European Citizens’ Worries and Self-Responsibility towards Climate Change
2. Materials and Methods
- “To monitor and interpret changing public attitudes and values within Europe and to investigate how they interact with Europe’s changing institutions;
- To advance and consolidate improved methods of cross-national survey measurement in Europe and beyond;
- And, to develop a series of European social indicators, including attitudinal indicators. The survey involves strict random probability sampling, high response rate and rigorous translation protocols.”
2.2. Variables Included in the Present Study
2.3. Statistical Analysis
3.1. Descriptive Statistics
3.2. How Worried Are You about Climate Change?
3.2.1. Single Independent Variable Models
- The odds of scoring higher, or being more worried about CC, increase as trust in scientists increases. The odds ratio is 1.08, meaning that the odds of scoring one point higher in the CC question increase by 8% with by each point rating higher trust in scientists.
- The odds of scoring higher, or being more worried about CC, increase as the satisfaction with the national government increases. The odds ratio is 1.02, meaning that the odds of scoring one point higher in the CC question increase by 2% with each point rating higher satisfaction with the national government.
- The odds of rating a lower score are 0.64 higher for men than women. The odds of a woman rating a higher score is 1/0.64 = 1.5625 higher than men. The odds are 56.25% higher for women than they are for men, and women are more worried about climate change than men.
- The odds of scoring higher, or being more worried about CC, increase with the age of the interviewees. The odds ratio is 1.006, meaning that the odds of scoring one point higher in the climate change question increase by 0.06% per year added to the age of the interviewee.
- The odds of scoring higher, or being more worried about CC, increase with the time spent on education by the interviewees. The odds ratio is 1.034, meaning that the odds of scoring one point higher in the climate change question increase by 3.4% per added year to the education of the interviewee.
3.2.2. Multiple Independent Variable Model
- For the interaction between “Gender” and “Trust in Scientists” no significant differences are found between men and women relative to trusting in scientists (Mann–Whitney U-test Z = −0.330, p = 0.742).
- For the interaction “Gender Age”, there is a significant difference between the age of the male and female interviewees (equal variances not assumed, Levene’s Z = 4.387, p = 0.036; T-test t = −7.227, 17,938 d.f., p < 0.001), with mean age of females (51.78) slightly higher than males (49.78). Therefore the 8% addition in the odds ratio is understandable as both the gender female and age have a positive impact on the score of the dependent variable.
- For the interaction “Trust in Scientists” with “Age”, and also for the interaction “Age” with “Years in education”, the same type of rationale used previously cannot be used, and the results do not have a direct interpretation. The results must be understood in the context of the main effects results and the three-way interaction.
- The three-way interaction has a direct interpretation, as the individual variables all impact positively the independent variable; therefore, when considered together, the result is augmented.
3.3. To What Extent Do You Feel a Personal Responsibility to Try to Reduce Climate Change?
3.3.1. Single Independent Variable Models
- The odds of scoring higher or feeling more responsible to try to reduce CC increases as trust in the legal system increases. The odds ratio is 1.123, meaning that the odds of scoring one point higher in the climate change question increase by 12.3% with each point rating higher trust in the legal system.
- The same result is observed for “Trust in scientists”. The odds ratio is 1.57, meaning that the odds of scoring one point higher in the CC question increase by 57% with each point rating higher trust in scientists.
- For satisfaction with the state of the economy in the country, the odds ratio is 1.164, a 16.4% increase.
- For satisfaction with the national government, the odds ratio is 1.123, a 12.3% increase.
- For satisfaction with the way democracy works, the odds ratio is 1.142, a 14.2% increase.
- For satisfaction with the state of education in the country, the odds ratio is 1.12, 12.0% increase.
- For satisfaction with the state of the health services in the country, the odds ratio is 1.117, an 11.7% increase.
- The odds of rating a lower score are 0.728 higher for men than women. The odds of women rating a higher score is 1/0.728 = 1.3736 higher than men. The odds are thus 37.36% higher for women than they are for men, and women feel more personal responsibility in trying to reduce climate change than men.
