An Analysis of a Survey of Oregon Coast Decision Makers Regarding Climate Change

Contents

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
  • Background and purpose
  • Research questions
• Methods
  • Survey design and administration
  • Data limitations
• Results
  • Response rate
  • Demographics
  • Response to climate change
  • Assistance perceptions
  • Information topics - importance vs. amount possessed
  • Where respondents obtain information about climate change
  • Professional development and continuing education
  • Perception of acceptance of climate change terminology
• Discussion
• Recommendations for future research
• References

List of Tables

(note: tables and figures are omitted from this version)

Table 1. Profession of respondents in the Public- and Private-sector subgroups
Table 2. County/region in which Public- and Private-sector respondents' main work occurs
Table 3. Ocean and coastal management issues focused on by the Public- and Private-sector respondents
Table 4. Level of agreement with statements about climate change intentions
Table 5. Level of agreement with statements about climate change personal barriers and social norms
Table 6. Level of agreement with statements about climate change concerns and importance for action
Table 7. Frequency of listed climate change risks.
Table 8. Percent of respondents who need climate change assistance over the next two years
Table 9. Ratings of information importance and the amount of information respondents have.
Table 10. Ratings of use for various information sources for all survey respondents.
Table 11. Frequency of use and perceived value of specific information sources for all survey respondents
Table 12. Preferences for information delivery.

List of Figures

Figure 1. The amount of information the respondents currently have versus how important that information is for the performance of their work for climate change-related topics

Executive Summary

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS

1. Most participants in this 2008 survey were concerned about climate change and how it may affect the Oregon coast, and they believed that governments and individuals should take action to reduce the causes and prepare for effects of climate change.
2. The most frequently cited risks associated with effects of climate change on the Oregon coast involved physical processes (for example, sea level rise and erosion), followed by ecosystem effects and specific social and economic impacts.
3. Few survey participants were ready to respond to climate change now, with less than half stating that they were prepared, at the time of their 2008 response, to devote time and resources to climate change, and only one-third ready to be a leader on this issue.
4. People would be willing to take action in work if there were compelling information, new funding, and a sense of local urgency. However, there was little urgency within the workplace about local climate change, and half of respondents did not have enough information about how climate change might affect their work.
5. Coastal professionals had needs for assistance regarding climate change, particularly credible, relevant information to provide the public, and also data or information to better understand or predict the likely effects of climate change on coastal communities. Additionally, public-sector professionals had a need for new funding to address climate change. This was not rated as important of an issue by private-sector professionals.
6. Coastal professionals had low amounts of information on climate change topics that they consider important for the performance of their work, with the top information needs (in terms of importance versus amount) including climate change effect on community infrastructure, and effects of sea level rise on shoreline protective structures.

Introduction

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

The global climate is changing, and these changes will have ecological, social, and economic implications. Impacts are expected to vary regionally, with coastal regions being particularly vulnerable. In the Pacific Northwest, increases in sea level, storm surges, and inundation are expected to have cumulative effects on coastal erosion and flooding. These, in turn, could lead to coastal infrastructure damage, beach and bluff breaching of the natural and human-made shoreline, increased landslides, and road washout. These effects will be amplified as coastal populations and development continue to increase. To date, little has been done to direct climate change outreach toward the needs of Oregon coastal communities.

The Oregon Sea Grant program, based at Oregon State University since 1968, has a long history of marine-related research as well as outreach and engagement with coastal communities. The program often plays the role of a "boundary organization," facilitating dialogue between and among scientists, policy makers, and the public (Tribbia and Moser, 2008). Oregon Sea Grant received a grant for 2007-09 from the NOAA Climate Program Office to conduct outreach and engagement activities with coastal decision-makers and communities to help them prepare for climate change. An essential component of this effort is understanding the opinions, attitudes, and information needs of the individuals we hoped to assist - specifically, Oregon coast professionals who make decisions about development in the coastal zone. This study, conducted during 2008, evaluated their perceptions and opinions about climate change and climate change information; their motivation toward and barriers to undertaking climate change-related activity; the importance they attached to being able to respond to specific climate change effects; and what assistance, if any, they believed they needed in order to respond.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

• What are the climate change perceptions and opinions of Oregon coastal professionals?
• What are the climate change information needs of Oregon coastal professionals?
• What barriers (psychological; social; institutional) exist that may hinder, impede, or prevent adaptation to climate change?
• How do coastal professionals obtain climate change information, and what are their preferred sources of information?
• How do Private-sector respondents differ from Public-sector respondents?

