From experience to action: Correlates of Lithuanian citizens' engagement in climate adaptation

Abstract

Background

Climate adaptation requires action at institutional and individual levels. Citizens' engagement differs widely across sociocultural and geographic contexts and remains under-researched.

Aim

The purpose of the study was to examine correlates of Lithuanian adults' adaptation actions, using a nationally representative survey adapted from Brink and Wamsler's instrument (2019) in Sweden.

Methods

Data were collected via face-to-face interviews in Lithuania (October–November 2023; N = 1013). Measures included climate-related hazard experience (recent 5 years and lifetime), climate change concern (single item), cultural worldviews, adaptation motivation, and self-reported adaptation actions. We tested measurement structure with CFA, used Independent-samples t-tests for group differences (gender; hazard experience), and estimated multivariate associations using multiple regression and an exploratory SEM summarizing hazard experience–concern–action associations.

Results

Independent samples' t-test showed that individuals with prior climate-related hazard experiences (n = 259, 26%) in comparison to individuals who have never experienced a climate-related hazard (n = 754, 74%), scored overall higher on climate change concern, motivation to adapt, and adaptation actions (p < .001). Women reported slightly higher climate concern than men (d = 0.17), while men reported slightly more technical actions (d = 0.22). Using exploratory structural equation modeling (SEM), it was found that recent hazard experience showed the strongest association with adaptation actions in multivariate models (standardized β ≈ 0.30, p < .001), while concern showed a small association with actions when considered alongside experience and motivation (standardized β ≈ 0.08–0.12).

Conclusions

In Lithuania, recent lived experience with climate-related hazards and stronger motivation are robust correlates of adaptation actions, whereas climate concern alone is a comparatively weak correlate once other factors are considered. The findings are correlational and should be interpreted as associations rather than evidence of causal direction.