1. Introduction
Water, that simple molecule composed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom, is one of the essential elements of the planet. Without water there is no life. Paradoxically, however, this particularly important fact does not seem to concern us, since until a decade ago water supply and sanitation was not considered an expressly recognized human right [
1]: “All persons have the right to sufficient, safe, physically accessible, affordable and of acceptable quality water for personal and domestic use on a continuous basis”.
Water is a basic necessity for all living beings, essential in the configuration of environmental systems. It constitutes more than 80% of the body of most living beings, intervenes in their metabolic processes and is a fundamental part of the photosynthesis of plants, in addition to being the habitat of a wide variety of living beings. We depend on water to generate and maintain activities such as agriculture, fishing, energy production, industry, transport or tourism. Depending on their availability, we decide where to settle our population centres and how to occupy the territory; being a source of geopolitical conflicts when it is scarce [
2].
According to the World Health Organization, some 5200 million people use safe and uncontaminated managed drinking water services, while nearly 30% of other people do not have direct drinking water services, so more than 1300 billion have access to an improved water source within 30 minutes (on a round trip), 263 million have an improved water source more than 30 minutes away, 423 million people draw water from unprotected wells and springs, and 159 million people collect untreated surface water from lakes, ponds, rivers or streams. Poor sanitation and pollution lead to the transmission of diseases such as cholera, dysentery, hepatitis, typhoid fever, polio, trachoma, intestinal worms, dengue or schistosomiasi, ... through exposure to infested water. Lack of water, sanitation and hygiene are the main causes of neglected tropical diseases that affect more than 1500 million people each year [
3].
When water comes from safe sources, this translates into positive economic and social consequences and a significant reduction in human disease and risk. However, water as a natural resource and an essential element for life and ecosystems on the planet is being severely affected by the consequences of climate change (CC). New scenarios of crisis and risk derived from the increase of the temperatures, the increase of the levels of evaporation, the torrential rains, floods, thaw, rise of the sea level, advance of the deforestation and desertification... force the investigators to dedicate more attention to this topics, focusing the problem from the complexity of their interactions, and not as isolated and independent aspects. The scarcity of research undertaken in the field of social sciences [
4] justifies the study we present. The response of human societies to the climate crisis will not depend solely on the best available science. The ‘human factor’, in all its dimensions and expressions, is going to be fundamental in avoiding the worst-case scenarios of the future. It is necessary to increase the contribution of the Social Sciences to the knowledge of how people and human communities interpret, value, act and change—or not—in the face of the climate crisis. The incorporation of the social scientists’ perspective into the politics on the CC is feasible and necessary [
5].
Working Group III of the IPCC has demanded socio-environmental research beyond the hard science agenda. The report identifies more than 20 topics for future research along these lines, including the fields of study of behavioural sciences, education and communication [
6]; it also underlines the need to focus social research on reducing epistemic uncertainty about social perceptions and responses to the CC.
There is significant evidence in the body of empirical literature concerning the influence of certain variables on the recognition of the CC as an established scientific phenomenon on which there is consensus in the research community [
7]. Recently, psychosocial and educational aspects such as the influence of the perception of the seriousness of environmental problems, personal experiences in this regard, the proximity or remoteness of finished specific problems, the effectiveness of certain educational programs have begun to gain interest. In this study we focus on an evaluation of the social representations of citizens of southern Europe, who reside in three territorial contexts of the Iberian Peninsula, with different climatic and cultural conditions. We try to reveal the incidence of these factors, together with a series of other context variables (climate denialism, academic cultures, perception of the severity of risks, involvement in pro-environmental activities and associations, among others) and their influence on literacy on CC and its interaction with different dimensions related to water, its natural cycle, decisions on its management and sanitation, as well as the consequences for populations and ecosystems.
3. Background
According to WWF’s October 2019
Water Scarcity and Droughts Report [
30], the Iberian Peninsula has traditionally lived with scarce and highly variable water resources and will have to face increasingly severe extreme phenomena in the near future. Droughts are natural and recurrent phenomena in the Iberian Peninsula due to its predominantly Mediterranean climate, with a very variable rainfall regime and, on the other hand, water scarcity problems arise once water demand and supply are unbalanced.
In the Iberian Peninsula, drought episodes have increased in duration and severity, and the uncertainties to prevent them are very high. As the water regime is very variable and with a marked dry season, the Iberian Peninsula has high variability of annual rainfall, and because of these conditions, most rivers are temporary and wetlands are fully adapted to suffer low water levels and even dry completely for many months as part of their ecological requirements. Furthermore, rivers depend to a large extent on their interactions with aquifers when they are connected, which is part of the natural response to the annual dry season and eventual droughts, which guarantees the health of the aquatic ecosystems of the Iberian Peninsula both of rivers and of wetlands and aquifers, and constitutes the basis of their state of conservation.
However, both Portugal and Spain have a very high demand for water for different uses related to an unsustainable increase in intensive agriculture that has led to the modification and regulation with large dams of the vast majority of the rivers flowing in the Iberian Peninsula, in order to supply water to irrigators, which has led to the drying of much of the wetlands of both countries, in order to recover fertile land for agriculture.
On the other hand, changes in land use and vegetation, due to urbanization and the expansion of intensive agriculture have significantly increased the risk of desertification and aridity in many areas characterized by high temperatures and low rainfall. In addition, in large parts of Spain and Portugal the natural and adapted characteristics of typical aquatic ecosystems have been destroyed to cope with dry seasons and periods of drought and many of the aquifers suffer one of the highest exploitation rates in Europe, which poses an additional threat to these “natural reserves” for aquatic ecosystems during these dry periods.
3.1. Territorial Contextualisation of the Study
The territorial areas chosen for this study are three cities: Granada, Santiago de Compostela and Braga. All three are located in the Iberian Peninsula, which is located in southwestern Europe surrounded by the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, joining the rest of the continent in the northeast.