Methods

SURVEY DESIGN AND ADMINISTRATION

During February 2008, the project research team developed a purposeful1 sample of coastal managers and practitioners by contacting coastal leaders who could assist with providing access to e-mail lists of their associates. These lead contacts included city managers, port managers, fisheries managers, legislators, tribal representatives, transportation managers, bankers, geologists, other coastal scientists, real estate developers, and marine consultants. This solicitation of contacts resulted in survey invitations going to 876 individuals (the response rate is summarized in the Results section).

The project team asked our lead contacts to provide us with e-mail addresses to which an individualized link to an online survey could be sent (the "direct" contact method). If these contacts felt it was inappropriate to share the e-mail addresses with the researchers, they were asked to forward an anonymous survey link to their colleagues (the "indirect" contact method). This direct/indirect options were necessary to ensure participation.

In all cases, contacts were asked to communicate with their colleagues about the survey with an e-mail either announcing the survey or providing the anonymous link. Contacts who forwarded an anonymous link were also asked to indicate the number of people contacted by their communications (that is, the number of people on their mailing list). There was one case in which the lead contact provided us with the number of people on his/her mailing list, but noted that an unknown proportion of the list does not live or work on the coast and therefore would likely not participate in the survey.

The survey was administered online in the spring of 2008 using SurveyMonkey software and dissemination tools. SurveyMonkey allows for survey administration in either the direct or indirect method, described above. The software enables tracking of response rate. A reminder e-mail was sent either via SurveyMonkey approximately one week after the initial mailing (direct method) or by the lead contact approximately one to two weeks after the initial mailing (indirect method).

DATA LIMITATIONS

The sampling method was chosen because it allowed us to feasibly sample a substantial number of Oregon coast professionals (n=300). However, since it was not a random sample, results cannot be considered representative of the target population (for example, some professions are better represented in the sample than others). Additionally, survey responses were dominated by the north Oregon coast (from Lincoln County northward), with less participation from the south coast. This was largely by design, as we had made a preliminary determination to focus the project on the north coast, because a key expected climate effect - sea level rise - was of greater relevance and likely to be of greater concern there. Given these limitations, this survey is one of the largest samplings of the Oregon coast to date on climate change adaptation, and provides good insight into the concerns, knowledge, and barriers-to-action of Oregon coast professionals.

1 Purposeful sampling is selection of participants "who have experience with the central phenomenon or the key concept being explored" (Creswell and Clark 2007, 112).
2 The message advised recipients that "you will receive a survey e-mail soon from Joe Cone of Oregon Sea Grant." That second e-mail provided a link (URL) to the survey that was unique to the participant.

Results

RESPONSE RATE

A total of 300 out of 876 invitees participated in the survey, resulting in a total response rate of 34%. Participation for the direct-contact method (survey sent via SurveyMonkey) resulted in a response rate of 45%. Participation for the indirect-contact method (when number of total contacts was known) resulted in an average response rate of 22%; and in the case where the gatekeeper provided us with the number of people on their mailing list but noted that an unknown proportion of their list does not live or work on the coast (survey was not relevant), the response rate was 10%.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Primary profession or position

Respondents represented both Public- and Private-sector professions (Table 1) and included city, county, tribal, port, state, and federal agency positions as well as realtors, environmental and geotechnical consultants, and bank/lending positions. The respondents were split into two subgroups: (1) Public sector (defined as those who work for the government at any level), and (2) Private sector (defined as nongovernment employees). It should be noted that the Private group is comprised predominantly of Realtors (65%). Where appropriate, Public- and Private-sector responses to survey questions were compared using Mann-Whitney U and Chi-square statistical tests, and significant differences (p<.05) are noted where found.
The majority of respondents have worked more that 5 years in their noted capacity (78%), with a mean of 15 years' experience (N=266). There is no significant difference between Public and Private groups for number of years in a coastal management-related profession.

