Do low-income groups respond more positively to “climate justice” than to other terms from the public discourse about climate change and sustainability? Evidence from a survey-based wording experiment with a representative Los Angeles County sample

Jenna Blyler; Ashley Barr; Laurel Kruke; Gale M. Sinatra; Norbert Schwarz; Wändi Bruine de Bruin

doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905

Abstract

In public communications about climate change, “climate justice” is typically used to emphasize the unequal effects of climate change on low-income populations. However, among Americans in general, the term “climate justice” is much less familiar than “climate change” or “global warming” and therefore elicits less concern, policy support, and willingness to engage in more sustainable individual behavior such as eating less red meat.‌‌ Here, we examined whether responsiveness to “climate justice” might be more favorable relative to other terms among residents of climate-impacted and Democratic-leaning Los Angeles County, especially low-income residents who would stand to benefit the most from climate justice. During June-August 2023, we randomly assigned 1,048 inhabitants of Los Angeles County to answer survey questions about “climate justice,” “climate change,” “global warming,” “climate crisis,” or “climate emergency.” Even among low-income participants, “climate justice” was the least familiar term, and elicited the least concern, perceived urgency, and policy support; the terms did not differ in reported willingness to engage in more sustainable individual behavior. We discuss the importance of using familiar language in public communications about climate change.

Citation: Blyler J, Barr A, Kruke L, Sinatra GM, Schwarz N, Bruine de Bruin W (2026) Do low-income groups respond more positively to “climate justice” than to other terms from the public discourse about climate change and sustainability? Evidence from a survey-based wording experiment with a representative Los Angeles County sample. PLOS Clim 5(5): e0000905. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905

Editor: Diogo Guedes Vidal, Universidade Aberta Departamento de Ciencias Sociais e de Gestao, PORTUGAL

Received: September 5, 2025; Accepted: April 6, 2026; Published: May 26, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Blyler 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: Understanding America Study, surveys 556 and 550 (https://uasdata.usc.edu/index.php).

Funding: We gratefully acknowledge funding from the University of Southern California’s Wrigley Institute for Environment and Sustainability.

Competing interests: None.

1. Introduction

In public communications about climate change, the term “climate justice” is typically used to emphasize the disproportionate impacts of climate change on low-income populations despite their minimal carbon footprint [1–3]. Indeed, low-income communities often reside in areas at high risk for experiencing climate impacts [4]. Yet, they often lack the financial resources to relocate or adapt because most of their income is spent on essentials like food and water [5–10]. Moreover, low-income communities are more likely to experience homelessness, illness, and mortality; all of which are worsened by climate change [11–13].

Other common terms in the public discourse about climate change include “climate change,” “global warming,” “climate crisis,” and “climate emergency.” As explained below, these terms are not synonyms but are used to emphasize different aspects of the phenomenon. Indeed, psychological theories of framing and cognitive accessibility suggest that the terms we use to describe a topic can influence recipients’ interpretations and reactions [14–16].

1.1. History of climate justice and other terms

The term “climate justice” derives from “environmental justice,” which received national attention in the 1980s [17] after protests against plans to store toxic soil near low-income communities in Warren County, North Carolina made evident their unequal exposure to environmental risks [18,19]. President Bill Clinton responded by issuing an executive order in 1994 that directed federal agencies to address environmental inequities and established the Office of Environmental Justice [20]. Public awareness about the unequal effects of climate change on low-income communities continued to increase after Hurricane Katrina devastated low-income neighborhoods surrounding New Orleans, Louisiana in 2005 [21]. In subsequent years, climate justice principles were increasingly incorporated into U.S. federal and state policies [20,22]. Internationally, the term “climate justice” gained prominence at the 2000 Climate Justice Summit, which was organized alongside the Sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in The Hague [23]. The summit brought together civil society groups, particularly from the global south, to frame climate change as a matter of equity, responsibility, and human rights [23].

The term “climate change” refers to changing weather patterns caused by both nature and human activity [24]. It was first used by climate scientists in the 1950s [25] but did not become popular until it was used decades later to name both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [26]. U.S. initiatives such as the Climate Change Science Program also used the term [20,27]. The term “climate change” originally caused doubts about the extent of human responsibility [24], perhaps especially among Republicans [28–30]. Over time, however, the term has become well-known and now effectively raises substantial public concern across the political divide in the United States [14–16,28–35].

Unlike “climate change,” “global warming” directly points to the global temperature increases caused by human activity [36]. The Paris Agreement is known for its goal to limit “global warming” to well below 2°C and ideally 1.5°C, compared to before industrialization [37]. Yet, the term “global warming” has been criticized for focusing people’s attention on increasing temperatures, thus potentially obscuring other climate impacts such as wetter winters and increased rainfall [32], and causing confusion during unseasonably cold weather [23,38,39]. Despite the distinct definitions of “climate change” and “global warming,” many people now seem to view these familiar terms as synonyms [31,33,40].

“Climate crisis” and “climate emergency” became popular around 2000 due to activist groups like the Climate Crisis Coalition and political figures like Al Gore [41]. These terms were meant to emphasize the urgent need to act [42]. Both “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” are gaining prominence in public communications about climate change with news outlets like The Guardian exclusively using them since 2019 [42]. However, survey-based wording experiments with the U.S. general public found that the terms “climate crisis” and “climate emergency” make climate change feel no more urgent than simply saying “climate change” [31]. Moreover, referring to climate change as a crisis or emergency may undermine perceived credibility among U.S. residents due to its post-apocalyptic tone [43].