Almost the entire surface of the peninsula is occupied by Spain and Portugal. The peninsula is 582,918 km
2, of which 493,515 km
2 belong to Spain, 88,944 km
2 to Portugal, 453 km
2 to Andorra and 6 km
2 to Gibraltar. For this study we will only consider Spain and Portugal. The geographical uniqueness of the Iberian Peninsula is due to its location and configuration since it is located in the Mediterranean area, in the extreme southwest of the European continent, between two continents (Europe and Africa) and between two seas (Atlantic and Mediterranean) [
31].
To the south, the peninsula is separated from Africa by the Mediterranean Sea, an area known as the Alborán Sea, and the Atlantic Ocean, the Strait of Gibraltar being the boundary between them. The highest point is the Mulhacén (Sierra Nevada, Granada) of 3478.6 m above sea level. The longest river is the Tagus, with a length of 1007 km, of which 731 km are in Spain and 275 km in Portugal.
In general terms, the most widespread citizen perception of the Iberian Peninsula is that of a dry territory, with the exception of the northernmost regions. This social representation is a kind of empirical axiom, a truth that does not need to be demonstrated in the light of the landscape evidence: “one sees, lives, enters through the eyes... However, more than a scientific truth, it is an empirical perception, an experience based on two fundamental facts: the dryness of summer and the frequent irregularity of rainfall during the rest of the year on the one hand and, on the other, the desolate, dry, sub-desert visual landscape that our territory often offers” [
32]. In strictly scientific terms, the reality is different. It is true that it rains little or rains less than it can evaporate, which led classical studies to identify a dry Spain (with a negative global water balance, with evapotranspiration exceeding precipitation levels) and a wet Spain (with a positive global balance) [
33]. This view is also reductionist, since the Iberian Peninsula presents a great variety of climates due to its geographical position and orography. Being located at the southern limit of influence of the polar front, with its associated squalls, it presents features of the humid continental climate of the western part of Europe. In addition, being in the northern limit of action of the zones of high tropical pressures, which carry warm and dry air, there are also climatic rests associated with the desert areas of Saharan Africa.
The north of the peninsula is more influenced by the cyclonic system of squalls, while the south is dominated by a more tropical climate. Due to the dynamics of the atmosphere, it is frequent that during the winter the humid fronts coming from the Atlantic sweep the peninsula, provoking intense rains.
In summer, influenced by high tropical pressures, the Azores anticyclone intensifies, leading to hot and dry weather that has little effect on the Cantabrian Coast, which is more influenced by the Atlantic fronts, although to a lesser extent during the summer period. It can be said that the annual climatic cycle of the peninsula has two main seasons, summer and winter, as both spring and autumn are transition seasons.
The climates of the Iberian Peninsula are conditioned by its abrupt relief, characterized by numerous mountainous systems that concentrate mainly in its periphery, isolating it from the marine influence except for the western zone. In this way, when the fronts of rains of the Atlantic penetrate in the peninsula, they cross it unloading the water until colliding with some of the mountainous systems, not being able to surpass them and creating areas of pluviometric shade, where the precipitation is smaller than in nearby places. This situation favours the appearance of arid territories in the south eastern part of the peninsula, as well as in other inland regions. In other cases, the local orography has the opposite effect, when the downwind slopes of the mountains collect all the rain carried by the fronts, increasing precipitation in certain areas.
The Iberian Peninsula (
Figure 1) can thus be said to be divided into three large zones on the basis of the Köppen classification (the Köppen system is based on the fact that natural vegetation has a clear relationship with climate, so the boundaries between one climate and another were established taking into account the distribution of vegetation. The parameters for determining the climate of an area are the average annual and monthly temperatures and rainfall, and the seasonality of the precipitation. It divides the world’s climates into five main groups: tropical, dry, temperate, continental and polar, identified by the first letter in capital letters. Each group is divided into subgroups, and each subgroup into climate types. Climate types are identified with a 2- or 3-letter symbol [
34]). The first has a semi-arid Mediterranean climate, i.e. steppe, with a semi-arid south-eastern zone, transition between the steppe and the desert.
The second zone occupies a narrow coastal strip that begins between the mouths of the Tagus and Duero rivers, rises to the north and runs along the entire Cantabrian Cornice. Its climate would be of the maritime type of the west coast, with regions of sub humid subtype and others of humid subtype. The third region is smaller than the previous one, starting at the western end of the Cantabrian Mountains and ending at the eastern end of the Pyrenees. It is characterized by a climate typical of areas located at high altitudes. In this study we focus on the first two areas. On the other hand, the entire Levante and the southern half of the peninsula correspond to a temperate climate with dry and hot summers.
The Atlantic zone occupies the peninsular regions in contact with the Atlantic Ocean, from which they receive a great influence and moderates their temperatures; directly affected by the fronts that come from the sea that give it a more humid climate. This area occupies the north of the peninsula, from the eastern end of the Pyrenees to Galicia, the west, covering the western strip of Portugal and much of the coastal areas of Andalusia to the east of the province of Granada.
Another zone of Atlantic influence is found in the interior of Portugal, where the oceanic influence is still high but as it penetrates into the interior there are continental features of the climate that make it more extreme, with reduced rainfall and increasing average temperatures.
The classic continental climate is located in both plateaus, in the Ebro valley and in areas of the eastern interior of Andalusia, with hot summers and cold winters. Rainfall is scarce, giving rise essentially to a climate that could be classified as semi-arid [
36]. The following climogram
Figure 2,
Figure 3 and
Figure 4 and
Table 1,
Table 2 and
Table 3) summarise the climatological characteristics of each of the three territorial contexts of the study:
3.2. Social Representations, Climate Literacy and Water
In 2015, the OECD produced a new PISA report that defines scientific literacy as “the ability to engage with science issues, and with the ideas of science, as a thoughtful citizen”.
This definition presupposes that the scientific knowledge a person can attain will make him or her more likely to participate in reasoned discourses on science and that he or she will have the appropriate skills to be able to recognize, offer and evaluate explanations for a wide variety of natural and technological phenomena. On the other hand, it will be able to judge scientific questions by describing and evaluating the knowledge of this type available, as well as being able to interpret data in a variety of scientific representations, in order to ultimately draw appropriate conclusions [
40].
