Expected climate change consequences and their role in explaining individual risk judgments

differences when people are asked what they associate with ‘climate change’ in general [20], and that country-level conditions (e.g., economic prosperity, democracy, exposure to climate impacts) tend to be related to climate change beliefs [21, 22]. Studies further suggest that the political and institutional responses to climate change events, as well as corresponding media coverage, can influence the public’s perception of risk [23, 24]. People living in countries less ‘vulnerable’ to direct climate change impacts may have other impact associations and focus on a broader range of consequences, including indirect effects such as changes in attitudes or activities. For example, the rapid shift to electric cars [25] or the potential for reduced oil pro- duction might be perceived as important consequences of climate change in Norway. We assume that expected climate change consequences may differ across countries and sociode- mographic groups. The current paper includes impact expectations from people in four key European coun- tries: the UK, Norway, Germany, and France [26]. The overarching aim of the present investi- gation was threefold: (i) to describe expectations about possible consequences of climate change according to Bo¨hm and Pfister’s framework across the four countries, (ii) to investigate whether impact expectations can be predicted from socio-demographic features such as age, gender, and political orientation, and finally (iii) to explore the relationship between impact expectations and climate change worry in general and/or evaluation of how negative climate

change will be for one’s country. The range of possible impact expectations might be especially relevant if studying countries that vary in per capita emissions and energy production as well as in the degree to which they have been and potentially will be impacted by climate change events; for an overview of the socio-political profile of each included country, see [27]. Materials and method Data collection The data were collected as part of a research project on public perceptions of climate change [28]. The countries included in the project (UK, Norway, Germany, and France) are among the most important energy-producing countries in Europe, they have large and varied energy systems and decisions made in these countries could strongly influence Europe’s energy transi- tion [26]. The design of the study was informed by an analysis of the socio-political contexts within each of the included countries. The profiles include information about culture, history, policy, influential actors, media coverage, and past and anticipated climate change events [27]. The survey was developed in English and later translated into the other three national lan- guages. Representative samples of about 1000 respondents aged 15 and over from each of the participating countries were collected via face-to-face interviews (UK, Germany, and France) or telephone interviews (Norway). The data collection was administered by Ipsos Mori, an international survey company. The company followed a sampling scheme in each of the coun-

tries that ascertained representative samples, with sampling points distributed across the coun- try and quotas set to demographic variables such as age, gender, education, and region. A detailed description of the methodology and sampling procedure can be found in [26, 28]. The survey included both open- and closed-ended survey questions, and took between 22 and 28 minutes to complete on average. Fieldwork was completed in June 2016. More detailed infor- mation on sample characteristics, project design, methodology, and other questions included in the survey can be found elsewhere [26]. All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the School of Psychology Ethics Committee (Cardiff University) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. PLOS ONE Expected climate change consequences and individual risk judgments PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281258 February 15, 2023 3 / 15