Presence on the coast

Most respondents live at the Oregon coast (72%, N=295). Of those living on the coast, the mean residence time is 19 years, and 82% have a history of living on the coast for more than 5 years. A distance qualifier (such as, Do you live within 10 miles of the shore?) was not included in the survey question. There is no significant difference between Public and Private for number of years living on the Oregon coast.
Lincoln, Tillamook, and Clatsop are the counties in which most of the Public group's work occurs, with the Private group representing primarily Lincoln County (68%, Table 2). It should be noted that among the Private group respondents, 95% of the Realtors are from Lincoln County.

Ocean and coastal management issues focused on at work

Slightly over half of the Public-sector participants responded that they spend at least a quarter of their work time on coastal and ocean resource management issues at work (55%); while less than 16% of Private focus on these issues at work.

Survey participants were provided a list of ocean and coastal management issues, and were asked to mark all issues that they or their organization focus on (Table 3).

For the Public sector, the top three management issues that they address are Compliance with environmental regulations and code enforcement (55%), Tsunami preparation (52%), and Wetlands protection (48%).

Private respondents listed Coastal development/review of development plans (46%), Coastal erosion (45%), and Recreation and tourism (42%) as the top coastal management issues they deal with.

Age, gender, education

The mean age for all respondents is 51 years (N=217) and ranges from 24 to 80. There is no significant difference between mean age for Public (50, N=118) and Private (53, N=92) groups.

Two-thirds of all respondents are male. There is a significant difference between Public and Private for gender (?2=8.7, df=1, p<.01), with the Public group having a larger percent of males than the Private group (74% and 53%, respectively).

Most respondents have a bachelor's degree or higher (68%), with a master's degree being the most common education level for both Public- (37%) and Private- (30%) sector subgroups.

RESPONSE TO CLIMATE CHANGE

There are numerous and complex factors that influence how individuals and governments are responding to climate change. This research investigates Oregon coast professionals' behavioral intentions to adapt to climate change because intentions have been found to be the most direct and accurate predictor of an individual's corresponding behavior (Fishbein and Manfredo, 1992). We were guided by psychological research that has found that an intention to perform a particular behavior is driven mainly by attitudes, perceived peer-group norms, and feelings of self-efficacy (Fishbein and Yzer, 2003). These "proximal" variables are influenced by demographics, culture, stereotypes and stigma, perceptions of risk, moods and emotions, media exposure, and other "distal" variables.

Attitudes are based on one's beliefs about the positives and negatives of performing a given behavior; perceived norms develop from what others around us are doing or not doing; and self-efficacy, or perceived behavioral control, is the belief that one can perform the behavior in spite of various challenges. Once someone has the intention to perform a certain behavior, external challenges can remain that may prevent them from performing the intended behavior, including environmental constraints (for example, lack of funding) and lack of skills (for example, not knowing the best method to reduce erosion rates). Therefore, since measuring intention alone is not as informative as measuring intention relative to barriers, this research investigates coastal professionals' behavioral intentions to respond to climate change as well as some of the factors that have been found to directly or indirectly influence intention.

Behavioral intention and barriers

Participants were asked their level of agreement with statements that represent intention to respond to climate change, willingness or ability to take action on climate change given certain barriers, and personal and social normative belief barriers. Level of agreement was answered on a scale of 1=Strongly disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Neither agree nor disagree, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly agree.

Less than half of the survey respondents are prepared or ready to respond to climate change in their work, with only 45% prepared to devote time and resources to climate change, and only 31% ready to be a leader on this issue (Table 4). At the same time, most survey participants agreed or strongly agreed with statements about being willing to take action in work if they were able to overcome a particular barrier. These barriers include the need for compelling information (77% agreement), new funding (74% agreement), and a sense of local urgency (74% agreement).

