Eco-anxiety. Journal of Social
Work Practice, 34(4), 411–424.
Hickman, C., Marks, E., Pihkala, P., Clayton, S., Lewandowski, R. E., Mayall, E. E., … van
Susteren, L. (2021). Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs
about government responses to climate change: A global survey. The Lancet Planetary
Health, 5(12), 863–873.
Hmielowski, J. D., Donaway, R., & Wang, M. Y. (2019). Environmental risk information
seeking: The differential roles of anxiety and hopelessness. Environmental
Communication, 13(7), 894–908.
Hofmann, S. G., Sawyer, A. T., Witt, A. A., & Oh, D. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-
based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 169–183.
Hogg, T. L., Stanley, S. K., O’Brien, L., Wilson, M. S., & Watsford, C. R. (2021). The Hogg
eco-anxiety scale: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Global
Environmental Change, 71, Article 102391.
Ivanova, D., Barrett, J., Wiedenhofer, D., Macura, B., Callaghan, M., & Creutzig, F.
(2020). Quantifying the potential for climate change mitigation of consumption
options. Environmental Research Letters, 15, Article 093001.
Kabat-Zinn, J. (2009). Wherever you go, there you are: Mindfulness meditation in everyday
life. Hachette Books.
Lawrence, A. E., & Brown, T. A. (2008). Classication and boundaries among anxiety-
related problems. In M. M. Antony, & M. B. Stein (Eds.), Oxford handbook of anxiety
and related disorders (pp. 265–276). Oxford University Press.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing
company.
Mackay, C. M., & Schmitt, M. T. (2019). Do people who feel connected to nature do more
to protect it? A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 65(2019), Article
101323.
Maund, P. R., Irvine, K. N., Reeves, J., Strong, E., Cromie, R., Dallimer, M., &
Davies, Z. G. (2019). Wetlands for wellbeing: Piloting a nature-based health
L. Whitmarsh et al.
Journal of Environmental Psychology 83 (2022) 101866
10
intervention for the management of anxiety and depression. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4413.
Medvedev, O. N., Titkova, E. A., Siegert, R. J., et al. (2018). Evaluating short versions of
the ve facet mindfulness questionnaire using rasch analysis. Mindfulness, 9(5),
1411–1422.
Meredith, G. R., Rakow, D. A., Eldermire, E. R., Madsen, C. G., Shelley, S. P., &
Sachs, N. A. (2020). Minimum time dose in nature to positively impact the mental
health of college-aged students, and how to measure it: A scoping review. Frontiers in
Psychology, 10, 2942.
Morganstein, J. C., & Ursano, R. J. (2020). Ecological disasters and mental health:
Causes, consequences, and interventions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 1.
Morrissey, S. A., & Reser, J. P. (2007). Natural disasters, climate change and mental
health considerations for rural Australia. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 15(2),
120–125.
Nisbet, E. K., & Zelenski, J. M. (2013). The NR-6: A new brief measure of nature
relatedness. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 813.
Ogunbode, C. A., B¨
ohm, G., Capstick, S. B., Demski, C., Spence, A., & Tausch, N. (2019).
The resilience paradox: Flooding experience, coping and climate change mitigation
intentions. Climate Policy, 19(6), 703–715.
Ojala, M. (2012). How do children cope with global climate change? Coping strategies,
engagement, and well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 225–233.
Ojala, M., & Bengtsson, H. (2019). Young people’s coping strategies concerning climate
change: Relations to perceived communication with parents and friends and
proenvironmental behavior. Environment and Behavior, 51(8), 907–935.
Olsen, L. R., Mortensen, E. L., & Bech, P. (2004). Prevalence of major depression and
stress indicators in the Danish general population. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica,
109(2), 96–103.
O’Neill, S. (2020). More than meets the eye: A longitudinal analysis of climate change
imagery in the print media. Climatic Change, 163, 9–26.
ONS. (2011). 2011 census data: CT0570_2011 census - Sex by age by IMD2004 by ethnic
group. Retrieved https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/cultura
lidentity/ethnicity/adhocs/005378ct05702011censussexbyagebyimd2004byethni
cgroup. (Accessed 6 June 2022).
Palinkas, L. A., & Wong, M. (2020). Global climate change and mental health. Current
Opinion in Psychology, 32, 12–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.06.023
Pihkala, P. (2020a). Eco-anxiety and environmental education. Sustainability, 12(23),
Article 10149.
Pihkala, P. (2020b). Anxiety and the ecological crisis: An analysis of eco-anxiety and
Climate anxiety. Sustainability, 12(19), 7836.
Poortinga, W., Fisher, S., B¨
ohm, G., Steg, L., Whitmarsh, L., & Ogunbode, C. (2018).
