Next Article in Journal
Satellite-Based Daily Precipitation Bias Correction in a Tropical Mountainous Region Using Functional Generalized Additive Mixed Models: A Case Study in Valle del Cauca, Colombia
Previous Article in Journal
The Role of Stratosphere–Troposphere Vertical Shear of the Zonal Wind in the QBO-MJO Relationship
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Climate
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/cli14090187
climate-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Climate Change Awareness Among Palestinians in the West Bank: A Cross-Sectional Study of Socioeconomic and Contextual Factors

by
Maryam W. Fasfous
1,*,
Mohamed N. Abdel-Fattah
2 and
Sarah A. Ibrahim
2
1
Faculty of Postgraduate Studies, Palestine Ahliya University, Bethlehem 90907, Palestine
2
Department of Biostatistics and Demography, Faculty of Graduate Studies for Statistical Research, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Climate 2026, 14(9), 187; https://doi.org/10.3390/cli14090187
Submission received: 5 July 2026 / Revised: 22 August 2026 / Accepted: 24 August 2026 / Published: 9 September 2026
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

Climate change awareness is increasingly recognized as a multidimensional issue related to understanding climate risks, adoption, and climate-friendly behaviors. This paper aims to explore and assess the socioeconomic contextual factors of climate change awareness in the West Bank, Palestine. In order to achieve this, a cross-sectional online survey, conducted from September to November 2024 and including 1059 participants, was carried out to measure awareness based on the Climate Change Awareness Scale (CCAS) to investigate knowledge, attitudes, personal concern, multiplicative action, and climate-friendly behavior. Descriptive statistics have demonstrated a moderate overall awareness level (M = 3.97 and SD = 0.71) with comparatively high climate-friendly behavior (M = 4.43 and SD = 0.89). On the other hand, the lowest scores were reported for multiplicative action (M = 3.30 and SD = 0.97). Additionally, multiple linear regression with robust variance estimators showed that awareness is statistically correlated with age and some contextual factors related to place of residence. In other words, younger age groups have shown lower awareness than that of older adults. Moreover, individuals living in refugee camps have demonstrated lower awareness when compared to village residents. Similarly, people in contact areas with the occupation manifested higher awareness than that of those in non-contact areas. On the contrary, gender, education level, and monthly income did not show statistical significance. These results indicate that climate change awareness in the West Bank is formed via social and contextual differences. Furthermore, recognizing these differences requires taking into account the local context when designing climate awareness programs and urging collaborative efforts.

1. Introduction

Climate change is one of the most prominent contemporary global challenges, given its interconnected environmental, social, economic, and health effects on natural systems, food and water security, livelihoods, infrastructure, and the adaptive capacity of societies [1,2,3]. Climate change has ceased to be considered solely an environmental or physical issue [2]. It has become a social and developmental one, and its impacts vary across communities, population groups, and countries based on available resources, exposure levels, adaptive capacity, and the surrounding political and institutional conditions [4,5,6]. Therefore, exploring the dimensions of this phenomenon not only requires tracking climate indicators but investigating the way individuals and communities recognize, prioritize, and respond to climate risks.
In this context, public awareness of climate change is vital to understanding individual and collective responses to environmental risks, individuals’ perceptions of climate information and their beliefs and behavioral responses to climate change [7]. Climate awareness is not raised only via scientific knowledge. It is also shaped by social and cultural contexts and mechanisms that contribute to interpreting climate change information [8]. Thus, investigating climate awareness provides a profound understanding of the differences existing among individuals and communities regarding their perception of climate risks, and it explains the variation in willingness to adopt behaviors or support actions related to adaptation and mitigation.
This issue is crucial in the Palestinian territories, especially in the West Bank, where climate risks interweave with complex political, economic, and structural conditions. Some studies on Palestine indicate that the agriculture, water, food, health, infrastructure, energy, and waste management sectors are among the most vulnerable to climate change risks, facing challenges related to land degradation, resource scarcity, pressure on main services, and limited capacity for local planning [9,10,11,12]. Additionally, restrictions on land, water, movement, and infrastructure make responding to environmental risks in the West Bank more complex than in other contexts with higher institutional and spatial capacity for adaptation [4,11,13,14].
Despite growing international interest in studying climate change awareness, scientific knowledge on this issue in Palestine remains relatively limited, particularly among the adult population in the West Bank. Much previous Arab and Palestinian research has focused on specific groups or adopted general indicators of knowledge or awareness, reflecting a gap in understanding climate awareness as a multidimensional phenomenon influenced by socioeconomic and contextual factors [15,16,17,18]. This gap is particularly significant because understanding climate awareness in the Palestinian context cannot be separated from the socioeconomic and spatial conditions that may influence risk perception and daily prioritization. Accordingly, this paper aims to assess the level of climate change awareness among adults in the West Bank, Palestine, and examine the socioeconomic and contextual factors affecting this awareness, being interpreted in light of environmental and spatial fragility, resource scarcity, and exposure to climate risks. In addition, this paper provides empirical evidence on how climate awareness develops in environments where climate risks intersect with living, spatial, and political constraints.

