IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i12p5358-d1675997.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Climate Change Risk Perception, Adaptive Capacity and Psychological Distance in Urban Vulnerability: A District-Level Case Study in Istanbul, Türkiye

Author

Listed:
  • Pelin Okutan

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul 34342, Türkiye)

  • Emre N. Otay

    (Department of Civil Engineering, Bogazici University, Istanbul 34342, Türkiye)

Abstract

Urban climate resilience is shaped by both direct exposure to environmental risks and cognitive, socioeconomic and institutional factors. This study investigates climate change risk perception (CCRP), psychological distance (PD) and adaptive capacity (AC) across five districts of Istanbul: Beşiktaş, Kadıköy, Kağıthane, Şişli and Üsküdar, using a structured survey (sample size = 500) and advanced multivariate statistical modeling to explore the factors influencing adaptive behavior. To evaluate perceptual and behavioral responses to climate threats, the study constructs both equal-weighted indices and indices derived through principal component analysis (PCA). ANOVA and chi-square tests reveal significant district-level differences in risk perception and adaptation engagement. PCA results validate the internal structure of the indices by identifying latent dimensions such as institutional confidence, emotional proximity and self-efficacy. Correlation and regression analyses confirm that CCRP and PD significantly predict AC in theoretically meaningful patterns. Structural equation modeling (SEM) demonstrates both direct and indirect pathways linking climate risk perception to adaptive capacity, highlighting the complex interplay of these variables. Mediation analysis shows that PD partially mediates the CCRP–AC relationship, accounting for 39.7% of the total effect. Cluster analysis identifies distinct cognitive profiles where proactive adaptation behaviors are more common in affluent districts while disengagement is more prevalent in low-income areas. These findings underscore the importance of localized communication efforts, institutional credibility and financial equity in shaping effective climate adaptation. By integrating perceptual and structural dimensions, the study advances a multidimensional understanding of urban climate readiness and offers empirical guidance for socially equitable resilience policy design.

