https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6258-4935
Figures
Abstract
Community engagement is central to building climate resilience, yet participation varies across social groups and places. In this study we examined predictors of willingness to engage in community-level climate resilience activities in Israel, emphasizing gaps across ethnic and residential contexts. Data were drawn from a national survey of adults (n = 1,492) with hyper-representation of vulnerable populations. We used Poisson regression models to assess associations with risk perception, pro-environmental orientation, experienced climate hazards and impacts, adaptive capacity, and community resilience, and tested interactions by ethnic affiliation and residence type. Pro-environmental orientation emerged as the strongest predictor of engagement, followed by risk perception and personal experience of climate impacts. Community resilience and adaptive capacity showed no significant associations. Marked contextual differences were observed: Muslims, Druze, and residents of Arab towns and villages reported higher engagement intentions than Jewish respondents and residents of Jewish or mixed cities. However, motivational pathways differed: Among Muslim residents of Arab villages, engagement was less dependent on risk perception and pro-environmental attitudes. These results indicate that collective climate engagement is shaped not only by individual attitudes but also by sociopolitical position and place-based vulnerabilities. Addressing these different pathways is critical for designing equity-oriented climate resilience initiatives that do not inadvertently reproduce existing social and spatial inequalities. Tailored, group-specific strategies are needed to enhance participation and strengthen collective resilience in the context of climate change. Practical implications for climate resilience policy are discussed.
Citation: Shapira S, Negev M, Sauzet O, Singer M, Natour S, Rosenthal A (2026) Who will act for climate resilience? Predictors of community engagement and gaps in climate-related action. PLOS Clim 5(4): e0000874. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000874
Editor: Teodoro Georgiadis, Institute for BioEconomy CNR, ITALY
Received: January 19, 2026; Accepted: March 11, 2026; Published: April 1, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Shapira et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: This work was supported by grants provided from Israel’s Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST, grant number: 1001578050 to SS, MN and AR), and the Israel’s National Institute for Health Policy Research (NIHP, grant number: 2022/53/א to SS, MN and AR). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Climate change has intensified the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, amplifying social, economic, and health inequalities worldwide. The escalating impacts of heatwaves, floods, and droughts highlight the notion that the capacity to adapt depends not only on technological and infrastructural measures but also on the engagement of communities and individuals in collective resilience efforts [1–3]. Global frameworks such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report [4], the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction [5], and Sustainable Development Goal 13 [6] all emphasize the centrality of community participation in adaptation and resilience building. Yet despite widespread acknowledgment of the importance of bottom-up action, significant uncertainty remains about the factors that motivate people to engage in collective responses to climate risks.
Community engagement, understood as the willingness of individuals to participate in collective activities aimed at preparing for and mitigating the impacts of climate change, is increasingly recognized as a cornerstone of climate-resilient societies [7,8]. Effective engagement fosters trust, social cohesion, and shared responsibility, enabling communities to respond adaptively to environmental hazards. However, engagement levels vary substantially across contexts and population groups, reflecting disparities in social capital, institutional trust, and perceived agency [9,10]. Previous research has shown that behavioral and attitudinal determinants such as risk perception, pro-environmental orientation, and community resilience play central roles in shaping individuals’ willingness to act collectively [11–13]. These factors are further influenced by contextual conditions—exposure to climate hazards, adaptive capacities such as access to cooling or emergency resources, and social or cultural norms—which together form a complex web of drivers behind engagement.
Theoretical models of pro-environmental and collective behavior consistently link climate engagement to individuals’ cognitive and affective responses to risk. Risk perception, conceptualized as people’s assessment of the likelihood and consequences of climate impacts, has been shown to predict preparedness and policy support; however, its effect is often mediated by efficacy beliefs and social context [11]. Individuals who feel that climate change poses a personal or community threat are more likely to express concern and to consider becoming involved in mitigation or adaptation activities [14]. However, awareness alone is insufficient. A persistent “knowledge-action gap” indicates that understanding climate risks does not automatically translate into engagement [15]. Instead, perceived self-efficacy and collective efficacy, understood as beliefs in one’s ability, and the community’s ability, to make a difference, serve as critical mediators transforming concern into action [9].
Closely related to risk perception, pro-environmental orientation encompasses values, norms, and behaviors reflecting individuals’ identification with environmental protection [13]. This orientation is shaped by environmental literacy, connectedness to nature, and moral responsibility toward future generations. Studies have consistently shown that pro-environmental values foster individual adaptation behaviors [8,12]. Yet their influence on community-level engagement, such as volunteering for local climate initiatives or supporting municipal resilience planning, remains less explored. Behavioral research suggests that bridging personal values and public action requires trust in collective processes and a belief that participation yields tangible outcomes [7,16].
Beyond perceptions and values, experienced climate impacts constitute an important pathway linking environmental change to engagement. Direct or indirect exposure to hazards such as floods, heatwaves, or energy insecurity can heighten risk awareness and motivate protective behaviors, but prolonged exposure may also produce fatalism or disengagement [2,17]. Previous evidence has indicated that personal experiences with climate-related extreme events interact with socioeconomic and infrastructural factors to shape adaptation responses [18,19]. Individuals who have experienced physical or economic losses due to extreme events often report stronger motivation to participate in community resilience initiatives, provided they perceive adequate institutional and social support [20].
