| Anghelcev et al.2015South Korea | Semi-structured interviews and photo elicitationZaltman metaphor elicitation technique (ZMET) and narrative thematic analysis | Primary: to illustrate the applicability of using ZMET in social marketing communicationSecondary: to explore how climate change is perceived by young members of the Korean public | n = 12 (M 6, F 6)Age range 20–28South Korean college studentsHalf undergraduate and half graduate | Affective distress (fear, nostalgia, sadness) was one of 3 “deep metaphors” foundFear: apocalyptic futures (doomsday scenarios promoted by media)Fear accompanied by anxiety symptoms (feeling of suffocation, inevitable destruction) | Sadness (loss of world as we know it, futility of individual action and inability to reverse climate change)Nostalgia (memories of idealised past)Pandora’s box -tragic endings (loss of biodiversity and human habitat)- human greed (corporate greed for profits, selfish pursuit of comfort and gratification)-hope (education as agent of positive change, stricter governmental control)Two-faced Janus- discursive ambivalence (dual standards of accountability, ambivalent media discourse)- functional duality (technology as cause and solution, home as space of consumption and mitigation) | Participants perceived climate change as something geographically or temporally distant (not a direct threat or happening to them) | B-No information on ethical considerations-Bias in sampling (personal solicitation)-Quotes not matched to demographic data-No respondent validation-No reflexivity or consideration of cultural factors |
| Du Bray et al.2017Fiji, Cyprus, New Zealand, United Kingdom | Open-ended individual ethnographic interviewsInterviews autocoded for positive and negative emotion words (counting of intext references)The method of qualitative data analysis of interview texts was not described | “To understand how emotional responses to climate change are inequitably distributed across people living in island nations with varying climate change vulnerability” (p. 1) | n = 272Residents in 4 island nations: Fiji (n = 68), Cyprus (n = 40), New Zealand (n = 86), United Kingdom (n = 78)Gender and ages not provided | Fiji: worry about land, people, community, plants not growing, loss of self-sufficiency and cultural traditionsCyprus: worry about the future, rise of sea level, water scarcity, how to adapt to changeNew Zealand: worry about friends and family, speed of change, rise of global disastersUK: worry about grandchildren, population changes (incoming refugees) | Fiji: happiness and sorrow, pride in cultural heritage, sad at loss of livelihood traditions, new opportunities with relocation of younger generationCyprus: concern/frustration with water shortage, anger/helplessness. Sadness about rainfall changes, unable to trust local agricultureNZ: sad at ecological loss. Hope for future generations, optimismUK: neutral, felt would not be impacted, cannot control climate change, therefore must not become upset about it | Island nations are vulnerable to climate change to varying degrees (UK and NZ less vulnerable, more adaptive capacity, Cyrus and Fiji more vulnerable with less adaptive capacity) | C-Poor description of context-Insufficient demographic information on participants-Sampling strategy not documented-No justification of sample size/data saturation-Data recording method unclear-Qualitative data analysis not recorded-No validation of findings-No consideration of limitations-No reflexivity or ethics considered |
| Du Bray et al.2017USA | Participant observation and mixed-method survey (16 open ended interview questions and 21 survey questions)Counting and coding of emotion words (KWIC (keywords-in-context) approach)Themes emerged deductively from the pattern of questioningThe method of analysis is unclear | Primary: to determine “how emotional responses to climate change vary across sites with different experiences and projected outcomes as a result of climate change” (p. 286)Secondary: to determine “whether men or women were more likely to expressemotions across these three sites” (p. 286) | n = 103 (M 50, F 53)Ages not providedResidents of 3 US cities: Mobile, Alabama (31), Kodiak, Alaska (36), and Phoenix, Arizona (36) | Worry and sadness for future generationsWorry about financial issues/loss of livelihood (access to resources) or being unable to give children same livelihood opportunitiesConcern about changes to landscapeLack of worry in those who believe that climate change does not affect current generationSite specific:Alabama—worry for others but more worried by other natural events (hurricanes, storm water runoff) which will be made worse with climate change. Uncertainty and adaptationAlaska—anxiety was not a prominent themeArizona—less emotional about climate change overall. Concern for younger generation (not have same experience) | Alabama: Large number of respondents did not believe in anthropogenic climate changeParticipants felt more prepared, able to adapt than other sitesAlaska: Many respondents believed in anthropogenic climate change, (31% did not)Participants more likely to express hope for future, optimism or feeling safe, though there are others who anticipate negative consequencesSome anticipated positive changes Arizona:Participants were least likely to indicate emotional reaction to climate