ABSTRACT
Humanity is amid two complex, global, and intersecting crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change. Given the speed at which COVID-19 has impacted people's lives and disrupted systems worldwide, governments and citizens have rallied together in a rapid and unprecedented collective health response to help limit the spread of this novel virus. In contrast, despite decades of science and associated communication, the climate crisis has received less government action and public engagement. The less substantial response to the climate crisis is likely partly due to differences in the crises' characteristics. Despite these differences, COVID-19 provides an opportunity to critically reflect on the success of public communication and engagement practices related to the pandemic, and lessons that can be applied to address the climate crisis. Importantly, the context of the pandemic is rapidly shifting, and thus lessons learned and their future applicability will also be evolving. By drawing together key concepts from psychology and climate communication literature, combined with our own experiences and reflections as scholars in these fields, this chapter explores how different communication approaches spur different psychological responses and levels of anxiety, and how this has affected public engagement with COVID-19 and climate change respectively. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Understanding public perceptions of the health risks of climate change is critical to inform risk communication and support the adoption of adaptive behaviours. In Canada, very few studies have explored public understandings and perceptions of climate impacts on health. The objective of this study was to address this gap by exploring perceptions of the link between climate change and health. METHODS: We conducted a survey of Canadians (n = 3,014) to address this objective. The 116-question survey measured prior consideration of the link between climate change and health, affective assessment of climate health impacts, unprompted knowledge of climate health impacts, and concern about a range of impacts. ANOVA tests were used to assess differences among sociodemographic groups. RESULTS: Overall, Canadian's have a similar level of concern about health impacts of climate change compared with concern about other impacts (e.g. biophysical, economic, and national security). Among health-related impacts, respondents were more concerned about impacts on water, food and air quality, compared with impacts on mental health, infectious diseases and heat-related illnesses. There were differences among sociodemographic groups; women were significantly more concerned than men about all of the health-related impacts; respondents with a high school level of education were significantly less concerned about all health-related impacts compared with respondents with more education; and respondents on the political left were more concerned with those in the political centre, who were more concerned than those on the political right. CONCLUSION: There is emerging literature suggesting that framing communication around climate change in terms of the health risks it poses may increase perceptions of the proximity of the risks. These results suggest that it is important to be specific in the types of health risks that are communicated, and to consider the concerns of the target sociodemographic groups. The differential knowledge, awareness, and concern of climate health impacts across segments of the Canadian population can inform targeted communication and engagement to build broader support for adaptation and mitigation measures.