1. Public understanding of the difference between air pollution and CO 2 Rachel Dryden CEDM Annual Meeting 05/23/2016

2. Outline  Introduction  Objectives  Survey Instrument  Survey Sample  Planned Analyses  Contingency Plans  Feedback Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback. 1

3.  In Read et al (1994) laypeople conflated global climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion.  In more recent years, laypeople have displayed incorrect beliefs about climate change and have not fully appreciated key facts, e.g. global warming is primarily due to increased concentration of CO 2 in the atmosphere (Reynolds et al 2010). What’s the consequence?  Laypeople will reach the wrong conclusion if they conflate air pollution and CO 2 (e.g. “I’m not sure if this climate change stuff is real, but if it ever gets serious, we’ll just fix it like we did for air pollution”). Introduction 2 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

4.  To determine the extent to which members of the general public in the Greater Pittsburgh Area understand the basic differences between common air pollution and CO 2 :  Atmospheric lifetime  Sources & causes  Relationship to electricity and climate change sources/causes  Policy interventions to mitigate climate change Objectives 3 Feedback. Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

5. 4 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

6. 5 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

7. 6 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

8. 7 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

9. 8 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

10. Survey Sample 9 Data measures: Understanding of air pollution and CO 2, climate change, and adaptation ~200 addresses randomly sampled from zip codes across Greater Pittsburgh Area Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

11. Post cards a week before: 11 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback. 10

12. 12 Current Resident Address Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback. Clearly marked envelopes: 11

13. 12 Survey and incentive enclosed Mail back envelope Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

14. Planned Analyses 13  Response rate  50% or better needed to maintain:  Statistical power (0.80)  Effect size (0.40)  α = 0.05 (2-sided)  Coding scheme  True-false questions (causes of climate change and effects) transformed into degree of agreement score ranging from 2 (complete agreement with the statement) to -2 (complete disagreement)  “Don’t Know” responses = 0 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

15. Planned Analyses 14  Test for statistical significance (z-test) for general knowledge questions (proportion of correct vs. incorrect)  X 2 used to explore categorical responses  Correlations  Those with greater understanding of air pollution and their perception of adaptation potential  Belief in climate change and perceptions of air pollution and CO 2 sources/causes Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

16. Contingency Plans 15 What if this doesn’t work?  Need more surveys.  Parameter measurements may be imprecise. Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback.

17. 16 Introduction.Objectives.Instrument.SampleAnalyses.Contingency Plans.Feedback. W E W ANT Y OUR F EEDBACK ! Acknowledgements Granger Morgan Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University Ann Bostrom Evans School of Public Policy & Governance, University of Washington Wändi Bruine de Bruin Leeds University Business School