2. Conceptual Background and Literature Review

A number of research studies have investigated climate change awareness. Mussell et al. [19] referred to it as the individual’s understanding of the relationship between human activities and global climate change. Likewise, Lee et al. [5] described awareness as general knowledge and realization of the occurrence of a change in climate, distinguishing between awareness and risk realization resulting from this change. On the other hand, Karpudewan et al. [20] examined awareness based on cognitive and educational aspects by focusing on individuals’ knowledge of climate change, their understanding of its causes and effects, and the role played by climate education in enhancing environmental attitudes.
Subsequent research has expanded climate change awareness to include the perception of risks, values, care, and trust, exposure to information, behavioral response and social engagement. It has also shown that interactions among these factors shape this awareness. To illustrate, Metag et al. [21] linked climate change awareness to individuals’ perceptions, attitudes, and patterns of exposure to climate data. Other studies also explained how individuals move from having knowledge of climate change to responding to it; this includes psychological distance, which explains weak responses related to perceiving climate change as a distant threat (socially, temporally, or spatially), trust in scientific information, emotional responses such as fear, anxiety, and hope, and readiness to engage in climate action or support mitigation policies [22,23,24,25].
Moreover, recent studies have investigated climate change awareness using a multidimensional approach. Kusumaningrum et al. [26] suggested that climate change awareness includes recognizing its effects and the procedures required to address them. Similarly, Bhabhor et al. [27] introduced awareness as an understanding of the reasons behind climate change, its indicators, and its consequences, including rising temperatures and erratic rainfall. On the other hand, Cipriani et al. [28] attributed climate change awareness to life experiences, defining it through people’s related sensory and perceptual experiences that might influence support for climate policies, the adoption of sustainable practices, and responses to turmoil associated with climate change. Similarly, Fraembs and Drobnič [29] clarified that climate change awareness could be understood as a composite index combining acknowledgment of climate change, understanding its causes, fearing its consequences, and realizing personal responsibility toward it.
The Climate Change Awareness Scale (CCAS) is a systematic framework mainly developed by Kuthe et al. [30]; they defined awareness as a multidimensional construct comprising five interrelated dimensions. First, there is the knowledge dimension that reflects individuals’ understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change. Second, the attitude subscale is concerned with the individuals’ evaluation of the importance of climate action, sense of responsibility, and ability to engage. Third, personal concern focuses on levels of anxiety regarding climate change impacts on oneself, others, and the whole community. Fourth, climate-friendly behavior shows daily practices that contribute to reducing relevant environmental effects. Finally, multiplicative action demonstrates the individual’s tendency to share climate-related knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors with others. Recent studies have addressed climate change as a complicated system where all these five dimensions can interact with each other and become interrelated over time, producing a broader pattern of awareness and response to climate change [31].
Furthermore, based on this conceptual framework, the results of previous studies on climate change awareness should be interpreted in light of the different definitions of awareness, its measurement method, and the social, economic, and political context of each study. Some surveys have assessed awareness using direct questions about the respondents’ span of knowledge regarding climate change [32,33]. Conversely, other studies used multidimensional or composite indicators incorporating beliefs, concern, perceived severity, perceived human causation, and perceived response efficacy [29]. Other approaches have adopted digital search behavior as a proxy for public interest in climate change [34]. Furthermore, scale-based studies have measured awareness through structured instruments concerned with examining knowledge, concern, attitudes, action, and climate-friendly behavior [30,35].
It is also crucial to differentiate between climate change awareness, which is measured by the CCAS scale as a conceptual construct, and climate risk perception, although both are theoretically related. Climate risk perception scales focus on self-assessment of potential severity and vulnerability as well as the temporal or spatial proximity of climate threats to the individual [36]. The CCAS scale adopts a broader definition of awareness as a multidimensional construct that includes cognitive aspects, personal concern, and evaluative, behavioral, and social dimensions, such as attitudes, climate-friendly behavior, and multiplicative action [30]. Additionally, to avoid terminological ambiguity, it should be noted that CCAS in this paper refers to the Climate Change Awareness Scale developed by Kuthe et al. [30] and not to the Climate Change Anxiety Scale that is also abbreviated as CCAS in some climate psychology studies.
Lee et al. [5] used Gallup World Poll data to create a global map of climate change knowledge and risk awareness. They found that 40% of the world’s population showed no awareness of climate change, with notable gaps between developed and developing countries, where huge differences regarding general knowledge and perception of risks were detected between Japan and Liberia, the USA and Egypt, or Finland and Liberia. Moreover, many studies broadly integrated knowledge, attitude, risk perception, and behavior. For example, in the City of Iligan, in the Philippines, stakeholders demonstrated a high level of climate change awareness. However, they reflected moderate awareness regarding nature-based solution. These results indicate that knowledge of the problem does not necessarily guarantee knowledge of how to solve it [37].
Additionally, in Europe, the results reflect that measuring awareness is almost based on assessing public attitudes, risk perception, supporting policies, trusting information, and self-reported behaviors. For example, the Eurobarometer [38] indicated that 85% of the EU citizens consider climate change a critical issue; and 81% support the objective of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. On the contrary, a study conducted among adolescents aged 13 to 16 years old in Austria and Germany reported that 54% of the students had moderate knowledge; 25% of them reflected low knowledge; and 21% demonstrated high knowledge [32]. Similarly, the students at Batanes State College in the Philippines showed moderate awareness of the occurrence, causes, and impacts of climate change [39].
Regarding investigating Arab and Asian contexts, climate change awareness remarkably varied based on the adopted measurement tools and the target sample. In Delhi, 72.6% of the participants reported awareness of climate change with no differences between males and females [40]. In contrast, Nepal manifested varying levels of awareness (high, moderate, and low) distributed in relatively equal percentages (30.02%, 36.49%, and 31.87%, respectively), while 1.62% showed no understanding [33]. In the Arab region, research conducted among nursing students from Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia exhibited that 84.2% of them showed awareness of climate change [16]. Nevertheless, a survey conducted in the UAE indicated that roughly 57% of the respondents had awareness of climate change [41]. In fact, these results are significant since they stress geographical and contextual variance.
Concerning the sociodemographic determinants, the literature revealed that the relationship between climate change awareness and age, gender, income, education, and place of residence is not constant in different contexts. Some studies demonstrated high awareness levels among younger age groups, especially where environmental education, digital media, and climate mobilization existed [29,33,42]. In contrast, other studies detected higher awareness and risk perception levels among elder age groups, particularly in case they have direct experience with environmental changes or dependence on natural resources [40,43]. Additionally, differences between genders were inconsistent. In some studies, women showed higher interest and awareness [29], while others studies did not detect any noticeable differences between males and females [40,43].
Furthermore, formal education was frequently examined due to its essential role in determining climate change awareness levels. However, it was not considered a direct equivalent to climate knowledge. Climate change knowledge does not merely result from education at schools or universities. Conversely, it is formed by life and direct environmental experiences, community initiatives, media, and access to information. Studies often reported general knowledge and perception of climate change risks associated with higher education levels [5,44,45]. For example, climate change awareness reached 73% among individuals with higher education in 39 countries in Africa compared to 38% among those without formal education [32]. Higher education was also linked to willingness to take climate action in 15 African countries [43] and to broader levels of social participation in Europe [29]. Similarly, in Delhi, 61% of university degree holders showed an increased understanding and awareness levels of climate change [40].
Nevertheless, the impact of education may vary based on context; for example, political ideology or a lack of trust in information would reduce its effect in some polarized environments [45]. Moreover, the influence of political ideology extends beyond the individual’s validation of information to produce a broader national context. In environments characterized by intense forms of national conflict, nationalist ideologies prioritize national security and marginalize urgent issues such as climate crisis. The literature has investigated this phenomenon under the term “climate obstructionism” [46,47]. Thus, the spread of extreme forms of nationalism should be viewed as an additional contextual factor that may hinder or slow down the formation of climate awareness, particularly in environments where national conflicts are intertwined with climate risks, such as the case in the Palestinian context.
In addition, place of residence and income significantly influence climate change awareness. Generally, residents in the city have higher awareness due to education, media, environmental activities, and efficient infrastructure [32]. Based on the Afrobarum Scale, lower awareness is often detected in rural and poor areas as well as among less educated people. In some circumstances, awareness levels increase due to the direct impact of climate or the living conditions related to it [32,43]. Moreover, high income most likely leads to promoting awareness levels [40]. Likewise, research in Europe and the Philippines indicated a positive correlation between income and awareness, where the poorest households reported the lowest levels of risk perception [42,43]. Hence, analysis of climate change awareness requires transcending descriptive comparisons among the different categories and focusing on understanding how these factors functions within each social and political context.
On the other hand, literature investigating climate change awareness in the Arab region and Palestine remains relatively limited. Studies mainly concentrated on examining specific groups, such as students or workers in the education and health sectors [15,16,17,18,48]. They also depended on general indicators of knowledge and awareness without adopting a multidimensional framework [15,16,17,18]. Some Arab studies revealed variation in awareness levels among countries and groups as well as the possible role played by education, specialization, and information resources in shaping climate knowledge and attitudes [15,16]. However, the literature still does not provide a comprehensive understanding of the way climate awareness is created within vulnerable economic and political contexts, especially in the West Bank where land, water, food, health, movement, resources, energy, and infrastructure are subject to imposed constraints and climate risks. Furthermore, economic and political restrictions may limit the ability to adapt and influence recognizing environmental risks and prioritizing responses to them [9,49].
Therefore, this paper aims to add contributions to the existing literature through addressing two main gaps. First, while many previous studies depended mainly on general knowledge indicators of climate change, this paper adopts the CCAS framework to measure awareness among adults as a multidimensional construct that is comprised of knowledge, attitude, personal concern, climate-friendly behavior, and multiplicative action. Second, there is a contextual gap in the literature exploring climate change awareness in vulnerable settings affected by conflicts, especially in the West Bank in Palestine, which is the context of this paper. Moreover, this paper analyzes the relationship between such awareness and social, spatial, and contextual factors. It addresses variables such as residing in camps or in contact areas with the occupation as not mere demographic characters but rather as contextual indicators of structural conditions that can affect shaping climate awareness, impact perception of climate risks, and define priorities and behavior in response to them.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Study Design and Area