1.2. Public responses to terms in the U.S.

To assess public responses to climate terms, wording experiments randomly assign participants to one term and then ask them to indicate their concerns, policy support, and their willingness to engage in individual-level behaviors such as eating less red meat [28–35]. Traditional wording experiments focused on differential public responses to “climate change” and “global warming” but nowadays people perceive these terms as similar [31,33,35]. However, a recent wording experiment that randomly assigned participants from a nationally representative U.S. sample to “climate justice,” “climate change,” “global warming,” “climate crisis,” and “climate emergency” found that “climate justice” was the least familiar and elicited the lowest public concern, perceived urgency, policy support, and willingness to reduce red meat consumption [31]. Effects of randomized terms were larger for concern and perceived urgency than for policy support and willingness to reduce red meat consumption [31], perhaps because beliefs are easier to change than behavioral intentions [33].

These findings may seem surprising because bundling climate policies with targeted investments in low-income communities increases public support for policies on climate change [43]. However, only about 40% of U.S. residents realize that climate change has unequal impacts across population groups [38]. Moreover, the term “climate justice” is largely unfamiliar among the general U.S. population [31,44], which may undermine their concern [31]. In other words, it may be hard for people to feel concerned about something that is not familiar to them [31].

1.3. Public responses to terms in Los Angeles County, and variations by income

There are three reasons to suspect that inhabitants of California’s Los Angeles County would respond well to the term “climate justice.” First, California is listed among the top 10 states experiencing the most severe effects of climate change due to intensifying wildfires, droughts, heat waves, and floods [45–46]. Second, many Californians, especially those living in Los Angeles County, are worried about climate change and support regulations related to climate change [44,47]. Lastly, climate injustice is particularly prevalent in Los Angeles County [48,49], with, for example, wealthy families like the Kardashians hiring private firefighters to protect their homes against wildfires while less wealthy individuals lose their homes [50]. Inequalities like these arise from a wide income gap in California, where families in the 90th percentile earn 10 times more than those in the 10^th percentile— $305,000 vs. $29,000, respectively [51]. Income inequalities are even more pronounced in Los Angeles County than in the rest of the state [52].

Moreover, low-income populations in Los Angeles may respond especially well to “climate justice” because they stand to benefit the most from climate justice interventions such as access to sustainable energy and adequate climate disaster preparation [53]. It has been shown that bundling climate policies with targeted investments in low-income communities increases public support for policies on climate change, especially among low-income groups [43]. However, previous studies about public reactions to the term “climate justice” did not examine whether “climate justice” was perceived more positively among low-income populations with a high exposure to climate threats [31,38].

1.4. The current study

In a survey-based wording experiment, we randomly assigned members of a representative sample of Los Angeles County to the term “climate justice,” “climate change,” “global warming,” “climate crisis,” or “climate emergency”. The terms were selected because, as indicated above, they are used in public communications to emphasize different aspects of climate change [1,24,31,36,41]. We followed the common research practice to present terms without definitions [28–32,34], which is also how they may be used in the public discourse. In response to their assigned term, participants provided ratings of familiarity, concern, perceived urgency, policy support, and their willingness to engage in pro-environmental individual behaviors, exemplified by eating less red meat. These dependent variables were taken from previous research that tested climate terminology [31], which included ratings of policy support as a measure of societal action and ratings of willingness to eat less red meat as a measure of individual action. Eating red meat has a large carbon footprint, and reducing its consumption can mitigate aspects of climate change and its unequal impact on low-income communities [54]. Our analyses addressed the following research questions.

Do randomized terms affect Los Angeles County participants’ ratings of familiarity, concern, urgency, policy support, and willingness to eat less red meat?
Do responses to climate-related terms vary by whether or not participants live on a low income?

Additionally, we examined the role of familiarity in reported responses to “climate justice” and other randomized terms [31].

2. Methods

2.1. Sample

The wording experiment was part of an online survey (Survey 556) conducted with the representative Los Angeles County sample of the Understanding America Study (UAS). The UAS is an online survey panel administered by the University of Southern California’s Center for Economic and Social Research (CESR), which includes a representative Los Angeles County sample and a nationally representative sample. The wording experiment ran simultaneously with the nationally representative sample; the national results were published elsewhere [31].

Los Angeles County residents were originally recruited into the UAS from randomly selected addresses across Los Angeles County. To increase the representation of demographic groups that were underrepresented among the initial respondents, the UAS increased the sampling probabilities for these groups in subsequent waves. To avoid digital exclusion, individuals without online access received free tablets and internet access.

Once individuals join the UAS, they are regularly invited to complete online surveys. Of 1,158 invited UAS members, 1,048 (91%) were included in our analyses. Participants were included in our analyses if they had answered all of our survey questions and had complete demographic information on file at the UAS, including their political affiliation (reported in the preceding UAS Survey 500). Demographics and political affiliation were included in our analyses as control variables (see section 2.3). S1 Fig shows the pathway participants took through our study.

Table 1 presents sample demographics obtained from UAS administrative records. Compared to the Los Angeles population, our sample over-represented low-income individuals (Table 1), allowing us to compare responsiveness to climate terminology by income group. Because the sample also overrepresented individuals with a college education (Table 1), this variable was controlled for in our analyses (see section 2.3).

