Department of Environmental Science, Faculty of Environmental Science and Engineering, Babeș-Bolyai University, 30 Fantanele Street, 400294 Cluj-Napoca, Romania.
Department of Economy and Rural Development, Faculty of Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liège, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Apr 2;19(7):4280. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19074280.
The way people perceive climate change scientific evidence becomes relevant in motivating or demotivating their climate actions. Climate change is one of the most publicized topics globally, and media has become an important "validator" of science. Therefore, science has become more exposed to criticism. Even when most scientists, decision makers, and laypeople agree on the robust evidence of climate science, there is still room for disagreement. The main aim of this paper is to reveal how climate change knowledge generated by science is perceived by the laypeople and to observe a possible gap between them. The study answered two questions "What are the main contrasting climate change topics in the scientific literature?" and "What are Romanian and Belgian participants' perceptions of these topics?". A qualitative approach was chosen for data analysis, using Quirkos software. The present cross-country study showed commonalities and differences of views between the two groups of participants regarding six climate change topics. Divergent perceptions among Belgians and Romanians came out, for example, within the theme "The heroes, villains, and victims of climate change." Thus, whereas Belgians considered all people, including themselves, responsible for climate change, Romanians blamed mostly others, such as big companies, governments, and consumers. Additionally, both groups stated that climate change existed, but contrary to Belgians, Romanians voiced that climate change was often used as an exaggerated and politicized topic. The analysis revealed that perceptions about climate change, its causes, and its impacts are social constructs with a high degree of variability between and within the two national groups. The study argued that the cleavages between scientific literature and people's views were blind spots on which a participatory approach was needed to better cope with climate change challenges.
人们对气候变化科学证据的看法在激励或阻碍他们的气候行动方面变得至关重要。气候变化是全球宣传最多的话题之一,媒体已成为科学的重要“验证者”。因此,科学受到了更多的批评。即使大多数科学家、决策者和普通民众都同意气候科学的有力证据,但仍存在分歧的空间。本文的主要目的是揭示普通民众如何看待科学产生的气候变化知识,并观察他们之间可能存在的差距。该研究回答了两个问题:“科学文献中主要的气候变化对比主题是什么?”和“罗马尼亚和比利时参与者对这些主题的看法是什么?”。为了进行数据分析,选择了定性方法,并使用 Quirkos 软件。这项跨国研究表明,两组参与者在六个气候变化主题上存在共同性和差异性。例如,在“气候变化的英雄、恶棍和受害者”这一主题中,比利时人和罗马尼亚人之间出现了不同的看法。尽管比利时人认为所有的人,包括他们自己,都应对气候变化负责,但罗马尼亚人则主要指责其他人,如大公司、政府和消费者。此外,两组参与者都表示气候变化确实存在,但与比利时人相反,罗马尼亚人表示气候变化经常被用作夸大和政治化的话题。分析表明,对气候变化及其原因和影响的看法是社会建构,在两个国家群体之间和内部存在很大的可变性。该研究认为,科学文献和人们观点之间的分歧是盲点,需要采取参与式方法来更好地应对气候变化挑战。