During the period from September to November 2024, cross-sectional surveying was administered through the distribution of an online questionnaire using Google Forms (Google LLC, Mountain View, CA, USA). The survey was distributed on social media websites such as Facebook, Telegram, and WhatsApp through sharing the link in public groups to reach participants from different governorates and residential areas within the West Bank. Moreover, data were collected from 1059 Palestinians adults residing in the West Bank within the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT). In 2024, the West Bank (part of the Palestinian Occupied Territories) had a population of 3.4 million, showing an increase of 17.2% since 2017, which was distributed across 11 governorates within approximately 5665 km2 [13,50].
The West Bank is situated within the eastern Mediterranean climatic zone with wet, mild winters, and hot, dry summers. Approximately ten years ago, average seasonal temperatures were 20.8–30 °C in summer and 8.7–14 °C in winter; additionally, nearly 85% of the rainfall was between October and May with an approximate mean annual precipitation of 420 mm [10,51,52]. Land use is dominated by rough grazing (62%), agriculture (32%), and urban areas (5%); and Israeli settlements occupy approximately 1% [53].
Nevertheless, the recent trend has indicated a rise in temperatures, a decrease in rainfall, and more frequent and severe droughts; by the end of the century, precipitation is projected at −8 to −10 mm of monthly rainfall and a mean temperature warming of 4.8 °C [11,43,54]. The climate-risk mapping of Nablus, Jenin, Hebron, Ramallah and Al-Bireh, and Jerusalem showed high to extremely high risk areas; conversely, Tubas, Qalqiliya, Salfit, and Jericho and Al-Aghwar have demonstrated low to extremely low risk. Overall, around 60% of the land area and 76% of the population were at high-temperature risk and vulnerability to climate change, while only 24% of the land and 10% of the population were categorized under low or very low risk [12] (Figure 1).

3.2. Sampling Design

A non-probability convenience sampling approach was adopted. This paper’s survey was distributed and conducted online. This is due to the field and political circumstances in the West Bank that hindered selecting individuals in person and using the probability-based sampling technique. Due to the non-probability nature of the sample, it may not be statistically fully representative of the entire adult population in the West Bank. Participating in the study required internet access, technology awareness, access to the survey distribution channels, and readiness to complete the questionnaire. Therefore, this might have resulted in self-selection and coverage bias. In order to improve transparency, available population distributions of adults aged 18 years old and above in the West Bank are presented alongside the study sample in Section 4 for the purpose of descriptive comparison only.

3.3. Questionnaire Design and Measures

The questionnaire included two parts. The first part collected sociodemographic characteristics, age, gender, and education level. Furthermore, place of residence and inhabiting areas with direct contact with the occupation were considered contextual variables rather than merely demographic ones. In this paper, “contact areas” refer to the areas close to checkpoints, settlements, outposts, the wall, military zones, bypass roads, or locations where the residents suffer from frequent restrictions on movement or on access to land or services. Such variables were included in the analysis since they reflect differences regarding exposure to structural constraints, resources insecurity, and pressures of everyday tasks and priorities. All these factors may influence climate change awareness and behaviors associated with it. In the second part, climate change awareness was assessed using the Climate Change Awareness Scale (CCAS).
The scale adopted in this paper is a 25-item instrument comprising five subscales. First, the Knowledge subscale (4 items) evaluates understanding the reasons and consequences of climate change. Second, the Attitude (A) subscale (5 items) captures personal interest, sense of responsibility, commitment to mitigation, and perceived control. Third, the Personal Concern (PC) subscale (3 items) measures perceived impacts on one’s life, family, and Palestinian communities in the West Bank. Fourth, the Multiplicative Action (MA) subscale (4 items) measures engagement in climate-related conversations with friends and family. Fifth, the Climate-Friendly Behavior (CFB) subscale (9 items) assesses environmentally friendly practices. In fact, the original scale was developed to be used with adolescents. However, it was selected for use since it has a multidimensional structure that supports achieving the objective of this paper: to assess climate change awareness comprehensively as a cognitive, emotional, behavioral, and social construct. The CCAS was also used in a previous published study that considered the West Bank context [55]; it demonstrated acceptable measurement properties in terms of discriminant, convergent validity, and internal consistency. However, this prior use must not be considered an independent and definitive validation of the instrument but rather as preliminary support for its use in the Palestinian context.
Moreover, to enhance cultural and contextual convenience to the West Bank environmental and sociopolitical conditions, we implemented minor adaptations to the original scale. One of the “Knowledge” items concerned with winter tourism in the Alps and using snow cannons was not culturally and geographically relevant or familiar to adults in Palestine. Thus, it was replaced by the item addressing water availability in Palestine, which is a prominent local climate issue. In addition, the item related to climate change resulting from human activities was slightly paraphrased to improve clarity. Finally, no other dimensions of the scale were added or removed. In addition, a panel of experts in climatology, sociology, and public health confirmed the overall validity of the questionnaire by evaluating it for cultural and contextual appropriateness. We also examined 50 participants as part of a pilot study to assess the clarity and applicability of the questionnaire. Moreover, reliability for the study sample was examined using Cronbach’s alpha, which was from 0.802 to 0.916, indicating a good internal consistency. Furthermore, the participants were informed about the purpose of the study and that participation was voluntary, and they were also assured that anonymity was guaranteed with no personal identifiable information collected.

3.4. Data Analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 29 (IBN Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), was utilized to analyze the data collected. Categorical variables are introduced as frequencies and percentages; and continuous variables are reported as means with standard deviations (SD). The score of climate change awareness was calculated via averaging all the 25 items on the CCAS, and the score of each dimension was calculated through averaging all the items related to it. Subsequently, a higher score of CCAS indicates a higher level of awareness. In addition, to assess for confounding and identify factors associated with climate-change awareness, we fit ordinary multiple linear regression models with robust standard errors. This is also to address the potential violation of the homogeneity of variance assumption in the model. The dependent variable represents a climate change awareness score, while the independent variables refer to socioeconomic and contextual factors.
Furthermore, regression results are presented as unstandardized coefficients (B) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Moreover, due to the non-probability nature of the sample and the cross-sectional design used, the regression coefficients were interpreted as intraclass correlations and not as casual relationships or estimates that can be generalized to the entire population. Statistical significance has been also defined as two-sided p < 0.05. Finally, model diagnostics evaluation is conducted prior to the final interpretation. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values were used to assess multicollinearity. Standardized residuals were also adopted to examine residual behavior and identify extreme values. Additionally, leverage values and Cook’s distance were utilized to assess potentially influential observations. One observation showed an extreme standardized residual; therefore, an additional sensitivity analysis was conducted that succeeding removing this observation reflecting extreme standardized residuals to assess the stability of the findings.

4. Results

4.1. Sample Characteristics

The final sample included 1059 respondents: 55.2% were females; 41.6% acquired a bachelor’s degree; and 21.3% had a diploma. In addition, just over 30% of the participants were aged 26–35 years old. More than half of them (55.5%) lived in urban areas, while 34.8% inhibited rural areas, and 9.7% lived in refugee camps. About 40% indicated a monthly income of NIS 2500–4000, while 31.5% earned below NIS 2500. Furthermore, 34.6% of the respondents lived in contact areas with the occupation (Table 1).