Download:

Table 1. Demographics of the Los Angeles County sample (N = 1,048).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.t001

Table 1 shows that the median annual household income of the sample fell into the category of $60,000-$74,999. To facilitate comparisons by income, we split the sample at a reported income of less than $60k (N = 512; 49% of the respondents) vs. $60k or more (N = 536; 51% of the respondents). In 2023, a household income below $60,000 was considered very low for a Los Angeles County family of three or more and may have qualified them for affordable housing and other government assistance [55]. These low-income participants were less likely to be college educated, less likely to identify as Non-Hispanic White, more likely to select the Spanish version of the survey, and more likely to identify as female (S2 Table). These variables were controlled for in our analyses (see section 2.3).

2.2. Procedure

UAS surveys are approved by an external ethics committee, BRANY, to which USC has ceded review authority. All participants provided consent by agreeing to an online consent form. Our wording experiment (Survey 556) was in the field between June 21, 2023 and August 13, 2023. Participants’ political affiliation was taken from a previous survey (Survey 550), which ran between December 22, 2022 and February 6, 2023. UAS survey data are publicly available (www.uasdata.usc.edu).

Following previous research [31], each participant had an equal probability of being randomly assigned to one of five terms: “climate justice,” “climate change,” “global warming,” “climate crisis,” or “climate emergency.” Participants answered five questions about their assigned term only, assessing familiarity, concern, perceived urgency, policy support, and willingness to eat less red meat. Following previous research [31], the latter two questions were included, respectively, as measures of support for policy-level action and willingness to engage in individual-level action. As noted, eating red meat has a large carbon footprint and reducing its consumption can mitigate aspects of climate change and its unequal impact on low-income communities [54]. Question wordings and associated response options on 1-4 rating scales appear in Table 2. The survey questions were also offered in Spanish (S3 Table), but only 3% of participants selected this option (Table 1). Consistent with evidence that most Spanish-speaking U.S. residents are proficient in English [56], 94% of Hispanic respondents in our sample completed the survey in English. Participants were compensated based on the UAS standard rate of $20 per 30 minutes.

Download:

Table 2. Survey questions.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.t002

2.3. Analyses

For each randomized term, we computed the percent of participants who used the top two responses on each 4-point scale for each dependent variable. These descriptive statistics were computed for the overall sample and both income groups (see Section 2.1). Our main analyses were five separate Analyses of Covariance (ANCOVAs) on participants’ 1-4 ratings of familiarity, concern, urgency, policy support, and willingness to eat less red meat. Following previous research [31], the five dependent variables were analyzed separately because they reflect different relevant constructs. Each ANCOVA examined the main effects of terms and income groups, as well as their interaction. Main effects of randomized terms were separately examined for each income group. Control variables included dummies for having a college degree (vs. not); as well as those self-identifying as Hispanic, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Minorities (or Non-Hispanic White); being affiliated with Democrats, Republicans (or others); selecting the Spanish survey version (or not); being younger than 65 (or not); and self-identifying as female (or male). Bonferroni-corrected pairwise comparisons of estimated marginal means for each dependent variable compared climate justice to each other term. Because we conducted separate tests for five dependent variables, we set the significance level at p < 0.01. We report partial η² as a measure of effect size, interpreting 0.01 as small, 0.06 as medium, and 0.14 as large [57]. Partial η²<0.01 was interpreted as too small to indicate a meaningful difference.

Additional analyses explored how familiarity changed participants’ responses to their assigned term, as well as variations by income group. To this end, we added familiarity and its interactions with term and income group to the ANCOVAs described above. Familiarity was dichotomized for these additional analyses, with “very familiar” and “somewhat familiar” being coded as reflecting familiarity.

3. Results

3.1. Familiarity

Only 36% of Los Angeles County participants who received the term “climate justice” reported being somewhat or very familiar with “climate justice,” which was lower than for participants assigned to other terms (Table 3). The 1-4 ratings of familiarity were significantly different between randomized terms (Fig 1A), yielding a large effect size (Table 4). Pairwise comparisons suggested that “climate justice” received lower familiarity ratings than each of the other randomized terms (S4 Table). The randomized terms with the highest familiarity ratings were “climate change” and “global warming,” followed by “climate crisis” which was rated as significantly more familiar than “climate emergency” (S4 Table).

Download:

Table 3. Percent of participants indicating specific responses to randomized terms.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.t003

Download:

Table 4. ANCOVAs for the full sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.t004

Download:

Fig 1. Mean reported (A) familiarity, (B) concern, (C) urgency, (D) policy support, and (E) red meat reduction by randomized term.

Note: Mean responses to each term, as indicated on 1-4 scales. Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals‌‌.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.g001

The effect of income group on familiarity ratings was not significant, and neither was the interaction of term by income (Table 4). Indeed, the effect of randomized term on ratings of familiarity followed similar patterns in each income group, with climate justice receiving the lowest ratings of familiarity (Fig 2A; S5-S7 Table).

Download:

Fig 2. Mean reported (A) familiarity, (B) concern, (C) urgency, (D) policy support, and (E) red meat reduction by randomized term and income group.

Note: Survey questions and response scales are described in Table 2. Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.g002

3.2. Concern

Expressions of concern were the least common among participants randomized to “climate justice,” although every term elicited concern from a majority of participants who received it (Table 3). Ratings of concern varied across randomized terms (Fig 1B), which resulted in a significant main effect with a medium effect size (Table 4). Pairwise comparisons indicated that “climate justice” received significantly lower ratings of concern than each of the other randomized terms, which were rated similarly (S4 Table).