- For age, the odds ratio is 0.996, and (1/0.996 = 1.004); thus, responsibility decreases slightly with age (0.4% per year added to age).
- For time in education, the odds ratio is 1.093, a 9.3% increase per added year in full-time education.
3.3.2. Multiple Independent Variable Model
- For the interaction “Gender × Age”, the previous findings of significant differences between males and females can, in this model, have the same explanation.
- To devise an explanation of the two-way interactions, the correlations between the variable “Trust in scientists” and the others involved in the interactions were obtained (Sperman’s rho): “Satisfaction with the economy in the country” 0.298 (p < 0.001), “Satisfaction with the health system in the country” 0.306 (p < 0.001), “Age of the interviewee” 0.034 (p < 0.001), and “Years in education” 0.134 (p < 0.001). The positive correlation with “Trust in scientists” itself contributing to higher levels of self-responsibility in the single models can explain the results. The exception is age, but as age correlates negatively with “Time in education” (−0.204, p < 0.001), the negative parameter in the interaction with “Trust in scientists” may be in the model to compensate the positive parameter in the interaction “Trust in scientists × Years in education”.
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Otto, A.; Gugushvili, D. Eco-Social Divides in Europe: Public Attitudes towards Welfare and Climate Change Policies. Sustainability 2020, 12, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Capstick, S.; Whitmarsh, L.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N.; Upham, P. International Trends in Public Perceptions of Climate Change over the Past Quarter Century. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2015, 6, 35–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sreen, N.; Purbey, S.; Sadarangani, P. Impact of Culture, Behavior and Gender on Green Purchase Intention. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2018, 41, 177–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radzi, S.N.F.; Osman, K.; Mohd Said, M.N. Progressing towards Global Citizenship and a Sustainable Nation: Pillars of Climate Change Education and Actions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 5163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, H.J.; Lin, L.M. Exploring Attitude–Behavior Gap in Sustainable Consumption: Comparison of Recycled and Upcycled Fashion Products. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 117, 623–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shahsavar, T.; Kubeš, V.; Baran, D. Willingness to Pay for Eco-Friendly Furniture Based on Demographic Factors. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, Y.; Uniyal, D.P.; Sangroya, D. Investigating Consumers’ Green Purchase Intention: Examining the Role of Economic Value, Emotional Value and Perceived Marketplace Influence. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 328, 129638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, Y.; Rahman, Z. Consumers’ Sustainable Purchase Behaviour: Modeling the Impact of Psychological Factors. Ecol. Econ. 2019, 159, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huber, R.A.; Greussing, E.; Eberl, J.-M. From Populism to Climate Scepticism: The Role of Institutional Trust and Attitudes towards Science. Environ. Politics 2022, 31, 1115–1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nousheen, A.; Zai, S.A.Y.; Waseem, M.; Khan, S.A. Education for Sustainable Development (ESD): Effects of Sustainability Education on Pre-Service Teachers’ Attitude towards Sustainable Development (SD). J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 250, 119537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boto-García, D.; Bucciol, A. Climate Change: Personal Responsibility and Energy Saving. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 169, 106530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dos-Santos, M.J.P.L.; Diz, H.M. Towards Sustainability in European Agricultural Firms. In Proceedings of the AHFE International Conference on Human Factors, Business Management and Society, Orlando, FL, USA, 21–25 July 2018; Volume 783, pp. 161–168. [Google Scholar]