4.2. Climate Change Awareness

The descriptive statistics of the climate change awareness domination have revealed different levels across the investigated subdimensions (Table 2). The climate change awareness construct obtained a mean of 3.97 (SD = 0.71), equating to a moderate level of climate change awareness. On the other hand, the participants displayed a higher average regarding climate-friendly behavior, when compared to the other subdomains, with the highest mean being 4.43 (SD = 0.89). It was followed by attitude, which achieved an average rate of 4.07 (SD = 0.80). These results indicate relatively positive trends toward climate action. They also confirm the participants’ relatively high levels of daily environmental practices.
In contrast, Knowledge had a mean of 3.74 (SD = 0.88), asserting that the respondents had a moderate awareness of the causes and effects of climate change. Personal concern had an average of 3.79 (SD = 0.89), indicating that although people showed awareness of climate change, the intensity of their personal worry was not strong, or personal risk was not perceived as being high. In contrast, multiplicative action achieved the lowest mean among the constructs at 3.30 (SD = 0.97), which referred only to a moderate amount of actions executed with the aim to foster broader impact through encouraging others or being part of collective actions.
Considering the CCAS elements, climate-friendly behavior demonstrated the highest mean score (M = 4.43). On the other hand, knowledge was more moderate. For further investigation, correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between knowledge and climate-friendly behavior, and a statistically remarkable positive correlation was determined between the two factors (r = 0.469, p = 0.000). This result indicates that the participants with the highest knowledge levels reported higher levels of climate-friendly behaviors. However, the intermediate correlation has shown that knowledge explained only an aspect of the self-reported behavior; other factors, such as values, economic constraints, daily habits, and resources availability might contribute to shaping such behaviors.
The item-level descriptive results show clear distinctions across the different dimensions of climate change awareness (Table 2). The knowledge (K) dimension revealed three modest items indicative of partial or uncertain understanding of the global nature of temperature increases (K1), what happens immediately after carbon dioxide emissions cease (K2), and changes to water levels in their locality (K3). However, one of the items (K4) strongly indicated recognition that climate change is human-caused. Within the “knowledge” dimension, a pattern develops that distinguishes between general awareness of the human cause behind climate change and lower understanding of some more detailed scientific or local aspects.
In the attitude (A) dimension, the respondents’ responses demonstrate they have strong pro-environment orientations toward climate action. Feeling personal responsibility (A2) rated high, which was followed by believing that global warming can be limited if the international community acts together (A4) and wanting to reduce their own carbon emissions (A5). Interest in the subject (A1) and believing that they could help reduce climate change (A3) was rated as moderate. This pattern manifests that the general attitude toward climate action has been stronger than a personal feeling of competence or direct engagement.
Moreover, personal concern (PC) is shown with a range of moderate scores across the three items (impact on personal life, impact on family life, and impact on others in Palestine), which demonstrates that there is a recognition of the impact; however, not a great deal of concern is evident. Similarly, all items under the label of multiplicative action (MA), which was about discussing climate change with friends or family or encouraging others to take action, were rated in the moderate range. This asserts that the two dimensions linked to personal concern and social interaction were relatively lower than the attitude and individual behavior dimensions.
In contrast, the climate-friendly behavior (CFB) has been highlighted as the domain with the strongest ratings. Obviously, CFB items of conserving energy and water, repairing before replacement, contemplating before purchasing, and sorting waste (CFB2, CFB3, CFB5, CFB6, and CFB7) received ratings in the high range. On the other hand, only two items had moderate ratings (CFB4 and CFB8) by either preferring goods with less packaging or turning off lights. These results should be interpreted with cautious since they are measured based on self-report.
Moreover, some of these practices can be related not only to environmental motives but also to financial and economic considerations. Generally, the results do not show similar levels of awareness regarding all awareness aspects. They reveal that there are relatively high positive attitudes and individual behaviors. On the contrary, there is lower comprehensive knowledge, moderate personal concern, and limited collaborative action. This pattern supports presenting climate change awareness as a multidimensional construct.

4.3. Factors Affecting Climate Change Awareness

Model diagnostics have not shown serious violations of the regression assumptions. Furthermore, multicollinearity has not been considered a concern, as VIF values were less than 5. Standardized Pearson residuals have indicated the existence of at least one potentially outlying observation. In contrast, leverage values were generally low, and Cook’s distance values were also very small, revealing that not a single observation excessively influenced the model estimates. Therefore, a sensitivity analysis was conducted after excluding this observation to evaluate the stability of the findings.
The multivariable model has demonstrated that a number of socioeconomic factors are more significantly associated with climate change awareness. Gender had no statistically significant difference, as males (B = −0.042, 95% CI: −0.118–0.033, p = 0.269) did not differ from females.
It is noteworthy that age has been identified as a strong association. The participants aged less than 26 years old (B = −1.047, 95% CI: −1.168 to −0.925, p < 0.001), 26–35 years old (B = −0.946, 95% CI: −1.056 to −0.836, p < 0.001), and 36–45 years old (B = −0.869, 95% CI: −0.985 to −0.753, p < 0.001) had levels of awareness significantly lower than the participants older than 55 years old (the reference category). On the contrary, the group aged 46–55 years old was not significantly different from the reference category (B = −0.051, p = 0.439). This pattern reflects that elder age has been associated with higher levels of awareness.
The educational attainment level has indicated no significant differences amongst the categories. The participants with a high school education or less (B = 0.088, p = 0.163), diploma (B = 0.018, p = 0.771), and bachelor’s education (B = 0.054, p = 0.326) did not differ significantly from those with a postgraduate education level. Monthly income level did not have a noticeable difference on climate change awareness level because none of the income categories (<2500 NIS, 2500–4000 NIS, 4001–6500 NIS) differed from the reference income group (>6500 NIS).
In the case of the place of residence, people in camps (B = −0.155, 95% CI: 0.017–0.294, p = 0.028) had climate change awareness remarkably lower than those in the city or villages. This correlation has become marginal and statistically insignificant in the sensitivity analysis after excluding the extreme observation. Consequently, this finding is less stable and should be interpreted cautiously. From an analysis perspective, residing in camps should not be explained as a demographic classification solely. It should be also considered a contextual indicator reflecting the differences related to overpopulation, limited services, economic fragility, and resources insecurity. Table 3 introduces the main model using all sample (n = 1059), while Table A1 presents the results of the sensitivity analysis (n = 1058).
Finally, the residential area was a significant association manifesting that individuals living in a contact area with the occupation were more climate change aware (B = 0.094, 95% CI: 0.017–0.170, p = 0.016) compared to individuals living in non-contact areas. The sensitivity analysis, after excluding extreme standardized residual observation, revealed that most of the main results remained stable, particularly the correlations linked to younger age and living in contact areas with the occupation. On the other hand, the correlation related to residing in camps has been statistically insignificant or marginal. This stresses that this result is less robust than the other ones. Accordingly, it has been interpreted with more caution in the Discussion. Furthermore, it is not introduced as conclusive evidence on the existence of fixed differences between camp residents and others.

