Living by the sea: place attachment, coastal risk perception, and eco-anxiety when coping with climate change

The paper addresses how residents of coastal regions, specifically Aveiro (Portugal), cope with the increasing risks posed by climate change-induced sea-level rise and flooding. Despite growing exposure, coastal inhabitants often perceive risks variably and may minimize local threats. The study investigates the psychological mechanisms shaping coping responses, focusing on multidimensional place attachment (active vs. traditional), risk perception, eco-anxiety, and trust in authorities. It asks how different place attachment styles relate to active (problem-focused/emotion-focused engagement) versus passive (deproblematisation/relativization) coping, and whether risk perception and eco-anxiety mediate these relationships. Understanding these pathways is important for designing effective adaptation and mitigation policies that require community support and participation.

Theoretical framework synthesizes research on: (a) Aveiro’s vulnerability to rising water levels due to geomorphology and urbanization; (b) coping strategies bifurcated into active (problem solving, information seeking, engagement) and passive (relativization, positive thinking, maintaining routines); (c) place attachment as a multidimensional construct—traditional (inherited, rooted, conservative, resistant to change) vs. active (place discovered, chosen residence, civic participation)—with mixed impacts on risk appraisal and adaptation; (d) risk perception as an intuitive appraisal shaped by exposure, experience, and person-place variables, potentially mediating place attachment–coping links; (e) eco-anxiety (including practical eco-anxiety) as an affective response to climate threats that can either inhibit action through distress/denial or motivate informed problem solving; and (f) trust in authorities as a determinant of perceived risk and coping choices. Hypotheses: H1: Place attachment types associate with coping types—H1a: active attachment → more active coping; H1b: traditional attachment → more passive coping. H2: Risk perception mediates attachment→coping—H2a: active attachment → higher risk perception → more active coping; H2b: traditional attachment → lower risk perception → more passive coping. H3: Eco-anxiety mediates attachment→coping—H3a: active attachment → higher eco-anxiety → more active coping; H3b: traditional attachment → lower eco-anxiety → more passive coping. H4: Sequential mediation—H4a: active attachment → higher risk perception → higher eco-anxiety → more active coping; H4b: traditional attachment → lower risk perception → lower eco-anxiety → more passive coping. H5: Trust in authorities relates to coping—H5a: higher trust → more passive coping; H5b: lower trust → more active coping.

Design: Cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire (Qualtrics) targeting adult residents (≥18 years) of Aveiro district, Portugal. Sampling: Non-probabilistic convenience sampling via direct contact, email, and social media (Facebook/Instagram). N=197; 58% female; mean age 39.35 (SD=9.96; 23–68); mean residence time in Aveiro 32.11 years (SD=14.03). Proximity: to coast (M=11.32 km, SD=8.14), Ria de Aveiro (M=5.62 km, SD=8.46), Vouga River (M=16.71 km, SD=16.17). Ethics: Approved by Iscte Ethics Committee (Ref. 25/2022); informed consent obtained; debrief with adaptation plan link. Measures: - Place attachment (predictor): Adapted City/Town/Village Attachment Scale (Lewicka, 2011). Active attachment (6 items; e.g., involvement in local affairs; α=0.69). Traditional attachment (5 items; composite used 4 items; e.g., cannot imagine leaving; family ties; α=0.68). 5-point Likert (1–5). - Risk perception (mediator): 5 items (de Dominicis et al., 2015), adapted to rising water levels in Aveiro; probability of being affected and consequences for self/others; 5-point Likert; α=0.86. - Eco-anxiety (mediator): 12 items from HEAS-13 (Hogg et al., 2021); frequency over past 2 weeks of eco-anxiety symptoms related to climate threats; 4-point Likert (1–4); α=0.86. - Coping strategies (criterion): Adapted from Homburg et al. (2007). Active coping: problem solving and expression of emotions; 4-point Likert; α=0.81. Passive coping: relativization, well-being (self-protection excluded for acceptable reliability); α=0.59. - Trust in authorities (predictor/control): 6 items (Vaske et al., 2007; Carlton & Jacobson, 2013) assessing trust in local authorities’ risk management; 5-point Likert; α=0.96. Analysis: Descriptive statistics; Spearman correlations; mediation tested using PROCESS v3.5 (Model 6, sequential mediation with bootstrapped CIs). Active coping model controlled for trust in authorities; passive coping model additionally controlled for gender and distance to Ria de Aveiro.

