People who have endured floods, heatwaves, droughts or other climate-related disasters are far more likely to see climate change as a very serious threat than those who haven’t.
That’s the central finding of a sweeping analysis led by Fabian Dablander of the University of Amsterdam’s new climate institute, SEVEN.
Drawing on nationally representative responses from more than 128,000 people in 142 countries, the study shows that recent exposure to climate hazards consistently elevates concern.
“Personal experiences cut through abstract statistics and political debates,” Dablander said. “When someone has lived through a devastating flood or heatwave, the risks of climate change become much more tangible and harder to dismiss.”
He argues these moments act as a psychological “gateway,” transforming climate change from a distant concept into an immediate, personal reality.
One result stands out: heatwaves pack an unusually strong punch in shaping risk perception.
Experiencing a severe spell of extreme heat increased the odds that someone would rate climate change as a very serious threat to the highest education a person has.
That is a striking benchmark, given education’s persistent influence across countries and contexts.
Floods and droughts also moved opinions, but their effect varied widely from one nation to the next. By contrast, hazards such as hurricanes and wildfires produced more uniform shifts toward heightened concern across regions.
Even rare events, like mudslides, were associated with sharper risk perception, underscoring how viscerally a single episode can imprint on people’s sense of danger and vulnerability.
The study also stresses a crucial nuance: what people live through does not neatly scale up to a country’s overall levels of concern. Nations with widespread hazard exposure do not automatically report the highest climate risk perception.
Floods, for example, are the most common climate-related hazard worldwide, yet some flood-prone countries report relatively modest levels of worry about climate change.
That disconnect points to the power of political leadership, media framing, and cultural narratives.
How officials talk about disasters, whether journalists link extreme events to climate trends, and which stories communities tell themselves can amplify or muffle the meaning people draw from their experiences.
In short, the lived signal may be strong, but the social “interpretation layer” can either broadcast or blur it.
The survey paints a global map with sharp regional contrasts. In South America, nearly three-quarters of respondents said climate change poses a very serious threat – the highest share in the study.
Europe, by comparison, hovered closer to half. Residents of Oceania reported the greatest exposure to hazards, with more than four in ten saying they had lived through at least one extreme event in the past five years. Europe had the lowest reported exposure, about two in ten.
Those contrasts matter for policy and politics. Where exposure is high and concern is high, the path to action can be more straightforward.
Where exposure is high but concern lags – or where concern is high despite lower exposure – decision-makers face a different communications and governance challenge.
The implications are double-edged. On one hand, people who endure extreme weather events are more inclined to treat climate risks seriously, a precondition for supporting adaptation and mitigation.
On the other, personal experience by itself rarely builds the national consensus needed for sweeping policy. Without leaders and institutions willing to connect the dots, even widespread disasters may fail to catalyze the collective action the crisis demands.
That’s where public communication becomes pivotal. Effective messaging can link local hardship to broader climate forces without fatalism, explain practical options for reducing risk, and show how preparedness pays off.
The study suggests that when governments and media make those connections explicit, lived experience becomes a powerful driver – not just of concern, but of durable support for solutions.
Dablander’s analysis was based on the 2023 World Risk Poll conducted by Lloyd’s Register Foundation and Gallup. This rare global dataset pairs hazard exposure with demographic information and basic measures of resilience.
By comparing individuals within the same countries, rather than across countries alone, the study isolates the effect of personal hazard experience from national context. It also weighs the role of education and income, two factors that often shape climate attitudes.
The result is the most comprehensive snapshot to date of how lived experience of climate impacts are reshaping risk perception worldwide.
The study doesn’t claim that experience is destiny – nor that concern automatically yields policy change. It does show, robustly, that what people go through matters, and that it matters in consistent, measurable ways across very different societies.
Billions of people are already living with the consequences of a warming world. As extreme events multiply, more will pass through the “gateway” that turns climate risk into personal reality.
Whether that growing recognition translates into faster, fairer action will depend on what happens next. The choices leaders make, the stories the media tell, and the degree to which policy honors what people already know in their bones are all crucial aspects.
“As these experiences accumulate, we may see rising demand for climate action. But without political leadership and media willing to connect the dots, those experiences alone won’t drive the transformation we need,” concluded Dablander.
The research is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
—–
Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates.
Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.
—–