changeResignation, unconcerned, feeling climate change is inevitable | USA less immediately impacted by climate changeAlabama:Susceptible to hurricanes, coastal vulnerability, fishing/agriculture relianceAlaska: Fishing/wilderness reliance, Indigenous way of life is vulnerable to climate changeArizona:Urbanised environment, buffered from local ecologyGender: women more likely than men to evoke “worry”. Men worried about financial survival and livelihood. Women worried about future generations | B-Sampling strategy poorly described-Data collection and recording unclear-Method of analysis (counting keywords) is not the most appropriate to answer the study question in depth-Few quotes, not matched to demographic data-No validation of findings-No discussion of reflexivity or limitations-Good demographic description -Content validity through pre-testing-Some triangulation in data collection (field notes, participant observation, interviews)-Trustworthiness through deliberate selection of similar and different views |
| Fleming et al2015Australia | Mixed-method telephone survey (open-ended and Likert-scaled responses) and literature reviewQualitative analysis using constructivist interpretations of grounded theory; used NVivo9 softwareQuantitative analysis: scaled responses were incorporated into codes, categories, and themes | To examine “how grape growers in this region perceive and prioritise climate change adaptation as an issue for their industry” | n = 50 Gender and ages not providedGrape growers in South Australia50/68 = 74% response rate | Grape growers who were sceptical about climate change did not feel it would bring risks or opportunitiesThose who were convinced of it perceived greater risks | 58% were sceptical of anthropogenic climate changeFocus of worry not related to climate change included themes of:Significant concerns-immediate stress (cash flow, lack of succession, dwindling communities with limited labour access, lack of transparency)-loss of enjoyment in lifestylePerceptions of climate change: scepticismCoping with stress-committed farmer-exiting the industry-positive outliers | High degree of scepticism about climate change influenced perception of risks and tendency towards action | A -Good response rate-Quality content analysis-Ethics approval-Identification of outliers validates results-Data collection not well recorded-No data saturation-Limited demographic data provided-No reflexivity discussed |
| Galway2019Canada | Semi-structured walking interviewsThematic analysis | “(1) To examine how community members of Thunder Bay understand, and think about the issue of climate change; (2) To examine how community members of Thunder Bay perceive climate change impacts and action; and (3)To consider the role of place in relation to climate change perceptions in the context of Thunder Bay” (p. 69) | n = 18 (M 8, F 10)Ages 20s–70sResidents in a remote city in Northern Ontario, Canada | Fear and concern/worry were most commonly reported emotionsWorry for children and future generationsWorry about future access to water, food, forests | Climate change as complex and interconnectedCauses of climate change (fossil fuel industry, industrialisation, capitalism, greed, etc.)Climate (in)justice and ethics (intergenerational, marginalised communities)Taking notice of changes in the weather, seasons and extreme eventsAnticipated future impacts on water, food and forests-Perceptions shaped by experiences on land and water-Transformation at a range of levels, by a range of actors is needed to address climate changeOther emotions included hopeful, frustrated, sense of urgency, depressed, angry/upset, guilt, sad | The importance of place, connection to local ecologyLocal and regional settings and relationships to this land/water/outdoorsExtreme flood 2012 repeatedly referenced by participants | B-No data saturation to justify sample size-No triangulation-Quotes not matched to demographic data-Only one person analysing data-No validation of findings-Little discussion of limitations or alternative explanations-No reflexivity-Themes not explicitly presented-Questions pilot tested for clarity |
| Gibson et al2020Tuvalu | Mixed methods: structured interview with open and closed questionsQuestionnaire: culturally adapted Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25Quantitative analysis: descriptive, correlational, and between-group analysisQualitative analysis: method poorly described | To determine if residents in Tuvalu report distress on account of both local and abstract climate changeTo examine the extent to which reported distress impacts on daily functioning | n = 100 (M 50, F 50)Ages 18–24 (23), 25–39 (26), 40–54 (25), 55+ (26)Community members living on Funafuti atoll, Tuvalu | Quantitative76% reported worry about abstract climate stressorsOf those with distress, 79% reported impairment in daily life and 28% reported extreme impairmentQualitativeWorry about safety, lack of disaster preparedness, having nowhere to go Impact of worry on daily function: poor sleep due to climate change thoughts, not going out, disturbs leisure time | Sadness prominent: 79% for local aspects and 77% for abstract climate changeApprox. 84% reported worry/anxiety in response to local climate change stressors, and 79% reported sadness about environmental impacts, loss of homes and decreasing capacity to grow cropsDistress and anxiety related to local climate stressors were more common than to abstract climate change | Extremely vulnerable country which may become uninhabitable due to sea level riseAwareness of this reality is found throughout Tuvalu Poverty: those with more financial hardship reported greater distressDistress attributed to climate change (local and abstract) showed small–moderate correlations with psychological distress more broadly | B-No respondent validation-Little reflexivity-No clear methodology presented for qualitative analysis-Themes not explicitly presented-Questions were piloted locally, assessed for internal consistency |