- Poortinga, W.; Whitmarsh, L.; Steg, L.; Böhm, G.; Fisher, S. Climate Change Perceptions and Their Individual-Level Determinants: A Cross-European Analysis. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2019, 55, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sohlberg, J. The Effect of Elite Polarization: A Comparative Perspective on How Party Elites Influence Attitudes and Behavior on Climate Change in the European Union. Sustainability 2016, 9, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheba, K.; Bąk, I.; Szopik-Depczyńska, K.; Ioppolo, G. Directions of Green Transformation of the European Union Countries. Ecol. Indic. 2022, 136, 108601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cifuentes-Faura, J. European Union Policies and Their Role in Combating Climate Change over the Years. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2022, 15, 1333–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferreira, J.J.; Fernandes, C.I.; Ferreira, F.A. Technology transfer, climate change mitigation, and environmental patent impact on sustainability and economic growth: A comparison of European countries. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 150, 119770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machin, A. Changing the Story? The Discourse of Ecological Modernisation in the European Union. In The Future of European Union Environmental Politics and Policy; Routledge: Oxfordshire, UK, 2020; pp. 22–41. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.; Hu, M.; di Maio, F.; Sprecher, B.; Yang, X.; Tukker, A. An Overview of the Waste Hierarchy Framework for Analyzing the Circularity in Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Europe. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 803, 149892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Skoulikidis, N.T.; Karaouzas, I.; Amaxidis, Y.; Lazaridou, M. Impact of EU Environmental Policy Implementation on the Quality and Status of Greek Rivers. Water 2021, 13, 1858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ibn-Mohammed, T.; Mustapha, K.B.; Godsell, J.; Adamu, Z.; Babatunde, K.A.; Akintade, D.D.; Acquaye, A.; Fujii, H.; Ndiaye, M.M.; Yamoah, F.A.; et al. A Critical Analysis of the Impacts of COVID-19 on the Global Economy and Ecosystems and Opportunities for Circular Economy Strategies. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 164, 105169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Balsalobre-Lorente, D.; Sinha, A.; Driha, O.M.; Mubarik, M.S. Assessing the Impacts of Ageing and Natural Resource Extraction on Carbon Emissions: A Proposed Policy Framework for European Economies. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 296, 126470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Usman, M.; Balsalobre-Lorente, D. Environmental Concern in the Era of Industrialization: Can Financial Development, Renewable Energy and Natural Resources Alleviate Some Load? Energy Policy 2022, 162, 112780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Huang, S.-Z.; Sadiq, M.; Chien, F. Dynamic Nexus between Transportation, Urbanization, Economic Growth and Environmental Pollution in ASEAN Countries: Does Environmental Regulations Matter? Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 42813–42828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lu, J.; Rodenburg, K.; Foti, L.; Pegoraro, A. Are firms with better sustainability performance more resilient during crises? Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022, 31, 3354–3370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ji, X.; Wu, G.; Lin, J.; Zhang, J.; Su, P. Reconsider policy allocation strategies: A review of environmental policy instruments and application of the CGE model. J. Environ. Manag. 2022, 323, 116176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Y.; Su, Y.; Qi, C. Comparing Potential Cost Savings of Energy Quota Trading and Carbon Emissions Trading for China’s Industrial Sectors. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 186, 106544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- di Foggia, G.; Beccarello, M. Opportunity Cost of Carbon Pricing and White Certificate Programs: A Business Case. J. Sustain. Dev. 2022, 15, 150–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Clarke, A.; Cairns, S. Toward Achieving Local Sustainable Development: Market-Based Instruments (MBIs) for Localizing UN Sustainable Development Goals. Urban Sci. 2022, 6, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perino, G.; Willner, M.; Quemin, S.; Pahle, M. The European Union Emissions Trading System Market Stability Reserve: Does It Stabilize or Destabilize the Market? Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 2022, 16, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salcedo-Diaz, R.; Ruiz-Femenia, J.R.; Amat-Bernabeu, A.; Caballero, J.A. A Cooperative Game Strategy for Designing Sustainable Supply Chains under the Emissions Trading System. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 285, 124845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arimura, T.H.; Abe, T. The Impact of the Tokyo Emissions Trading Scheme on Office Buildings: What Factor Contributed to the Emission Reduction? Environ. Econ. Policy Stud. 2021, 23, 517–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mandaroux, R.; Dong, C.; Li, G. A European Emissions Trading System Powered by Distributed Ledger Technology: An Evaluation Framework. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Delreux, T.; Ohler, F. Climate Policy in European Union Politics. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Soria Baledon, M.; Trudel, M.; Kosoy, N. Alternative Jet Fuels and Climate Geopolitics: What, Why Does It and Who Matters in the Environmental Policy-Making Process. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 2022, 16, 541–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hadjichambis, A.C. European Green Deal and Environmental Citizenship: Two Interrelated Concepts. Environ. Sci. Proc. 2022, 14, 3. [Google Scholar]
- Suškevičs, M.; Ehrlich, T.; Peterson, K.; Hiiemäe, O.; Sepp, K. Public Participation in Environmental Assessments in the EU: A Systematic Search and Qualitative Synthesis of Empirical Scientific Literature. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2023, 98, 106944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wellstead, A.M.; Biesbroek, R. Finding the Sweet Spot in Climate Policy: Balancing Stakeholder Engagement with Bureaucratic Autonomy. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 54, 101155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yilmaz-Eren, E. European Citizens’ Initiative: A participatory instrument to strengthen European general public for the protection of environment. Marmara Üniversitesi Avrupa Topluluğu Enstitüsü Avrupa Araştırmaları Derg. 2021, 29, 155–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uittenbroek, C.J.; Mees, H.L.P.; Hegger, D.L.T.; Driessen, P.P.J. The Design of Public Participation: Who Participates, When and How? Insights in Climate Adaptation Planning from the Netherlands. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2019, 62, 2529–2547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rose-Ackerman, S.; Halpaap, A.A. The Aarhus Convention and the Politics of Process: The Political Economy of Procedural Environmental Rights. In An Introduction to the Law and Economics of Environmental Policy: Issues in Institutional Design; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2002; Volume 20, pp. 27–64. [Google Scholar]
- Hugel, S.; Davies, A. Public Participation, Engagement, and Climate Change Adaptation: A Review of the Research Literature. WIREs Clim. Chang. 2020, 11, E645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ESS ERIC European Social Survey 10—Integrated File, Edition 2.2. 2022. Available online: https://ess-search.nsd.no/en/study/172ac431-2a06-41df-9dab-c1fd8f3877e7 (accessed on 12 December 2022).
- ESS ERIC ESS10 Data Protocol. 2022. Available online: https://stessrelpubprodwe.blob.core.windows.net/data/round10/survey/ESS10_data_protocol_e01_7.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2022).
- McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E.; Xiao, C. The Impacts of Temperature Anomalies and Political Orientation on Perceived Winter Warming. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014, 4, 1077–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekholm, S. Swedish Mothers’ and Fathers’ Worries about Climate Change: A Gendered Story. J. Risk Res. 2020, 23, 288–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ekholm, S.; Olofsson, A. Parenthood and Worrying About Climate Change: The Limitations of Previous Approaches. Risk Anal. 2017, 37, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selm, K.R.; Nils Peterson, M.; Hess, G.R.; Beck, S.M.; McHale, M.R. Educational Attainment Predicts Negative Perceptions Women Have of Their Own Climate Change Knowledge. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0210149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCright, A.M. The Effects of Gender on Climate Change Knowledge and Concern in the American Public. Popul. Environ. 2010, 32, 66–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjöblom, P.; Wolff, L.-A.; Vuorenpää, S.; Grahn, R. Primary School Students and Climate Change–an Interview Study in Finland and Tanzania. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 380, 135099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleming, W.; Hayes, A.L.; Crosman, K.M.; Bostrom, A. Indiscriminate, Irrelevant, and Sometimes Wrong: Causal Misconceptions about Climate Change. Risk Anal. 2021, 41, 157–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.; Gjersoe, N.; O’Neill, S.; Barnett, J. Youth Perceptions of Climate Change: A Narrative Synthesis. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2020, 11, e641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tjernström, E.; Tietenberg, T. Do Differences in Attitudes Explain Differences in National Climate Change Policies? Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 315–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bodin, M.; Björklund, J. “Can I Take Responsibility for Bringing a Person to This World Who Will Be Part of the Apocalypse!?”: Ideological Dilemmas and Concerns for Future Well-Being When Bringing the Climate Crisis into Reproductive Decision-Making. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022, 302, 114985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weber, E.U. What Shapes Perceptions of Climate Change? Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2010, 1, 332–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, E.K.; Mayer, A. A Social Trap for the Climate? Collective Action, Trust and Climate Change Risk Perception in 35 Countries. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2018, 49, 140–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Echavarren, J.M.; Balžekienė, A.; Telešienė, A. Multilevel Analysis of Climate Change Risk Perception in Europe: Natural Hazards, Political Contexts and Mediating Individual Effects. Saf. Sci. 2019, 120, 813–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lo, A.Y.; Chow, A.T. The Relationship between Climate Change Concern and National Wealth. Clim. Chang. 2015, 131, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sandvik, H. Public Concern over Global Warming Correlates Negatively with National Wealth. Clim. Chang. 2008, 90, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Espiñeira, R.; García-Valiñas, M.A.; Nauges, C. Households’ pro-Environmental Habits and Investments in Water and Energy Consumption: Determinants and Relationships. J. Environ. Manag. 2014, 133, 174–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lantz, B. The Large Sample Size Fallacy. Scand. J. Caring Sci. 2013, 27, 487–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syropoulos, S.; Markowitz, E.M. Perceived Responsibility to Address Climate Change Consistently Relates to Increased Pro-Environmental Attitudes, Behaviors and Policy Support: Evidence across 23 Countries. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 83, 101868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
|1 NS||2 ***||3 NS||4 ***||5 NS||6 NS||7 NS||§ 8 ***||9 ***||10 ***|
|How worried are you about climate change?||1||−2.67 ***||0.07||−3.1 ***||0.05||−3.42 ***||0.03||−2.91 ***||0.06||−2.75 ***||0.06|
|2||−1.03 ***||0.36||−1.46 ***||0.23||−1.77 ***||0.17||−1.27 ***||0.28||−1.11 ***||0.33|
|3||1.05 ***||2.87||0.61 ***||1.72||0.32 ***||1.38||0.80 ***||2.23||0.96 ***||2.61|
|4||3.0 ***||20.0||2.55 ***||12.8||2.27 ***||9.67||2.74 ***||15.5||2.9 ***||18.14|
|IV parameter||0.08 ***||1.08||0.02 ***||1.02||−0.45 ***||0.64||0.006 ***||1.006||0.034 ***||1.034|
|95% CI||95% CI|