According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, climate literacy is part of science literacy because “science, math and technology have a profound impact on our individual lives and our culture. They play a role in almost all human efforts and affect the way we relate to each other and to the world around us... Science literacy enables us to make sense of real-world phenomena, informing people and making decisions and serves as the basis for a lifetime of learning” [
41].
This conception of science literacy could be extrapolated to climate literacy, which would not cease to be science literacy. In a similar vein, the US Government’s Global Change Research Program suggests that climate literacy should focus on an individual’s understanding of the influence of a person on climate and the influence of climate on him or her and society at large. Thus, a climate literate person must understand the essential principles of the Earth and the climate system, know how to scientifically assess correct information about climate, communicate about climate and climate change in meaningful ways, and be able to be informed and make responsible decisions about actions that may affect it.
The importance of this approach to literacy lies in its civic dimension: society needs citizens who understand the climate system and know how to apply that knowledge in their daily lives, as well as exercising their commitment as active members of their communities, as the CC will continue to be a significant element of public becoming. Understanding the essential principles of climate science will enable people, for example, to evaluate media reports and critically argue their content.
Thus, climate literacy in society at large would make people more aware of the fundamental relationship between climate and life and would better reveal, for example, the many ways in which climate plays a fundamental role in human health [
42].
This is why, although there is no specific concept for water literacy, since water is an indissoluble part of the climate system and is intimately related to the climate crisis, it can be included within this concept.
Orienting us on the object of study, university students, depending on their level of climate literacy, could generate different social representations on the CC. A social representation is defined as a particular modality of own knowledge of the common culture, whose functions are interpretative and also pragmatic, insofar as they serve to orient the behaviours and the communication between the individuals with respect to the represented object, in this case, the CC. Representation is an organized corpus of socially constructed and shared knowledge, beliefs, and valuations through which people make intelligible objects—in a broad sense, such as the CC—that are relevant to social reality. Representations can form part of the identity of a group or a society and modulate daily interactions, releasing the powers of individual and collective creativity, or cohorting them to the extent that they become hegemonic and naturalized [
43].
Beyond this conceptualization, Farr emphasizes that social representations appear when individuals debate socially controversial issues or when they respond to the echo of events selected as significant by the media agenda. In addition, he adds that social representations have a double function: to make the strange familiar and the invisible perceptible, since the unusual or unknown can be personally threatening when one does not have a category to classify them. According to Farr, social representations are cognitive systems with their own logic and language. They do not simply represent opinions about images or attitudes towards an object, but they constitute profane theories or forms of knowledge with their own logic for the discovery, interpretation and organization of reality. They also contain systems of values, ideas and practices with a dual function: first, to establish a logical—common sense—order that allows individuals to orient themselves in their material and social world in order to appropriate and master it; second, to enable communication between members of a community by providing a code for social exchange and for naming and classifying without ambiguity (apparent) the various aspects of their world and of their individual and group history [
44].
To understand that a social representation is a particular mode of knowledge, whose purpose is the elaboration of behaviours and communication among individuals, allows to face in a different way the appropriation of objects that come from the field of science by society in general, or by specific social groups, as well as to project from a new perspective the educational or communicative actions that are of public interest related to those objects. This is the case of the CC and its relationship with the problems it generates or power in relation to the availability and use of water resources. From the point of view of the common culture, this relationship can be understood in different ways, and will therefore generate different behaviours depending on the society and the social group considered, assuming that the understanding of the CC-water relationship and its interpretative and pragmatic repercussions are also different.
Communication based on knowledge of social perceptions and on the evaluation of the cultural and, in this case, geophysical contexts in which they take place, can facilitate people’s acceptance of incorporating a whole repertoire of knowledge and sustainable actions into their lifestyle. Here, lifestyle is understood as the complex set of values, objectives, norms and activities, which also include ethical, environmental, economic and social presuppositions that regulate and concretize daily life [
45].
There is a certain degree of uncertainty, as well as gaps in the research on the relationships between the CC and water [
46]. However, there is also a significant degree of international and national concern about these relationships and, as a result, a great deal of research is underway, forming an increasingly solid body of basic knowledge [
47].
Psychological studies on water sustainability have defined cognition as a deliberate, planned and systematic process in which beliefs (information available about the problem that can be considered false or true), perceptions (expectations about the consequences of water situations), motivations (extrinsic such as caring for water to save money or intrinsic such as conserving water so that children can use it in the future), attitudes (provisions relating to the assessment of situations or behaviours in the face of water scarcity and shortage), knowledge (management of information related to the water situation) and intentions (decisions of inaction or action in the face of water scarcity and shortage) seek to predict water expenditure or saving according to the relationships existing between the different variables involved [
48]. There are multiple factors that depend on the construction of social representation on an object such as water. In the case of its relationship with the CC, research has been carried out where a minority of respondents point out thoughts related to the possible scarcity of water when they hear about climate change, due to the fact that due to the geographical situation of the individual or due to the hydrometeorological phenomena experienced, the perception of the abundance of water changes [
49].
On the other hand, there are studies that show that the level of environmental awareness of each person is directly related to the degree of environmental perception, which is directly reflected in the environmental behaviour of the individual. Along these lines, studies on the environmental perception of university students have revealed that issues such as recycling, the economy of water and energy or the reduction of consumption are constructs that form environmental perception [
50].
Some research with high school students has shown that, in general, incorrect ideas about the location and availability of fresh water on the planet predominate. In spite of the fact that it is a subject that is repeatedly addressed during compulsory secondary education, students are not aware of the number of people who currently do not have access to drinking water or who have a downward perception of their own water consumption in their daily activities [
51].