5. Discussion

The findings of this paper have revealed that adults have shown a moderate level of climate change awareness with noticeable variations across the examined elements of the Climate Change Awareness Scale (CCAS). Climate-friendly attitudes and behaviors have been relatively positive. Conversely, knowledge, personal concern, and multiplying action have been at lower levels. These outcomes highlight the necessity of dealing with climate awareness as a multidimensional construct not merely as scientific knowledge or a single behavioral indicator. The results also indicate that a complex interaction among individual characteristics, daily experiences, and social, spatial, and political contexts shapes climate change awareness in the West Bank.
One of this paper’s major outcomes has shown that climate-friendly behaviors achieved the highest level in relation to climate change awareness. On the other hand, knowledge reflected a more moderate level. Correlation analysis has demonstrated a statistically remarkable positive relationship between knowledge and climate-friendly behavior. This result stresses that the participants with the highest knowledge levels self-reported higher levels of climate-friendly behaviors. In fact, this finding suggests that knowledge solely does not interpret the high awareness level reported by behavior, especially due to the nature of the elements included in this domain and the fact that many of them reflect low-cost, familiar, and socially appealing ordinary activities, such as water conservation, saving energy through turning off lights and electrical appliances, considering purchasing priorities, and fixing objects instead of replacing them. This domain also resembles a range of socially adequate common activities, an inclination to provide positive self-reporting, and a partial, authentic correlation with knowledge. As a result, the relatively high score obtained from it should be interpreted considering the limitations of self-measurement and probable impact of social desirability bias. It should not also be deemed explicit evidence of high and consistent climate-friendly behavioral engagement. In contrast, multiplicative action has reported the lowest average among the areas of the scale. This outcome is noticeably significant; it proposes that transmitting regular individual behavior into group discussion or influence through social networks has not had a strong impact. This does not necessarily refer to insufficient awareness. Conversely, it stresses the existence of weak channels for regular and collective engagement, the lack of a safe and efficient group discussion of climate, and the low prioritization of political and economic issues engagement [33].
On the other hand, the knowledge dimension has remained at an average level, which emphasizes the concept that climate understanding may not be as deeply embedded as basic daily behaviors and positive attitudes. This pattern aligns with the outcomes of many studies reporting that climate topics are still not sufficiently and comprehensively integrated into formal education in many settings; and exposure to climate information does not necessarily result in explicit or profound knowledge of its casual and scientific features [57]. Regarding the Palestinian setting, in specific, climate knowledge seems to be formed surrounded by environmental concerns accompanied by economic and political strains, which has resulted in producing a more practical or emotional awareness than intelligible technical knowledge [9,13,49,51]. Furthermore, concerning the attitude dimension, the sample has exhibited relatively positive responses. Such results can be interpreted given the fact that common environmental issues like miserable living conditions or water scarcity can lead to an increased interest and sense of responsibility even if scientific knowledge is not at the same level. Thus, it is necessary to differentiate between the emotional or normative response to climate change and the ability to turn such responses into thorough knowledge or organized collaborative behavior.
In addition, the results of personal concern assessments have reflected a pattern demonstrating that societal responses may be stronger than direct personal or family responses. This can be interpreted according to the concept of “psychological distance”, since people sometimes tend to believe that climate risks have a more significant effect on other individuals or the whole of society than on their families or even themselves [22]. This finding is considered evidence that people in low- and middle-income contexts have a greater tendency to perceive climate risks in relation to the community level rather than the personal level [5]. Based on these findings, it is apparent that the Palestinian pattern is not peculiar. It falls within a spectrum of average or varying levels of awareness reported in studies conducted earlier in developing and developed settings. To illustrate, studies from Austria, Germany, Nepal, the Philippines, and the United Arab of Emirates have declared average or heterogeneous levels of climate awareness [5,33]. On the contrary, other studies performed in India have reported relatively higher levels of awareness [30]. Direct comparisons between these findings reflect dissimilarities in the demographic composition of the samples, the social and educational backgrounds, the tools used, and the criteria adopted for categorizing awareness. Thus, the significance of this comparison is that it contributes to interpreting the results obtained from the Palestinian context within an international range.
In the determinants model, age appeared as a factor influencing climate awareness; those under 55 years old had lower levels of awareness in comparison to the elder control group. This finding requires careful discussion, since the results in the literature in this area are not homogeneous. Some studies have associated awareness with older age [57]. In contrast, others studies performed in Europe, Delhi, Kathmandu, and the Philippines have asserted that younger individuals may possess higher levels of awareness [5,33,57]. Therefore, the current finding should not be considered abnormal. It is an indication that the relationship between awareness and age varies according to the context and exposure to direct environmental experiences and information resources. The relationship between advancing in age and higher awareness in this paper may reflect the nature of the cumulative environmental experience in the West Bank, where the lives of older populations are more clearly related to long-term observations of water scarcity, weather changes, altering agricultural patterns, and land- and resource-related livelihood stresses. Considering the given context, climate awareness among elder people may be less reliant on abstract information and more closely based on the direct and repeated experience of environmental changes. Conversely, younger groups may be potentially exposed to more information through digital media or type of education. However, such exposure is fragmented or to a great extent separated from everyday experiences, especially when considering the difficult livelihood and political priorities that can affect the prominence of climate change as an independent explanatory framework.
Additionally, the result indicates the importance of spatial context in understanding climate change awareness. Living in contact areas with the occupation, however, has been related to higher awareness compared with non-contact areas, and this result holds in the sensitivity analysis. This finding also indicates that climate change awareness may be connected to the nature of individuals’ daily living conditions. In contact areas with the occupation, where environmental concerns overlap with complications related to land, services, and resources, the impacts of environmental change become more noticeable in people’s daily experience. Such finding agrees with Rosenthal [7], who has mentioned that direct local experiences are essential to shape and support climate risk perceptions. In addition, climate awareness is constructed via specific spatial and social contexts; thus, local conditions affect the way people realize and interpret environmental risks [8]. This interpretation seems to be particularly relevant in the West Bank, where recent studies have reported spatial variations in climate exposure and vulnerability across multiple areas [12].
In contrast, living in a refugee camp has been linked to lower climate change awareness in comparison to living in a city. On the other hand, living in a village has not reflected significant difference as opposed to living in a city in the current model; the result of the sensitivity analysis also confirmed no differences in climate change awareness. Therefore, this finding should be interpreted deliberately and not presented as conclusive evidence of the existence of major differences between camp residents and others. Moreover, the correlation related to residing in camps has been statistically insignificant or marginal. Thus, it might not be regarded as conclusive evidence on the existence of fixed differences between camp residents and the other types of residence.
Nevertheless, camps have remained a significant context that affects understanding climate change awareness. Camps in Palestine do not merely represent low-income areas. They are also characterized by long-standing structural inefficiencies resulting from overpopulation, poor infrastructure, economic instability, high dependence on receiving aids, and limited local control of services and planning. Within such contexts, issues related to daily survival, such as work, housing, food security, and basic services, become more essential than environmental issues, even when residents are actually exposed to increased environmental risks. Moreover, the lack of a noticeable difference between villages and cities may denote that the Palestinian countryside is not a homogeneous entity and that direct environmental experiences and connection with the land and resources in some villages may partially compensate for limited institutional access.
On the other hand, different variables that included gender, education, and income were not significant predictors in Palestine. The null gender effect is similar to the results found in Nepal, the Philippines, 15 African countries, and India. However, it has not aligned with research findings in some European countries [5,30,33,39]. Similarly, monthly income did not reveal a statistically significant relationship with climate change awareness even when univariate analysis was used. The relationship was not also significant in the study model or the adjusted model. This stresses that the economic differences among the participants in this paper were not crucial regarding explaining the variation in awareness. On the contrary, education level showed differences via univariate analysis, but such differences were not general or graded across all educational levels. They were concentrated in specific variations; and then they disappeared after adjustment in the multivariate model. This implies that education may be partially or roughly linked to awareness. Furthermore, its independent effect fades when other demographic, social, and spatial variables are introduced. This finding differs from some of the previous literature that found a correlation between climate awareness and certain educational or economic indicators [5,29,32,40,43,45,58].
In the Palestinian context, this pattern may reflect that climate awareness is not shaped exclusively by educational or economic status but rather by a more complex interaction between information access, spatial context, lived environmental experiences, and common living stresses. Therefore, the non-significance reflected by income and the disappearance of the impact of education after adjustment should not be interpreted as a general denial of the role of these two variables but rather as an indication that their effect in this paper was limited, indirect, or based on other factors. Generally, our findings suggest that climate change awareness in the West Bank is not homogeneous across the population groups. Moreover, understanding it requires paying attention to spatial and social variations, particularly when comparing individual awareness to community engagement or multiplicative action.