The capacity to act on these motivations is contingent upon adaptive resources – for example, access to cooling during heatwaves, safe housing, and reliable infrastructure – which determine one’s ability to cope with and respond to environmental stressors [2]. Adaptive capacity reflects both material and institutional dimensions and is closely intertwined with community resilience, defined as the collective ability of social systems to withstand, adapt to, and recover from external shocks [21,22]. Communities characterized by strong networks, mutual trust, and inclusive decision-making demonstrate higher engagement and faster recovery following climate-related events [7]. Conversely, communities marked by social fragmentation or low institutional trust tend to exhibit weaker collective responses [23].
Marginalized and minority communities often develop autonomous emergency response capacities due to their limited ability to rely on the state and its agents. Over time, these mechanisms become institutionalized and embedded within the community’s culture, serving as the primary mode of response for community members. In the Israeli context, such processes have been documented in relation to infrastructure deficiencies [2] and energy poverty [24]. These forms of self-reliance frequently underpin collective action.
Empirical research within the social-ecological systems framework underscores the notion that adaptation occurs through dynamic feedback between individual agency, community structures, and environmental conditions [1]. This perspective highlights the interdependence of psychological, social, cultural, and infrastructural factors in shaping resilience. When individuals perceive both personal risk and collective efficacy, engagement tends to emerge as a self-reinforcing process: Participation enhances social capital and trust, which in turn increases future engagement [15]. The social-ecological systems approach thus provides a holistic lens for analyzing community engagement, integrating behavioral determinants with contextual inequities and institutional capacities.
Despite these theoretical advances, there remain notable gaps in understanding the combined effects of psychosocial, experiential, and structural variables on collective climate engagement at the population level. Most existing studies have focused on individual mitigation behaviors, such as recycling or energy conservation [13], or rely on small-scale community case studies. Large-scale, quantitative assessments of community engagement, especially in socially diverse and unequal societies, are still relatively rare. Moreover, the interaction between behavioral and contextual factors has seldom been examined across population subgroups defined by culture, ethnic affiliation, or residence type. These intersections are crucial for identifying gaps in engagement potential and for designing inclusive resilience strategies [8,17].
Societies characterized by cultural heterogeneity, spatial segregation, and unequal access to infrastructure provide a valuable lens for investigating these dynamics. Differences in socioeconomic status, educational attainment, and institutional trust often translate into disparities in risk perception, pro-environmental values, and adaptive capacity [2]. In such contexts, the pathways to engagement are not uniform: Groups facing higher exposure or lower access to adaptation resources may either mobilize collectively out of necessity or disengage due to cumulative disadvantage. Understanding these different mechanisms is essential for promoting equitable participation in climate resilience.
Against this background, we aimed in the present study to explore multi-level determinants of the willingness to engage in community-level climate resilience activities among adults in a socially diverse national setting in the Eastern Mediterranean. Our empirical analysis focused on Israel, a country widely recognized as a climate-change hotspot, experiencing rapid warming, intensifying heatwaves, recurrent droughts, and increasing flood risk [25]. Israel’s population is ethnically and religiously heterogeneous, comprising a Jewish majority (74%) and Arab Muslim (18%), Christian (1.8%), and Druze minorities (1.5%) [26]. Residential patterns are highly segregated: Most Jewish and Arab communities reside in separate towns or villages, alongside several mixed cities (in which Arab residents constitute more than 10% of the population) that function as urban centers, such as Tel Aviv (which includes Jaffa), Jerusalem, Haifa, Lod, and Acre, where the two groups (i.e., Jewish and Arab) live in closer proximity although de facto in separate neighborhoods. Residence types span dense urban areas, Jewish rural small communities such as kibbutzim (historically collective, cooperative communities) and moshavim (partly cooperative agricultural communities), and Arab mid-size towns (approximately 20,000–70,000 residents) as well as small towns and villages, which have been documented as experiencing infrastructural and environmental disadvantages [27]. Importantly, these socio-spatial disparities are not incidental but are embedded in long-standing structural inequalities affecting minority populations in Israel. Extensive evidence has documented persistent and institutionalized gaps in municipal funding, infrastructure provision, land-use planning and spatial development, environmental protection, and access to public services between Jewish and Arab localities [28,29], translating into heightened exposure to climate-related hazards and constrained adaptive capacity [30]. Such structural conditions also shape trust in state institutions [31], perceptions of collective efficacy, and the perceived relevance and accessibility of community-based resilience initiatives, thereby generating distinct pathways to (or barriers against) civic engagement across social groups [2,30].
Drawing on a national survey of adults in Israel, the current study integrates behavioral, experiential, and structural indicators within a social-ecological framework of adaptation and resilience [1,32]. Specifically, we investigated how risk perception, pro-environmental orientation, experienced climate impacts, adaptive capacity (proxied by access to air conditioning), and community resilience predicted individuals’ intentions to participate in collective climate-resilience initiatives. We further examined how these associations varied across ethnic and residential contexts, illuminating how sociopolitical and spatial stratification shapes willingness to act for climate resilience. By linking psychosocial and structural determinants within a single analytical model, this study advances our understanding of who is willing to act for climate resilience and why, offering insights relevant to the design of equitable and participatory adaptation strategies in heterogeneous societies.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Research design
In the current study we employed a cross-sectional analytical design utilizing a self-administered, anonymous online survey.