The effect of income group on ratings of concern was not significant, and neither was the interaction of term by income (Table 4). The effect of randomized term on ratings of familiarity followed similar patterns in each income group, with climate justice receiving the lowest ratings of concern (Fig 2B; S5–S7 Table).

3.3. Urgency

Expressions of urgency were least common among participants randomized to the term “climate justice,” although a majority expressed urgency about each randomized term (Table 3). Ratings of urgency varied across randomized terms (Fig 1C), resulting in a significant effect with a medium effect size (Table 4). Pairwise comparisons confirmed that “climate justice” received significantly lower urgency ratings than the other randomized terms, which were rated as similarly urgent (S4 Table).

There was no significant main effect of income group on urgency ratings and no significant interaction of randomized term by income (Table 4). Specifically, the effect of randomized term on urgency ratings was similar in each income group, with “climate justice” being rated as least urgent (Fig 2C; S5-S7 Table).

3.4. Policy support

Expressing policy support was least common among participants randomized to “climate justice,” but a large majority indicated policy support in response to each randomized term (Table 3). The associated ratings of policy support varied slightly across terms (Fig 1D), showing a small significant effect (Table 4). “Climate justice” was the randomized term that garnered the lowest ratings of policy support (Fig 1D), but significance was only reached in pairwise comparisons of “climate justice” with “global warming” (S4 Table). The other randomized terms received similar policy support ratings (S4 Table).

The effect of income group on ratings of policy support was not significant, and neither was the interaction of term by income (Table 4). Indeed, the effect of randomized term on ratings of policy support followed similar patterns in each income group, with “climate justice” receiving the lowest ratings (Fig 2D; S5-S7 Table).

3.5. Red meat reduction

Participants randomized to “climate justice” were least likely to express willingness to eat less red meat but a large majority indicated willingness to eat less red meat in response to each randomized term (Table 3). Ratings seemed to vary slightly across randomized terms (Fig 1E), but the effect of randomized term was not significant (Table 4). Only one pairwise comparison was statistically significant, showing a lower rating among participants randomized to “climate justice” than those randomized to “global warming” (S4 Table).

The effect of income group on familiarity ratings was not significant, and neither was the interaction of term by income (Table 4). Even though climate justice seemed to receive the lowest ratings in each income group, there was no significant effect of randomized term on rated willingness to eat less red meat in either income group (Fig 2E; S5-S7 Table).

3.6. Additional analyses

Among participants who expressed familiarity with their randomized term (vs. not), ratings of concern, urgency, policy support, and willingness to eat less red meat were generally lower (Fig 3). Being familiar with a term was significantly associated with each of these four measures, with medium effect sizes for concern and urgency, and small effect sizes for policy support and willingness to eat less red meat (Table 5). There was no significant interaction of familiarity with randomized term, income group, or both (Table 5).

Download:

Table 5. ANCOVAs examining the role of familiarity.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.t005

Download:

Fig 3. Mean reported (A) concern, (B) urgency, (C) policy support, and (D) red meat reduction by randomized term and familiarity.

Note: Error bars reflect 95% confidence intervals.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.g003

4. Discussion

The term “climate justice” is used in the public discourse about climate change to draw attention to the disproportionate impact of climate change on low-income groups [1–3]. Psychological theories of framing and cognitive accessibility suggest that such terms may change people’s attitudes by drawing attention to specific information [14–16]. However, a U.S.-wide survey found that the term “climate justice” is largely unfamiliar among Americans in general [31,44], which may undermine their concern [31]. Here, we conducted a survey-based wording experiment in Los Angeles County, an area that might be expected to respond well to the term “climate justice” due to its exposure to climate-related hazards, strong pro-environmental attitudes, and substantial income inequality [43–53,58].

Only two-thirds of Los Angeles County participants randomized to the term “climate justice” indicated that the term was unfamiliar, whereas only 10% of the respondents randomized to “climate change” or “global warming” reported those as unfamiliar. “Climate justice” also elicited the lowest concern and perceived urgency. The terms did not differ in the extent to which they elicited policy support or an intention to reduce one’s consumption of red meat. These findings align with the results of the aforementioned U.S.-wide wording experiment [31], and a study suggesting that many Americans are unaware of the unequal effects of climate change on low-income communities [38]. Limited media attention to issues of climate justice may contribute to this lack of familiarity and its consequences [59].

Because low-income groups stand to benefit the most from climate justice interventions and show the greatest support for climate policies that address inequalities [43], we examined whether the findings differed for individuals living below or above the median annual household income of Los Angeles County ($60k). We found no evidence that the response to the randomly assigned climate terms differed by income (that is, no interaction of term x income emerged). Even low-income participants were less familiar with “climate justice” than with other terms and rated “climate justice” as least concerning and urgent.

Of course, our findings should not be interpreted as a lack of interest in “climate justice” in Los Angeles County and its low-income communities. People living on low incomes do tend to be more aware that climate change disproportionately affects their communities [38] and are more supportive of climate policies, provided they are combined with economic policies such as affordable housing and raising the minimum wage [60]. Responses to the term “climate justice” may therefore have been more positive among low-income respondents if it had been accompanied by a more detailed elaboration.