| Hoggett and Randall2018Country not reported | In-depth qualitative interviewsThematic analysis | To understand how scientists and activists psychologically manage their work on climate changeTo examine what emotional resilience factors are present | n = 16 (climate scientists 6, climate activists 10)Ages not well reported (activists 20 s–50 s, scientists 1 young, 5 senior)Gender not reported | Activists: ‘Crisis’ stage of journey involved urgency, terror, anger, feeling overwhelmed, disempowerment, difficult to resolveAnxiety from engagement with direct action (police, law)Burnout/depression in 9/10 activistsScientists: Anxiety from burden of responsibilityDistress at disagreement with colleagues, public perception of science, fear of speaking out, media attacks | Activists’trajectory: epiphany, immersion, crisis, resolution through sense of agency, action as antidote to despair Activists managing emotional impacts through positive and concrete view of the future, sophisticated and supportive network of practice, and emphasis on self-careScientists’ trajectory: gradual realisationMore variability in how knowledge affects private lifeFrustration/anger at public indifferenceScientists managing emotional impacts through use of institutional defences: scientific progress, excitement of the work, detachment, rationality, specialisation, overwork | Both parties work directly with climate change issues in daily workRole (activist vs. scientist) demonstrated significant differences in trajectory of emotional impact, engagement in public sphere and managing emotional impacts | B-No funding source or consideration of ethics-Poor description of demographics of participants-Sampling bias-No data saturation-Data collection and recording unclear-Unclear how many people analysed the results-Quotes not matched to demographics-Limitations not discussed in detail-No reflexivity-Utilised member checking |
| Howard et al2020USA | Mixed method: quantitative survey with single open-ended question on how climate change was contributing to levels of mental distressQuantitative analysis: descriptive and correlational statistics, ANOVAQualitative analysis: content analysis with coding methodology | Primary: “to examine the association between climate change risk perception and mental well-being among farmers and ranchers in Montana” (p. 88)Secondary: “to examine how climate change may be affecting the mental well-being of farmers and ranchers in the state” (p. 88) | n = 125Gender and race not recorded but were predominantly male and whiteAge 18–34 (21.7%), 35–54 (49.2%), 55+ (29.2%)Farmers and ranchers in Montana, USA | Financial concern: worry about reduced crop yields, no funds to mitigate impacts, land and investments rendered useless, no one to buy business, children will not take overOperational planning: worry about unpredictability of climate affecting planting, crop choice | Resilience: changing farming, action response, have to adapt, be creative, flexibility, support politicians/groups helping | Agricultural workers with livelihoods depending on landAffiliation: organic farmers had significantly greater anxiety compared to conventionalOperation focus: fruit/ vegetable farmers had significantly greater anxiety than grain/legume farmersContribution to income: those with farming contributing to 10–70% income had significantly greater anxiety compared to 70–100%No significant differences in anxiety by age, generation or years working in agriculture | A-Possible sampling bias-Quotes not matched to demographic data-Very small but targeted qualitative component-Survey pre-tested for validity-Qualitative coding by two separate authors with high Cohen’s kappa agreement score |
| Kemkes and Akerman2019USA | Structured narrative interviewsInterpretive phenomenological analysis | Explored participant understanding of climate change, worry about future changes, and who is responsible for addressing climate change | n = 17 (M 10, F 7)Ages 36–80 (mean age 56)Community members living on shore of Lake Superior, Wisconsin USA | Themes were not explicitly identified but extrapolated from data provided:Anxiety from failure of collective action and futility of individual changeUncertainty about local environmental changes, fear of major weather eventsOverwhelmed but acting ethically at an individual level“One-word responses” within the anxiety spectrum (scared, terrified, concerning, concerned) | Silence around climate change: inability to talk of climate change in certain settingsIssue diluted amongst other things to be worried aboutOther one-word responses included negative (catastrophe, apocalyptic, hopeless/helpless, depressed), positive (hopeful, optimistic) words, as well as words related to scale of climate change (impending, inevitable, humbled) | Although demographic characteristics were gathered, they were not linked to themes derived from the data | C-Sample size and data saturation not addressed-Sampling bias-Themes not well elicited-No validation of findings-No discussion of limitations-No reflexivity, no consideration of ethics-Both authors performed data analysis independently |
