Climate change awareness and risk perceptions in the coastal marine ecosystem of Palawan, Philippines

Summary

The authors have done a good job in addressing the major revisions outlined by the reviewer, particularly adding a detailed relevance of the results and study sites. Specific, minor revisions are listed below per section. These comments are related to the consistency and coherency of the paper as a whole.

Introduction

• Lines 33-44 “…species [10]”. References can be condensed considering this is just an overview.
• Lines 44-46. A little bit misplaced, given the first few paragraphs and succeeding paragraph gives an overview of the impacts of climate change generally and in the Philippines. These lines can be moved closer (or as a transition) to Lines 62 onward (since this paragraph is closer to the research study).
• Line 50. “Seven out of 25 cities (in the world?)”
• Line 66. “…a complete picture for conservation decision-making and environmental management”.
• Line 69. Indent “In Asia…” to next paragraph.
• Line 79. “Public opinion research…” Sentence is a bit misplaced, if the variation of research will not be discussed here. Perhaps move closer to discussion. Succeeding sentence “the study on risk perceptions…” can be merged with the previous “the present study…”
• Line 92. Missing quotation marks for “ecological public health…”
• Line 93. Use of “we”. Please check for consistency throughout paper if using first or third person where appropriate.

Materials and Methods

• Line 118. “In the simulation conducted by…” Consider moving to Introduction. Furthermore, does this same study include the climate change exposure map of DENR? A reference needs to be made for such a map.
• Line 130. “The province..” – meaning Palawan?
• Figure 2. Revision much clearer than previous version. Is there a reason why the risk perception of the impact of climate change, anthropogenic pressures and marine livelihood was only examined for coral reefs and seagrasses (and not mangroves?) Furthermore, consider articulating some of these terms e.g. Driver, Pressure… in the discussion to connect to the overall discussion to the framework. I start to see the use of “driver” in Lines 401 onwards, but I don’t see this consistently used.

Results

• Consider merging section 3.3 with 3.2 since 3.2 has short results.
• Consider moving bar charts related to agreement/disagreement to Supplementary materials, or consider combining charts into a panel or subplot illustration. I’m sorry I did not point this out earlier in the first version but it may be a good way to compare agreement/disagreement if placed in one illustration. For instance, the comparisons in Figure 7 and 8 were summarized.
• Line 321. Missing “s” in “group”.
• Line 345. Missing quotation marks in “not poor”.

Discussion under Section 4.1

• This section identifies the key predictors (personal experiences of climate impacts) of climate change awareness and risk perceptions and thoroughly cross-validates results with previous, similar research. However, I feel this section can benefit from adding a bold subsection/subheader next to each paragraph for ease of reading such as 1) Experience with extreme weather events and anomalies. 2) Experience with climate-related livelihood damages. These experiences have already been summarized and cited by the authors at the beginning of the section (Line 378-380) which provides a very good expectation of what’s to come in the succeeding paragraphs. However, because the discussion is quite rich, one can easily get lost through the reading. With these subsections, the authors can also organize their discussion more cohesively; for example, the predictors of temperature rise, excessive rainfall, and sea level rise can all be discussed within the first experience (i.e. weather) rather than discussed disjointly across the section. More specific suggestions and comments per line are found below:

• Title: Role of Personal Experiences (in Shaping?) Climate Change Awareness and Risk Perceptions
• Lines 391-400. Revisit overall coherence of paragraph.
  • Line 391-393 “…may serve as an indicator of what climate change will mean for the province”. Not really sure what this means or what is trying to be said.
  • Line 393-394. “The relationship of other climate-related experiences… (such as?)
  • Line 395 “…may be because”. Careful with use of “because”. Consider revising sentence structure such as “other studies may suggest…” or related.
• Line 407. What does “substantial percentage” mean here?
• Line 416. “impact” – sea level rise?
• Lines 418 – 431. Revisit connection across studies.
• Line 439. “another research study”. Not clear, is this related to the previous? If not, what specific study is this considering UNEP… is specifically cited.
• Line 443. “previous research”. Is this referring to [46,47]?
• Line 447. Omit lines after [68] “a study found that…” until “meadows.” Simply merge [69] as [68,69].
• Line 454-462. Be sure to include transitions such as “in addition..” or “moreover..” to allow for ease of reading. Not sure why [75] is included as this reference is about flood victim perceptions.
• Line 466. “…conditions that reduce light is a key factor…” Sentence unclear whether reduction of light or just light is a key factor to inhibit (or promote) coral and/or seagrass growth. Revise to something like “..land-based pollutants which increase algal blooms and turbidity, thereby inhibiting light penetration that is necessary for the survival and growth of coral and seagrass ecosystems.”
• Line 469. No reference to Table for income results.
• Line 481-482. Sentence repeated from Line 460-462. Revise or omit, with repeated reference to [75] that is unrelated.
• Lines 483-488. Consider moving recommendations closer to Lines 495-500 which is the end of the section. (Or in Conclusions?).

