| Abstract [eng] |
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. |
