patrickbdevaney/mia9 · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 0 6.44k
Social Connectedness measures the degree to which a person feels meaningful connection
within their neighborhood [53] and was measured using an adapted 5-item Likert-type scale
(strongly disagree to strongly agree) with reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .87. Items include
statements such as “There is someone in my neighborhood I could talk to about important
decisions in my life”, and “I have relationships in my neighborhood where my know-how and
ability are recognized.”
Individual Agency items were adapted from Shealy, Godwin & Gardner [54] and measured
using a 5-item Likert-type scale with reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .87. Items included such
statements as “I can make my neighborhood stronger to deal with future climate change,” and
“I can be a resource for my neighborhood for knowledge about future climate change and
what we can do about it.”
Communication Apprehension was measured using four items from McCroskey [55], Personal Report of Communication Apprehension, and presented a reliability of Cronbach’s
alpha = .55. Item analysis resulted in dropping two items which improved reliability to .71.
Items included statements such as “Generally, I am comfortable while participating in meetings/group discussions about climate change,” and “I like to get involved in group discussions
about climate change.”
Communication Competence was measured using three items from McCroskey’s communication competence measure [55] and had a reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .90. Participants
responded to the statement “Please indicate how good you would be at talking about climate
change and what to do about it” for the following items: Talk in a group or meeting of friends
or acquaintances; Talk in a group or meeting of strangers; Talk in a group or meeting with
members of local government.
Threat Assessment items were adapted from “Florida: Public opinion on climate change”
[56] and split into perceived threat and threat likelihood. Perceived threat from climate change
was measured using two-items on a 5-point Likert type scale from 1 –not at all serious to 5 –
very serious and had a reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .92. Items included: How serious of a
threat is climate change to you and your family? and How serious of a threat is climate change
to your local neighborhood? Threat likelihood was measured using a 6-item Likert type measure on a 5-point scale from 1 –not at all likely to 5 –very likely and had a reliability of
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 11 / 26
Cronbach’s alpha = .89. Items included statements assessing the likelihood of neighborhood
impacts from stronger and more frequent storms and hurricanes, droughts and water shortage, flooding, and sea level rise. Finally, the perceived timing of risk was measured on a
5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 –now to 5–100 years from now.
Neighborhood Asset Quality was measured using 10 items and had a reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .98. Participants ranked what they liked (from strongly dislike to strongly like)
about their neighborhood on items such as: housing (affordability and type), quality of local
services, access to public transportation, and parks and open spaces.
Results
RQ1: Do community members’ perceptions of the seriousness of climate change risk and their
perceptions of the likelihood of those risks vary by community?
Prior to the first workshop, participants assessed their perceived climate risk. Two-tailed independent sample t-tests indicated that participants from Little River (M = 4.60, sd = .699), as
compared to Homestead (M = 3.38, sd = 1.204), had significantly higher threat perceptions for
risk to family and community (t(24) = 2.911, p = .008). Additionally, participants from Little
River (M = 4.833, sd = .192), as compared to Homestead (M = 4.35 sd = .985), had significantly
higher perceptions of specific risk (e.g., storms, droughts) likelihood (t(24) = 2.197, p = .038).
Examination of the likelihood of specific threats (see Table 1) shows that the participants from
Little River perceived significantly more risk of saltwater intrusion than those from Homestead. While other areas of risk perception were not significantly different when tested individually, the patterns across all variables show higher risk perception, happening sooner, for Little
River participants than for Homestead participants.
RQ2: For each community, what are the key concerns related to climate change expressed by
community members through photovoice? How do concerns vary geographically by
community?
The most important primary categories for stories from Little River were flooding (n = 4),
with extreme heat, greenness, sustainability, and mobility all having equal numbers (n = 3 for
each).
Table 1. Means, standard deviations, t-tests, and significance levels of perceived climate threat.
Little River Mean(sd), n = 10 Homestead Mean(sd), n = 16 t-value df(24) p
Climate risk to family 4.6(.70) 3.38(1.20) 2.91 .008�
Climate risk to community 4.5(.97) 3.31(1.08) 2.83 .009�
Storms 4.8(.42) 4.44(1.03) 1.05 .303
Droughts 4.4(.84) 4(1.03) 1.03 .315
Flooding 5.0(.00) 4.25(1.34) 1.75 .092
Sea level rise 5.0(0.00) 4.13(1.46) 1.89 .071
Saltwater intrusion 4.8(.42) 3.56(1.37) 2.77 .011�
Extreme heat 5(0.00) 4.44(1.09) 1.61 .12
Timing of perceived risk 1.67(1.12) 2.19(.98) -1.21 .238
Note:
� = significance at .05 or less.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.t001
PLOS CLIMATE
Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation
PLOS Climate \| https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 12 / 26
Homestead photovoice stories revealed different priorities. Sustainability (n = 11) and
greenness (n = 10) were the top primary categories, followed by infrastructure (n = 6), storms
(n = 5), health and wellbeing (n = 5), and extreme heat (n = 4).
One of the key themes of our work is that hyperlocal conditions vary, and that concerns are
likely to vary as well. Our results showed evidence of both similarities and differences between
key concerns from Little River and Homestead. Below (Table 2) we present the nuances in stories and themes around Greenness, Flooding, Extreme Heat, Storms, and Health and Wellbeing by analyzing the primary and secondary themes within each story.
Below are photovoice examples from the two communities that demonstrate differences in
key themes between Little River (Fig 1) and Homestead (Fig 2).
RQ3: What are the risks of each community as identified by geospatial data in the ICRA?
The entire Miami-Dade County Urban Area (MDCUA) ICRA raster map ranged from risk
scores of 57 to 127 for each 30 m pixel (Fig 3). The individual ICRA risk factors were rank
ordered in relation to the Miami Dade County urban area (MDCUA) with the highest relative
risk ranked first (Table 3). The average MDCUA ICRA score was 91.8, while the Little River
and Homestead study area average ICRA scores were 98.6 and 94.9 respectively, revealing a
higher objective climate risk for these communities when compared to the broader urban area
in which they are situated, and a higher risk for Little River compared to Homestead. A more
detailed examination of each individual objective risk factor of the ICRA indicates similarities
and differences between Little River and Homestead in the top risk factors. Little River’s most
prominent risk factors in rank order were: building year, air conditioning, septic, poverty, and
average household income, whereas Homestead’s leading risk factors ranked as disability,
average household income, poverty, elevation, and depth to groundwater.
RQ4: What is the relationship between the subjective concerns of participants with the geospatial
risks identified in the ICRA?
Table 2. Examples of primary themes and subthemes by community.
Primary
Theme
Little River—subthemes Homestead—subthemes
Greenness Emphasis on issues related to shade to mitigate
heat, especially in relation to public
transportation.
Emphasis on open spaces, parks, playgrounds,