| Norgaard2006Norway | Ethnographic data (field research), interviews, media analysis, participant observation, focus groupsAnalytic method not documented | Aim not clearly expressedTo explore why people were not more actively engaged with global warming, with a focus on emotion and emotion management | n = 46 (M 25, F 21)Ages <20 (7), 20–35 (8), 35–60 (19), 69+ (11) Total 45Range “19 to early 70 s”Residents in a rural Norwegian community | Fear related to loss of ontological security Fear of “being a bad person”, which was a threat to individual and national self-conceptUnpleasant emotions (including fear) managed through selective attention (controlling exposure to information, not thinking too far ahead, focusing on something individual can do) which led to “movement non-participation” | HelplessnessNeed to maintain optimism, stoicismObserved changes over a lifetimeGuilt of contributing to the problemGuilt and threats to identity managed by perspectival selectivity | Salience and visibility of climate change due to local changesNorway is a wealthy nation which benefits from oil production Occupation: activists and educators limit access to information to avoid being overwhelmed and enable them to continue their work | D-Unclear aims and title-Sampling not described-No data saturation-Poor description of data recording-No qualitative analysis documented-No respondent validation or independent dataanalysis -No consideration of limitations-Limited reflexivity, significant subjectivity-No use of empirical data to support claims -Funding source unclear-Issues with sampling, analysis, reflexivity, and ethics threaten overall validity |
| Nyantakyi-Frimpong and Bezner-Kerr2015Ghana | Ethnographic fieldwork guided by feminist political ecology theoryMultimethod triangulation of focus groups, individual interviews, participant observation, meteorological data, household surveysQuantitative analysis: descriptive statistics (two sample test of proportions in SPSS version 21)Qualitative analysis: hand coding and analysis for themes; participatory ranking and scoring data analysed using a method by Tschakert to calculate incidence, severity and importance indices for each factor | “To explore the relative importance of climate change in the context of multiples stressors in semi-arid Ghana” (p. 1)“(i) What factors do farmers identify as most relevant for climate change resilience and adaptation, and how do these factors differ by gender, age and kinship relations? (ii) how important is climate change as compared to other factors that shape smallholder farming and food security?” (p. 40) | n = 1358 Focus groups, n = 75 (young M 19, young F 21, elderly M 18, elderly F 17)In-depth interviews n = 60 (M 26, F 34)6 were key informants (3 agricultural extension officers, 1 NGO worker, 1 nutritionist, and 1 health surveillance assistant).All were residents in 2 villages in northwest Ghana | Farmers are aware but do not worry about climate variability and change, compared to other concernsFarmers are used to extreme weather events and report that they already manage risk with adaptable farming systems and are used to innovating | Farmers perceive a change in climate accuratelyConcerns vary with gender - men worry about local weather events, food prices-women’s greatest concern is access to household granaries and labour constraintsLand appropriation was a concern for all | Significant vulnerability (poverty, main economic activities are agriculture and pastoralism); 39% households are food insecureRespondents perceived themselves as less vulnerable to climate change because they already have adaptive capacity | A-No discussion of limitations, little reflexivity, ethics not acknowledged-Did not frame as climate change research to participants-Data saturation reached-Comprehensive methodology, data triangulation-Survey instrument was pre-tested-Findings were validated in feedback workshops |
| Ojala2012Sweden | Questionnaire with open-ended and Likert-type questionsQualitative analysis: thematic analysis Quantitative analysis: descriptive statistics of coded statements | To explore how young Swedish people cope with worry and promote hope in relation to climate change | n = 348 (M 127, F 221)Young people in SwedenIntermediate level school children: mean age 11.7 (n = 90)Senior high school adolescents: mean age 16.4 (n = 146) Young adult university students: mean age 22.6 (n = 112) | Problem-focused coping-individual (preparatory actions, direct actions)-collectiveEmotion-focused coping-de-emphasising seriousness of the problem (threat is exaggerated/not real, ego-centric thinking, relativisation)-distancing (distraction, avoidance)-social support-hyperactivationMeaning-focused coping-positive reappraisal (historical perspective)-positive thinking/existential hope-trust (in science/technology, politics and policy, business, environment movement, humanity, religion) |
