Understanding public perception of sea level rise increased since the end of the 19th century. Sea level changes can be driven by a variety of factors, but such factors can be classified into two general categories, eustatic and isostatic change. The first has a global effect, indicated by changes in the volume or masses of the oceans following the melting of ice sheets or the redistribution of water between different hydrological reservoirs. On the other hand, the latter is caused by uplift or subsidence of the land and has only a local effect, known as relative sea level change. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay On shorter time scales, ranging from decades to centuries, sea levels change primarily due to anthropogenic climate change leading to warming oceans and melting glaciers. Compared to the baseline period of 1986 to 2005, global mean sea level is projected to rise between 0.26 and 0.98 m by 2100. Understanding climate change as a major factor driving sea level fluctuations sea level, therefore, is necessary to understand risks arising from sea level change. It is important to note that climate varies based on the amount of radiation emitted by the sun, changes in the Earth's axis around the sun, atmospheric factors, oceanographic factors, terrestrial factors, and human activities. Furthermore, greenhouse gases that accumulate in the atmosphere can decrease the amount of thermal radiation that can escape into space, thus increasing the temperature of the Earth's surface. Because sea levels are expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, the term sea level rise (SLR) is used in this essay to describe a rise in mean sea level along the coast. As a result, concerns about the potential future physical and socioeconomic impacts of SLR on coastal communities are also increasing today. Physical effects include flooding of low-lying lands, erosion, coastal retreat and saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, loss of wetlands, changes in groundwater tables, while socioeconomic impacts can range from property damage to injury and death . Understanding public perceptions of the risks posed by SLRs is critical to better approaches to disaster risk management. As SLR risks threaten coastal communities to a greater extent, understanding their beliefs and responses becomes more critical to garnering SLR risk management strategies. Risk management strategies are necessary to reduce risk by decreasing potential harm. Without these, coastal populations are at increasing risk of storm attacks and permanent land flooding. Therefore, a first step towards communication strategies that can encourage preparedness can be initiated by a good understanding of how people understand risks. Addressing risk perception assessment means including different aspects of an individual, such as personal beliefs and values, demographic factors (gender, race and age), political opinions, belonging, trust and culture. Consolidated communication is a crucial factor both in assessing coastal communities' understanding and perception of risk and in shaping decision-makingand the authorities' response to risk. SLR communication shares challenges with climate change communication, including the scale of the problem, the complexity of the science, and the development of policy-driven solutions. Although the risks of climate change-induced SLR have been known for decades, however, there has been a notable lag between public recognition and related policy response. Furthermore, due to some issues, such as SLR information being too general for people to relate to and technical information being too specialized, messages about SLR risks may therefore fail to satisfactorily inform and persuade communities to respond to the consequences. According to Fischhoff (1995), effective risk communication means not only expressing accurate information, but also raising awareness, improving understanding, and moving the public to action. In other words, it should involve recognizing the perceptions, problems and attitudes of residents in the risk area, so that individual or community decisions can be made based on the best available risk information. Methods To gain insights into public understanding, attitudes and behaviors of SLR risk perception, the mental models approach is one of the most effective ways to be used. Research has shown that to effectively engage people through communication and enable changes in their beliefs and behaviors, we must first understand their mental models. Mental models compare lay and expert perspectives with the goal of identifying gaps in understanding that could be corrected. Furthermore, an expert model is an essential element in mental modeling. It includes a comprehensive graphical representation that summarizes and integrates the current knowledge and understanding of experts on the main factors of the study topic. Along with communications that are effective in changing behavior, communicators can be framed to encourage audiences to integrate new information into their beliefs. . Although mental model theory has been shown to fit well with data sets representing reasoning processes and provides a coherent conceptual framework for eliciting public opinions, however this method inevitably has some limitations and criticisms, such as researcher influence and an assumption of an expert model. Furthermore, a common criticism of the mental model approach is that it depends too much on the knowledge deficit model of risk understanding and communication. This model states that the public knows too little to act appropriately, just as misconceptions lead to inappropriate responses, and therefore the public must be educated to respond appropriately. Critics of the knowledge deficit model point out that, in addition to a person's knowledge of risk, many factors determine perceptions. Therefore, communications should respect each individual's values, feelings and other contextual factors, not just pay attention to the facts people know. The other qualitative methods are document-based assessments and semi-structured interviews. These methods are also used to analyze public interpretation of SLR risk and preparedness information. The main purpose of document-based evaluation is to examine the responses of the target audience rather than criticize a specific document. Audience analytics can not only identify an audience profile and characteristic, but also reveal howread and use documents. Additionally, audience analysis is possible to help communicators understand perceptions and attitudes about issues, reasons for disagreements about risks, and ways to frame messages for