Social Connectedness measures the degree to which a person feels meaningful connection

within their neighborhood [53] and was measured using an adapted 5-item Likert-type scale

(strongly disagree to strongly agree) with reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .87. Items include

statements such as “There is someone in my neighborhood I could talk to about important

decisions in my life”, and “I have relationships in my neighborhood where my know-how and

ability are recognized.”

Individual Agency items were adapted from Shealy, Godwin & Gardner [54] and measured

using a 5-item Likert-type scale with reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .87. Items included such

statements as “I can make my neighborhood stronger to deal with future climate change,” and

“I can be a resource for my neighborhood for knowledge about future climate change and

what we can do about it.”

Communication Apprehension was measured using four items from McCroskey [55], Personal Report of Communication Apprehension, and presented a reliability of Cronbach’s

alpha = .55. Item analysis resulted in dropping two items which improved reliability to .71.

Items included statements such as “Generally, I am comfortable while participating in meetings/group discussions about climate change,” and “I like to get involved in group discussions

about climate change.”

Communication Competence was measured using three items from McCroskey’s communication competence measure [55] and had a reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .90. Participants

responded to the statement “Please indicate how good you would be at talking about climate

change and what to do about it” for the following items: Talk in a group or meeting of friends

or acquaintances; Talk in a group or meeting of strangers; Talk in a group or meeting with

members of local government.

Threat Assessment items were adapted from “Florida: Public opinion on climate change”

[56] and split into perceived threat and threat likelihood. Perceived threat from climate change

was measured using two-items on a 5-point Likert type scale from 1 –not at all serious to 5 –

very serious and had a reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .92. Items included: How serious of a

threat is climate change to you and your family? and How serious of a threat is climate change

to your local neighborhood? Threat likelihood was measured using a 6-item Likert type measure on a 5-point scale from 1 –not at all likely to 5 –very likely and had a reliability of

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 11 / 26

Cronbach’s alpha = .89. Items included statements assessing the likelihood of neighborhood

impacts from stronger and more frequent storms and hurricanes, droughts and water shortage, flooding, and sea level rise. Finally, the perceived timing of risk was measured on a

5-point Likert type scale ranging from 1 –now to 5–100 years from now.