2.2. Population and sampling
Data were derived from a nationwide online survey conducted in Israel between January and February 2024. Eligible respondents were adults aged 18 years or older. Recruitment was carried out through a professional polling agency that manages a large, stratified online panel of Israeli residents. To ensure sufficient representation of populations known to experience higher levels of social, economic, and environmental vulnerability, sampling was intentionally stratified to include a greater share of two key groups: (a) members of the Arab minority population, and (b) residents of geographical peripheries (the northern Galilee and southern Negev regions), which are characterized by socioeconomic deprivation and greater exposure to climate-related hazards.This approach ensured a robust dataset that reflects both national diversity and the perspectives of marginalized communities most at risk from climate change.
2.3. Survey instrument and measures
The survey questionnaire included the following:
2.3.1. Community engagement was assessed via three items measuring participants’ intention to take part in collective activities aimed at enhancing community resilience in the context of climate change. Respondents indicated whether they would be willing to: (1) participate in a local meeting to discuss and raise awareness about expected climate impacts in their area, (2) take part in a municipal or council program to promote awareness and preparedness among community members, and (3) volunteer for a local “climate resilience team” assisting vulnerable populations during climate-related emergencies (e.g., heatwaves, floods, or power outages). Each item was coded as a binary variable (yes/no), and responses were summed to produce a total score ranging from 0 to 3, with higher values reflecting a stronger intention to engage in community-level climate resilience activities. The items were developed on the basis of insights from a preliminary qualitative study that included focus groups with members of vulnerable populations across Israel [2].
2.3.2. Risk perception was assessed via items adapted from internationally recognized instruments capturing perceived seriousness, likelihood, and concern regarding the effects of climate change on health, economy, and the environment [14,33].
2.3.3. Pro-environmental behavior was measured via a validated scale [16] that measures individuals’ willingness to adopt behaviors that contribute to mitigating climate change. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they would be willing to engage in various pro-environmental actions (e.g., reducing electricity or water consumption, increasing the use of public transportation, purchasing energy-efficient products, separating waste for recycling, and consuming less meat). Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all willing to 5 = very willing. Higher scores indicated a greater willingness to engage in pro-environmental behavior.
2.3.4. Experiences with climate-related hazards were assessed by examining participants’ direct exposure to climate-related extreme events. Respondents were asked to indicate which of the following phenomena they had experienced recently or were currently experiencing: a general rise in average temperatures, drought, wildfire, sandstorm, heatwave, cold spell, heavy rainfall or storm, and flood. The total number of reported experiences was summed to yield a composite score ranging from 0 to 8, with higher values reflecting greater exposure to climate-related hazards.
2.3.5. Climate-related impacts captured three domains of self-reported consequences resulting from extreme weather events: (1) financial or property losses, (2) interruptions in access to healthcare services, and (3) difficulty maintaining an adequate indoor temperature during periods of extreme heat or cold. Each item was coded as a binary variable (yes/no), and responses were summed to create an index reflecting the overall level of exposure to adverse climate-related impacts [17].
2.3.6. Personal adaptation to extreme heat was assessed with a single item measuring the extent to which participants reported using air conditioning during periods of high temperature (“I turn on the air conditioner as needed”). Responses were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = not at all to 5 = very much, with higher scores indicating a greater ability to operate air conditioning when desired as an adaptive capacity in the context of extreme heat.
2.3.7. Community resilience was assessed via the 10-item Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure (CCRAM-10) [34], which captures five core dimensions: leadership, collective efficacy, preparedness, place attachment, and social trust. Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The CCRAM-10 has shown solid psychometric properties, including good validity and reliability, in prior studies conducted in Israel [35].
2.3.8. Sociodemographic and health characteristics included gender, age, ethnic affiliation (Jewish, Arab-Muslim, Christian, Druze, or other), marital status, level of education, household income, place of residence, possession of insurance coverage against natural disasters, and self-rated health status.
The questionnaire, originally developed in Hebrew and Arabic (S1 Appendix), underwent expert review and pilot testing to ensure linguistic clarity and cultural relevance before final revision and implementation; the final English version is provided in S2 Appendix.
2.4. Statistical analysis
Associations between community engagement and risk perception, pro-environmental orientation, and experienced impacts were estimated using Poisson regression models adjusted for socio-demographic variables (age, gender, education, low income, marital status, poor health, no insurance against natural disasters). Separate models were fitted to adjust for ethnic affiliation (Jewish, Christian, Muslim, other) and type of residence (Jewish or mixed cities, Arab mid-size towns, Arab small towns or villages, and kibbutzim or other small-size Jewish communities). Because the Arab minority was intentionally oversampled to allow adequately powered subgroup analyses, the sample does not reflect national population proportions. Sampling weights were not applied in the regression models. Given that our primary analyses focused on associations and effect modification (rather than nationally representative prevalence estimates), and that ethnic affiliation was explicitly modeled (including stratified and interaction analyses), we considered this approach appropriate for addressing the non-proportional sampling design.