Discussion under Section 4.2

• Similar to my general comment for Section 4.1, I think Section 4.2 would also benefit from subsections pertaining to the socio-demographic factors: 1) Gender, 2) Education, 3) Income, 4) Age, 5) Location. More specific suggestions and comments per line are found below:

• Title: Role of Socio-Demographic Factors (in Shaping?) Climate Change Awareness and Risk Perceptions
• Line 504. “Understanding population demographics” – not dynamics. Also why socio-demographics is important should be explained further. This can also be discussed within the context of recommendations
• Line 540. “The 19-29 year old group”…
• Line 547. “increases with age” – not increased.
• Line 567-568. Is this related to the previous paragraph (on the variation of perceptions per location?)
• Line 571-573. “By increasing their knowledge…they will be more concerned” – do you mean “Improving education about climate change and its impacts has shown increased concern and support for climate-friendly policies”? Moreover, what else can be said here about age and the other socio-demographic factors as part of recommendations?

Limitations

• Line 581. “…food security. These additional factors could be significant in predicting overall perception of climate change as _____” coastal hazard is a bit vague – hazard to what?
• Line 584. What is meant by “actual status of climate change impact”? Climate change impacts were certainly described in Palawan and the specific study sites, but what is meant by the statement more specifically? Is it for instance, coral bleaching or seagrass decline? Perhaps “the state of ecosystems impacted by climate change”?

Conclusions

• Line 595. “…but a number remain unaware”. Number is vague.
• Line 604. Remove extra 19.
• Line 615. Missing quotation marks on poor.

The paper is a very good effort in showcasing how coastal communities in a mainly fishery-dependent region of the Philippines perceive climate change, as it impacts the community integrity, coastal habitats, and livelihoods. The effort is to be lauded for the field approach it adopts and for the level of analyses utilized in explaning the findings. The authors do well also to interpret their findings with other, ongoing events and activities (ex., mangrove planting) and wealth disparities, among othe explanatory factors.

Where I find that the paper could be upgraded is via a better explanation on the findings themselves, as these relate to response rates, confidence levels on the total surveys, and related items. For example, 291 in-person surveys represents a high number, but what is that in relation to, and how representative is that of the overall population? There are demographic and economic data collected by the team that could be used to determine sample to population representativeness. This may seem like a quibble, but because the authors use the survey returns to derive conclusions about the communities, it is important that the results show to the extent that the findings represent the larger communities (ex., did anyone reject the survey and if so, then why?).

There are also some other findings that the authors present as prima facie and do not investigate further. For example, more women than men in the communities tended to believe that climate change represented an issue, which the authors point out also exists in other areas. However, a more pressing question is why would women feel this way? Similarly, although the authors point out that sunstroke or exposure leads to higher rates of belief in climate change, there is also a generational difference; but one might also state that the increased exposure should also affect younger generations. So, is this a shifting baseline or is it prolonged exposure that is creating the generational shift? These and other questions (ex., differences between the Philippines and the US) are discussed but left somewhat unanswered, whereas the authors could certainly build the case further by looking at the why rather than just the what.

Overall, a very good effort that provides an excellent snapshot of coastal communities in the flux of climate change.