intended audiences. Many studies have been conducted to better understand how residents in vulnerable coastal areas respond to risk communications related to SLR. The results of the study conducted in the coastal communities of Manteo and Washington (North Carolina, United States) and the Severn Estuary (United Kingdom) can be two good examples. The studies used the qualitative approach which aimed to involve a demographically diverse sample of participants (e.g. race, education, income) who were all at least 18 years old and it was desirable that participants had no apparent connection with the topic. However, a further quantitative approach (public survey) was also conducted in the Severn Estuary research to explore the perceptions of a broadly representative sample of people living within the study area. In the North Carolina study, document-based assessments questioned participants about the effects of SLR and mitigation strategies tailored to the perceived concerns of specific communities, while individual interviewing was done to discuss their responses to the information and their perceptions on SLR risks. On the other hand, in the case of the Severn Estuary, the interview sessions were conducted to explore what people already perceived about SLR on the Severn Estuary. Finally, participants stated their level of agreement regarding their opinions on what they think about SLR, whose responsibility it is to respond to it, whether they trust the government to protect residents from floods, and whether they are informed about SLR through the quantitative survey system. Public Perception of Sea Level Rise According to the study findings, it was found that most participants do not feel well informed about SLR. A mix of positive and negative comments captured from study samples in the North Carolina area demonstrated that participants expressed a different level of awareness with SLR. Only a few knew its causes and consequences, and many did not understand the scientific information presented. The interview sessions revealed that negative feelings, such as anxiety and hurt, were associated primarily with attitudes prior to responding to the information. Interestingly, the SLR topic was not particularly relevant to some participants. They think that many more important issues in their lives are competing for attention. Most participants showed fatalism, skepticism and fear when they read information about the risk of SLR and felt they did not have sufficient knowledge of the actions to take. Fatalism itself was a situation in which participants expressed the opinion that nothing could be done about the problems posed by the SLR. Overcoming fatalism and moving communities towards adaptation is considered a substantial challenge in SLR communication. However, many people expressed optimism and this sentiment was a first step towards risk management. Regarding adaptation responses to SLR, participants have different opinions on government or private response. Some believed the government needed to act, but others feared regulation. The results of the Severn Estuary study demonstrated that many aspects of public perception are in line with expert understanding. In terms of determinants and SLR rates, the majoritypart of the participants believed that sea levels will rise and half of them recognized the importance of combined events, such as a storm surge during high tide. Most respondents also agreed that melting land ice is the main cause of global SLR. This finding may not be surprising considering that it is a particular aspect of science. Consistent with expert understanding of the physical impacts of the SLR, the public also agrees that the SLR would pose an overall risk to the estuary and pose a threat of flooding, erosion, and ecological change. Regarding socioeconomic impacts, property damage was highly noted among respondents, and most of them also think that SLR will lead to difficulties in obtaining home insurance and emotional impact issues. Renewable technologies were perceived by many interviewees, both experts and the public, as an effective mitigation measure that can be performed to adapt to SLR. Despite the enormous variation in results, however, some patterns emerge. First, the SLR issue is not particularly relevant and is in line with research showing that climate change has low relevance due to its complexity and remoteness in space and time. More likely than not, people don't tend to think about it much and concern is low compared to other issues like the economy. One reason why many participants express little awareness about the DSLR may be because they generally see it as something that will happen to other people in the future. On the one hand, a significant portion of survey participants perceive that the causes and effects of SLR are their responsibility. A larger portion, however, thinks it is the government's obligation to respond to the associated risk of flooding and other SLR impacts. Furthermore, respondents focused more on mitigation and adaptation measures that are the responsibility of the government (e.g. dredging and geoengineering) rather than the individual (e.g. personal lifestyle changes). This misperception of responsibility was accompanied by distrust in the government or entities they perceived as responsible. As participants in North Carolina felt, the public around the Severn Estuary also expressed that they did not feel well protected by flood defenses and had no idea how to manage the SLR. This suggests that the public has critical trust in agencies, whereby they neither distrust them completely nor uncritically accept their decisions, instead viewing them with a kind of skepticism. Approaches to responding The specific details about the understanding, beliefs and preferences of agency residents of particularly vulnerable areas that have been obtained from the studies are key to the approaches to responding. It is important to note that communicators should be concerned with choosing ways to represent information. When designing communication outputs, communicators must also be aware that the validity aspects recognized by the scientific community are not entirely necessary for many audiences. The public's perception of valid and relevant information or events worth attending is more likely to depend on their personal experiences, framed from their point of view. Since the public does not feel well informed about SLR, improved communications are desperately needed. Providing sufficient but clear information about the risks of SLR can be a step towards increasing public involvement. However, remember that public mental models contain many factors beyond.