3.3. Water, CC and Sustainable Development Goals in Agenda 2030
Water is the basis of life and an essential means of human subsistence, and is therefore key to sustainable development. Good water management translates into the achievement of many of the 17 SDG and particularly of SDG 6: “Ensure the availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all”. Despite this aspiration, water is becoming a high-level social and geopolitical problem. So much so that up to 40% of the world’s population will live in areas with severe water stress by 2035 and the capacity of ecosystems to provide water supplies will diminish. Bearing in mind that by 2050 the world’s population is expected to reach 9.7 billion and that environmental and climatic conditions will become increasingly uncertain, transboundary water agreements should become more robust in order to secure water supplies for all people.
However, the perception of water as a human right, as a public good and as an environmental good, is very often opposed to its perception as a commodity that needs a price to be used. Furthermore, for this objective to be satisfactorily fulfilled, it must be understood that it is linked to two other essential SDG for sustainable development; SDG 13, “Action for Climate”, and SDG 14, “Underwater Life”. Adaptation to CC is essential for the protection of ecosystems and therefore for the development of human populations. Extreme weather events, rising sea levels or rising temperatures endanger water resources and threaten marine life and the quality of freshwater and ocean water, implying an increasingly unbalanced water cycle that hinders the human right to water supply.
6. Results
The results obtained are presented below. Firstly, the results that refer to questions of personal opinion for the group of respondents and, on the other hand, for each of the contexts individually are shown. Next, the results are presented by context of those questions that were used to determine the degree of knowledge about the relationship between CC and its relationship with water, and finally, to relate them to the degree of information and pro-environmental attitude of the student.
97.9% of respondents think that CC is occurring, of which 85% believe that it is “mainly due to human causes”, so that 2.1% of respondents can be considered to be negativists. However, it is curious the result of the question on the perception of the degree of agreement in the scientific community on this aspect: practically half of the respondents, 50.2%, think that there is agreement, while 49.5% perceive that there is not. With respect to the responsibility they believe their country of residence has in CC generation, 67.8% of respondents in the three selected contexts think that this responsibility exists; however, the perception of personal responsibility is somewhat lower, with 51.4%.
When the question refers to the perception of the degree to which CC affects them personally and the country, the students surveyed believe that it will affect them personally with a rather high percentage, 82.3%, but they believe that the effect on the country where they reside will be even greater, with 92.6% (
Figure 5).
Figure 6 shows the results for these same questions according to the territorial context. As can be observed, it is the students of the TC
#3 who most believe that CC exists (99.3%), although with very little difference from the rest (TC
#2 98% and TC
#1 95.2%). They are also those who most attribute CC to human causes (TC
#1 80.4%, TC
#2 86.8% and TC
#3 87.1%) and those who with the highest percentage think that there is scientific consensus on this attribution (TC
#1 43.2%, TC
#2 49.3% and TC
#3 58.2%). However, the students in the TC
#3 sample are also those who least believe that their country has responsibility in the climate crisis (TC
#1 74.4%, TC
#2 72.6% and TC
#3 55.9%) and those who attribute less responsibility to themselves in their causes (TC
#1 60%, TC
#2 58.2% and TC
#3 35.9%). Even so, the three contexts practically coincide in their totality, in that CC will affect their country, being the students of TC
#2 who obtain the highest percentage (TC
#1 90.1%, TC
#2 95.2% and TC
#3 92%) but being those of TC
#1 those who obtain the highest percentage when asked about the personal affectation before CC (TC
#1 84.5%, TC
#2 82.3% and TC
#3 74.4%).
The correct response percentages, the sensation of information that the student thinks have with respect to different dimensions of CC and the degree of pro-environmental attitude of the same, are shown in the following
Figure 7 and
Figure 8.
Table 8 shows the significant differences between the dimensions of CC in general. As can be seen, there are differences (
p < 0.05) in all the dimensions studied except in the dimension of solutions. Specifically, in the biophysical processes dimension, TC
#3 is the one that points out differences between the other two contexts studied. In the consequences dimension, the differences are found, however, in TC
#2 with the other contexts. For the other dimensions no significant differences are found.
Below are the items, classified by dimensions, where statistically significant differences have been found between the contexts analysed (
Table 9). As can be seen, in the dimension of biophysical processes related to CC there are significant differences in those questions related to the greenhouse effect and, specifically, question 1 has the greatest variability (F = 20.028), and TC
#3 being the one that these differences are found. However, there are no differences in any context when dealing with questions related to the hole in the ozone layer or acid rain.
In the case of the consequences dimension of CC, we observe that it is the dimension where more variability of differences exists between the three territorial contexts. When reference is made to the desertification of the Iberian Peninsula due to CC we find differences in the three contexts and with a high variability (F = 47.564). On the other hand, there are also differences in this dimension between TC#1 and TC#2 and between TC#1 and TC#3 for questions 3, 9 and 14. For questions 2 and 10, the latter (question 10) with the greatest variability in this dimension (F = 75,847), the differences are found between TC#1 and TC#3 and between TC#2 and TC#3.
Finally, in the dimension of causes of CC there are no significant differences and in the dimension of solutions to fight against CC it is again the TC#3 that differs from the rest in questions 5 and 13. Therefore, in general, it is observed that the TC#3 is that it differs to a greater extent from the rest of the contexts with 8 of 15 questions with significant differences, being only 4 questions that have differences between the TC#1 and TC#2.
Next, the results obtained in the correct answers are related to the degree of information/pro-environmental attitudes that the student claims to have, that is, the existing relationship between the results of the two previous graphs and the significant differences found in said relationship.
6.1. Degree of General Information on CC and Water
As can be seen in
Figure 8, the individuals who feel better informed about CC in general are those in the TC
#3 with 74.8%, well above those belonging to TC
#1 and TC
#2, with TC
#2 declaring itself less informed with 50.4%, followed by TC
#1 with 56.9%; that is, half of those surveyed in TC
#1 and TC
#2 consider themselves informed and the other not.
As can be seen in
Figure 7, despite the fact that the individuals in the TC
#3 sample are the ones who believe they are most informed about CC in general, they answer eight of the 15 questions of the questionnaire erroneously, however, the respondents in TC
#1 and TC
#2 answer seven of 15 erroneously, but their sensation of information is lower, so that opinion is more in line with the results than that of the respondents in TC
#3.