5. Limitations

There are several limitations to consider when interpreting the results of our study. First, terms were presented without definitions, in line with other wording experiments that examined the effect of climate-related terms on public responses [14–16,31]. Especially among low-income populations, explaining what “climate justice” means could increase recognition of the concept [38] and policy support [43]. Second, we did not elicit what participants thought of when being presented with “climate justice” or other terms. Hence, we do not know if the presented terms actually differed in the associations they elicited, including thoughts about climate-related inequities, especially among low-income recipients. Third, our Los Angeles County sample overrepresented individuals with low income and a college education (Table 1). This facilitated the exploration of potential income-related differences and we did not adjust for the overrepresentations through sample weighting. Fourth, the more familiar terms have been used for a longer time, which may account for their higher effectiveness in eliciting concern [27,33,35]. Whether this applies to “climate justice” remains to be seen. A study from the United Kingdom suggests that “climate justice” may alienate individuals on the political right [61], although that has also been true for “global warming” [29], a term that lost its divisive connotations over time [35]. Fifth, questions about policy support and consuming less red meat were presented after a statement that mentioned the randomly assigned term, leading to concerns that participants may not have noticed the randomly assigned term. This question design may have obscured the randomized term, reducing its potential impact. However, survey research has shown that respondents do consider such contexts when generating their answers to survey questions [62–63]. Sixth, while supporting climate policies and consuming less red meat are important ways to mitigate climate change, participants may have been more responsive to questions about willingness to support energy conservation, renewable energy, cap and trade programs, or other specific policies. Seventh, the number of participants receiving each term was too small to allow for comparisons of more than two income categories. Eighth, Los Angeles County leans mostly Democratic, which may undermine generalization to other counties in the United States. Yet, as noted, the wording effects we found in this Los Angeles County are similar to those reported for a nationally representative U.S. sample [31]. Finally, household income was measured without accounting for household size, which may affect how hard or easy it is to make ends meet on a specific household income [64].

6. Conclusion

Although public communications may use the term “climate justice” to stress the unequal effects of climate change on low-income communities, the term is not widely familiar among Americans, which undermines their concern [31]. Here, we found no evidence that the term “climate justice” resonates well with participants from Los Angeles County, an area faced with substantial income inequality and pronounced adverse effects of climate change [44–52]. Independent of income, Angelenos who were randomized to the term “climate justice” gave lower ratings of familiarity, concern, perceived urgency, and policy support than those who were randomized to “climate change” or “global warming.” Our wording experiment presented “climate justice” and other terms without further explanation, as is common in the public discourse. Thus, we conclude that if climate terminology is used in public discourse without further explanation, “climate change” and “global warming” will be more effective than “climate justice” for eliciting public response. Indeed, best practices in communications suggest the importance of using familiar terms [65].

Supporting information

S1 Table. Demographic characteristics of participants who completed questions about each term.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Demographic characteristics of participants by income.

Note: ^* p < .05; ^** p < .01; ^*** p < .001.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Spanish version of survey questions.

Note: Participants who selected the Spanish survey version were randomly assigned to receiving questions about “el cambio climático,” “el calentamiento global,” “la crisis climática,” “la emergencia climática,” and “la justicia climática.” The questions asked about their randomly assigned term. Each question appeared on the screen one at a time. The English survey version (selected by 98% of participants) appears in Table 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Mean differences between randomized terms’ estimated marginal means (95% CI).

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. P-values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons. Estimated marginal mean for term 2 is subtracted from estimated marginal mean for term 1, so significant positive (vs. negative) numbers reflect higher ratings for term 1 (vs. term 2). Survey questions and response scales are described in Table 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s004

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Separate analyses of variance, examining effect of terms on ratings for each income level.

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. P-values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons. Estimated marginal mean for term 2 is subtracted from estimated marginal mean for term 1, so significant positive (vs. negative) numbers reflect higher ratings for term 1 (vs. term 2). Survey questions and response scales are described in Table 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s005

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Mean differences between randomized terms’ estimated marginal means (95% CI) for <$60k income group.

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. P-values were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons. Estimated marginal mean for term 2 is subtracted from estimated marginal mean for term 1, so significant positive (vs. negative) numbers reflect higher ratings for term 1 (vs. term 2). Survey questions and response scales are described in Table 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s006

(DOCX)

S7 Table. Mean differences between randomized terms’ estimated marginal means (95% CI) for ≥$60k income group.

Note: * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Because we conducted five separate tests for five dependent variables, we only treated p-values below 0.01 as statistically significant. P-values for pair-wise comparisons were Bonferroni-corrected for multiple comparisons. Estimated marginal mean for term 2 is subtracted from estimated marginal mean for term 1, so significant positive (vs. negative) numbers reflect higher ratings for term 1 (vs. term 2). Survey questions and response scales are described in Table 2.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s007

(DOCX)

S1 Fig. Flowchart of participants’ pathway through the survey.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000905.s008

(TIFF)