Suggested Citation

  • Pelin Okutan & Emre N. Otay, 2025. "Climate Change Risk Perception, Adaptive Capacity and Psychological Distance in Urban Vulnerability: A District-Level Case Study in Istanbul, Türkiye," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-29, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5358-:d:1675997
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5358/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/12/5358/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Michael E. Tipping & Christopher M. Bishop, 1999. "Probabilistic Principal Component Analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 61(3), pages 611-622.
    2. Paul Slovic, 1999. "Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk‐Assessment Battlefield," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 689-701, August.
    3. Fangnan Cui & Yaolong Liu & Yuanyuan Chang & Jin Duan & Jizu Li, 2016. "An overview of tourism risk perception," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 82(1), pages 643-658, May.
    4. Ming‐Chou Ho & Daigee Shaw & Shuyeu Lin & Yao‐Chu Chiu, 2008. "How Do Disaster Characteristics Influence Risk Perception?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(3), pages 635-643, June.
    5. Daniel Henstra, 2016. "The tools of climate adaptation policy: analysing instruments and instrument selection," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 496-521, May.
    6. Stewart Barr, 2018. "Personal mobility and climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(5), September.
    7. Schaffer, Lena Maria & Oehl, Bianca & Bernauer, Thomas, 2022. "Are policymakers responsive to public demand in climate politics?," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 42(1), pages 136-164, March.
    8. Abdulrahman A. Albahouth & Muhammad Tahir, 2025. "Institutional Quality and Climate Vulnerability: Empirical Evidence from GCC Economies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Alexa Spence & Wouter Poortinga & Nick Pidgeon, 2012. "The Psychological Distance of Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(6), pages 957-972, June.
    10. Meifen Wu & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Jiaqi Wang, 2023. "The influence of risk perception on climate change communication behavior: a dual perspective of psychological distance and environmental values," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 118(1), pages 785-806, August.
    11. Michael Siegrist & George Cvetkovich, 2000. "Perception of Hazards: The Role of Social Trust and Knowledge," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 713-720, October.
    12. Charlotte Jones & Donald W. Hine & Anthony D. G. Marks, 2017. "The Future is Now: Reducing Psychological Distance to Increase Public Engagement with Climate Change," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(2), pages 331-341, February.
    13. Chun-Hsien Lai & Pi-Ching Liao & Szu-Hung Chen & Yung-Chieh Wang & Chingwen Cheng & Chen-Fa Wu, 2021. "Risk Perception and Adaptation of Climate Change: An Assessment of Community Resilience in Rural Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-15, March.
    14. Matthew H. Goldberg & Abel Gustafson & Seth A. Rosenthal & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2021. "Shifting Republican views on climate change through targeted advertising," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 11(7), pages 573-577, July.
    15. Loredana Antronico & Roberto Coscarelli & Francesco De Pascale & Dante Di Matteo, 2020. "Climate Change and Social Perception: A Case Study in Southern Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-24, August.
    16. Elke U. Weber, 2010. "What shapes perceptions of climate change?," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(3), pages 332-342, May.
    17. Olivia Serdeczny & Marina Andrijevic & Claire Fyson & Tabea Lissner & Inga Menke & Carl-Friedrich Schleussner & Emily Theokritoff & Adelle Thomas, 2024. "Climatic risks to adaptive capacity," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-16, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    2. repec:osf:osfxxx:9zadu_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lisette Beek & Manjana Milkoreit & Linda Prokopy & Jason B. Reed & Joost Vervoort & Arjan Wardekker & Roberta Weiner, 2022. "The effects of serious gaming on risk perceptions of climate tipping points," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 170(3), pages 1-23, February.
    4. Adrian Brügger & Robert Tobias & Fredy S. Monge-Rodríguez, 2021. "Public Perceptions of Climate Change in the Peruvian Andes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-27, March.
    5. Trisha R. Shrum, 2021. "The salience of future impacts and the willingness to pay for climate change mitigation: an experiment in intergenerational framing," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 165(1), pages 1-20, March.
    6. Valentina Rizzoli, 2024. "The risk co-de model: detecting psychosocial processes of risk perception in natural language through machine learning," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 217-239, April.
    7. Branden B. Johnson, 2018. "Residential Location and Psychological Distance in Americans’ Risk Views and Behavioral Intentions Regarding Zika Virus," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(12), pages 2561-2579, December.
    8. Donovan, Christopher & Shrum, Trisha, 2025. "Extreme Weather Events: Perception, Pro-Environmental Behavior, and the Tools to Measure Them," OSF Preprints 9zadu, Center for Open Science.
    9. Dilshad Ahmad & Muhammad Afzal, 2024. "Psychological distancing and floods risk perception relating to climate change in flood-prone Bait communities of Punjab, Pakistan," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 12939-12970, May.
    10. Tim Slack & Vanessa Parks & Lynsay Ayer & Andrew M. Parker & Melissa L. Finucane & Rajeev Ramchand, 2020. "Natech or natural? An analysis of hazard perceptions, institutional trust, and future storm worry following Hurricane Harvey," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 102(3), pages 1207-1224, July.
    11. Michael R. Greenberg & Marc D. Weiner & Robert Noland & Jeanne Herb & Marjorie Kaplan & Anthony J. Broccoli, 2014. "Public Support for Policies to Reduce Risk After Hurricane Sandy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(6), pages 997-1012, June.
    12. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    13. D. Liliana González-Hernández & Raúl A. Aguirre-Gamboa & Erik W. Meijles, 2023. "The role of climate change perceptions and sociodemographics on reported mitigation efforts and performance among households in northeastern Mexico," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 1853-1875, February.
    14. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    15. Meifen Wu & Ruyin Long & Hong Chen & Jiaqi Wang, 2023. "The influence of risk perception on climate change communication behavior: a dual perspective of psychological distance and environmental values," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 118(1), pages 785-806, August.
    16. P. Marijn Poortvliet & Anne Marike Lokhorst, 2016. "The Key Role of Experiential Uncertainty when Dealing with Risks: Its Relationships with Demand for Regulation and Institutional Trust," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(8), pages 1615-1629, August.
    17. repec:plo:pone00:0210426 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Rodríguez-Cruz, Luis Alexis & Niles, Meredith, 2020. "Puerto Rican Farmers' Psychological Awareness of Climate Change, and Adaptation Perceptions after Hurricane Maria," SocArXiv e27k4, Center for Open Science.
    19. Mary Guillard & Ghozlane Fleury-Bahi & Oscar Navarro, 2021. "Encouraging Individuals to Adapt to Climate Change: Relations between Coping Strategies and Psychological Distance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    20. Martina Raue & Lisa A. D'Ambrosio & Carley Ward & Chaiwoo Lee & Claire Jacquillat & Joseph F. Coughlin, 2019. "The Influence of Feelings While Driving Regular Cars on the Perception and Acceptance of Self‐Driving Cars," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 358-374, February.
    21. repec:plo:pone00:0186455 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe & Kyohei Wakui, 2021. "Acceptance of Main Power Generation Sources among Japan’s Undergraduate Students: The Roles of Knowledge, Experience, Trust, and Perceived Risk and Benefit," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-22, November.
    23. Matthew T. Ballew & Jennifer R. Marlon & Matthew H. Goldberg & Edward W. Maibach & Seth A. Rosenthal & Emily Aiken & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2022. "Changing minds about global warming: vicarious experience predicts self-reported opinion change in the USA," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 173(3), pages 1-25, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:12:p:5358-:d:1675997. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.