With regard to the questions referring to the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases (1, 5, 8, 11 and 15), it is noted that in none of the terrestrial contexts is it clear exactly what it is, since a rather low percentage of respondents respond correctly to these questions. Specifically, only 45.3% of respondents in TC#2, 42.2% in TC#1 and 29.1% in TC#3 gave a good answer to the statement “The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon”. On the other hand, they do not answer well to the question “The greenhouse effect puts at risk life on Earth” with 34.1% of correct answers in TC#3, 26.1% in TC#2 and 24.9% in TC#1. In addition, with respect to the item “The greenhouse effect is caused by human activity”, only 35.2% of the individuals in the TC#3 are correct, followed by TC#1 with 28.1% and TC#2 with 26.7%.
On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that, although in the three territorial contexts there is a majority good response to consider true the statement “If we stop emitting greenhouse gases we will not be affected by climate change”, with practically identical percentages in TC#3 and TC#1 (68.1% and 68.3% respectively) and with 74.6% in TC#2, the same does not happen with the statement “If we stop emitting greenhouse gases we will be less vulnerable to climate change”, being TC#2 those who obtain the lowest percentage of success, 19.4%, followed by TC#1 with 22.6% and TC#3 with 23.2%; this discrepancy may indicate that although they intuit that the solution is not only to stop emitting these gases, they do not recognize the fact that to stop doing so supposes a great mitigation of CC, so, it is possible to think that they do not have very clear in what exactly consists the biophysical process of the greenhouse effect, and the benefits of a reduction of emissions of this type of gases.
As for those items that refer to problems that are usually related—in common culture—to climate change, but are neither a cause nor a consequence of the same, statements 4 and 6, “The hole in the ozone layer causes melting at the poles” and “Acid rain is one of the causes of climate change”, respectively, it can be noted that in no territorial context is the majority correct, being the first of them the one with the lowest percentage of correct answers: the TC#3 sample is the one that registers the lowest percentage with a 9.5%, followed by TC#2, with 11.4%, and TC#1, with 13.5%. Statement 7 receives a more equal percentage of correct answers between the three contexts, although it is still a low percentage, TC#3 32.5%, TC#1 33.1% and TC#2 33.7%.
However, it should be noted that all items that refer to consequences of CC (items 2, 3, 9, 10, 12 and 14) are correctly answered by a very high percentage of students in all three contexts, except item 10, “Climate change will decrease rainfall in my country”, which is valued as a correct statement by 29.5% in TC#3, and however, item 12, “Climate change will exacerbate desertification problems in the Iberian Peninsula”, is correctly assessed in this context by 78.5% of the sample, which means that there is some confusion in these issues since they are intimately related, so that, once again, the sensation of information does not correspond with the reality of the answers provided.
On the other hand, item 7, “The increase in meat consumption contributes to climate change”, is another item that registers a very low percentage of correct answers, with 28.7% of correct answers in TC#3, and practically the same percentage in TC#1 with 35.7% and TC#2 with 35.6%.
However, item 14, “Climate change would be reduced if we planted more trees”, is correctly valued by a high percentage in the three contexts, 77.1% in TC#3, 70.1% in TC#1 and 66.8% in TC#2; but it should be noted that this issue can be included in the category of solutions to climate change, as well as statements referring to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, 5 and 11, the latter being erroneously valued by a majority, from which it can be deduced that there is also confusion in these terms.
With respect to the significant differences for this same variable, “To what extent do you feel informed about CC in general?” as can be seen in
Table 8, of the 15 items we have analyzed, there are differences between eight of them in TC
#1 and between seven of them in both TC
#2 and TC
#3.
Specifically, the items where the greatest statistically significant differences are recorded in CT#1 are item 7 (p < 0.01), F(1, 505) = 4.085, item 2 (p < 0.01), F(1, 505) = 6.696, item 13 (p < 0.01), F(1, 505) = 3.793. The remaining items that show statistically significant differences with (p < 0.05) are items 1, 2, 11, 14 and 15, with F(1, 505) = 3.251; F(1, 505) = 3.746; F(1, 505) = 3.061; F(1, 505) = 4,628, and F(1, 505) = 3.255, respectively.
With respect to the CT#2 sample, the questions with the greatest significant differences are found in items 2 (p < 0.01) F(1,644) = 5.660, 5 (p < 0.01) F(1, 644) = 5.892, 7 (p < 0.01) F(1, 644) = 5.482, 12(p < 0.01) F(1, 644) = 4.908 and 13 (p < 0.01) F(1, 644) = 4.701.
The items that follow with the greatest significant differences are 3 (p < 0.05) F(1, 644) = 2.984 and 14 (p < 0.05) F(1, 644) = 2.797.
Finally, for the TC#3 sample, the items where the greatest differences are found are item 1 (p < 0.01) F(1, 560) = 6.388, item 2 (p < 0.01) F(1, 560) = 4.153, item 3 (p < 0.01) F(1, 560) = 4.470, item 7 (p < 0.05) F(1, 560) = 4.650 and 12 (p < 0.01) F(1, 560) = 7.712. They are followed by items 11 and 14 with (p < 0.05) F(1, 560) = 3.206 and 2.913, respectively.
In general, it is observed that items 2, 7 and 12 (
Table 10) accumulate the greatest statistically significant differences (
p < 0.01) in the three territorial contexts analyzed, with item 12 being the only one that results in significant differences in the three contexts.