About half of the survey participants were found to have either personal barriers or social norm barriers that may prevent them from responding to climate change (Table 5). We grouped as "personal barriers" statements that reflected both attitudes and a sense of self-efficacy toward responding to climate change effects on the Oregon coast. (The wording of the response choices does not permit finer discrimination.) Over half of the survey participants do not have enough information about how climate change may affect their work (53% agree or strongly agree), and half are not hearing urgency about the local effects of climate change from those who influence their work (50% agree or strongly agree).

Public and Private professionals' responses were significantly different on the following statements: I'd be willing to take action in my work if there were new funding available to do so (U=4572.0, p<.01), and I'm not hearing any urgency about local climate change effects from those who influence or assign my work (Mann-Whitney U=5741.5, p<.01). Public respondents are more willing to take action in work with new funding than Private professionals (80% and 65% agreement, respectively), while Public respondents are less likely than Private to not be hearing urgency from those who influence or assign their work (42% and 61% agreement, respectively).

Perceived importance of climate change

Respondents ranked statements regarding concerns about climate change and importance of government and individual involvement on a five-point scale (Strongly disagree, Disagree, Neither disagree nor agree, Agree, Strongly agree) or No Opinion (Table 6). The majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with all statements regarding concerns about climate changes and importance of government and individual involvement (75% or higher). The highest agreement was with the statements, I am concerned about how changes in the Earth's climate might affect the Oregon coast during this century (82%), and I am concerned about reported changes and variability in the Earth's climate (81%). A non-parametric Mann-Whitney test demonstrated there was no significant difference between Public and Private sectors on these issues.

Perceived risks

Participants were asked to list up to five risks that they associate with the effects of climate change on the Oregon coast (not in ranked order). This was an open-ended question (five blanks) and was intentionally placed prior to questions referring to any specific risks to avoid priming the respondent. Responses were reviewed independently by two researchers (climate change extension professionals working with Oregon Sea Grant) who came to consensus on a list of 10 thematic codes. These codes were then used by one of these researchers to code all risk statements (Table 7). The most common theme was Impacts of climate change on ocean and coastal processes: sea level rise, shoreline erosion, sediment transport and beach width, flood elevations. Significant difference between Public and Private sectors were not evaluated for these perceived risks (given 883 total responses and as many as 5 responses from each respondent).

ASSISTANCE PERCEPTIONS

Participants were asked to rate their level of need for assistance on a given list of topics during the next two years based on four categories: Don't need, Not sure, Need and resources are available to me, and Need and resources are not available to me. The highest area of perceived need for climate information or assistance is credible, relevant informational materials to provide to the public about climate change (76% responded that they need that information, and of those who need it, 69% responded that the resource is not available to them; Table 8).

The Public sector is more likely than the Private to respond that they need funding to assess vulnerability, develop adaptation plans, or to implement adaptation measures (68% and 49%, respectively; Mann-Whitney U=5096.5, p<.001).

INFORMATION TOPICS - IMPORTANCE VERSUS AMOUNT POSSESSED

Survey participants were asked to review a list of topics related to climate change and rate them by importance of information in the performance of their work (1=Not important, 2=Slightly important, 3=Somewhat important, 4=Important, 5=Very important) and by amount of information they currently have (1=No information, 2=Little information, 3=Some information, 4=Good amount of information, 5=All necessary information).

Ratings of high importance (Important or Very important) were combined, and ratings of high information (Good amount of information or All necessary information) were combined to determine the topics considered the most important and the topics with the most and least amounts of information among survey participants (Table 9). In order to determine information needs, ratings of information importance were compared with information amount by plotting the mean ratings of each for all of the provided climate change topics (Figure 1). An overall mean value was calculated for the two criteria, and topics that fell above the overall mean for both information importance and information amount were considered areas of highest need, and thus, potential areas to focus outreach and engagement efforts.

