Understanding political bias in climate change belief: A public perception study from South East Queensland

In recent years, climate change belief across countries has gone through an enormous political debate. Due to different perspectives, the issue of climate change belief in relation to political orientations cannot be considered uniform. This study aims to identify different groups of respondents based on their level of knowledge concerning climate risk against their political orientations. This in return helps in understanding political bias in forming a climate change belief. The methodological approach of this study comprises two major steps. First, to carry out a public perception survey in South East Queensland, Australia. Second, to undertake a hierarchical cluster analysis to derive the groups of respondents with distinct political orientations regarding climate change beliefs. The findings disclose that: (a) Public stances about climate risk knowledge in the case study area are rigid and simply distributed between the two groups-i.e., 'least concerned/mostly disagreed group' and 'highly concerned/mostly disagreed group'; (b) The 'least concerned/mostly disagreed group' is highly rigid on the stance that there is nothing like anthropogenic climate change, and; (c) Climate risk concerns of the 'least concerned/ mostly disagreed group' do not influence significantly in guiding their voting decisions. The insights generated help in overcoming the knowledge gaps between climate risk believers and deniers, and thereby inform decisionmakers in taking adequate measures to address climate risks and develop appropriate land use decisions.

Automated summary

This study examines the relationship between climate change belief and political orientations, finding that public stances on climate risk knowledge can be rigid and divided into two main groups. The study also reveals that the 'least concerned/mostly disagreed group' denies the existence of anthropogenic climate change and their climate risk concerns do not significantly influence their voting decisions. These insights can help bridge the knowledge gaps between climate risk believers and deniers, informing decision-makers in addressing climate risks and land use decisions.