Two-way interactions were estimated to test the modifying effect of ethnic affiliation and residence type on the association between community engagement and risk perception, pro-environmental orientation, and experienced impacts. Non-overdispersion was assessed using the ratio of the residual deviance to the degree of freedom as well as the Pearson dispersion.
To help interpret the interaction effects we present the average marginal effects derived from the Poisson regression models with interactions. These average marginal effects are interpretable as the average change in expected values of community engagement per unit change of the independent variable.
The analysis was performed using R [36] and the packet margin [37]. The dataset underlying the findings is provided in the supplementary materials (see S1 Data).
2.5. Ethical considerations
All participants provided informed consent electronically prior to participation. They were assured of confidentiality and their right to withdraw at any stage. The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Human Subject Research Committee of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev.
3. Findings
3.1. Sample characteristics and descriptive results
The analytic sample comprised 1,492 respondents representing diverse sociodemographic backgrounds. Women accounted for 55.4% of the sample, and the mean age was 41.2 years (SD = 15.5). Slightly more than half (57.5%) did not hold a college/university degree, and 53.4% reported a low income. Most participants were married or living with a partner (67.1%), and the vast majority rated their health as good or very good (91.4%). About two-thirds (62.3%) reported having no insurance coverage against natural disasters.
With regard to climate-related variables, participants reported a moderate level of risk perception (M = 4.5, SD = 1.6 on a 1–7 scale) and pro-environmental orientation (M = 3.0, SD = 0.8 on a 1–5 scale). The median number of experienced climate-related hazards was one (IQR = 0–2, range 0–8), and the median number of personally experienced climate impacts was also one (IQR = 0–2, range 0–3). Mean scores for personal adaptation capacity (using air conditioning) and community resilience were 3.5 (SD = 1.1) and 3.1 (SD = 0.8) on a 1–5 scale, respectively, indicating moderate adaptive and resilience capacities in the population.
Regarding group composition, 51.7% of respondents identified as Jewish, 40.9% as Muslim, 3.7% as Christian, and 3.8% as belonging to other ethnic groups (i.e., Druze and others). Over half (55.4%) resided in Jewish or mixed cities, 16.9% in Arab mid-size towns, 20.5% in Arab small towns or villages, and 7.3% in kibbutzim or other small-size Jewish communities (see Table 1).
Community engagement was operationalized as a count variable representing the number of community-level climate resilience activities reported by each participant (range: 0–3). Overall, 40.3% of respondents reported no engagement activities, 36.7% reported participation in one activity, 12.1% reported two activities, and 10.9% reported engagement in all three activities of the community engagement measure. Thus, although the majority of participants reported at least some willingness to engage (59.7%), engagement intensity was generally low, with fewer than one-quarter reporting participation in two or more activities. Marked differences were observed across social contexts: The proportion reporting any engagement ranged from 52.8% among Jewish respondents to 66.4% among Muslim respondents, whereas high engagement (≥2 activities) ranged from 19.4% to 24.4%, respectively. Similar gradients were observed across residence types, with higher engagement levels in Arab towns and villages (31.4%) compared to small-size Jewish communities (23.4%), Arab mid-size towns (22.6%), and Jewish or mixed cities (21.4%) (detailed frequency distributions by ethnic affiliation and residence type are provided in S1 Table).
Spearman’s correlation coefficients (Table 2) revealed several significant associations among the main study variables. Community engagement (intention) was positively correlated with risk perception (rs = .25, p < .001), pro-environmental orientation (rs = .34, p < .001), exposure to climate hazards (rs = .22, p < .001), and experience of climate-related impacts (rs = .17, p < .001). Weak negative correlations were observed with personal adaptation (rs = –.06, p = .01), whereas the association with community resilience was positive but not significant (rs = .05, p > .05). Overall, the pattern suggests that individuals perceiving higher climate risks and holding stronger pro-environmental orientations reported greater willingness to engage in climate resilience activities, whereas personal adaptation behaviors showed a weak inverse relationship with collective engagement intentions.
3.2. Regression analysis
To explore how sociocultural and spatial contexts shape predictors of community engagement, two sets of Poisson regression models were estimated. The first set examined variations by ethnic group, and the second by residence type, with both models adjusted for socioeconomic covariates and including interaction terms to test whether the strength of key associations differed across groups.
3.2.1. Models by ethnic group.
Table 3 presents the results of models adjusted for ethnic group. Across all models, pro-environmental orientation, risk perception, exposure to climate hazards, and experience of climate-related impacts were positively associated with higher willingness to engage in community-level climate resilience activities. Specifically, pro-environmental orientation emerged as the strongest predictor (IRR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.34–1.55]), followed by risk perception (IRR = 1.06, 95% CI [1.02–1.10]). Having no insurance coverage against natural disasters was negatively associated with engagement intention (IRR = 0.83, 95% CI [0.73–0.93]).
