Differences in Perceived Future Impacts of Climate Change on the Workforce Among Residents of British Columbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is a highly labor-intensive and meticulously executed piece of research. It constitutes one of the first comprehensive efforts to investigate climate change perceptions among employees in Canada; particularly within a natural resource-dependent economy such as that of British Columbia; with such depth and nuance.

The findings offer valuable insights for policymakers by elucidating sectoral differences in perceived climate vulnerability (e.g., natural resources, health, science, and management). These insights can inform the development of targeted, equitable, and context-sensitive climate adaptation strategies.

Nevertheless, several aspects could be refined to enhance the interpretability and comparative strength of the results. In particular, the analysis of perceived future impacts of climate change on the workforce would benefit from a more in-depth exploration of the underlying rationales behind participants’ views, as well as an assessment of the extent to which these perceptions are supported by objective indicators.

It is also important to acknowledge that participants were recruited voluntarily via social media platforms, resulting in an overrepresentation of white, highly educated, and politically liberal individuals. This sampling bias should be either mitigated in future research or explicitly addressed in the interpretation and generalization of the findings.

While the technical presentation of the data is commendable, incorporating a more analytical focus on the causal and contextual factors underlying the observed patterns would substantially enhance the study’s scientific contribution and practical relevance.

It is recommended that the demographic data be presented in a dedicated, standalone table.

Providing the frequencies and percentages of each demographic parameter in an independent table—particularly one that facilitates cross-comparisons—would enhance clarity and improve the reader’s ability to interpret the sample characteristics effectively.

Additionally, the data presented in the tables should be carefully reviewed for accuracy and internal consistency.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

This study examines perceived climate change vulnerability across nine occupational categories among 877 British Columbian workers surveyed in 2021. Using ordinal logistic regression, the authors found that natural resource workers had significantly higher perceived climate vulnerability compared to most other occupations, with management/business workers showing the lowest concern. The research provides valuable baseline data on climate risk perceptions across sectors and highlights the need for industry-specific adaptation interventions in the context of Canada's just transition policies.

 

The study does provide valuable empirical data on an understudied topic - how workers in different industries perceive climate vulnerability - which is particularly relevant for policy development around just transitions in Canada. The large sample size and natural experiment context (surveying around major climate events) are definite strengths.

The findings about natural resource workers having higher perceived vulnerability compared to management/business workers align with what we might expect theoretically and provide a useful baseline for future research and policy development in this area.

 

Suggested Revisions

1. Theoretical Framework 

The paper would benefit from a more robust theoretical framework linking occupational categories to climate vulnerability. While the authors mention power structures, the connection between occupation types and actual versus perceived vulnerability needs stronger conceptual grounding.

Strengthen conceptual grounding for why occupations should differ in climate risk perception

Provide more nuanced discussion of "power structures" beyond management hierarchies

 

2. Methodological

Several areas where the methodology and interpretation could be strengthened (particularly around the outcome variable operationalization and causal inference)

2.1 Sampling Bias Discussion

Add more direct acknowledgment of generalizability limitations due to sample demographics

Discuss how the highly educated, liberal, predominantly white sample may affect interpretation

Remove or significantly condense the defensive social media recruitment discussion (lines 371-382)

 

• Variable Justification 

Provide theoretical rationale for grouping "unsure" with "unlikely" responses (lines 143-144)

Consider sensitivity analysis showing results with "unsure" responses handled differently

Acknowledge this methodological choice as a study limitation

 

3. Statistical Presentation 

Add confidence intervals to Figure 1

Specify statistical tests used for p-values in Table 1

Discuss the wide confidence intervals for Health and Science occupations more nuance fully

 

4. Causal Language 

Revise language throughout to avoid implying causal relationships (e.g., line 15 "identified" → "examined")

Clarify that findings represent associations, not causal effects

Present adaptation readiness claims as hypotheses rather than established relationships (lines 295-301)

 

Specific Comments

Lines 15-16: The phrase "Ordinal logistic regression identified the association" should specify "examined" rather than "identified" to avoid overstating causal inference.

Lines 48-52: The citation formatting is inconsistent and makes this section difficult to follow. Consider streamlining the reference list within sentences.

Lines 143-147: The rationale for combining "unsure" responses with "unlikely" responses needs justification. These represent fundamentally different response types and should potentially be analyzed separately or excluded.

Table 1 (lines 191-202): The table caption should specify what statistical tests were used for the p-values. Additionally, the "p-value" column header appears incomplete.

Lines 217-229: The interpretation of adjusted odds ratios needs more nuanced discussion. The confidence intervals for Health (0.39-1.23) and Science (0.48-1.67) occupations are quite wide and cross 1.0, suggesting substantial uncertainty.

Lines 248-262: The discussion of power structures and management positions oversimplifies complex organizational hierarchies. The analysis doesn't distinguish between different levels of management or consider that many "management" workers may have limited organizational power.

Lines 295-301: The connection between risk perception and adaptation readiness is asserted but not empirically demonstrated in this study. This relationship should be presented as a hypothesis for future research rather than an established finding.

Lines 352-367: The discussion of study uniqueness should be more modest. Several studies have compared climate risk perceptions across occupational groups, though perhaps not with this specific geographic focus.

Lines 371-382: The lengthy discussion of social media recruitment methodology seems defensive and could be condensed. The authors should more directly acknowledge the selection bias implications for generalizability.

Figure 1: Consider including confidence intervals or standard errors to better communicate uncertainty around the proportions.

 

 

With these revisions addressed this paper would make a solid contribution to the climate adaptation literature and merits publication. The core findings are valuable for policy development, and the methodological issues are addressable rather than fatal flaws.

Good luck!

Author Response

please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors responded to suggestions for improvement and the article is now well written.

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.