All of the climate change topics were rated as important to have (65% to 84% saying Important or Very important), while at the same time, respondents have very little information on those topics (only 3% to 14% saying they have a Good amount or All necessary information). The climate change topic rated most important was Changes in flood elevations, shoreline erosion, and beach width (84% said Important or Very important), and the topic where respondents have the least information is Changes in climate which may introduce new diseases and pests to the area (3% said they have a Good amount or All necessary information). The topics with the highest information needs (fell above the overall mean values for importance and amount) were: Climate change effects on community infrastructure and Effects of sea level rise on existing shoreline protective structures.

The Public and Private sectors did not differ significantly in their ratings of how much information they have on the provided climate change topics; however, they did differ significantly in ratings of importance for some of the topics. The Private sector gave higher ratings of importance for the following climate change topics: Sea level rise predictions (Mann-Whitney U=4811.0, p<.05), Climate change impacts on energy sources (U=4513.0, p<.05), Effects of sea level rise on existing shoreline protective structures (U=4639.5, p<.05), Changes in flood elevations, shoreline erosion, and beach width (U=4771.0, p<.05), Changes in frequency and intensity of storms (U=4382.5, p<.01), and Changes in climate which may introduce new diseases and pests (U=4438.5, p<.05).

WHERE RESPONDENTS OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

Frequency of information use

Participants were given a list of information media sources and asked how often they use each source (Table 10). The most popular information sources (highest percentage for "Frequently" use) are Newspapers (52%), TV news (43%), and News Web sites (36%). Some survey participants (10%) wrote in other sources, the most common of which was radio (20% of respondents who wrote in a source for "other" listed National Public Radio).

Public-sector and Private-sector groups were significantly different in frequency of use of certain information sources. Public professionals are less likely than Private to use news Web sites (Mann-Whitney U=6835.5, p=.02) and TV news (U=6602.5, p=.01), and more likely than Private to use state (U=6274.5, p=.001) and federal agencies (U=5902.5, p<.001).

Specific information sources (frequency and value)

Participants were asked to evaluate more specific sources of information by frequency of use and perceived value. Frequency of use (Scale=Never, Seldom, Occasionally, or Often) and perceived Value (Scale=Poor, Fair, Good, or Excellent) are reported in Table 11.

The information source that the most respondents ranked as using Occasionally or Often were My colleagues at work (65%), the National Weather Service (65%), and NOAA (other than the Weather Service) (61%). The information sources that received the highest percent of responses for Good to Excellent value were NOAA (other than National Weather Service) (91%), Oregon State University (91%), and the National Weather Service (90%).

Public- and Private-sector respondents are significantly different in frequency of use for all information sources in Table 10, except for Private consultants, National Weather Service, and My professional association (Chi-Square, p<0.05). In all cases of significance for frequency of use, the Public sector uses these sources more frequently than Private. For value of information sources, Public and Private differ only for National Weather Service (rated higher by Public) and National Conservation organization (rated higher by Private; p<0.05).
Information delivery preferences

Survey participants were asked to rate various methods of information delivery (most likely use, likely use, somewhat likely to use, probably would not use, and would not use), and were told to assume that the delivery would fit their needs and cost little or nothing. Survey participants preferred information to be delivered as mailed printed material (68%), via a workshop within one hour of their workplace (65%), or through printed material downloaded from the Web (63%; Table 12).

There were no significant differences in responses between the Public and Private sectors, except that the Public responded that they would be more likely than Private to use a Workshop at Oregon State University (?=16.2, df=5, p<.01).

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND CONTINUING EDUCATION

Public-sector respondents are more likely than Private to attend professional development programs, with 55% of Public attending one or more times a year, while 40% of Private attend one or more programs a year (Mann-Whitney U=5058.0, p<0.05). About a quarter of all respondents never attend professional development programs. However, Private-sector respondents are more likely than Public to be required to maintain continuing education credits for promotion (72% and 23%, respectively; U=3119.5, p<0.001).

PERCEPTION OF ACCEPTANCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE TERMINOLOGY

Four terms were evaluated for acceptance in Oregon coastal communities: Climate Change, Global warming, Community resilience, and Community adaptability. Of these four, respondents believe that the most well-accepted term is Climate Change (79% indicated Accepted or Well accepted), and the least-accepted term is Global warming (24% indicated Not accepted or Strongly not accepted). There were no statistical differences in acceptability between the Public and Private sectors for the four terms.