|How worried 1||−2.080 ***||0.276||−2.620||−1.540||0.125||0.073||0.214|
|Gender *** Male||−1.247 ***||0.152||−1.546||−0.949||0.287||0.213||0.387|
|T Sci ***||0.085 ***||0.025||0.035||0.135||1.089||1.036||1.144|
|Age ***||0.024 **||0.006||0.013||0.036||1.024||1.013||1.036|
|YE **||0.052 ***||0.017||0.019||0.084||1.053||1.019||1.088|
|T Sci × Gender ***, Male||0.055 ***||0.016||0.025||0.086||1.057||1.025||1.090|
|Gender × Age ***, Male||0.008 ***||0.002||0.004||0.012||1.008||1.004||1.012|
|T Sci. × Age ***||−0.002 ***||0.0006||−0.004||−0.001||0.998||0.996||0.999|
|Age × YE *||−0.001 **||0.0004||−0.002||−0.001||0.999||0.998||0.999|
|T Sci × Age × YE **||0.0001 ***||4.01−5||5.03−5||2.1−4||1.0001||1.00005||1.0002|
|Independent Variables (IV)|
|1 ***||2 ***||3 ***||4 ***||5 ***||6 ***||7 ***||§ 8 ***||9 ***||10 ***|
|To what extent do you feel a personal responsibility to try to reduce climate change?||0||−2.162 ***||0.115||−1.702 ***||0.182||−2.029 ***||0.132||−2.206 ***||0.110||−2.075 ***||0.126||−2.068 ***||0.126||−2.133 ***||0.118||−2.794 ***||0.061||−2.87 NS||0.057||−1.516 ***||0.220|
|1||−1.810 ***||0.164||−1.351 ***||0.259||−1.675 ***||0.187||−1.855 ***||0.156||−1.723 ***||0.179||−1.719 ***||0.179||−1.783 ***||0.168||−2.446 ***||0.087||−2.52 NS||0.080||−1.165 ***||0.312|
|2||−1.318 ***||0.268||−0.859 ***||0.423||−1.180 ***||0.307||−1.363 ***||0.256||−1.229 ***||0.293||−1.229 ***||0.293||−1.293 ***||0.274||−1.959 ***||0.141||−2.04 NS||0.130||−0.674 ***||0.510|
|3||−0.857 ***||0.425||−0.399 ***||0.671||−0.716 ***||0.489||−0.902 ***||0.406||−0.766 ***||0.465||−0.770 ***||0.463||−0.833 ***||0.435||−1.503 ***||0.222||−1.58 NS||0.205||−0.214 ***||0.807|
|4||−0.524 ***||0.592||−0.067 NS||0.935||−0.381 ***||0.683||−0.570 ***||0.565||−0.432 ***||0.649||−0.438||0.645||−0.501 ***||0.606||−1.176 ***||0.309||−1.26 NS||0.285||0.117 NS||1.124|
|5||0.274 ***||1.315||0.732 ***||2.079||0.423 ***||1.527||0.226 ***||1.254||0.370 ***||1.448||0.355 ***||1.426||0.294 ***||1.341||−0.395 ***||0.674||−0.48 NS||0.621||0.911 ***||2.486|
|6||0.765 ***||2.150||1.224 ***||3.401||0.917 ***||2.502||0.716 ***||2.046||0.863 ***||2.371||0.842 ***||2.322||0.781 ***||2.183||0.083 ***||1.087||0.001 NS||1.001||1.400 ***||4.054|
|7||1.417 ***||4.125||1.878 ***||6.540||1.573 ***||4.819||1.366 ***||3.918||1.517 ***||4.557||1.491 ***||4.440||1.428 ***||4.170||0.720 ***||2.055||0.64 NS||1.889||2.050 ***||7.768|
|8||2.276 ***||9.740||2.740 ***||15.48||2.434 ***||11.41||2.223 ***||9.236||2.377 ***||10.77||2.347 ***||10.45||2.283 ***||9.806||1.567 ***||4.794||1.48 NS||4.389||2.908 ***||18.33|
|9||2.883 ***||17.87||3.350 ***||28.50||3.042 ***||20.95||2.830 ***||16.95||2.985 ***||19.79||2.953 ***||19.17||2.890 ***||17.99||2.172 ***||8.778||2.08 NS||8.017||3.516 ***||33.67|
|IV parameter||0.116 ***||1.123||0.146 ***||1.157||0.151 ***||1.164||0.116 ***||1.123||0.133 ***||1.142||0.114 ***||1.120||0.111 ***||1.117||−0.317 ***||0.728||−0.004 ***||0.996||0.0089 ***||1.093|
|95% CI||95% CI|
|§ Responsibility 0||−1.663 ***||0.1102||−1.879||−1.447||0.190||0.153||0.235|
|Gender × Age ***, Male||0.007 ***||0.0025||0.003||0.012||1.007||1.003||1.012|
|T Sci × S Econ ***||0.013 ***||0.0011||0.011||0.015||1.013||1.011||1.015|
|T Sci × S Health ***||0.006 ***||0.0010||0.004||0.008||1.006||1.004||1.008|
|T Sci × Age ***||−0.001 ***||0.0003||−0.002||0.000||0.999||0.998||1.000|
|T Sci × YE ***||0.005 ***||0.0013||0.003||0.008||1.005||1.003||1.008|
|Gender *** Male||−0.696 ***||0.0997||−0.892||−0.501||0.498||0.410||0.606|
|YE ***||0.036 ***||0.0103||0.016||0.056||1.037||1.016||1.058|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Mata, F.; Jesus, M.S.; Cano-Díaz, C.; Dos-Santos, M. European Citizens’ Worries and Self-Responsibility towards Climate Change. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086862
Mata F, Jesus MS, Cano-Díaz C, Dos-Santos M. European Citizens’ Worries and Self-Responsibility towards Climate Change. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086862Chicago/Turabian Style
Mata, Fernando, Meirielly Santos Jesus, Concha Cano-Díaz, and Maria Dos-Santos. 2023. "European Citizens’ Worries and Self-Responsibility towards Climate Change" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6862. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086862