Summary

This study investigates coastal community perceptions of the impacts of climate change in selected coastal areas of Palawan, Philippines and evaluates the potential influence of relevant socio-economic and environmental factors on these perceptions. This study applies the Drivers, Pressures, State, Exposure, Effects, Actions (eDPSEEA) framework to characterize the social, ecological, and human health interactions in the coastal environment. Moreover, in-person interviews were conducted to derive community perceptions toward these interactions.  Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) as well as correlation analysis (ordinary least squares regression) were used as the main statistical tools of analysis. The authors report that climate change is recognized by communities as a threat to the coastal environment and local temperature rise and excessive rainfall were found to be significant environmental predictors of perceptions toward climate change. In addition, income was also identified as a significant socio-economic predictor of perceptions toward the impacts of climate change, anthropogenic pressures, and marine livelihoods on coral reefs and seagrass beds. Ultimately, the study provides implications for engagement, education, and knowledge-building to enhance coastal community resilience in the face of climate and anthropogenic change.

Contribution

A major strength of this paper is the empirical validation of lived experiences in coastal communities, especially in developing island nations like the Philippines disproportionately affected by the impacts of climate change. Examining Palawan is a relevant site to advance such research since the province has been identified as “the second among provinces in the Philippines most vulnerable to sea level rise” as well as a “UNESCO Biosphere Reserve” (p. 4).

The eDPSEEA framework used in the study is appropriate to provide a coherent storyline to the perceived changes in the coastal communities of Palawan. Moreover, the correlation analysis drawn between perceptions and climate-related and socio-economic factors provides initial insights for mapping potential priority areas of development (e.g poverty, education, development of a “knowledge management system” as suggested by the authors in p. 26). Overall, the study offers an opportunity for future interdisciplinary work incorporating community well-being, climate resilience, and coastal resource management.

As a result I recommend the study for publication with Major Revisions to address issues on content, organization, and coherence of results. Please see detailed comments and suggestions below:

Detailed Comments

• It is important that the authors make it known at the beginning of the paper that the study is 1) part of a larger study evaluating perceptions toward different phenomena or factors affecting the coastal environment and community wellbeing; therefore 2) the present study only focuses on one component, which is perceptions toward climate change and anthropogenic factors affecting selected coastal habitats (i.e. coral reefs and seagrass beds). Because this was not declared up front, I expected a separate discussion on other vital aspects of the eDPSEEA framework, such as “human health and wellbeing” in relation to climate change, a vital component of the framework mentioned several times in the paper. Granted that “sunburn” and “heatstroke” are climate impacts attributed to “human health”, these impacts were discussed in general relative to other impacts such as local temperature rise, excessive rainfall etc. I was only made aware that this was part of a larger study toward the end in the Acknowledgements and after reading the referenced survey of Madarcos et. al (2021). The present study would benefit from drawing connections to Madarcos et. al in the Discussion as well.
• The significance of study is limited to “adding empirical evidence to the existing knowledge…” (p. 5). The authors can expand on the significance of the paper, considering research gaps and potential applications for climate change capacity building and resilience. Subsequent paragraph on the impacts of climate change across the world, perceptions, and personal experiences seem a bit disconnected in this paragraph; perhaps move this up earlier in the Introduction.
• The authors provide a mere glance of the study site in this section. I recommend that the section in the Introduction about Palawan be moved here, and that the authors elaborate more on the social and ecological context of these areas. For example, it would be helpful to discuss the climate change exposure map briefly mentioned in Madarcos et. al to expound on the vulnerability of these municipalities relative to the entire Palawan.
• Supplementary materials mentioned in the Results are missing.
• Since there are no page numbers and line by line numbers, referencing the sentences and paragraphs are made more difficult.
• Headers of the sections (particularly Results and Discussion) appear to be written according to the “research questions”, but I had difficulty following what exactly is being measured under each perception category. Because the OLS model specification was not indicated, it was difficult to follow along which predictors were included. I recommend including a short explanation of what is being measured under each type of perception for easier reader recall.
• The reduced variables (6 for perceptions of climate change; 17 for perceptions of factors affecting coral reefs and seagrass beds) should also be referenced both in the text and in the tables since this was unclear to me until I had to manually count and indicate what they were in the tables.
• Climate change terms also seem to be read as interchangeable. For example, under the section as “Perception on climate change as a coastal threat” – what do “threat”, “risk perception”, and “impacts” mean and how do they differ from one another? The IPCC Glossary of Terms (2018) may provide guidance to distinguish these terms.
• Similarly, the authors should consider reworking the headers of these sections with specific climate change terminology.
• I recommend that the sections in the Discussion are reworked; that is, to have different headers compared with the Results section. For example, I suggest discussing in terms of 1) The role of socio-economic factors on perceptions; 2) The role of climate change and anthropogenic impacts on perceptions.
• I would have liked to see how the study’s findings come full circle in the Conclusions with the eDPSEEA framework, especially how it leads to Action. I see how perceptions can pave the way for education, communication, and a “knowledge management system” , but how these can be areas of intervention can be further connected to the framework. This relates to my previous comment regarding identifying “Perception” as “Action”. Explaining why this is so at the beginning and at the end can make the framework more meaningful and also distinct from Madarcos et. al. The authors may want to consider how else the study could be distinguished from Madarcos et. al and subsequent papers.