Education also showed a consistent positive association (IRR = 1.31, 95% CI [1.17–1.46]), whereas gender, age, income, and marital status were not significantly related to engagement. Among ethnic groups, Muslims and participants categorized as “other” reported significantly higher engagement intentions than did Jewish respondents (IRR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.23–1.61]; IRR = 2.06, 95% CI [1.64–2.58], respectively). Interaction analyses revealed that the positive associations of risk perception (RP) and pro-environmental orientation (PE) with engagement were weaker among Muslim participants (RP × Muslim: IRR = 0.91, 95% CI [0.84–0.98]; PE × Muslim: IRR = 0.82, 95% CI [0.71–0.95]) than among Jewish participants. Moreover, experiencing climate-related impacts (C-IMPACT) had a stronger effect among Christians and Muslims (C-IMPACT × Christian: IRR = 0.69, 95% CI [0.49–0.96]; C-IMPACT × Muslim: IRR = 0.86, 95% CI [0.75–0.98]) that among Jews.
To clarify these patterns, marginal effects were computed (Table 5). The association between risk perception and engagement was strongest among respondents categorized as “other” (AME = 0.16) and minimal among Muslims (AME = 0.02), indicating that perceived climate risks more strongly motivated collective engagement among smaller ethnic minorities. Likewise, the effect of pro-environmental orientation was highest among Christians (AME = 0.40) and lowest among Muslims (AME = 0.33). In terms of experiencing climate-related impacts, the association was positive among Jewish and “other” participants (AME = 0.13–0.22) but negligible for Muslims (AME = 0.01) and negative for Christians (AME = –0.20), suggesting that personal climate experiences may elicit divergent behavioral responses depending on ethnic and cultural context.
3.2.2. Models by residence type.
Table 4 displays the models adjusted for residence type. The overall pattern of associations mirrored those observed by ethnic group: Higher risk perception, pro-environmental orientation, exposure to hazards, and experienced climate impacts significantly predicted stronger community engagement intentions. Education remained a robust positive predictor (IRR = 1.34, 95% CI [1.20–1.51]), and being uninsured against natural disasters was again linked to lower engagement (IRR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.77–0.98]). Residents of Arab towns or villages and Arab mid-size towns reported higher engagement intentions than those in Jewish or mixed cities (IRR = 1.36, 95% CI [1.18–1.57]; IRR = 1.25, 95% CI [1.06–1.47], respectively).
Interaction models revealed that the effect of pro-environmental orientation on engagement was weaker among residents of Arab towns or villages (PE × Arab town or village: IRR = 0.79, 95% CI [0.67–0.93]), and the association between experiencing climate impacts and engagement was slightly attenuated in Arab localities (C-IMPACT × Arab town or village: IRR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.75–1.01]).
The marginal effects (Table 5) further illustrate these differences. The relation between risk perception and engagement was strongest in Jewish or mixed cities (AME = 0.08) and weaker in kibbutzim (AME = 0.03) and Arab localities (AME = 0.03–0.05). In terms of pro-environmental orientation, the effect was largest in Jewish or mixed cities (AME = 0.40) and substantially smaller in kibbutzim (AME = 0.20) and Arab towns or villages (AME = 0.28). These patterns suggest that although pro-environmental attitudes are broadly linked to engagement intentions, their behavioral translation may be constrained in peripheral or minority communities where structural or social barriers limit collective engagement.
Overall, these complementary models indicate that individual-level factors such as pro-environmental orientation and risk perception consistently predict engagement in collective climate resilience actions, yet the strength of these associations varies across social and spatial contexts defined by ethnic affiliation and residence type.
All Pearson dispersion were in the range 0.82-0.89 indicating no-overdispersion. This is confirmed by the ratio of deviance to the number of degrees of freedom ranging from 0.97 to 1.02.
4. Discussion
In the current study we examined the behavioral, experiential, and contextual determinants of willingness to engage in community-level climate resilience activities in a socially and spatially diverse national setting. By integrating psychosocial predictors with structural and place-based characteristics, the findings extend existing knowledge on public participation in climate adaptation and contribute to ongoing theoretical debates about the conditions under which individuals mobilize for collective engagement. The analysis revealed three overarching insights: (1) psychosocial factors, particularly pro-environmental orientation and risk perception, remain central predictors of engagement, although their effects are heterogeneous across social groups; (2) climate-related experiences matter, but their motivational meaning varies by community context; and (3) minority and peripheral communities demonstrate higher willingness to engage overall, yet follow distinct engagement pathways that challenge universalist behavioral models.
4.1. Psychosocial determinants of community climate engagement
Consistent with behavioral and environmental psychology theories, pro-environmental orientation emerged as the strongest predictor of willingness to engage [13,16]. This finding demonstrates that individuals who already translate environmental concern into personal behaviors are also more inclined toward collective engagement. Importantly, this association extends the value-belief-norm framework [38] beyond individual mitigation behaviors toward community-level climate preparedness and response, an area that remains comparatively understudied. However, the strength of this association varied significantly across ethnic and residence groups: It was most pronounced among Jewish respondents in urban areas and substantially weaker among Muslim participants and residents of Arab towns or villages. These patterns underscore the notion that pro-environmental values may face greater structural or social constraints in marginalized settings, where resource limitations and competing daily stressors can impede the translation of environmental attitudes into public action.