6.2. Degree of Information on the Causes of CC and Its Relationship with Water
When asked about the degree of information they believe they have regarding the causes of CC, it is observed, once again, that it is the students in the TC
#3 sample who believe they are best informed in this respect (76.5%); however, as shown in
Figure 7, despite having a sensation of fairly high information, the responses are incorrect in more than half of the items in the questionnaire, specifically in eight items out of 15 (
Figure 7). In fact, the only statement in this category that corresponds to the dimension “causes of the CC” is item 7, which received a majority of incorrect answers in the three territorial contexts, being the one that obtains the lowest rate of correct answers in the TC
#3 sample (28.7%); in such a way that the students in this context overestimate their degree of information on the causes of CC with respect to their sensation of information in this dimension. With respect to the TC
#2 sample, it stands out that practically half of the students, 51.3%, consider themselves well informed about the causes, although item 7 is correctly valued only by 35.6% of the respondents. The students in the TC
#1 sample value their level of information on the causes of CC below that of the other samples, with 46.2% considering themselves well informed; however, if this perception is related to the percentage of correct answers obtained, it is practically the same as in TC
#2, 35.7%.
When significant differences are analyzed (
Table 11), they are TC
#1 and TC
#2 where they appear in seven items, by five items in TC
#3.
Specifically in the TC#1 sample, the greatest differences (p < 0.01) are recorded in item 1, F(1, 505) = 4.770, item 2, F(1, 505) = 5.483, item 12, F(1, 505) = 5.975, item 14 F(1, 505) = 5.174 and item 15 F(1, 505) = 3.910. The remaining differences with (p < 0.05) are found in items 7 F(1, 505) = 3.082 and 11 F(1, 505) = 3.147.
In the TC#2 sample, the greatest differences (p < 0.01) appear in item 3 F(1, 644) = 3.982, 4 F(1, 644) = 3.394, 7 F(1, 644) = 3.938, 12 F(1, 644) = 4.741 and 13 F(1, 644) = 6.355. The only item with a difference (p < 0.5) is 5 F(1, 644) = 2.400,
In the TC#3 sample, the greatest differences (p < 0.01) appear in items 3 F(1, 560) = 1.388 and 12 F(1, 560) = 7.360. The remaining significant differences (p < 0.05) appear in item 1 F(1, 560) = 4.211, 13 F(1, 560) = 3.004 and 14 F(1, 560) = 2.792. In this block, it can be observed that the items with the greatest significant differences are 12 and 13, being 12, once again, where the greatest differences are reproduced in the three contexts.
6.3. Degree of Information about Solutions to Fight Against CC and Their Relationship with Water
As for the feeling of being informed about the solutions to fight against CC, it can be observed that, once again, it is the students of TC
#3 who perceive themselves as best informed (
Figure 8); but, in this case, of the three items included in this dimension (items 5, 11 and 13), the answer is mostly correct in item 5 (68.1%) and intem 13 (77.1%); item 11 is answered correctly only by 23.2% of the sample (
Figure 7). The TC
#1 and TC
#2 samples register similar percentages in their self-perception of the information available on the measures to combat CC, with 35.3% and 35.1%, respectively; as in the TC
#3 sample, only item 11 is correctly valued by a very low percentage of students: 19.4% in TC
#2 and 22.6% in TC
#1.
With respect to the significant differences between the responses to these items in the three contexts, it is noted that this block is the one that registers the least significant differences between the responses. Both in TC
#1 and in TC
#2 there are only significant differences in two items, being in TC
#1 in items 1 and 2 (
p < 0.05) and F
(1, 505) = 3.115 and F
(1, 505) = 3.746, respectively. In the case of TC
#2, significant differences are found specifically in items 10 and 15, being for item 10 (
p < 0.05) F
(1, 644) = 2.730 and for item 15 (
p < 0.01) F
(1, 644) = 3.841. In the case of TC
#3, the greatest differences are found in items 3.12 and 13 with (
p < 0.01) and F
(1, 560) = 4.761, F
(1, 560) = 4.104 and F
(1, 560) = 4.420, respectively; and with (
p < 0.05) significant differences are found in items 6 F
(1, 560) = 2.445 and 7 F
(1, 560) = 2.446 (
Table 12).
6.4. Degree of Information on the Consequences of the CC and Its Relationship with Water
In this block, it is once again the TC
#3 sample that gathers the students with the greatest self-perception of being well informed about the consequences of CC (
Figure 8), with 78.8% expressing this way, followed by the TC
#2 sample, with 52.6% and the TC
#1 sample, with 49.8%. Following previous patterns, the TC
#3 sample continues to be the one that responds mostly incorrectly to more respondents, specifically eight out of 15. The other samples do not differ much from this pattern, since they erroneously value seven out of 15 items, but the self-perception of their level of information regarding the consequences of CC is more in line with the number of well valued items. However, in all the items of this dimension (2, 3, 9, 10, 12 and 14), about the consequences of CC, the three contexts add up majority percentages of correct answers, except in item 10 in TC
#3 (
Figure 7).
In the case of statistically significant differences (
Table 13), the context with the smallest differences between responses is the TC
#1: they are found with (
p < 0.01) in items 3, 12 and 13, with F
(1, 505) = 3.746, F
(1, 505) = 4.987 and F
(1, 505) = 3.793, respectively.
Differences with (p < 0.05) appear in item 2, F(1, 505) = 3.746, and in item 7 F(1, 505) = 3.002. In TC#2, the greatest differences (p < 0.01) are recorded in items 1 F(1, 644) = 4.292, 7 F(1, 644) = 3.545, 12 F(1, 644) = 5.570 and 13 F(1, 644) = 4.563. With (p < 0.05) 5 F(1, 644) = 2.954, 14 F(1, 644) = 2.623 and 15 F(1, 644) = 2.707 appear in items 5 F(1, 644) = 2.623 and 15 F(1, 644) = 2.707. In the case of TC#3, the greatest differences (p < 0.01) are in items 1 F(1, 560) = 4.414, 3 F(1, 650) = 6.743 and 12 F(1, 560) = 6.179. The differences (p < 0.05) appear in items 2 F(1, 560) = 3.0, 4 F(1 560) = 3.156, 14 F(1, 650) = 2.820 and 15 F(1, 650) = 2.638. It can also be observed that item 12 repeats in the three contexts the greatest significant differences.
6.5. Assessment of the Degree of Information Received about CC in Your Degree
For the question
“Values the training received on CC”, the samples of the three contexts considered coincide mostly in not having received sufficient training on CC in their degree; in fact, they only consider that this has been the case for 28.2% in TC
#1, 38.1% in TC
#2 and 43.2% in TC
#3 (
Figure 5).