European attitudes to climate change and energy: Topline results from round 8 of the
European social survey, 27th November. 2021 www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/
ndings/ESS8_toplines_issue_9_climatechange.pdf.
Reser, J. P., & Bradley, G. L. (2020). The nature, signicance, and inuence of perceived
personal experience of climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 11(5), 1–28.
Reyes, M. E. S., Carmen, B. P. B., Luminarias, M. E. P., et al. (2021). An investigation into
the relationship between climate change anxiety and mental health among Gen Z
Filipinos. Current Psychology, (2021), 1–9.
Schwartz, S. E. O., Benoit, L., Clayton, S., Parnes, M. F., Swenson, L., & Lowe, S. R.
(2022). Climate change anxiety and mental health: Environmental activism as
buffer. Current Psychology, (2022), 1–14.
Searle, K., & Gow, K. (2010). Do concerns about climate change lead to distress?
International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 2(4), 362–379.
IPCC. (2022). Summary for Policymakers. In P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, R. Slade, et al. (Eds.),
Climate change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of working group III to
the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge
University Press.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B., & L¨
owe, B. (2006). A brief measure for
assessing generalized anxiety disorder: The GAD-7. Archives of Internal Medicine, 166
(10), 1092–1097.
Steentjes, K., Demski, C., & Poortinga, W. (2021). Public perceptions of climate change
and policy action in the UK, China, Sweden and Brazil. CAST Brieng Paper, 10.
Swim, J., Clayton, S., Doherty, T., Gifford, R., Howard, G., Reser, J., Stern, P., &
Weber, E. (2009). Psychology and global climate change: Addressing a multi-faceted
phenomenon and set of challenges. A report by the American Psychological Association’s
task force on the interface between psychology and global climate change. American
Psychological Association.
Tester-Jones, M., White, M. P., Elliott, L. R., Weinstein, N., Grellier, J., Economou, T., …
Fleming, L. E. (2020). Results from an 18 country cross-sectional study examining
experiences of nature for people with common mental health disorders. Scientic
Reports, 10(1), 1–11.
Triodos Bank. (2019). How is the environmental emergency making us feel?. https://www.tr
iodos.co.uk/articles/2019/how-is-the-environmental-crisis-making-us-feel.
(Accessed 27 November 2021) Accessed.
Usher, E. L., Li, C. R., Butz, A. R., & Rojas, J. P. (2019). Perseverant grit and self-efcacy:
Are both essential for children’s academic success? Journal of Educational Psychology,
111(5), 877.
Van den Berg, M., van Poppel, M., Smith, G., Triguero-Mas, M., Andrusaityte, S., van
Kamp, I., … Maas, J. (2017). Does time spent on visits to green space mediate the
associations between the level of residential greenness and mental health? Urban
Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 94–102.
Van den Berg, M., van Poppel, M., van Kamp, I., Andrusaityte, S., Balseviciene, B.,
Cirach, M., … Maas, J. (2016). Visiting green space is associated with mental health
and vitality: A cross-sectional study in four European cities. Health & Place, 38, 8–15.
Verplanken, B., Marks, E., & Dobromir, A. I. (2020). On the nature of eco-anxiety: How
constructive or unconstructive is habitual worry about global warming? Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 72, Article 101528.
Washington Post.. (2019). Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation Climate Change
Survey, July 9-Aug. 5, 2019 https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/washin
gton-post-kaiser-family-foundation-climate-change-survey-july-9-aug-5-2019/601e
d8ff-a7c6-4839-b57e-3f5eaa8ed09f/. (Accessed 27 November 2021).
Watts, N., Amann, M., Arnell, N., Ayeb-Karlsson, S., Belesova, K., Boykoff, M., …
Montgomery, H. (2019). The 2019 report of the lancet countdown on health and
climate change: Ensuring that the health of a child born today is not dened by a
changing climate. The Lancet, 394(10211), 1836–1878.
Weintrobe, S. (2013). The difcult problem of anxiety in thinking about climate change.
Engaging with Climate Change: Psychoanalytic and Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 33–47.
White, M., Elliott, L. R., Grellier, J., et al. (2021). Associations between green/blue
spaces and mental health across 18 countries. Scientic Reports, 11, 8903.
Whitmarsh, L., Poortinga, W., & Capstick, S. (2021). Behaviour change to address climate
change. Current Opinion in Psychology, 42, 76–81.
Williams, M. O. (2020). The relationship between climate change and mental health
information-seeking: A preliminary investigation. Journal of Public Mental Health, 20,
69–78.
Wullenkord, M., Tr¨
oger, J., Hamann, K. R., Loy, L., & Reese, G. (2021). Anxiety and
climate change: A validation of the climate anxiety scale in a German-speaking quota
sample and an investigation of psychological correlates. Climatic Change, 168(3),
1–23.
L. Whitmarsh et al.