Discussion

Overall, survey participants are concerned about climate change and how it may affect the Oregon coast over the next century. Further, over 75% agree or strongly agree that governments and individuals should take action to reduce the causes as well as prepare for the effects of climate change. Risks that participants most frequently associated with climate change were physical processes (for example, sea level rise), followed by ecological effects, and social and economic impacts. Psychological research has found that negative experience - or even expectation of negative experience (such as increased erosion) - provides a strong explanation for perceptions of risk (Slovic et al., 2002). Although theory has found perceptions of risk to influence decision making, with risk perceptions and concerns driven by fear or anxiety having the potential to motivate risk-averse behavior (Lowenstein, et al., 2001), this research found that while concern and perceptions of risk were high, few survey participants are ready to act now to respond to climate change.

Barriers exist, both psychological and technical, that may be preventing coastal professionals from responding to climate change. Specifically, coastal professionals responded that they would be willing to respond to climate change if they had compelling information, new funding, and a sense of local urgency. The need for new funding appears to be one of the largest barriers to taking action among the Public sector respondents, with 80% agreeing that they would take action with new funding available to do so. We consider this focus on lack of funding as an indirect assessment of self-efficacy, one that concentrates on an antecedent condition. Having said that, lack of funding is a legitimate concern; interviews conducted with California coastal professionals also found lack of funding to be a significant concern (Tribbia and Moser, 2008). These barriers - the need for compelling information, new funding, and a sense of local urgency in work - should be addressed, or at least carefully considered, when producing any climate change outreach materials for Oregon coastal professionals. Social norm barriers were found as well, with most coastal professionals stating that they are not hearing urgency to respond from within the workplace. This was particularly the case for Private-sector respondents.

In addition to behavioral barriers, coastal professionals have a number of technical needs regarding climate change, particularly credible, relevant information to provide the public with; and data or information to better understand or predict the likely effects of climate change on coastal communities. When asked about specific information needs, this research found that coastal professionals have low amounts of information on climate change topics that they consider important for the performance of their work. The top information needs (in terms of importance versus amount) were climate change effects on community infrastructure and effects of sea level rise on shoreline protective structures. It is important to address the need for climate change information among Oregon coast professionals. Again, in Tribbia and Moser's (2008) research in California, they also found coastal managers to be lacking information on climate change. Through interviews, they discovered that the challenge for managers is access to available information rather than information not existing. It would be useful to determine whether this is the case in Oregon, as well: does the information not exist, or is it merely not accessible to coastal professionals? If accessibility is the problem, it would be good to explore feasible and effective strategies to make climate change information more readily available.3
We recognized that a great deal of science communication fails because it is based on a false premise.

We were interested in understanding psychological and social barriers to climate adaptation behaviors, in addition to technical needs, because we recognized that a great deal of well-intentioned communication about scientific and technical topics fails because it is based on a false premise. That premise - that behavior change will follow from provision of technical information alone - has been consistently challenged in recent years (for a review, Nisbet and Mooney, 2007), and yet this so-called "information deficit model" of communication continues to be routinely applied by practitioners of public communications and involvement. A much more satisfactory model of communication involves both providing the information that an individual wants and needs in order to make an informed decision and lowering the barriers in the way of that decision and subsequent action (Moser and Dilling, 2006).

To understand barriers, we constructed questions guided by the integrative model of behavioral prediction (Fishbein and Yzer, 2003). This model summarizes the findings of decades of psychological research and predicts that an individual's behavior will be driven by the individual's attitudes relating to the behavior, peer-group norms, and self-efficacy (the perceived ability to perform the behavior under a variety of challenging circumstances). A barrier or impediment may apply to the attitude, norm, or sense of self-efficacy.
Because project objectives include providing targeted outreach materials for coastal professionals, it was critical to understand what sources of information they currently use and value. The survey revealed that newspapers and television are the most frequently used sources of information on climate change, indicating that these media should likely be part of a strategy for presenting scientific information to these audiences. Participants for all subgroups responded that the source they use the least frequently for obtaining information on climate change was personal contact with scientists and Oregon universities (Table 10). This is again similar to results of a survey conducted with California coastal professionals (Tribbia and Moser, 2008). Since scientists and other university experts are arguably the most reliable sources of unbiased and timely information, the finding that they are not frequently used represents an important challenge to them. However, it's worth noting that almost 40% of respondents ranked Oregon State University, Oregon Sea Grant, and the University of Oregon as excellent in terms of value as an information source.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