The greatest significant differences (
Table 14) (
p < 0.01) for this case, in TC
#1, are found in items 1 F
(1, 505) = 10.259, 6 F
(1, 505) = 3.620 and 15 F
(1,505) = 4.281. With (
p < 0.05) significant differences are recorded in items 2 F
(1, 505) = 3.746, 5 F
(1, 505) = 2.598, 9 F
(1, 505) = 2.709 and 12 F
(1,505) = 2.506. In the case of TC
#2, the greatest differences appear in items 1 F
(1, 644) = 4.111, 5 F
(1, 644) = 3.503, 7 F
(1, 644) = 3.808, 10 F
(1, 644) = 3.147 and 13 F
(1, 644) = 6.075. Other differences (
p < 0.05) are found in items 4 F
(1, 644) = 2.422 and 14 F
(1, 644) = 2.797. For this question, the sample of TC
#3 registers a smaller number of significant differences between the answers, being item 15 the most outstanding with (
p < 0.01) F
(1, 560) = 3.030, and with (
p < 0.05) item 1 F
(1, 560) = 2.675 and item 8 F
(1, 560) = 2.809.
In this case, item 1 is the only one that shows significant differences in the three contexts.
6.6. Assessment of the Degree of Pro-Environmental Attitude
In this case, the sample with the greatest pro-environmental attitude is TC
#3, with 81.8%, followed by TC
#2, with 77.2%, and TC
#1 with 73.9% (
Figure 8).
The greatest significant differences (
p < 0.01) in this question (
Table 15) are evident for TC
#1 in items F
(1, 505) = 4.819, 10 F
(1, 505) = 3.740, 12 F
(1, 505) = 4.182 and 14 F
(1, 505) = 4.329. The differences (
p < 0.05) appear in items 2 F
(1, 505) = 3.746, 11 F
(1, 505) = 3.050 and 13 F
(1, 505) = 2.510.
In the TC#2 sample, the greatest differences (p <0.01) are recorded in items 3 F(1, 644) = 5.369, 7 F(1, 644) = 3.019, 12 F(1, 644) = 6.098, 13 F(1, 644) = 4.493 and 14 F(1, 640) = 4.989. The differences (p < 0.05) appear in items 2 F(1, 644) = 2.768 and 7 F(1, 644) = 3.019.
In the TC#3 sample, the greatest significant differences (p < 0.01) are recorded in items 2 F(1, 560) = 3.607, 12 F(1, 560) = 7.638, 13 F(1, 560) = 3.506 and 15 F(1, 560) = 3.615. Differences (p < 0.05) appear in items 1 F(1, 560) = 2.729, 3 F(1, 560) = 2.948 and 14 F(1, 560) = 3.506. Again, it is item 12 that shows statistically significant differences in the three contexts.
6.7. Participation in CC-Related Activities
Finally, as can be seen in
Figure 8, the vast majority of those surveyed have participated in some specific training activity related to CC, with TC
#3 students recording the highest percentage, with 79.5%, followed by TC
#1, with 77.5%, and TC2, with 75.9%. In the case of the significant differences (
Table 16), in the TC
#1 sample there are only two items with significant differences, 7, with the greatest difference, (
p < 0.01) F
(1, 505) = 13.977 and item 2 (
p < 0.05) F
(1, 505) = 3.746.
In the TC#2 sample there are differences (p < 0.01) also in item 7 F (1, 644) = 5.62 and, with differences (p < 0.05), items 3 F(1, 644) = 3.888 and 12 F(1, 644) = 3.426.
However, more differences are evident in the TC#3 sample than in the others. The largest (p < 0.01) are found in item 2 F(1, 560) = 7.332 and 9 F(1, 560) = 6.879. Significant differences (p < 0.05) appear in item 1 F(1, 560) = 3.224, 3 F(1, 560) = 3.635, 7 F(1, 560) = 4.207, 12 F(1, 560) = 4.311 and 15 F(1, 560) = 3.531. Item 7 shows significant differences in any context.
7. Discussion
Based on the three hypotheses presented in this work, the results obtained are indicated:
H#1. Denying the existence of CC as a scientific phenomenon significantly affects the downward representation of the consequences of Global Warming and other extreme phenomena.
As can be seen, practically all university students surveyed in the three territorial contexts agree that CC exists, which can be compared with the results obtained in another study [
66], where Spanish people of different ages, educational levels, habitat or ideology coincide at similar rates with this study in that the CC is real and that it is caused mainly by human causes. This gives an idea that denialism is a downward trend, and in this specific case, it can be concluded that the H
#1 hypothesis is not accepted since denying the existence of CC as a scientific phenomenon does not generate an underestimation of the consequences of global warming and other extreme phenomena, and therefore should not affect the social representations that are being generated in relation to the social acceptance of CC, since a minimum part of the sample studied denies the existence of CC.
On the other hand, the aforementioned study also coincides in percentage with those who think in our samples that there is no agreement among the scientific community, which is a very interesting data to know how the social representations of CC are being conformed, when it is well known that in this matter the scientific consensus is practically unanimous. That practically half of the students perceive divisions in the scientific community, but at the same time accept that climate change exists, implies that their belief is not so much based on scientific arguments or scientifically legitimized but on others that may be more volatile from an ideological, polygamous or cultural point of view. In other words, whoever believes almost as a matter of faith may cease to believe if other arguments question that belief.
In addition, the perception of the students surveyed regarding individual responsibility for CC is much lower than that which they generically attribute to the country in which they live. This discrepancy can be interpreted in terms of environmental hyperopia, that is, the problem does not feel psychologically close either in time or space, a pattern that seems to be replicated in different studies [
67,
68]: people tend to externalize their responsibility for the causes of CC—and their vulnerability to consequences—deriving that responsibility to the activity of companies, the role of governments or emissions from other countries. However, in this case, it can be observed that the students of the TC
#3 are those who by far value their individual responsibility as the lowest, as well as the responsibility of their country of residence.