6. Conclusions

This paper provides a multidimensional empirical assessment of climate change awareness among adults in the West Bank, adopting the Climate Change Awareness Scale (CCAS). It is mainly based on a cross-sectional survey conducted between September and November 2024 that included 1059 participants. The results obtained from the non-probability electronic sample have revealed that the overall level of climate change awareness was moderate with significant variation across the subdomains of the scale. Climate-friendly behaviors achieved the highest level of awareness. In contrast, multiplicative action had the lowest level of awareness. These findings reveal that climate change awareness in the West Bank is represented via routine individual practices more than through organized social participation or public environmental speech. This finding is one of the main contributions of this paper, since it suggests that assessing awareness through a single general indicator may not be sufficient to understand the important specific gaps between knowledge, attitude, behavior, and social engagement.
In addition, regarding the differences associated with place of residence, particularly camps or contact areas with the occupation, they should be identified as possible contextual indicators or as direct causes of climate awareness. In fact, these variables could reflect variations with regard to information access, everyday pressures, and spatial constraints. However, they are not sufficient alone to interpret the mechanisms linking climate awareness to spatial context. It is also noteworthy that the lack of statistically significant associations among some of the independent variables (education and income) demonstrates that climate awareness cannot be comprehensively explained through the traditional demographic factors alone. On the contrary, awareness seems to arise from the differences in the living conditions, spatial context, and everyday experiences. Furthermore, practically, there is a need to raise climate awareness via strategies that not only encourages low-cost individual behaviors but also enhances collective participation, community dialogue, and local environmental engagement. Moreover, interventions targeted at younger age groups and camp residents, where awareness levels were relatively lower, have particular importance.

7. Limitations and Recommendations for Practical Application and Future Research

7.1. Limitations

The results of this paper should be interpreted in light of some limitations. First, this paper used a non-probability convenience sampling technique, where data were collected via an online questionnaire. This might have resulted in selection and sampling bias because participating in the study required internet access, technology awareness, and access to the survey distribution channels. Furthermore, no sample weights or post-stratification adjustments were applied. Thus, this could limit the generalizability of the results; and they may not be considered statistically fully representative of the entire adult population in the West Bank. Second, the domain of climate-friendly behaviors was based on self-reports, which could cause social desirability bias or overreporting.

7.2. Recommendations for Practical Application and Future Research

Regarding practical application, the results of this paper, considering its limitations, suggest interventions to raise awareness that are more sensitive to social and spatial contexts in the West Bank. Considering the low collaborative action reported, in comparison to climate-friendly individual behavior, there is a need to initiate awareness programs that focus on promoting community dialogue and collaborative work. These programs can be developed in cooperation with educational institutions, local organizations, municipalities, the youth, and community initiatives.
In addition, the digital divide among the elder population, low-income or less educated individuals, or some residents in camps or places with insufficient online access should be taken into account in future research. It should not rely only on online questionnaires but also on face-to-face interviews. Moreover, the framework could expand to include other variables not investigated in this paper, such as resources of climate information, exposure to media or environmental education, trust in institutions, and direct engagement in climate events or initiatives. It can also address different aspects of vulnerability like water security, population density, access to green areas, availability of infrastructure and services, or actual proximity to sources of environmental risk to provide deeper understanding of the relationship between climate vulnerability, structural constraints, and climate change awareness.
It would be also beneficial to reapply the CCAS instrument in subsequent studies in order to monitor whether climate change awareness patterns and their subdomains change over time, particularly in light of the environmental and social transformations occurring in specific contexts, such as in the West Bank. Finally, future studies should incorporate further in-depth analyses of the factorial structure of the scale, including adopting confirmatory factor analysis and testing measurement stability across the groups.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.I.; methodology, M.W.F.; validation, M.W.F.; formal analysis, M.W.F.; investigation, S.A.I.; resources, M.W.F. and S.A.I.; data curation, S.A.I. and M.W.F.; writing—original draft preparation, M.W.F.; writing—review and editing, M.N.A.-F. and S.A.I.; visualization, M.W.F.; supervision, M.N.A.-F. and S.A.I.; project administration, M.W.F., M.N.A.-F., and S.A.I.; funding acquisition, M.W.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this paper are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author due to ethical and privacy restrictions. The data are part of an ongoing doctoral dissertation and an additional manuscript under preparation; requests for controlled access will be considered after finishing the PhD requirements.

Acknowledgments

The authors would want to thank all participants who completed the survey. While preparing this paper, the authors used ChatGPT for language editing, grammar correction, and clarity and readability improvements. The AI was not involved in creating the study design, data, statistical analyses, results, interpretations, or conclusions. All AI-guided edits were carefully reviewed and validated by the authors, who assume full responsibility for the manuscript’s content, accuracy, originality, and integrity.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Sensitivity analysis of factors affecting climate change awareness after excluding outlying observations (n = 1058).
Table A1. Sensitivity analysis of factors affecting climate change awareness after excluding outlying observations (n = 1058).
FactorUnstandardized Coefficient (B)95% CIp-Value
Gender
Male −0.058−0.119, 0.0040.069
Female Reference
Age
Less than 26−1.005−1.118, −0.892<0.001
26–35−0.883−0.985, −0.781<0.001
36–45−0.800−0.904, −0.696<0.001
46–55−0.050−0.179, 0.0800.453
More than 55Reference
Education level
High school or less0.060−0.042, 0.1620.246
Diploma−0.004−0.103, 0.0950.943
Bachelor’s0.033−0.054, 0.1190.462
PostgraduateReference
Place of residence
Camp−0.105−0.217, 0.0070.066
Village−0.007−0.073, 0.0590.840
CityReference
Monthly average income
Less than 2500 NIS0.062−0.042, 0.1660.240
2500–4000 NIS0.042−0.058, 0.1410.412
4001–6500 NIS0.029−0.085, 0.1430.617
More than 6500 NISReference
Residential area
Contact are with the occupation 0.0850.020, 0.1490.010
Non-contact area with the occupationReference
Table A2. One-way analysis result.
Table A2. One-way analysis result.
FactorMean ± SDF-Test Valuep-Value
Education level 5.6560.001
High school or less4.08 ± 0.71
Diploma3.83 ± 0.70
Bachelor’s3.96 ± 0.69
Postgraduate4.04 ± 0.73
Monthly average income 2.2950.076
Less than 2500 NIS3.99 ± 0.69
2500–4000 NIS3.91 ± 0.72
4001–6500 NIS4.01 ± 0.73
More than 6500 NIS4.06 ± 0.68