References

1. Dutta S. From ‘Climate Change’ to ‘Climate Justice’: ‘Civil Society’ Movement(s). IIC Quarterly. 2019;46(3/4):285–301.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
2. Saraswat C, Kumar P. Climate justice in lieu of climate change. Energy Ecol Environ. 2016;1:67–74.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
3. Schlosberg D, Collins LB. From environmental to climate justice. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2014;5(3):359–74.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Shonkoff JP, Garner AS, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):e232-46. pmid:22201156
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Brugmann J. Financing the resilient city. Environ Urban. 2012;24(1):215–32.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Corfee-Morlot J, et al. Towards a green investment policy framework. OECD Publishing; 2012.
7. Hsiang S, Kopp R, Jina A, Rising J, Delgado M, Mohan S, et al. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science. 2017;356(6345):1362–9. pmid:28663496
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Mirza MMQ. Climate change and extreme weather events. Clim Policy. 2003;3(3):233–48.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Scheelbeek PF, et al. The effects on public health of climate change adaptation responses. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(7):073001.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
10. Hallegatte S, et al. Managing the impacts of climate change on poverty. World Bank Publications; 2016.
11. Harlan SL, Pellow DN, Roberts JT, Bell SE, Holt WG, Nagel J. Climate Justice and Inequality. Clim Change Soc. Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 127–63.
12. Hernandez-Cortes D, Meng KC. Pollution disparity consequences. Environ Res Lett. 2022;17(8):081001.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Jessel S, Sawyer S, Hernández D. Energy, poverty, and health in climate change. Front Public Health. 2019;7:357.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Levin IP, Gaeth GJ. How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. J Consum Res. 1988;15(3):374.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Schwarz N. Attitude Construction: Evaluation in Context. Soc Cogn. 2007;25(5):638–56.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–8. pmid:7455683
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Holifield R. Defining environmental justice and environmental racism. Urban Geogr. 2001;22(1):78–90.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
18. McGurty E. Transforming environmentalism. Rutgers University Press; 2007.
19. Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts JT. Environmental Justice. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2009;34(1):405–30.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. President of the United States. Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations, Exec. Order No. 12,898, 3 C.F.R. 859 (1995), reprinted as amended in 42 U.S.C. 4321 (1994 & Supp. VI 1998). 1995.
21. Anderson WA. Mobilization of the Black Community following Hurricane Katrina. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters. 2008;26(3):197–217.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Schwarzenegger Institute. Energy and the environment. USC Schwarzenegger Institute; 2006.
23. Dawson A. Climate Justice: The Emerging Movement against Green Capitalism. South Atlantic Quart. 2010;109(2):313–38.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Hulme M. Attributing weather extremes to ‘climate change’. Prog Phys Geog. 2014;38(4):499–511.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. PLASS GN. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change. Tellus. 1956;8(2):140–54.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
26. Naser MM, Pearce P. Evolution of international climate change policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia; 2022.
27. Penz H. Chapter 18. Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. Routledge; 2017.
28. Akerlof K, Maibach EW. A rose by any other name…?: What members of the general public prefer to call “climate change.”. Clim Change. 2011;106:699–710.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N. “Global warming” or “climate change”?: Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opin Quart. 2011;75(1):115–24.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Villar A, Krosnick JA. Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: does word choice matter? Clim Change. 2011;105(1):1–12.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. de Bruin W, Kruke L, Sinatra GM, Schwarz N. Should we change the term we use for “climate change”? Evidence from a national U.S. experiment. Clim Change. 2024.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
32. Whitmarsh L. What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public Underst Sci. 2008;18(4):401–20.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Benjamin D, Por HH, Budescu D. Climate change versus global warming: Who is susceptible to the framing of climate change? Environ Behav. 2017;49(7):745–70.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Schuldt JP, Pearson AR. The role of race and ethnicity in climate change polarization. Clim Change. 2016;136:495–505.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Schuldt JP, Enns PK, Konrath S, Schwarz N. Shifting views on “global warming” and “climate change” in the United States. J Environ Psychol. 2020;69:101414.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Yoro KO, Daramola MO. CO₂ emission sources. Adv Carbon Capt. 2020.
37. Rogelj J, et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals. Nature. 2016;534(7609):631–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Schuldt JP, Pearson AR. Public recognition of climate change inequities. Clim Change. 2023;176:1–14.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
39. Morin-Chassé A, Lachapelle E. Partisan strength and politicization. J Environ Stud Sci. 2020;10:31–40.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Lineman M, et al. Talking about climate change. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(9).
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Rahm D. Climate Activism in the 21st Century. McFarland; 2023.
42. Schäfer M, et al. Analyzing changes in global news nomenclature. Bergen Lang Ling Stud. 2023;13:1–18.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Feldman L, Hart PS. Effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing. Clim Change. 2021;169(1):10.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Marlon J, et al. Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2023. Yale Program on Climate Communication; 2023.
45. Lai C. The worst states for climate change in the US. Earth.org. 2023.
46. Youvan DC. Facing the flame. 2025.
47. Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. 2024.
48. Ong P, Blumenberg E. Income and racial inequality in Los Angeles. In The City. Sage; 1996.
49. Pastor M, et al. Why environmental justice is integral. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2024;121(32):e2310073121.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
50. Hernandez A. Private fire crews in wine country. Los Angeles Times; 2020.
51. Baldassare M, et al. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. Public Policy Institute of California; 2023.
52. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 2022 annual report on international trade. 2023. https://www.stlouisfed.org
- View Article
- Google Scholar
53. McCauley D, Heffron R. Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy. 2018;119:1–7.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
54. Hyland JJ, et al. The role of meat in sustainable diets. Meat Sci. 2017;132:189–95.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. California Department of Housing and Community Development. Income Limits. 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf
- View Article
- Google Scholar
56. Pew Research Center. 11 facts about Hispanic origin groups. 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org
- View Article
- Google Scholar
57. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge; 2013.
58. U.S. Census Bureau. Los Angeles County, California: Census data. 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/map/losangelescountycalifornia
- View Article
- Google Scholar
59. Fine JC. Climate justice communication. Environ Commun. 2023;17(5):469–85.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
60. Kim SH, Carvalho JP, Davis AC. Talking about poverty. Journal Mass Commun Q. 2010;87(3–4):563–81.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
61. Whitmarsh L, Corner A. Tools for a new climate conversation. Glob Environ Change. 2017;42:122–35.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
62. Schwarz N. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol. 1999;54(2):93–105.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
63. Sudman S, Bradburn NM, Schwarz N. Thinking about Answers. Jossey-Bass; 1996.
64. Guzman G. Household income: 2021. Am Commun Surv Briefs. 2022;1:1–9.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Bruine de Bruin W. Public understanding of climate change terminology. Clim Change. 2021;167(3):37.
- View Article
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Dutta S. From ‘Climate Change’ to ‘Climate Justice’: ‘Civil Society’ Movement(s). IIC Quarterly. 2019;46(3/4):285–301.
View Article
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Saraswat C, Kumar P. Climate justice in lieu of climate change. Energy Ecol Environ. 2016;1:67–74.
View Article
Google Scholar