The sample size of 300 Oregon coastal professionals provided a good indication of climate change concerns, intentions, psychological barriers, and information needs of the audience and aptly served the purpose of creating targeted outreach materials. However, the sample cannot be considered representative of the larger population of coastal professionals, due to inherent biases in the sampling method. Further, questions remain about the adaptive capacity of Oregon coastal communities. Following up the survey with focus-group meetings or interviews could provide further insight for assisting Oregon coastal communities in preparing to adapt to climate change. Some future recommended questions include:

1. For information on climate change-related topics that coastal professionals do not currently have, does the data not exist or is it not accessible to them?
2. How much information and how high of certainty do Oregon coastal professionals believe they need to prepare for climate change?
3. How do coastal professionals prioritize preparing for climate change versus other coastal hazards? How do they prioritize climate change compared to day-to-day and ongoing work responsibilities?
4. Among professionals who have intentions to adapt to climate change, in what capacity do they plan to adapt (for example, do they plan to address coastal erosion?prepare for changes in fisheries?)

3 The discussion of information access is drawn largely from Borberg, 2009.
4 Recommendations for future research are drawn largely from Borberg, 2009.

References

Borberg, J. 2009. Climate change adaptation: Information needs, concerns, and behavioral intentions among Oregon coast professionals. Master's thesis. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University.
Creswell, J. W. and V. L. P. Clark. 2007. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing. 274 pp.
Dillman, D. A. 2007. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd Edition). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. 523 pp.
Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist 49:709-724.
Fishbein, M. and M. J. Manfredo. 2002. A theory of behavior change. In M. J. Manfredo (ed.), Influencing human behavior (pp. 29-50). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing.
Fishbein, M. and M. C. Yzer. 2003. Using theory design effective health behavior interventions. Communication Theory 13(2):164-183.
Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Climatic Change 77:45-72.
Lowenstein, G. F., E. U. Weber, C. K. Hsee, and N. Welch. 2001. Risk as feelings. Psychological Bulletin 127:267-286.
Moser, S. C. and L. Dilling. 2006. Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change. NY: Cambridge University Press. 549 pp.
Nisbet, M. C. and C. Mooney. 2007. Framing Science. Science 316(5821):56.
Slovic, P., M. Finucane, E. Peters, and D. MacGregor. 2002. The Affect Heuristic, pp 397-420 in Gilovich, T., D. Griffin, and D. Kahneman (eds.), Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tribbia, J. and S. C. Moser. 2008. More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science and Policy 11:315-328.

Text by Jenna Borberg, Joe Cone, Laura Jodice, Michael Harte, and Patrick Corcoran. Editing by Rick Cooper. Layout by Rick Cooper and Patricia Andersson. All photos by Oregon Sea Grant (photos on pp. 1, 7, 12, and 15 by Joe Cone). Questions or comments about this report should be directed to Joe Cone at joe.cone@oregonstate.edu.
© 2009 by Oregon State University. This publication may be photocopied or reprinted in its entirety for noncommercial purposes. To order additional copies of this publication, call 541-737-4849. This publication is available in an accessible format on our Web site at http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs/ onlinepubs.html
For a complete list of Oregon Sea Grant publications, visit http://seagrant.oregonstate.edu/sgpubs
This report was prepared by Oregon Sea Grant under award numbers NA070AR4310408 (project number A/SARP-1) and NA060AR4170010 (project number M/A-21) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Sea Grant College Program, U.S. Department of Commerce, and by appropriations made by the Oregon State legislature. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these funders.
Oregon Sea Grant
Corvallis, Oregon
ORESU-S-09-001