Risk perception also showed a positive association with engagement, supporting models that link perceived threat with adaptive motivation [11,14]. Yet again the effect was moderated by group context. Among Muslim respondents, engagement was only weakly associated with perceived risk, and among residents of Arab localities, risk perception had a smaller marginal effect than in Jewish or mixed cities. This attenuation is consistent with the literature on “social amplification/attenuation risk” in structurally disadvantaged communities, where chronic exposure to environmental and infrastructural stress reduces the motivational impact of perceived climate risks [2,39,40]. These findings suggest that communication strategies centered solely on increasing risk awareness may have limited effectiveness in minority or peripheral contexts, where vulnerability is already salient and where collective engagement may be driven more by necessity or expectations of mutual aid.
The role of adaptation capacity, proxied by air conditioning use, did not emerge as a significant predictor. Although adaptive capacity is a key construct in climate resilience frameworks, this result aligns with studies showing that access to material adaptations may reduce the urgency to participate in collective efforts [8]. Notably, the generally high level of air conditioning use in Israel may also diminish its discriminative power as a social indicator.
4.2. Climate experiences as motivators for engagement
Experiencing climate-related hazards and impacts was positively associated with engagement, echoing research demonstrating that lived experiences heighten salience and motivate action [18,19]. However, the interaction results reveal a more nuanced picture. The effect of climate impacts on engagement was positive among Jewish respondents and those categorized as “other,” but negligible among Muslim participants and even negative among Christians. This divergence suggests that experiential motivation is heavily conditioned by sociocultural context. For some minority communities, repeated exposure to climate-related disruptions may contribute not to mobilization but potentially to a sense of limited agency, an interpretation supported by evidence that cumulative disadvantage can produce fatalistic or avoidance responses [41,42]. These findings reinforce the social-ecological perspective that adaptation is not simply a function of hazard experience but arises from dynamic interactions among exposure, institutional support, and social capital [1,43].
4.3. Structural gaps and distinct pathways to engagement
One of the striking findings of this study is that minority and peripheral communities – including Muslims, residents of Arab towns or villages, and residents of Arab mid-size towns – reported higher overall willingness to engage than did Jewish respondents and those living in Jewish or mixed urban areas. This pattern challenges assumptions that marginalized populations are less inclined or less able to participate in climate adaptation efforts [44,45]. Instead, the results hint at a form of “necessity-driven engagement”: Communities facing greater exposure to environmental and infrastructural stressors may be more motivated to mobilize collectively, particularly where municipal resources are limited and where community networks provide essential support.
However, the motivational pathways underlying this engagement differ from those observed in majority populations. In Arab communities, engagement was less strongly predicted by pro-environmental orientation or risk perception, suggesting that other processes, such as communal norms, existing mutual-aid structures, or expectations of self-organization in contexts of infrastructural neglect, play a more central role. Prior work in Israel similarly shows that Arab localities often rely on informal resilience mechanisms due to chronic underinvestment and gaps in municipal capacity [2,24,30]. This notion may also explain why experiencing climate impacts does not consistently translate into greater engagement: When impacts are perceived as routine or structurally unaddressed, they may not heighten motivation for additional collective involvement.
These findings have important theoretical implications, demonstrating the limitations of universal behavioral models that assume that climate engagement arises primarily from individual-level cognitive or attitudinal factors. Instead, engagement seems to be shaped by broader social and political structures, including access to resources, and long-standing experiences of inequality. The social-ecological systems perspective offers a useful lens for interpreting these results: Individual willingness to act seems to emerge from dynamic interactions between personal agency, community structures, and environmental conditions [1]. In societies marked by stratification and segregation, these interactions vary substantially across groups, producing different adaptation pathways.
4.4. Practical implications for climate-resilience policy
The results have several implications for designing equitable, context-sensitive climate resilience strategies:
- 1. Tailored engagement strategies are essential.
Public campaigns that focus on increasing risk awareness or strengthening pro-environmental attitudes may be effective in majority communities but less so in minority or peripheral areas where engagement is shaped by structural constraints or communal dynamics. Policymakers should adopt culturally sensitive, place-based approaches that align with local social norms and existing community structures.
- 2. Supporting local governance capacity in minority municipalities.
Higher engagement intentions in Arab localities present an opportunity: These communities appear ready to mobilize but often lack adequate infrastructural, financial, or administrative support. Investments in local resilience teams, participatory climate committees, and municipal planning capacity could transform willingness into effective action.
- 3. Moving beyond “information deficit” assumptions.
Because risk perception is not the main driver in all groups, resilience efforts should shift toward strengthening collective efficacy, social cohesion, and direct support mechanisms. Programs emphasizing mutual aid, neighborhood support networks, and co-production of preparedness activities may resonate more strongly than information campaigns alone.