Descriptives: Participants reported higher passive than active coping (Passive: M=2.35, SD=0.58; Active: M=1.88, SD=0.56). Active attachment was high (M=4.05, SD=0.45); traditional attachment moderate (M=3.44, SD=0.79). Risk perception moderate (M=3.05, SD=0.79). Eco-anxiety low (M=1.49, SD=0.46). Trust in authorities low (M=2.58, SD=0.79). Correlations: Active coping correlated with active attachment (rho=0.20, p<0.01), risk perception (rho=0.38, p<0.01), and eco-anxiety (rho=0.54, p<0.01). Active attachment correlated with risk perception (rho=0.19, p<0.01); risk perception with eco-anxiety (rho=0.33, p<0.01). Passive coping negatively correlated with risk perception (rho=−0.18, p<0.05) and eco-anxiety (rho=−0.36, p<0.01). Trust in authorities negatively correlated with active coping (rho=−0.19, p<0.01), risk perception (rho=−0.20, p<0.01), eco-anxiety (rho=−0.15, p<0.05), and positively with passive coping (rho=0.17, p<0.05). Active coping model (PROCESS Model 6): - Risk perception mediated active attachment → active coping: active attachment → risk perception: B=0.18, p<0.05; risk perception → active coping: B=0.25, p<0.001; indirect effect (AA→RP→AC): B=0.06, 95% CI [0.01, 0.11], supporting H2a. - Eco-anxiety alone did not mediate active attachment → active coping: active attachment → eco-anxiety: B=0.01, ns; indirect (AA→EA→AC): B=0.00, 95% CI [−0.07, 0.09]; H3a not supported. - Sequential mediation significant: AA → RP (B=0.18, p<0.05) → EA (B=0.26, p<0.001) → AC (B=0.44, p<0.001); indirect (AA→RP→EA→AC): B=0.03, 95% CI [0.00, 0.06], supporting H4a. - Trust in authorities: initially negatively associated with active coping (B=−0.18, p<0.05) supporting H5b, but effect became non-significant when mediators included (B=−0.05, ns). - Model explained R2=0.33 of active coping, F(4,192)=24.09, p<0.001. Passive coping model: - No direct effect of traditional attachment on passive coping (B=0.06, ns); H1b not supported. - No mediation via risk perception (TA→RP: B=0.00, ns; RP→PC: B=−0.08, ns); indirect (TA→RP→PC): B=0.00, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.01]; H2b not supported. - No mediation via eco-anxiety (TA→EA: B=0.04, ns; EA→PC: B=−0.28, p<0.001); indirect (TA→EA→PC): B=−0.01, 95% CI [−0.05, 0.02]; H3b not supported. - Sequential mediation (TA→RP→EA→PC) non-significant: B=0.00, 95% CI [−0.01, 0.01]; H4b not supported. - However, within-model pathway: RP → higher EA (B=0.27, p<0.001), and EA → lower passive coping (B=−0.28, p<0.001). - Trust in authorities effect on passive coping non-significant (B=0.05, ns), not supporting H5a. - Model explained R2=0.17 of passive coping, F(6,190)=6.50, p<0.001. Overall: Evidence supports sequential mediation for active coping (active attachment → risk perception → eco-anxiety → active coping). No support for analogous pathways for passive coping. Lower trust in authorities relates to more active coping prior to accounting for mediators.

The findings address the research questions by showing that the effect of place attachment on coping is indirect and contingent on cognitive and affective processes. Active attachment fosters higher risk perception, which elevates eco-anxiety and, in turn, promotes active coping (information seeking, problem solving, emotional engagement). This highlights the importance of both cognitive appraisal (risk perception) and a practical form of eco-anxiety as drivers of adaptive engagement in a slow-onset hazard context. Conversely, traditional attachment did not predict passive coping nor pathways via reduced risk perception or eco-anxiety, suggesting that traditional rootedness alone is insufficient to explain defensive or disengaged responses in this setting. Eco-anxiety emerged as a nuanced construct: while high distress is often seen as detrimental, lower, practical eco-anxiety here was associated with more active coping and fewer passive strategies. Trust in authorities showed a negative association with active coping before accounting for perceived risk and eco-anxiety, implying that lower institutional trust may spur personal engagement, potentially via heightened risk appraisal and concern. Collectively, results underline that adaptation efforts in coastal zones should consider residents’ active place bonds, risk perceptions, and constructive eco-anxiety to catalyze proactive participation in adaptation measures.

This study advances understanding of how multidimensional place attachment relates to coping with climate-related coastal risks. It demonstrates a sequential pathway whereby active place attachment increases risk perception and eco-anxiety, promoting active coping, while analogous pathways to passive coping via traditional attachment were not supported. The work suggests leveraging active community bonds and fostering accurate risk appraisals and constructive (practical) eco-anxiety may enhance engagement with adaptation and mitigation. Future research should refine measurement of attachment dimensions and passive coping, explore moderating roles of trust and proximity/exposure, develop tools that capture adaptive facets of eco-anxiety, and use longitudinal designs to track changes in attachment and coping across hazard phases and policy interventions.

- Sampling: Convenience, online recruitment via community networks may overrepresent civically engaged, higher-education residents, limiting representativeness and generalizability. - Measurement: Moderate/low reliabilities for traditional attachment (α≈0.68) and passive coping (α≈0.59); eco-anxiety instrument focused on negative aspects; all measures self-reported. - Context: Cross-sectional, conducted outside imminent hazard periods; low explained variance, especially for passive coping, suggests omitted variables (e.g., place identity, perceived coping efficacy). - External validity: Findings specific to Aveiro’s coastal context; cultural and contextual differences may alter attachment dynamics and coping. - Analytical scope: Trust in authorities examined mainly as a covariate; potential moderating/mediating roles untested; passive coping pathways inconclusive.