H#2. Territorial contexts with high average rainfall levels and low average annual temperatures exert a minimizing influence on the social representation of the effects and risk perception of CC, so that, on the contrary, territorial contexts with low average rainfall levels and high average annual temperatures will exert a maximizing influence on the social representation of the effects and risk perception of CC.
Statements referring to the effects of CC and the perception of the risk generated are considered to be those included in the consequences dimension, and specifically, those referring to the increase in temperature (items 2 and 3) and to rainfall and desertification in the Iberian Peninsula (items 10 and 12). As can be observed, the sample from TC#3 is the one that is most self-reported in this respect; however, it is the sample that obtains the lowest values of success in its responses. In fact, the students surveyed in this context are the only ones who mostly value item 10 incorrectly: “Climate change will decrease rainfall in my country”. Therefore, the H#2 hypothesis can be rejected in this case, since the social representation of CC in relation to the perception of risk posed by its effects does not seem to depend on the specific territorial contexts considered here. In other words, the fact that a student belongs to a territory where rainfall is more abundant and the average annual temperature is lower than in another does not minimise his perception of the effects of the CC, since, although TC#3 answers item 10 incorrectly, all the others receive accurate assessments in the three contexts.
H#3. Different political-cultural contexts between two territories generate different pro-environmental attitudes and sensations of information and therefore different social representations on the causes, consequences and solutions of climate change and its relationship with water.
When analysing the results in each of the categories, it should be noted that such a similar response pattern has been generated that these categories could be classified into three different groups in relation to the self-perception of the level of information on CC:
TC#3 has greater self-perception of its level of information, followed by Territorial TC#2 and TC#1 in the following variables:
V#1: To what extent do you feel informed about climate change in general?
V#2: To what extent do you feel informed about the causes of climate change?
V#4: To what extent do you feel informed about the consequences of climate change?
TC#3 has greater self-perception of its level of information than TC#1 and TC#2 and, which are equal in this self-perception, in the following variables:
V#3: To what extent do you feel informed about measures to combat climate change?
V#5: Rate the training received on climate change
V#6: Assess your degree of pro-environmental attitude
The student samples from the three territorial contexts considered equal their percentages in the following variable:
It is found that the students surveyed at TC#3 consider that they are more informed about CC in general, and specifically, about its causes and consequences, followed, in percentage order, of samples TC#2 and TC#1. On the other hand, the sample of TC#3 also perceives itself more informed about solution to fight against CC, with more training received in the degree and with greater pro-environmental attitudes than TC#1 and TC#2. However, the latter coincide in percentage.
Bearing in mind that TC#3 provides the contrast sample, with a territory with similar rainfall and temperature characteristics to those of TC#2, it could be said that the H#3 hypothesis is not accepted: given that, in relation to the sensation of information, different political-cultural contexts between two territories generate different self-perceptions of the level of information but not different social representations on the causes, consequences and solutions to the climate crisis and its relationship with water. In this sense, it should be noted that the levels of success in the three territorial contexts are very similar and concentrate on the same items.
In the case of items that refer to related biophysical processes, such as those related to the greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases, the existing confusion about them is evident and, in addition, the low success rate in the valuation of these statements follows a pattern already contacted in other studies [
69,
70,
71,
72,
73]. There is also repeated confusion in the three contexts with those items that allude to issues related to the ozone layer or acid rain, a pattern that, again, is repeated in other research with samples of students of all ages [
74].
On the other hand, the behaviour of the TC
#3 differs from that of the TC
#2 and TC
#1 (which practically coincide in percentages) with respect to the appreciation of the training received on CC in their degree; even so, the self-perception they have with respect to the information they have received on CC in their degree is very low in the three contexts, data that also coincide, for example, in a study carried out in Gran Canarias [
75]; it would be interesting to take this data into account for comparisons with other territories where this issue is a priority in the degrees and to assess how this variable influences the social representation of CC.
It should be borne in mind that when students are asked about meat consumption and their contribution to climate change, in all three contexts there is a lack of information on the subject, so that, like the items related to the greenhouse effect or greenhouse gases, the information deficit can help generate a social representation of CC that is out of tune with the reality and severity of the problem.
In the case of the statements on solutions to fight against the CC, such as those that speak of reducing emissions or planting more trees, in the three territorial contexts studied there is agreement on their veracity, as in the aforementioned study [
67].
It is necessary to emphasize, on the other hand, that the item with more significant differences in each one of the analysed territorial contexts is the one that makes reference to the problems of desertification in the Iberian Peninsula originated by CC, but, in addition, within the own territorial contexts, the valuations on this problem are very disparate, what makes think that, these assessments are not due to the different rainfall levels that characterise the three territorial contexts, but that, possibly, the fact of belonging to different socio-cultural contexts also generates different self-perceptions of information with regard to causes, consequences, measures of struggle and pro-environmental attitudes.
Therefore, a social representation similar to the rest of the previously mentioned studies is being created, since it can be verified that when analysing the given answers, a similar pattern is followed in the three contexts and that, in addition, they coincide with the data of different study samples to this one.
On the other hand, it can also be observed that through the answers given by the students surveyed, although they are generally considered to have defined pro-environmental attitudes, this does not influence the social representation of CC either, but rather, the socio-cultural context.
In summary, the most significant differences found in the comparison of the three territorial contexts have been, on the one hand, that the students of the TC#3 are those who perceive themselves to be less individually responsible for the causes of CC as well as their country. On the other hand, in relation to the consequences of CC, once again the TC#3 is the one that perceives itself best informed in spite of obtaining the lowest score in this category, being, specifically, those that do not value as an effect of CC that reduces rainfall in their country of residence.
Finally, the TC#3 continues to be the one who feels best informed about solutions to fight against the CC. However, when assessing the knowledge about causes, consequences and solutions of the CC, a more or less similar pattern of response is generated, so the difference lies in the self-perception of the information and not really in the knowledge or social representation they have about the CC.