4.5. Limitations
Several study limitations should be considered. The cross-sectional design restricts causal inference, particularly regarding whether psychosocial variables predict engagement or whether engagement predispositions shape attitudes. The primary outcome – self-reported willingness to participate in community-level climate-resilience activities – measured intentions rather than actual participation. Although intentions are widely used proxies in behavioral research, prior scholarship highlights a persistent value-action gap in environmental behavior, whereby pro-environmental intentions do not consistently translate into concrete action [46]. Thus, reported willingness to engage may overestimate actual participation. Self-reported willingness to engage may also be subject to social desirability bias, which could differentially affect responses across population groups. The online survey design may underrepresent individuals without reliable digital access, despite intentional oversampling of vulnerable groups and the use of complementary data collection strategies, including telephone surveys among Arab respondents. Additionally, the Christian and “other” ethnic categories comprised relatively small subsamples, which may limit the stability of interaction estimates. Finally, the CCRAM captures general community resilience rather than climate-specific collective efficacy, which may partly explain its limited predictive value.
5. Conclusions
This study demonstrates that community engagement in climate resilience is shaped by a complex interplay of behavioral, experiential, spatial, and structural factors. Although pro-environmental orientation and risk perception predict engagement overall, the strength and meaning of these associations differ markedly across ethnic and residential contexts. Minority and peripheral communities show a high willingness to engage but follow distinct motivational pathways shaped by socio-political marginalization and everyday vulnerability. These findings underscore the need for climate-resilience policies that are both equity-oriented and context-responsive, supporting diverse pathways to collective engagement across heterogeneous societies.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Distribution of community engagement activities by ethnic affiliation and residence type.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000874.s001
(DOCX)
S1 Appendix. Survey instrument in Hebrew and Arabic.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000874.s002
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Hossain MS, Basak SM, Amin MN, Anderson CC, Cremin E, Renaud FG. Social‐ecological systems approach for adaptation to climate change. Sustainable Development. 2023;32(3):2766–78.
- 2. Singer ME, Rosenthal A, Shapira S, Natour S, Porat I, Negev M. Exploring the climate change, infrastructure, health nexus and everyday adaptation among vulnerable populations. Habitat International. 2025;164:103535.
- 3. Singer ME, Negev M. Disparate climate change health costs: the emissions, vulnerability, and readiness nexus. EcoHealth. 2025.
- 4. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability: Working Group II Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. UK and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press. 2022.
- 5. UNDRR. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015 - 2030. 2015.
- 6.
Goal 13: Climate Change. United Nations Sustainable Development. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/climate-change/. Accessed 2025 December 3.
- 7. Satizábal P, Cornes I, de Lourdes Melo Zurita M, Cook BR. The power of connection: Navigating the constraints of community engagement for disaster risk reduction. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2022;68:102699.
- 8. Mees HLP. Why do citizens engage in climate action? A comprehensive framework of individual conditions and a proposed research approach. Env Pol Gov. 2022;32(3):167–78.
- 9. Bamberg S, Rees J, Seebauer S. Collective climate action: Determinants of participation intention in community-based pro-environmental initiatives. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2015;43:155–65.
- 10. Klöckner CA, Brenner-Fliesser M, Carrus G, De Gregorio E, Erica L, Luketina R, et al. Climate actions on the neighbourhood level—Individual, collective, cultural, and socio-structural factors. PLOS Clim. 2024;3(11):e0000424.
- 11. Chu H, Yang JZ. Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement. Risk Anal. 2020;40(4):758–70. pmid:31957904
- 12. Luís S, Lima ML, Roseta-Palma C, Rodrigues N, P Sousa L, Freitas F, et al. Psychosocial drivers for change: Understanding and promoting stakeholder engagement in local adaptation to climate change in three European Mediterranean case studies. J Environ Manage. 2018;223:165–74. pmid:29929072
- 13. Yu T-K, Lin F-Y, Kao K-Y, Chao C-M, Yu T-Y. An innovative environmental citizen behavior model: Recycling intention as climate change mitigation strategies. J Environ Manage. 2019;247:499–508. pmid:31255964
- 14. Rickard LN, Yang ZJ, Schuldt JP. Here and now, there and then: How “departure dates” influence climate change engagement. Global Environmental Change. 2016;38:97–107.
- 15. Kolenatý M, Kroufek R, Činčera J. What Triggers Climate Action: The Impact of a Climate Change Education Program on Students’ Climate Literacy and Their Willingness to Act. Sustainability. 2022;14(16):10365.
- 16. Bradley GL, Babutsidze Z, Chai A, Reser JP. The role of climate change risk perception, response efficacy, and psychological adaptation in pro-environmental behavior: A two nation study. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2020;68:101410.
- 17. Shapira S, Rosenthal A, Singer M, Natour S, Negev M. Direct and indirect pathways of climate-related impacts on vulnerable populations: Insights from a nationwide study in the Eastern Mediterranean. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2025;128:105750.
- 18. Broomell SB, Budescu DV, Por H-H. Personal experience with climate change predicts intentions to act. Global Environmental Change. 2015;32:67–73.
- 19. Howe PD. Extreme weather experience and climate change opinion. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2021;42:127–31.