Other Section Suggestions

• In the Introduction, “four research questions” – not questions but aims. If question, please rephrase as a research question. Consider also re-organizing the Introduction since the background on perception studies appear to be disjointly distributed in the section.
• In Materials and Methods, “Despite the apparent simplicity of these individuals’ lifestyles, they are highly knowledgeable about local environmental conditions…” – the use of apparent simplicity is derogatory and implies a bias and untoward power dynamic between the researchers and community (Bennett et. al, 2019). This description is unnecessary.
• eDPSEEA framework Figure 2: the model illustrates a very linear pathway when relationships between each component are interrelated. I am not convinced that “Action” is synonymous with Perception. Perhaps the authors can further elaborate on how perception is viewed as an “Action” and how it fits with Reis et. al (2015, p. 1386) where action has “knock-on’ effects… directed at specific intervention points throughout the model and process ‘pathway.’”
• In Results, “only significantly correlated predictors with perceptions were used” caption on some tables – inconsistent presentation. Not all tables consistently present predictors that are (not) significant. I think some tables can also be considered for the supplementary materials, depending on how the authors choose to re-organize their presentation of their results.
• In Results, Table 1: poor vs. not poor (change to USD rather than PHP; or add PHP or USD in parenthesis for comparison); age (not sure why it is relevant to put “Gen Z”, “Millenials” etc); education (lower/higher education – what does this mean?
• In Results, “Personal observations or experiences was the strongest predictor of the perception of sea level rise impact (β = 0.35, p < 0.001)” (p.15) – is this “Sea Level Rise” on Table 5? Unclear what the indicator is for how these personal observations or experiences. Also unclear as to why β is used instead of B, compared with other predictors which use unstandardized coefficients.
• In Discussion, “…adds knowledge to the debate about how to involve the public” (p.19) – what debate? Clarify why there is a debate or replace word.
• In Discussion, “although previous studies found that the younger generation in  the  USA…” (p. 20), I suggest rephrasing to something like “in contrast to other studies that report the younger generation…” rather than a direct geographic comparison. There is a similar pattern in the Discussion, hence it would be good if the authors review these comparisons (e.g. Palawan statistics vs. Philippines statistics; Singapore, New Zealand studies) for rephrasing.
• In Discussion, “The  perception  of  the  respondents  that  marine  livelihood,  especially overfishing…” (p. 24) – overfishing does not seem to be included in the list of variables under marine livelihood.

References cited

• Madarcos, J. R. V., Creencia, L. A., Roberts, B. R., White, M. P., Nayoan, J., Morrissey, K., & Fleming, L. E. (2021). Understanding Local Perceptions of the Drivers/Pressures on the Coastal Marine Environment in Palawan, Philippines. Frontiers in Marine Science , 8 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.659699
• Reis, S., Morris, G., Fleming, L. ., Beck, S., Taylor, T., White, M., … Austen, M. (2013). Integrating health and environmental impact analysis. Public Health (London) , 129 (10), 1383–1389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2013.07.006
• Bennett, N. J. (2019). In Political Seas: Engaging with Political Ecology in the Ocean and Coastal Environment. Coastal Management , 47 (1), 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/08920753.2019.1540905
• IPCC. (2018). Glossary. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/glossary/
• Shi, J., Visschers, V. H. M., Siegrist, M., & Arvai, J. (2016). Knowledge as a driver of public perceptions about climate change reassessed. Nature Climate Change , 6 (8), 759–762. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2997