[5] View Article

[6] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Schlosberg D, Collins LB. From environmental to climate justice. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2014;5(3):359–74.
View Article
Google Scholar

[8] View Article

[9] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Shonkoff JP, Garner AS, Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. The lifelong effects of early childhood adversity and toxic stress. Pediatrics. 2012;129(1):e232-46. pmid:22201156
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[11] View Article

[12] PubMed/NCBI

[13] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Brugmann J. Financing the resilient city. Environ Urban. 2012;24(1):215–32.
View Article
Google Scholar

[15] View Article

[16] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Corfee-Morlot J, et al. Towards a green investment policy framework. OECD Publishing; 2012.

[ref7] 7. Hsiang S, Kopp R, Jina A, Rising J, Delgado M, Mohan S, et al. Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States. Science. 2017;356(6345):1362–9. pmid:28663496
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[19] View Article

[20] PubMed/NCBI

[21] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Mirza MMQ. Climate change and extreme weather events. Clim Policy. 2003;3(3):233–48.
View Article
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Scheelbeek PF, et al. The effects on public health of climate change adaptation responses. Environ Res Lett. 2021;16(7):073001.
View Article
Google Scholar

[26] View Article

[27] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Hallegatte S, et al. Managing the impacts of climate change on poverty. World Bank Publications; 2016.

[ref11] 11. Harlan SL, Pellow DN, Roberts JT, Bell SE, Holt WG, Nagel J. Climate Justice and Inequality. Clim Change Soc. Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 127–63.

[ref12] 12. Hernandez-Cortes D, Meng KC. Pollution disparity consequences. Environ Res Lett. 2022;17(8):081001.
View Article
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Jessel S, Sawyer S, Hernández D. Energy, poverty, and health in climate change. Front Public Health. 2019;7:357.
View Article
Google Scholar

[34] View Article

[35] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Levin IP, Gaeth GJ. How Consumers are Affected by the Framing of Attribute Information Before and After Consuming the Product. J Consum Res. 1988;15(3):374.
View Article
Google Scholar

[37] View Article

[38] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Schwarz N. Attitude Construction: Evaluation in Context. Soc Cogn. 2007;25(5):638–56.
View Article
Google Scholar

[40] View Article

[41] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981;211(4481):453–8. pmid:7455683
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Holifield R. Defining environmental justice and environmental racism. Urban Geogr. 2001;22(1):78–90.
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. McGurty E. Transforming environmentalism. Rutgers University Press; 2007.

[ref19] 19. Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts JT. Environmental Justice. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2009;34(1):405–30.
View Article
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. President of the United States. Federal actions to address environmental justice in minority populations and low-income populations, Exec. Order No. 12,898, 3 C.F.R. 859 (1995), reprinted as amended in 42 U.S.C. 4321 (1994 & Supp. VI 1998). 1995.

[ref21] 21. Anderson WA. Mobilization of the Black Community following Hurricane Katrina. International Journal of Mass Emergencies & Disasters. 2008;26(3):197–217.
View Article
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Schwarzenegger Institute. Energy and the environment. USC Schwarzenegger Institute; 2006.

[ref23] 23. Dawson A. Climate Justice: The Emerging Movement against Green Capitalism. South Atlantic Quart. 2010;109(2):313–38.
View Article
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Hulme M. Attributing weather extremes to ‘climate change’. Prog Phys Geog. 2014;38(4):499–511.
View Article
Google Scholar

[62] View Article

[63] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. PLASS GN. The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climatic Change. Tellus. 1956;8(2):140–54.
View Article
Google Scholar

[65] View Article

[66] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Naser MM, Pearce P. Evolution of international climate change policy. Oxford Research Encyclopedia; 2022.

[ref27] 27. Penz H. Chapter 18. Routledge Handbook of Ecolinguistics. Routledge; 2017.