- 20. Bakic H, Ajdukovic D. Resilience after natural disasters: the process of harnessing resources in communities differentially exposed to a flood. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2021;12(1):1891733. pmid:34992751
- 21. Plough A, Fielding JE, Chandra A, Williams M, Eisenman D, Wells KB, et al. Building community disaster resilience: perspectives from a large urban county department of public health. Am J Public Health. 2013;103(7):1190–7. pmid:23678937
- 22. Norris FH, Stevens SP, Pfefferbaum B, Wyche KF, Pfefferbaum RL. Community resilience as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy for disaster readiness. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41(1–2):127–50. pmid:18157631
- 23. Farny S, Dentoni D. Social identity and place-based dynamics in community resilience building for natural disasters: an integrative framework. E&S. 2025;30(2).
- 24. Shapira S, Shibli H, Teschner N. Energy insecurity and community resilience: The experiences of Bedouins in Southern Israel. Environmental Science & Policy. 2021;124:135–43.
- 25.
Yosef I, Zipori A, Ilotovitz E, Carmona I, Halfon N, Uzan L. Analysis of climatic trends and extreme events in Israel through the 21st century. Israel Meteorological Service: Israel Meteorological Service. 2024.
- 26.
Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. Population of Israelis by Religion. Jerusalem: Israel. 2024. https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/publications/DocLib/2024/2.ShnatonPopulation/st02_02.pdf
- 27.
Khalaily M, Badran A, Rudnitzky A. Arab Society Statistical Report Summary: Demography. The Israeli Democracy Institute. 2023. https://www.idi.org.il/arab-society/2023/?chapter=54643
- 28. Jamal A. Nationalizing States and the Constitution of ‘Hollow Citizenship’: Israel and its Palestinian Citizens. Ethnopolitics. 2007;6(4):471–93.
- 29. Saabneh A. Displaced and segregated: The socio-economic status of the second generation of internally displaced Palestinians in Israel. Popul Stud (Camb). 2019;73(1):19–35. pmid:30520350
- 30. Pahaut A, Obeid A, Negev M. Heat vulnerability assessment in an Eastern Mediterranean city - a mixed-methods approach. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2025;132:106847.
- 31. Beeri I, Uster A, Vigoda-Gadot E. Does Performance Management Relate to Good Governance? A Study of Its Relationship with Citizens’ Satisfaction with and Trust in Israeli Local Government. Public Performance & Management Review. 2018;42(2):241–79.
- 32. Kaddoura S, Hijazi R, Dahmani N, Nassar R. Stimulating Environmental and Health Protection Through Utilizing Statistical Methods for Climate Resilience and Policy Integration. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2025;22(3):331. pmid:40238289
- 33. Chu H, Yang JZ. Taking climate change here and now – mitigating ideological polarization with psychological distance. Global Environmental Change. 2018;53:174–81.
- 34. Leykin D, Lahad M, Cohen O, Goldberg A, Aharonson-Daniel L. Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure-28/10 Items (CCRAM28 and CCRAM10): A Self-report Tool for Assessing Community Resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2013;52:313–23.
- 35. Shapira S. Trajectories of community resilience over a multi-crisis period: A repeated cross-sectional study among small rural communities in Southern Israel. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 2022;76:103006.
- 36.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/. 2025. Accessed 2025 November 2.
- 37. Leeper TJ. Margins - Marginal Effects for Model Objects: R Package Version 0.3.28. 2024. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/margins/margins.pdf
- 38. Kwame Yeboah F, Kaplowitz M. Explaining Energy Conservation and Environmental Citizenship Behaviors Using the Value-Belief-Norm Framework. HER. 2016;22(2).
- 39. Renn O. The social amplification/attenuation of risk framework: application to climate change. WIREs Climate Change. 2011;2(2):154–69.
- 40. Negev M, Zohar M, Paz S. Multidimensional hazards, vulnerabilities, and perceived risks regarding climate change and Covid-19 at the city level: An empirical study from Haifa, Israel. Urban Climate. 2022;43:101146.
- 41. Cocco VM, Vezzali L, Stathi S, Di Bernardo GA, Dovidio JF. Mobilizing or Sedative Effects? A Narrative Review of the Association Between Intergroup Contact and Collective Action Among Advantaged and Disadvantaged Groups. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2024;28(2):119–80. pmid:37864514
- 42.
Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation: special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi KL, editors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2012.
- 43. Vasseur L, Thornbush MJ, Plante S. Engaging Communities in Adaptation to Climate Change by Understanding the Dimensions of Social Capital in Atlantic Canada. Sustainability. 2022;14(9):5250.
- 44. Parsons M, Godden NJ, Henrique KP, Tschakert P, Gonda N, Atkins E, et al. Participatory approaches to climate adaptation, resilience, and mitigation: A systematic review. Ambio. 2025;54(12):2005–20. pmid:40465160
- 45. Smith GS, Anjum E, Francis C, Deanes L, Acey C. Climate Change, Environmental Disasters, and Health Inequities: The Underlying Role of Structural Inequalities. Curr Environ Health Rep. 2022;9(1):80–9. pmid:35338470
- 46. Hochachka G. When concern is not enough: Overcoming the climate awareness-action gap. Ambio. 2024;53(8):1182–202. pmid:38709448