Neighborhood Asset Quality was measured using 10 items and had a reliability of Cronbach’s alpha = .98. Participants ranked what they liked (from strongly dislike to strongly like)

about their neighborhood on items such as: housing (affordability and type), quality of local

services, access to public transportation, and parks and open spaces.

Results

RQ1: Do community members’ perceptions of the seriousness of climate change risk and their

perceptions of the likelihood of those risks vary by community?

Prior to the first workshop, participants assessed their perceived climate risk. Two-tailed independent sample t-tests indicated that participants from Little River (M = 4.60, sd = .699), as

compared to Homestead (M = 3.38, sd = 1.204), had significantly higher threat perceptions for

risk to family and community (t(24) = 2.911, p = .008). Additionally, participants from Little

River (M = 4.833, sd = .192), as compared to Homestead (M = 4.35 sd = .985), had significantly

higher perceptions of specific risk (e.g., storms, droughts) likelihood (t(24) = 2.197, p = .038).

Examination of the likelihood of specific threats (see Table 1) shows that the participants from

Little River perceived significantly more risk of saltwater intrusion than those from Homestead. While other areas of risk perception were not significantly different when tested individually, the patterns across all variables show higher risk perception, happening sooner, for Little

River participants than for Homestead participants.

RQ2: For each community, what are the key concerns related to climate change expressed by

community members through photovoice? How do concerns vary geographically by

community?

The most important primary categories for stories from Little River were flooding (n = 4),

with extreme heat, greenness, sustainability, and mobility all having equal numbers (n = 3 for

each).

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, t-tests, and significance levels of perceived climate threat.

Little River Mean(sd), n = 10 Homestead Mean(sd), n = 16 t-value df(24) p

Climate risk to family 4.6(.70) 3.38(1.20) 2.91 .008�

Climate risk to community 4.5(.97) 3.31(1.08) 2.83 .009�

Storms 4.8(.42) 4.44(1.03) 1.05 .303

Droughts 4.4(.84) 4(1.03) 1.03 .315

Flooding 5.0(.00) 4.25(1.34) 1.75 .092

Sea level rise 5.0(0.00) 4.13(1.46) 1.89 .071

Saltwater intrusion 4.8(.42) 3.56(1.37) 2.77 .011�

Extreme heat 5(0.00) 4.44(1.09) 1.61 .12

Timing of perceived risk 1.67(1.12) 2.19(.98) -1.21 .238

Note:

� = significance at .05 or less.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041.t001

PLOS CLIMATE

Advancing a hyperlocal approach to community engagement in climate adaptation

PLOS Climate | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000041 June 8, 2022 12 / 26

Homestead photovoice stories revealed different priorities. Sustainability (n = 11) and

greenness (n = 10) were the top primary categories, followed by infrastructure (n = 6), storms

(n = 5), health and wellbeing (n = 5), and extreme heat (n = 4).

One of the key themes of our work is that hyperlocal conditions vary, and that concerns are

likely to vary as well. Our results showed evidence of both similarities and differences between

key concerns from Little River and Homestead. Below (Table 2) we present the nuances in stories and themes around Greenness, Flooding, Extreme Heat, Storms, and Health and Wellbeing by analyzing the primary and secondary themes within each story.

Below are photovoice examples from the two communities that demonstrate differences in

key themes between Little River (Fig 1) and Homestead (Fig 2).

RQ3: What are the risks of each community as identified by geospatial data in the ICRA?

The entire Miami-Dade County Urban Area (MDCUA) ICRA raster map ranged from risk

scores of 57 to 127 for each 30 m pixel (Fig 3). The individual ICRA risk factors were rank

ordered in relation to the Miami Dade County urban area (MDCUA) with the highest relative

risk ranked first (Table 3). The average MDCUA ICRA score was 91.8, while the Little River

and Homestead study area average ICRA scores were 98.6 and 94.9 respectively, revealing a

higher objective climate risk for these communities when compared to the broader urban area

in which they are situated, and a higher risk for Little River compared to Homestead. A more

detailed examination of each individual objective risk factor of the ICRA indicates similarities

and differences between Little River and Homestead in the top risk factors. Little River’s most

prominent risk factors in rank order were: building year, air conditioning, septic, poverty, and

average household income, whereas Homestead’s leading risk factors ranked as disability,

average household income, poverty, elevation, and depth to groundwater.

RQ4: What is the relationship between the subjective concerns of participants with the geospatial

risks identified in the ICRA?

Table 2. Examples of primary themes and subthemes by community.

Primary

Theme

Little River—subthemes Homestead—subthemes

Greenness Emphasis on issues related to shade to mitigate

heat, especially in relation to public

transportation.

Emphasis on open spaces, parks, playgrounds,