[ref28] 28. Akerlof K, Maibach EW. A rose by any other name…?: What members of the general public prefer to call “climate change.”. Clim Change. 2011;106:699–710.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Schuldt JP, Konrath SH, Schwarz N. “Global warming” or “climate change”?: Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording. Public Opin Quart. 2011;75(1):115–24.
View Article
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Villar A, Krosnick JA. Global warming vs. climate change, taxes vs. prices: does word choice matter? Clim Change. 2011;105(1):1–12.
View Article
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. de Bruin W, Kruke L, Sinatra GM, Schwarz N. Should we change the term we use for “climate change”? Evidence from a national U.S. experiment. Clim Change. 2024.
View Article
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Whitmarsh L. What’s in a name? Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate change” and “global warming”. Public Underst Sci. 2008;18(4):401–20.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Benjamin D, Por HH, Budescu D. Climate change versus global warming: Who is susceptible to the framing of climate change? Environ Behav. 2017;49(7):745–70.
View Article
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Schuldt JP, Pearson AR. The role of race and ethnicity in climate change polarization. Clim Change. 2016;136:495–505.
View Article
Google Scholar

[88] View Article

[89] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Schuldt JP, Enns PK, Konrath S, Schwarz N. Shifting views on “global warming” and “climate change” in the United States. J Environ Psychol. 2020;69:101414.
View Article
Google Scholar

[91] View Article

[92] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Yoro KO, Daramola MO. CO₂ emission sources. Adv Carbon Capt. 2020.

[ref37] 37. Rogelj J, et al. Paris Agreement climate proposals. Nature. 2016;534(7609):631–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Schuldt JP, Pearson AR. Public recognition of climate change inequities. Clim Change. 2023;176:1–14.
View Article
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Morin-Chassé A, Lachapelle E. Partisan strength and politicization. J Environ Stud Sci. 2020;10:31–40.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Lineman M, et al. Talking about climate change. PLOS ONE. 2015;10(9).
View Article
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Rahm D. Climate Activism in the 21st Century. McFarland; 2023.

[ref42] 42. Schäfer M, et al. Analyzing changes in global news nomenclature. Bergen Lang Ling Stud. 2023;13:1–18.
View Article
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Feldman L, Hart PS. Effects of “emergency” and “crisis” framing. Clim Change. 2021;169(1):10.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Marlon J, et al. Yale Climate Opinion Maps 2023. Yale Program on Climate Communication; 2023.

[ref45] 45. Lai C. The worst states for climate change in the US. Earth.org. 2023.

[ref46] 46. Youvan DC. Facing the flame. 2025.

[ref47] 47. Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. 2024.

[ref48] 48. Ong P, Blumenberg E. Income and racial inequality in Los Angeles. In The City. Sage; 1996.

[ref49] 49. Pastor M, et al. Why environmental justice is integral. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2024;121(32):e2310073121.
View Article
Google Scholar

[119] View Article

[120] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Hernandez A. Private fire crews in wine country. Los Angeles Times; 2020.

[ref51] 51. Baldassare M, et al. PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and the Environment. Public Policy Institute of California; 2023.

[ref52] 52. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. 2022 annual report on international trade. 2023. https://www.stlouisfed.org
View Article
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. McCauley D, Heffron R. Just transition: Integrating climate, energy and environmental justice. Energy Policy. 2018;119:1–7.
View Article
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Hyland JJ, et al. The role of meat in sustainable diets. Meat Sci. 2017;132:189–95.
View Article
Google Scholar

[130] View Article

[131] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. California Department of Housing and Community Development. Income Limits. 2023. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/grants-and-funding/income-limits-2023.pdf
View Article
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Pew Research Center. 11 facts about Hispanic origin groups. 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Routledge; 2013.

[ref58] 58. U.S. Census Bureau. Los Angeles County, California: Census data. 2023. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/map/losangelescountycalifornia
View Article
Google Scholar

[140] View Article

[141] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Fine JC. Climate justice communication. Environ Commun. 2023;17(5):469–85.
View Article
Google Scholar

[143] View Article

[144] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Kim SH, Carvalho JP, Davis AC. Talking about poverty. Journal Mass Commun Q. 2010;87(3–4):563–81.
View Article
Google Scholar

[146] View Article

[147] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Whitmarsh L, Corner A. Tools for a new climate conversation. Glob Environ Change. 2017;42:122–35.
View Article
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Schwarz N. Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. Am Psychol. 1999;54(2):93–105.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Sudman S, Bradburn NM, Schwarz N. Thinking about Answers. Jossey-Bass; 1996.

[ref64] 64. Guzman G. Household income: 2021. Am Commun Surv Briefs. 2022;1:1–9.
View Article
Google Scholar

[156] View Article

[157] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Bruine de Bruin W. Public understanding of climate change terminology. Clim Change. 2021;167(3):37.
View Article
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

1. Introduction

1.1. History of climate justice and other terms

1.2. Public responses to terms in the U.S.

1.3. Public responses to terms in Los Angeles County, and variations by income

1.4. The current study

2. Methods

2.1. Sample

2.2. Procedure

2.3. Analyses

3. Results

3.1. Familiarity

3.2. Concern

3.3. Urgency

3.4. Policy support

3.5. Red meat reduction

3.6. Additional analyses

4. Discussion

5. Limitations

6. Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Table. Demographic characteristics of participants who completed questions about each term.

S2 Table. Demographic characteristics of participants by income.

S3 Table. Spanish version of survey questions.

S4 Table. Mean differences between randomized terms’ estimated marginal means (95% CI).

S5 Table. Separate analyses of variance, examining effect of terms on ratings for each income level.

S6 Table. Mean differences between randomized terms’ estimated marginal means (95% CI) for <$60k income group.

S7 Table. Mean differences between randomized terms’ estimated marginal means (95% CI) for ≥$60k income group.

S1 Fig. Flowchart of participants’ pathway through the survey.

References