Topic > Understanding public perception of sea level rise increased since the end of the 19th century. Sea level changes can be driven by a variety of factors, but such factors can be classified into two general categories, eustatic and isostatic change. The first has a global effect, indicated by changes in the volume or masses of the oceans following the melting of ice sheets or the redistribution of water between different hydrological reservoirs. On the other hand, the latter is caused by uplift or subsidence of the land and has only a local effect, known as relative sea level change. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay On shorter time scales, ranging from decades to centuries, sea levels change primarily due to anthropogenic climate change leading to warming oceans and melting glaciers. Compared to the baseline period of 1986 to 2005, global mean sea level is projected to rise between 0.26 and 0.98 m by 2100. Understanding climate change as a major factor driving sea level fluctuations sea level, therefore, is necessary to understand risks arising from sea level change. It is important to note that climate varies based on the amount of radiation emitted by the sun, changes in the Earth's axis around the sun, atmospheric factors, oceanographic factors, terrestrial factors, and human activities. Furthermore, greenhouse gases that accumulate in the atmosphere can decrease the amount of thermal radiation that can escape into space, thus increasing the temperature of the Earth's surface. Because sea levels are expected to continue to rise for the foreseeable future, the term sea level rise (SLR) is used in this essay to describe a rise in mean sea level along the coast. As a result, concerns about the potential future physical and socioeconomic impacts of SLR on coastal communities are also increasing today. Physical effects include flooding of low-lying lands, erosion, coastal retreat and saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers, loss of wetlands, changes in groundwater tables, while socioeconomic impacts can range from property damage to injury and death . Understanding public perceptions of the risks posed by SLRs is critical to better approaches to disaster risk management. As SLR risks threaten coastal communities to a greater extent, understanding their beliefs and responses becomes more critical to garnering SLR risk management strategies. Risk management strategies are necessary to reduce risk by decreasing potential harm. Without these, coastal populations are at increasing risk of storm attacks and permanent land flooding. Therefore, a first step towards communication strategies that can encourage preparedness can be initiated by a good understanding of how people understand risks. Addressing risk perception assessment means including different aspects of an individual, such as personal beliefs and values, demographic factors (gender, race and age), political opinions, belonging, trust and culture. Consolidated communication is a crucial factor both in assessing coastal communities' understanding and perception of risk and in shaping decision-makingand the authorities' response to risk. SLR communication shares challenges with climate change communication, including the scale of the problem, the complexity of the science, and the development of policy-driven solutions. Although the risks of climate change-induced SLR have been known for decades, however, there has been a notable lag between public recognition and related policy response. Furthermore, due to some issues, such as SLR information being too general for people to relate to and technical information being too specialized, messages about SLR risks may therefore fail to satisfactorily inform and persuade communities to respond to the consequences. According to Fischhoff (1995), effective risk communication means not only expressing accurate information, but also raising awareness, improving understanding, and moving the public to action. In other words, it should involve recognizing the perceptions, problems and attitudes of residents in the risk area, so that individual or community decisions can be made based on the best available risk information. Methods To gain insights into public understanding, attitudes and behaviors of SLR risk perception, the mental models approach is one of the most effective ways to be used. Research has shown that to effectively engage people through communication and enable changes in their beliefs and behaviors, we must first understand their mental models. Mental models compare lay and expert perspectives with the goal of identifying gaps in understanding that could be corrected. Furthermore, an expert model is an essential element in mental modeling. It includes a comprehensive graphical representation that summarizes and integrates the current knowledge and understanding of experts on the main factors of the study topic. Along with communications that are effective in changing behavior, communicators can be framed to encourage audiences to integrate new information into their beliefs. . Although mental model theory has been shown to fit well with data sets representing reasoning processes and provides a coherent conceptual framework for eliciting public opinions, however this method inevitably has some limitations and criticisms, such as researcher influence and an assumption of an expert model. Furthermore, a common criticism of the mental model approach is that it depends too much on the knowledge deficit model of risk understanding and communication. This model states that the public knows too little to act appropriately, just as misconceptions lead to inappropriate responses, and therefore the public must be educated to respond appropriately. Critics of the knowledge deficit model point out that, in addition to a person's knowledge of risk, many factors determine perceptions. Therefore, communications should respect each individual's values, feelings and other contextual factors, not just pay attention to the facts people know. The other qualitative methods are document-based assessments and semi-structured interviews. These methods are also used to analyze public interpretation of SLR risk and preparedness information. The main purpose of document-based evaluation is to examine the responses of the target audience rather than criticize a specific document. Audience analytics can not only identify an audience profile and characteristic, but also reveal howread and use documents. Additionally, audience analysis is possible to help communicators understand perceptions and attitudes about issues, reasons for disagreements about risks, and ways to frame messages