| Age—young people most likely to experience impactsLocation—stable Western country Some perceived climate change as not affecting them | A-Sampling poorly described-Little reflexivity-No evidence of ethics approval-Findings not validated-Aims clearly stated and met, high utility of research-Good contextualisation of background and results-Good response rate, large sample size and age range |
| Petheram et al.2010Australia | Fieldwork visitsSemi-structured interviews (individual and group), workshops (rich picture diagramming, participatory sculpting, participant-generated photography)Constructionist/grounded theory-based continuous data gathering and analysis, analysis of data with substantive and theoretical coding | To understand factors influencing general vulnerability and adaptive capacity in the context of poverty and climate change in Yolgnu people in NE Arnhem Land, Northern Territory | n = 21 (M 9, F 12)Range of older and younger adults (ages not specified)Community members in East Arnhem Land (male indigenous land/sea rangers and women from local households and a women’s organisation) | Climate change was less of a concern than other issues affecting the community Climate change will exacerbate existing concerns, cannot be considered in isolation from non-climate issuesRaising awareness of climate change so school children do not worry | Participants were unclear about Western notions of climate changeDifferences in world view and miscommunication between participants and “Balanda” (white Australians)Preferences for adaptation strategies included sustainability and greater value on traditional and cultural practicesSpecific changes in landscape had been noted in recent years and caused distress-Taking care of country-Concern about current and future situation of communities and wanting change to relieve poverty and other worrying issues | Population highly vulnerable to climate change (poverty, lack of agency and adaptive capacity, historic events, multiple pressing biopsychosocial issues)Indigenous population with strong connection to place and sensitivity to the natural landscape | A-No funding source nominated-Adapted research aims based on findings to be of more utility/relevance-Data saturation reached-Participant verification occurred-Used culturally adapted methods to gather data-Good reflexivity |
| Ryghaug et al.2011Norway | Focus group interviewsAnalysis ‘inspired’ by grounded theory; domestication theory used as a basis for making story lines | To analyse how people reason about and make sense of human-made global warming, in light of two previously identified categories of media representations, the “nature drama” and “science drama” | n = 62 in 10 focus groups (M 24, F 38)Age range 16–71 Community members in NorwayFocus groups were existing social networks26/62 (42%) were students | Climate change as a frightening scenarioWorry for future generations was linked to extreme weather striking climate incidents (“nature drama”)Worry not pervasive, as frightening events are not happening here (their country) or now | Scientific controversy Role of the media as the main source of information about climate change, belief that media overemphasises threatFour ways of domesticating knowledge: acceptors, tempered acceptors, uncertain and sceptics | Participants from wealthy stable countryClimate change perceived as distant from everyday concerns, less imminent than other problems | C-Bias in sampling-No comment on data saturation-No respondent validation-No discussion of limitations-No reflexivity, which is especially important given how subjects were recruited and inherent bias-Ethical flaws |
| Wright and Nyberg2012Australia | Individual semi-structured interviews and analysis of documents (strategy docs, communication material, submissions to gov’t, media coverage)Abductive approachCoding of emotional expressions using QSR NVivo software | (i) To explore how organisations have responded to the evidenced emotionality of climate change in their corporate environmental practices(ii) To explore how sustainability specialists manage their own emotions in the process of emotionology work | n = 36 (M 21, F 15)Age range 25–60Sustainability specialists in corporate industries in Australia | “Climate change as threat”(anxiety and apprehension in regard to the future implications for society and the economy)Anxiety was harnessed to improve employee engagement, productivity, and corporate reputationSustainability managers/consultants downplay threat and promote challenge/opportunity linked to business concernsManaging emotions through calculative methods, constraining, championing and compartmentalising emotions | “Climate change as battleground or conflict”(frustration, anger, and hostility) and “climate change as challenge and opportunity” (hope, enthusiasm, and excitement)Themes regarding processes of emotionology work (spanning, changing, or creating emotionologies) | Sustainability specialists working directly with climate change issues, all believed in climate change and were passionateAge, type of organisation and gender were not discussed as qualifiers | C-Poor presentation of data findings-No reflexivity-No comment on data saturation-Unclear how data from documents were gathered and analysed-Sampling method not described-No validation of findings-No dissenting views-Ethical flaws |