References

  1. Abbass, K.; Qasim, M.Z.; Song, H.; Murshed, M.; Mahmood, H.; Younis, I. A review of the global climate change impacts, adaptation, and sustainable mitigation measures. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 42539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. (IPCC) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Romanello, M.; di Napoli, C.; Green, C.; Kennard, H.; Lampard, P.; Scamman, D.; Walawender, M.; Ali, Z.; Ameli, N.; Ayeb-Karlsson, S.; et al. The 2023 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: The imperative for a health-centred response in a world facing irreversible harms. Lancet 2023, 402, 2346–2394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Chen, J.; Liao, H. Global public perceptions of climate change risks and their determinants. Clim. Policy 2025, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Lee, T.M.; Markowitz, E.M.; Howe, P.D.; Ko, C.Y.; Leiserowitz, A.A. Predictors of public climate change awareness and risk perception around the world. Nat. Clim. Change 2015, 5, 1014–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Zhai, L.; Lee, J.E. Investigating Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Resilience: A Comprehensive Review within the Context of Climate Change. Atmosphere 2024, 15, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Rosenthal, S. Information sources, perceived personal experience, and climate change beliefs. J. Environ. Psychol. 2022, 81, 101796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Zorn, A.; Schäfer, S.; Tzschabran, S. Production of knowledge on climate change perception—Actors, approaches, and dimensions. Geogr. Helv. 2023, 78, 241–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. WordBank. West Bank and Gaza Country Climate and Development Report; West Bank and Gaza Country Climate and Development Report; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  10. ARIJ. Status of the Environment in the State of Palestine; Applied Research Institute-Jerusalem: Bethlehem, Palestine, 2015; Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Status+of+the+Environment+in+the+State+of+Palestine&author=ARIJ&publication_year=2015 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
  11. Programme UNE. State of Environment and Outlook Report for the occupied Palestinian Territory 2020; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2020; Available online: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/32268 (accessed on 15 November 2025).
  12. Alawna, S.; Garcia, X. Spatial and Temporal Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment in the West Bank, Palestine. Environments 2025, 12, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. OCHA. Occupied Palestinian territory: Humanitarian Atlas 2019; OCHA: New York, NY, USA, 2019; Available online: https://www.unocha.org/publications/report/occupied-palestinian-territory/occupied-palestinian-territory-humanitarian-atlas-2019 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
  14. Çeler, E.; Serengil, Y.; Tarihi, G. A Multi-Scale Climate Vulnerability and Risk Assesment (C-VRA) Methodology for Corporate Scale Investments: West Bank-Palestine Case Study. Resilience 2023, 7, 269–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Demaidi, M.N.; Al-Sahili, K. Integrating SDGs in Higher Education—Case of Climate Change Awareness and Gender Equality in a Developing Country According to RMEI-TARGET Strategy. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Felicilda-Reynaldo, R.F.D.; Cruz, J.P.; Alshammari, F.; Obaid, K.B.; Rady, H.E.A.E.A.; Qtait, M.; Alquwez, N.; Colet, P.C. Knowledge of and attitudes toward climate change and its effects on health among nursing students: A multi-Arab country study. Nurs. Forum 2018, 53, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Hayek, W.; Sarayreh, H.; Thneibat, A. Evaluation of Climate Change Awareness among Geography Students in Government Universities, Jordan. Int. J. Geoinform. 2023, 19, 106–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Almulhim, A.I. Public Knowledge and Perception of Climate Change and Global Warming in the Context of Environmental Challenges and Policies in Saudi Arabia. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2021, 253, 577–589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Mussell, D.; Severson-Baker, J.; Diggens, T. Climate Change Awareness and Action Education Kit. 1999. Available online: https://www.pembina.org/pub/climate-change-awareness-action-education-kit?utm (accessed on 27 June 2025).
  20. Karpudewan, M.; Roth, W.M.; Bin Abdullah, M.N.S. Enhancing Primary School Students’ Knowledge about Global Warming and Environmental Attitude Using Climate Change Activities. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 2015, 37, 31–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Metag, J.; Füchslin, T.; Schäfer, M.S. Global warming’s five Germanys: A typology of Germans’ views on climate change and patterns of media use and information. Public Underst. Sci. 2017, 26, 434–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The Psychological Distance of Climate Change. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 957–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Smith, N.; Leiserowitz, A. The role of emotion in global warming policy support and opposition. Risk Anal. 2014, 34, 937–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Cologna, V.; Kotcher, J.; Mede, N.G.; Besley, J.; Maibach, E.W.; Oreskes, N. Trust in climate science and climate scientists: A narrative review. PLoS Clim. 2024, 3, e0000400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Andre, P.; Boneva, T.; Chopra, F.; Falk, A. Globally representative evidence on the actual and perceived support for climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 2024, 14, 253–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Kusumaningrum, R.; Khoerunnisa, S.F.; Khadijah, K.; Syafrudin, M. Exploring Community Awareness of Mangrove Ecosystem Preservation through Sentence-BERT and K-Means Clustering. Information 2024, 15, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Bhabhor, G.K.; Shaikh, A.A.; Machhar, R.G. Awareness About Climate Change Among the Farmer Friends. Gujarat J. Ext. Educ. 2024, 37, 34–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Cipriani, E.; Frumento, S.; Gemignani, A.; Menicucci, D. Personality traits and climate change denial, concern, and proactivity: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2024, 95, 102277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Fraembs, T.V.; Drobnič, S. Ill-informed or ideologically driven? Climate change awareness and denial in Europe. Popul. Environ. 2024, 46, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Kuthe, A.; Keller, L.; Körfgen, A.; Stötter, H.; Oberrauch, A.; Höferl, K.M. How many young generations are there?—A typology of teenagers’ climate change awareness in Germany and Austria. J. Environ. Educ. 2019, 50, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Dong, D.; Liang, X.; Ge, J.; Zhang, J. Conceptualizing climate change awareness as a complex system: Exploring adolescents’ climate change awareness based on longitudinal network analysis. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2026, 131, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Kwadzo Torsu, A.; Krönke, M. AD717: With Climate Change Making Life Worse, Africans Expect Governments and Other Stakeholders to Step Up; Afrobarometer: Accra, Ghana, 2023; pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  33. Shrestha, R.; Kadel, R.; Shakya, S.; Nyachhyon, N.; Mishra, B.K. Awareness and Understanding of Climate Change for Environmental Sustainability Using a Mix-Method Approach: A Study in the Kathmandu Valley. Sustainability 2025, 17, 2819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Grechyna, D. Raising awareness of climate change: Nature, activists, politicians? Ecol. Econ. 2025, 227, 108374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Gönen, Ç.; Deveci, E.Ü.; Aydede, M.N. Development and validation of climate change awareness scale for high school students. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2023, 25, 4525–4537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. van Valkengoed, A.M.; Steg, L.; Perlaviciute, G. Development and validation of a climate change perceptions scale. J. Environ. Psychol. 2021, 76, 101652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Velayo, A.R.A.; Suson, P.D.; Aguilos, M.M.; Bacosa, H.P. Building Urban Climate Resilience: Assessing Awareness, Perception, and Willingness regarding Nature-Based Solutions and Climate Change among Stakeholders in Iligan City, Philippines. Urban Sci. 2024, 8, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. European Commission. Special Eurobarometer 565: Climate Change. 2025. Available online: https://europa.eu/eurobarometer/surveys/detail/3472?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 10 May 2026).