for intended audiences. Many studies have been conducted to better understand how residents in vulnerable coastal areas respond to risk communications related to SLR. The results of the study conducted in the coastal communities of Manteo and Washington (North Carolina, United States) and the Severn Estuary (United Kingdom) can be two good examples. The studies used the qualitative approach which aimed to involve a demographically diverse sample of participants (e.g. race, education, income) who were all at least 18 years old and it was desirable that participants had no apparent connection with the topic. However, a further quantitative approach (public survey) was also conducted in the Severn Estuary research to explore the perceptions of a broadly representative sample of people living within the study area. In the North Carolina study, document-based assessments questioned participants about the effects of SLR and mitigation strategies tailored to the perceived concerns of specific communities, while individual interviewing was done to discuss their responses to the information and their perceptions on SLR risks. On the other hand, in the case of the Severn Estuary, the interview sessions were conducted to explore what people already perceived about SLR on the Severn Estuary. Finally, participants stated their level of agreement regarding their opinions on what they think about SLR, whose responsibility it is to respond to it, whether they trust the government to protect residents from floods, and whether they are informed about SLR through the quantitative survey system. Public Perception of Sea Level Rise According to the study findings, it was found that most participants do not feel well informed about SLR. A mix of positive and negative comments captured from study samples in the North Carolina area demonstrated that participants expressed a different level of awareness with SLR. Only a few knew its causes and consequences, and many did not understand the scientific information presented. The interview sessions revealed that negative feelings, such as anxiety and hurt, were associated primarily with attitudes prior to responding to the information. Interestingly, the SLR topic was not particularly relevant to some participants. They think that many more important issues in their lives are competing for attention. Most participants showed fatalism, skepticism and fear when they read information about the risk of SLR and felt they did not have sufficient knowledge of the actions to take. Fatalism itself was a situation in which participants expressed the opinion that nothing could be done about the problems posed by the SLR. Overcoming fatalism and moving communities towards adaptation is considered a substantial challenge in SLR communication. However, many people expressed optimism and this sentiment was a first step towards risk management. Regarding adaptation responses to SLR, participants have different opinions on government or private response. Some believed the government needed to act, but others feared regulation. The results of the Severn Estuary study demonstrated that many aspects of public perception are in line with expert understanding. In terms of determinants and SLR rates, the majoritypart of the participants believed that sea levels will rise and half of them recognized the importance of combined events, such as a storm surge during high tide. Most respondents also agreed that melting land ice is the main cause of global SLR. This finding may not be surprising considering that it is a particular aspect of science. Consistent with expert understanding of the physical impacts of the SLR, the public also agrees that the SLR would pose an overall risk to the estuary and pose a threat of flooding, erosion, and ecological change. Regarding socioeconomic impacts, property damage was highly noted among respondents, and most of them also think that SLR will lead to difficulties in obtaining home insurance and emotional impact issues. Renewable technologies were perceived by many interviewees, both experts and the public, as an effective mitigation measure that can be performed to adapt to SLR. Despite the enormous variation in results, however, some patterns emerge. First, the SLR issue is not particularly relevant and is in line with research showing that climate change has low relevance due to its complexity and remoteness in space and time. More likely than not, people don't tend to think about it much and concern is low compared to other issues like the economy. One reason why many participants express little awareness about the DSLR may be because they generally see it as something that will happen to other people in the future. On the one hand, a significant portion of survey participants perceive that the causes and effects of SLR are their responsibility. A larger portion, however, thinks it is the government's obligation to respond to the associated risk of flooding and other SLR impacts. Furthermore, respondents focused more on mitigation and adaptation measures that are the responsibility of the government (e.g. dredging and geoengineering) rather than the individual (e.g. personal lifestyle changes). This misperception of responsibility was accompanied by distrust in the government or entities they perceived as responsible. As participants in North Carolina felt, the public around the Severn Estuary also expressed that they did not feel well protected by flood defenses and had no idea how to manage the SLR. This suggests that the public has critical trust in agencies, whereby they neither distrust them completely nor uncritically accept their decisions, instead viewing them with a kind of skepticism. Approaches to responding The specific details about the understanding, beliefs and preferences of agency residents of particularly vulnerable areas that have been obtained from the studies are key to the approaches to responding. It is important to note that communicators should be concerned with choosing ways to represent information. When designing communication outputs, communicators must also be aware that the validity aspects recognized by the scientific community are not entirely necessary for many audiences. The public's perception of valid and relevant information or events worth attending is more likely to depend on their personal experiences, framed from their point of view. Since the public does not feel well informed about SLR, improved communications are desperately needed. Providing sufficient but clear information about the risks of SLR can be a step towards increasing public involvement. However, remember that public mental models contain many factors beyond.