  39. Castillo, J.S.; Nozaleda, B.M. Environmental Education of Students Pursuing Higher Education: Probing on Climate Change Awareness. J. Clim. Change 2022, 8, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Vishwakarma, P.K.; Vaghmare, S.; Banerjee, S.; Vishwakarma, A.P.; Waghmare, A.; Agrawal, A.; Sharma, M. Association of Public Awareness and Knowledge of Climatic Change with Sociodemographic Factors. Cureus 2023, 15, e47381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Abuelgasim, A.; Daiban, S. Levels of Climate Change Awareness in the United Arab Emirates. Horizons Humanit. Soc. Sci. Int. Ref. J. 2017, 2, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Alcantara, L.B.; Creencia, L.A.; Madarcos, J.R.V.; Madarcos, K.G.; Jontila, J.B.S.; Culhane, F. Climate change awareness and risk perceptions in the coastal marine ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines. UCL Open Environ. 2023, 5, e054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Ifegbesan, A.P.; Rampedi, I.T.; Ogunyemi, B.; Schoeman, D.C.; Azeez, R.O. Individual and Community Factors as Correlates of Climate Change Awareness and Action among 15 African Countries. J. Geogr. Educ. Afr. 2025, 8, 63–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Baiardi, D.; Morana, C. Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union. Energy Econ. 2021, 96, 105163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Czarnek, G.; Kossowska, M.; Szwed, P. Right-wing ideology reduces the effects of education on climate change beliefs in more developed countries. Nat. Clim. Change 2021, 11, 9–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Conversi, D. Nationalism and climate change. Stud. Natl. Mov. 2023, 11, 204–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. Conversi, D. The Ultimate Challenge: Nationalism and Climate Change. Natl. Pap. 2020, 48, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  48. Ahmead, M.; El Sharif, N.; Maqboul, E.; Zyoud, R.; Nawajah, I. The impact of climate change experience on Palestinian university students’ mental health: A cross-sectional study. Front. Clim. 2025, 7, 1580361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. WordBank. From Scarcity to Security: Examining the Water Energy-Food Nexus in the West Bank and Gaza Within the Context of Climate Change; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2025. [Google Scholar]
  50. PCBS. PCBS|Dr. Awad, Presents a Brief on the Status of the Palestinian People at the End of 2024. 2024. Available online: https://www.pcbs.gov.ps/post.aspx?lang=en&ItemID=5901 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
  51. UNEP; United Nation Environment Programme. Desk Study on the Environment in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. 2003. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_lookup?title=Desk+Study+on+the+Environment+in+the+Occupied+Palestinian+Territories&author=UNEP&publication_year=2003 (accessed on 27 June 2025).
  52. Shadeed, S. Spatio-temporal Drought Analysis in Arid and Semi-arid Regions: A Case Study from Palestine. Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 2013, 38, 2303–2313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Ministry of Local Government. Geographical Information Management System in Palestine; Ministry of Local Government: Ramallah, Palestine, 2017.
  54. MoFA Netherlands. Climate Change Profile: Palestinian Territories—Occupied Palestinian Territory; ReliefWeb; Government of the Netherlands: The Hague, The Netherlands, 2019.
  55. Fasfous, M.W.; Abdel-Fattah, M.N.; Ibrahim, S.A. The Impact of Climate Change Awareness on Fertility Intentions in Palestinian Society: Mediating Role of Threat Perception. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2025, 22, 1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS). Population, Housing and Establishments Census 2017. 2019. Available online: http://www.pcbs.gov.ps (accessed on 22 July 2025).
  57. UNESCO. Learn for Our Planet: A Global Review of How Environmental Issues are Integrated in Education; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  58. Shi, J.; Visschers, V.H.M.; Siegrist, M. Public Perception of Climate Change: The Importance of Knowledge and Cultural Worldviews. Risk Anal. 2015, 35, 2183–2201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Climate 14 00187 g001
Figure 1. West Bank map displaying the governorates included in this paper; source: prepared by the authors.
Figure 1. West Bank map displaying the governorates included in this paper; source: prepared by the authors.
Climate 14 00187 g001
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics (n = 1059) and available population distribution (N = 1,583,849) of study participants [56].
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics (n = 1059) and available population distribution (N = 1,583,849) of study participants [56].
VariableCategoryFrequency (%)
SamplePopulation
GenderMale474 (44.8)802,735 (50.68)
Female585 (55.2)781,114 (49.32)
AgeLess than 26221 (20.9)454,213 (28.68)
26–35358 (33.8)402,195 (25.39)
36–45206 (19.5)297,139 (18.76)
46–55164 (15.5)219,565 (13.86)
More than 55110 (10.4)210,737 (13.31)
Education levelHigh school or less189 (17.8)
Diploma226 (21.3)
Bachelor’s441 (41.6)
Postgraduate203 (19.2)
Place of residenceCity588 (55.5)1,124,505 (71.00)
Village369 (34.8)379,893 (23.99)
Camp102 (9.6)79,451 (5.02)
Monthly average incomeLess than NIS 2500334 (31.5)
NIS 2500–4000409 (38.6)
NIS 4001–6500175 (16.5)
More than NIS 6500141 (13.3)
Residential areaContact area with the occupation366 (34.6)
Non-contact area with the occupation693 (65.4)
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of responses to the climate change awareness item.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics of responses to the climate change awareness item.
ConstructsMean ± SD
Climate change awareness3.97 ± 0.71
KKnowledge 3.74 ± 0.88
K1Because of climate change, temperature will increase in all parts of the world equally.3.31 ± 1.19
K2The melting of glaciers will stop instantly if carbon dioxide emissions worldwide stop.3.63 ± 1.02
K3Due to climate change, the water level in Palestine has decreased.3.99 ± 1.12
K4Climate change is essentially caused by humans. 4.03 ± 1.09
AAttitude4.07 ± 0.8
A1To what extent are you interested in the topic of “climate change”?3.8 ± 1.05
A2I am responsible for acting in a climate-friendly way.4.43 ± 0.91
A3I can assist in decreasing climate change degrees.3.86 ± 1.03
A4It is possible to limit global warming to +2–4° if the international community collaborates to achieve this.4.15 ± 0.95
A5I want to decrease my carbon emissions.4.1 ± 0.97
PCPersonal concern3.79 ± 0.89
PC1My life is influenced by climate change.3.76 ± 1.01
PC2My family’s life is influenced by climate change.3.64 ± 1.02
PC3Lives of people living in Palestine are affected by climate change.3.96 ± 0.96
MAMultiplicative action3.3 ± 0.97
MA1I and my friends discuss climate change issues.3.25 ± 1.08
MA2I and my family discuss climate change issues.3.2 ± 1.09
MA3I attempt to encourage my friends to act in a climate-friendly way.3.27 ± 1.16
MA4I attempt to encourage my family to act in a climate-friendly way.3.46 ± 1.17
CFBClimate-friendly behavior4.43 ± 0.89
CFB1I turn down the heating when I am away from home.4.79 ± 1.06
CFB2I attempt to fix items before purchasing new ones. 4.45 ± 1.13
CFB3Before purchasing any item, I carefully think whether I am in need of it.4.61 ± 1.09
CFB4I prefer to purchase items with little packaging.3.87 ± 1.12
CFB5I turn off electrical devices when I do not use them.4.86 ± 0.99
CFB6When I take a shower, I do not waste water.4.51 ± 1.15
CFB7I categorize waste to support the sustainable recycling of material resources.4.8 ± 0.98
CFB8I turn off lights when I do not use them.3.58 ± 1.38
Table 3. Factors associated with climate change awareness.
Table 3. Factors associated with climate change awareness.
FactorUnstandardized Coefficient (B)95% CIp-ValueVIF
Gender 1.067
Male −0.042−0.118, 0.0330.269
Female Reference
Age 1.077
Less than 26−1.047−1.168, −0.925<0.001
26–35−0.946−1.056, −0.836<0.001
36–45−0.869−0.985, −0.753<0.001
46–55−0.051−0.181, 0.0780.439
More than 55Reference
Education level 1.078
High school or less0.088−0.036, 0.2110.163
Diploma0.018−0.102, 0.1370.771
Bachelor’s0.054−0.054, 0.1620.326
PostgraduateReference
Place of residence 1.044
Camp−0.155−0.294, −0.0170.028
Village−0.003−0.080, 0.0750.949
CityReference
Monthly average income 1.043
Less than 2500 NIS0.042−0.076, 0.1590.489
2500–4000 NIS−0.014−0.127, 0.0990.807
4001–6500 NIS−0.004−0.132, 0.1230.945
More than 6500 NISReference
Residential area 1.087
Contact are with the occupation 0.0940.017, 0.170.016
Non-contact area with the occupationReference
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fasfous, M.W.; Abdel-Fattah, M.N.; Ibrahim, S.A. Climate Change Awareness Among Palestinians in the West Bank: A Cross-Sectional Study of Socioeconomic and Contextual Factors. Climate 2026, 14, 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli14090187

AMA Style

Fasfous MW, Abdel-Fattah MN, Ibrahim SA. Climate Change Awareness Among Palestinians in the West Bank: A Cross-Sectional Study of Socioeconomic and Contextual Factors. Climate. 2026; 14(9):187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli14090187

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fasfous, Maryam W., Mohamed N. Abdel-Fattah, and Sarah A. Ibrahim. 2026. "Climate Change Awareness Among Palestinians in the West Bank: A Cross-Sectional Study of Socioeconomic and Contextual Factors" Climate 14, no. 9: 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli14090187

APA Style

Fasfous, M. W., Abdel-Fattah, M. N., & Ibrahim, S. A. (2026). Climate Change Awareness Among Palestinians in the West Bank: A Cross-Sectional Study of Socioeconomic and Contextual Factors. Climate, 14(9), 187. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli14090187

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop