Understanding climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate disaster stress: A survey of residents in a high-risk California county during wildfire season

Abstract

Background

With the increasing prevalence of climate-related disasters, psychological responses, including climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate disaster stress, have received heightened attention.

Objective

We investigate the correlates of climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate disaster stress, as well as the nature of these psychological responses.

Methods

At the start of the annual fire season (June to August 2023), we recruited a county-representative sample of n=813 residents of Lake County, in Northern California, to complete an anonymous online survey. Multiple regression analyses identified correlates of climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate disaster stress and explored how anxiety and stress were associated with disaster preparedness.

Findings

Climate change anxiety, assessed via its cognitive-emotional impairment (odds ratio (OR)_loss/injury=1.68; OR_media=2.37) and functional impairment (OR_loss/injury=1.68; OR_media=2.63) subfactors, and anticipatory climate disaster stress (b_loss/injury=0.15, b_media=0.26) were associated with previous wildfire-induced loss/injury and media exposure to wildfire-related content. Anticipatory climate disaster stress was also associated with the frequency of being in an evacuation zone (b=0.05). Both the cognitive-emotional impairment subfactor of climate change anxiety (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=1.23) and anticipatory climate disaster stress (IRR=1.14) were associated with preparing an emergency kit and power outage supplies; anticipatory climate disaster stress was associated with evacuation intentions should an actual fire occur (b=0.12).

Conclusions

Prior experiences with climate disasters could explain people’s psychological responses to climate change. These responses could be temporally appropriate and functionally adaptive, given the immediacy of a potential fire.

Clinical implications

Climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate disaster stress should not be oversimplified as typical clinical symptoms because their presence might motivate adaptive self-protective behaviours in the face of an upcoming disaster.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

• Younger people and those who experienced a strong impact of climate change show higher anxiety and stress about climate change, which appear in turn to motivate pro-environmental behaviours (eg, recycling).

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

• Our study has unique temporal and geographical value, as results were based on a large county-representative sample recruited from a fire-prone county at the start of the fire season.

• Climate change anxiety has not previously been studied in the context of climate-related disasters. Moreover, climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate disaster stress were linked to prior experiences with wildfires and media exposure and are associated with disaster preparedness and engaging in adaptive behaviours.

HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

• This study could inform further in-depth research on the mechanisms linking psychological responses to climate change with self-protective behaviours in a disaster context.

• Emergency and media personnel could consider addressing people’s anxiety and stress related to climate anxiety to motivate them to prepare for upcoming disasters.

Background

Over the past few decades, climate change has increased the frequency and severity of climate disasters such as wildfires.¹ With the increasing prevalence of these disasters, there is an unprecedented and alarming rate of mental and physical health risks among affected individuals.² Even without direct exposure to extreme weather events, the perceived consequences of climate change can be accompanied by negative emotions and cognitions. In large global surveys involving multiple countries, around half the respondents expressed that they were ‘very’ to ‘extremely’ worried about climate change and they felt its negative impact in their daily lives.³

Recently, new terminologies have been introduced to capture these psychological responses, such as anxiety, worry, grief and distress.⁴ Among these, we focus on two psychological responses to climate change: climate change anxiety, which in our study refers to the present cognitive-emotional and functional manifestations of anxiety over broader issues of climate change, and anticipatory climate disaster stress (henceforth anticipatory climate stress), which refers to anticipated stress over future extreme events attributable to climate change. Climate change anxiety is generally considered to possess both positive and negative attributes because while it can be associated with lower psychological well-being, it can also be positively correlated with climate action.⁵ Climate worry, when coupled with a sense that something can be done, is often believed to encourage pro-environmental action (eg, recycling, reducing carbon emissions).⁶ It is possible these psychological responses may be associated with other self-protective behaviours as well.

Given the practical significance of climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress, it is important to understand their correlates. A systematic review found that younger individuals, females and people from more disadvantaged countries in the ‘Global South’ were more likely to exhibit elevated levels of anxiety over climate change and environmental degradation.⁵ Additionally, individuals’ psychological responses to climate change may be related to their prior personal experiences with climate change-related disasters. For example, individuals who reported being impacted by climate change were more likely to experience climate change anxiety, as well as be more engaged in pro-environmental behaviours.⁷ The media may also play an important role in responses to climate change; prior research has found that greater media exposure to information about climate change is associated with higher climate change anxiety.^{3 8} Indeed, a causal link between media exposure and responses to climate-related disasters was supported by an experimental study, where respondents who read media coverage on global warming reported higher eco-anxiety, as well as higher intentions to donate to environmental causes, when compared with those who read something irrelevant.⁹

While psychological responses to climate change have emerged as a topic of growing research interest in recent years, limited research has examined this topic in the context of acute climate disasters. Notable exceptions include studies on the 2021 heat dome in Canada¹⁰ and among residents who were repeatedly exposed to hurricanes,¹¹ which found increases in climate change anxiety were linked to disaster exposure. Meanwhile, disaster-specific worry among Italians living in flood-prone areas¹² and Australians living in fire-prone areas¹³ was positively associated with disaster preparedness. While these studies provide preliminary insights into our understanding of psychological reactions under acute climate disasters, research is limited, and the link between psychological responses to climate change and preparations for an upcoming disaster is particularly understudied.

Objective

In this study, we sought to better understand psychological reactions to climate change-related disasters, namely climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress. Our study was conducted among a county-representative sample in Lake County, a high-risk Northern California county exposed to repeated wildfires, as well as related hazards such as floods, drought, extreme heat, landslides and debris flows. Moreover, Lake County is a disadvantaged region, given its higher proportion of residents who are older, living in poverty, as well as reporting elevated rates of mental health problems, substance use and chronic health concerns, compared with the state average.¹⁴ Indeed, 65% of census tracts in Lake County are designated as disadvantaged by the federal government’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. These vulnerabilities could potentially magnify the challenges introduced by climate-related disasters and the subsequent economic shock. In our study, residents were also surveyed at the start of an annual wildfire season, when their anxiety and stress levels might be expected to peak, enabling us to capture temporally sensitive psychological and behavioural responses. In sum, Lake County is a wildfire-prone region with significant socioeconomic challenges, which serves as a critical case study to explore the intersection of climate change anxiety, anticipatory climate stress, prior disaster exposure and preparedness. Results could potentially offer valuable insights into adaptive behaviours under acute climate disasters that are applicable to other similar regions globally.

The objectives were twofold: to investigate (1) how climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress over extreme weather are associated with respondents’ prior exposure to climate disasters (wildfires, floods, landslides), directly through personal experience or indirectly via media, and (2) whether climate change anxiety and/or anticipatory climate stress are concurrently correlated with preparation behaviours and evacuation intentions for the impending wildfires season. We tested the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Climate change anxiety (including its cognitive-emotional impairment and functional impairment subfactors) will be associated with respondents’ prior exposure to wildfires, related climate disasters and media exposure to wildfire-related content.

Hypothesis 2: Anticipatory climate stress will be associated with respondents’ prior exposure to wildfires, related climate disasters and media exposure to wildfire-related content.

Hypothesis 3: Climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress will be associated with preparation behaviours and evacuation intention for the impending fire season.

Methods

Participants and sample design

This is a survey study conducted in Lake County, California, a region in the north of the state that experienced several large-scale wildfires between 2015 and 2020 that burned ~60% of the land in the county, making it one of the most wildfire-affected regions across the country (see Figure 1).¹⁵ The survey was fielded for a 6-week period between 27 June and 11 August 2023 at the start of the annual wildfire season. This study included items from validated instruments, self-developed survey questions and background demographic information.

Figure 1. Map showing major wildfires in Lake County, California, from 2015 to 2020 from Lake County Community Protection Plan (2023).

The Survey Research Center (SRC) from Pennsylvania State University was employed to assist in data collection. The SRC purchased a representative address-based sample from across the county. The SRC originally attempted to contact over 8300 people; based on returned mail/email, a maximum of 5598 people were presumed to have been contacted. Potential participants were sent postcard invitations with a link to a web-based survey available in English or Spanish, which was completed anonymously using a participant code and completed via computers, tablets and smartphones. When email addresses were available, potential participants also received personalised emails with the survey link embedded. Those without internet access were offered paper surveys by mail (with self-addressed postage-paid return envelopes), though it was estimated that a large majority of county residents had some internet access. Non-responders received a second postcard reminder. Participants were compensated $20 for survey completion by the end of the fielding period, provided by the SRC.

To be eligible for participation, respondents needed to be (1) 18 years or older, (2) a current resident of Lake County and (3) able to read English or Spanish. During the fielding period, 977 surveys were received; 164 cases (16.79%) were removed from the final sample due to extensive missing data (>50% of questions), leaving n=813.

Measures

Demographics

Participants’ demographics included the following: gender (male, female/other), age (in years), race and ethnicity (White, People of Colour/other/unknown), education (associate degree or below, bachelor’s degree or above), marital status (married or in a domestic partnership, other), employment status (working, not working), household size and duration of residence in Lake County (in years).

Prior disaster exposure

Participants were asked to complete a series of questions on the number of times they had been in an evacuation zone due to disasters (wildfires, landslides and/or floods) and a separate checklist on prior loss/injury due to wildfires (property loss, home destruction, personal injury, pet loss, knowledge of other people’s injury or death) derived from previous research.¹⁶ Two variables were calculated: (a) the number of times individuals reported being in an evacuation zone due to wildfires, landslides and/or floods, and (b) prior loss/injury events due to wildfires (yes vs no). The first variable (a) was truncated with its values capped at 5, given the positively skewed distribution of the raw scores.

Media exposure

Participants reported the duration (on a 4-point scale from ‘Less than 1 hour per day’ to ‘More than 6 hours per day’) they spent engaged with wildfire-related media content from different sources (ie, traditional, online and social media) in the last month. An index representing the average number of hours across all sources was calculated following previous research.¹⁷ The value was truncated with its values capped at 3, given the positively skewed distribution of the raw scores.

Climate change anxiety

We used two factors on the Climate Anxiety Scale,¹⁸ one assessing cognitive-emotional impairment (eg, ‘I find myself crying because of climate change’) and another assessing functional impairment (eg, ‘My concerns about climate change interfere with my ability to get work or school assignments done’). For each factor, we selected three items with the highest loadings (based on the confirmatory factor analysis in the original development and validation paper¹⁸). We selectively included these items from the full scale with the goal of minimising respondent burden during our data collection so as to ensure as robust a participation of community residents as possible. Items were rated on a 5-point scale (1=Never, 5=Almost always), which was then recoded into a 0–4 scoring system (0=Never, 4=Almost always). A mean score was generated for the two subscales (range: 0–4; a higher score means higher climate change anxiety). Cronbach’s αs were 0.74 (cognitive-emotional), 0.80 (functional) and 0.85 (all items). To address data skewness, we dichotomised both factors of climate change anxiety (0=No climate change anxiety, 1=Some climate change anxiety).

Anticipatory climate disaster stress

Respondents reported the extent to which seven different climate issues (ie, drought, extreme heat, excessive rainfall, flooding, landslides, wildfires, snowstorms) will be a significant source of stress over the next year using a 5-point scale (1=Not at all, 5=A lot). A mean score of these seven items was generated (range: 1–5; a higher score means higher anticipatory climate stress). Cronbach’s α was 0.82.

Preparation behaviours and evacuation intentions

To assess preparedness, participants completed a checklist of 10 items regarding preparation for a wildfire in the upcoming fire season (1=Yes, 0=No) derived from previous research.¹⁹ While the checklist in the previous study was developed to address hurricane mitigation behaviours, we referred to that study as we developed and finalised our current checklist. Two subfactors were extracted from a factor analysis: one factor consisted of five micro behaviours (ie, had an emergency kit, had power outage supplies), while the second factor consisted of five macro behaviours (ie, prepared an evacuation route, conducted drills, purchased insurance, obtained first aid training, had a contact person; see the online supplemental materials and online supplemental table 1). For micro and macro behaviours, scores were summed to create a count (range: 1–5).

Participants also rated their intentions to evacuate if they were told to do so during the upcoming fire season (derived from previous research)¹⁶ using a 5-point scale (1=Definitely not, 5=Absolutely certain).

Analytical plan

In addition to the analytical plan that was pre-registered on OSF at https://osf.io/yke4v/?view_only=9b597aca27ac42b1b29b34b847458a06 (hypotheses 1–2), some exploratory analyses were also included (hypothesis 3).

To address hypothesis 1, we constructed two logistic hierarchical regression models for the cognitive-emotional and the functional impairment factors of climate change anxiety, respectively (0=No climate change anxiety, 1=Some climate change anxiety). To address hypothesis 2, we constructed a linear hierarchical regression model for anticipatory climate stress. In all three models, predictor variables included: (a) experiences of prior disaster exposures, (b) wildfire-related media exposure and (c) demographics. Variables were entered following a hierarchical sequence, such that prior disaster exposure and wildfire-related media exposure were entered in block 1, and demographics that showed bivariate associations with dependent variables following screening were entered in block 2. Block 1 results informed us of the statistical significance of prior disaster exposure and media exposure, whereas block 2 results informed us whether significance remained after adjusting for relevant covariates.

To address the exploratory hypothesis 3, we conducted negative binomial regressions for micro and macro preparation behaviours and linear regressions for evacuation intention. In each regression, either climate change anxiety or anticipatory climate stress was included as the predictor of interest (due to high correlations but theoretical distinctions, these items had to be separated into three regressions for each outcome), and demographic variables were included as covariates.

Our analyses were performed in Stata V.18.²⁰ To address missing data (0.12–7.75% missing per variable), multiple imputation based on the Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations algorithm was run based on 20 simulations. The only exception was income, which was removed from the analyses due to excessive missing data (17.22%).

Findings

Descriptive statistics

Table 1 summarises the descriptive information of our respondents. Bivariate correlations between variables were run for preliminary screening. The demographic distribution of our sample closely matched the census data for the county.²¹

Table 1. Descriptive information of the sample (n=813).

Variables	Range	M (SD)	n (%)
Demographics
Gender
Male			313 (38.50)
Female or other			471 (57.93)
Age, in years	18–89	55.70 (16.33)
Race/ethnicity
White			632 (77.74)
People of Colour or other			121 (14.88)
American Indian or Alaska Native			11 (1.35)
Asian or Asian American			15 (1.85)
Black or African American			8 (0.98)
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander			2 (0.25)
Other			85 (10.46)
Education level
Associate degree or below			484 (59.53)
Bachelor’s degree or above			313 (38.50)
Marital status
Married or in domestic partnership			393 (48.34)
Others			367 (45.14)
Employment status
Employed			386 (47.48)
Not employed			376 (46.25)
Household size (apart from the respondent)	0–4	1.48 (1.27)
Duration of residence, in years	0.17–89.67	21.58 (17.59)
Previous disaster experiences
Frequency of being in an evacuation zone	0–5	2.25 (1.74)
Wildfire-induced loss/injury
No			554 (68.14)
Yes			243 (29.89)
Wildfire-related media exposure	1–3	1.21 (0.39)
Climate-related psychological reactions
Climate change anxiety (cognitive-emotional impairment)
No			524 (64.45)
At least some			289 (35.55)
Climate change anxiety (functional impairment)
No			626 (77.00)
At least some			186 (22.88)
Anticipatory climate stress	1–5	2.72 (0.76)
Disaster preparedness
Preparation behaviours for the upcoming fire season
Micro behaviours	0–5	2.00 (1.98)
0			328 (40.34)
1			68 (8.36)
2			85 (10.46)
3			86 (10.58)
4			102 (12.55)
5			144 (17.71)
Macro behaviours	0–5	1.33 (1.49)
0			338 (41.57)
1			171 (21.03)
2			132 (16.24)
3			85 (10.46)
4			44 (5.41)
5			43 (5.29)
Evacuation intention for the upcoming fire season	1–5	4.03 (1.07)

Information reported in this table is based on the raw dataset. The percentages of certain variables do not add up to 100% because of missing data. Micro preparation behaviours include having an emergency kit and having power outage supplies; macro preparation behaviours include having an evacuation plan, having practice drills, purchasing insurance, obtaining first aid training and having a contact person.

Hierarchical regressions for hypotheses 1–2

Table 2 summarises the full results for all three hierarchical regression models.

Table 2. Hierarchical regression results for climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress (n=813).

Variables	Climate change anxiety						Anticipatory climate stress
	Cognitive-emotional impairment			Functional impairment
	OR	95% CI	R2	OR	95% CI	R2	b	95% CI	R2
Block 1			0.036			0.053			0.052
Evacuation zone experience	1.02	(0.93, 1.11)		1.08	(0.97, 1.19)		0.05**	(0.02, 0.08)
Wildfire-induced loss/injury†	1.68**	(1.20, 2.34)		1.68**	(1.16, 2.45)		0.15*	(0.03, 0.27)
Wildfire-related media exposure	2.37***	(1.62, 3.46)		2.63***	(1.78, 3.90)		0.26***	(0.13, 0.39)
Block 2			0.069			0.074			0.116
Evacuation zone experience	1.02	(0.93, 1.12)		1.07	(0.96, 1.18)		0.05**	(0.02, 0.08)
Wildfire-induced loss/injury†	1.64**	(1.17, 2.31)		1.64*	(1.12, 2.40)		0.15*	(0.03, 0.26)
Wildfire-related media exposure	2.09***	(1.41, 3.09)		2.40***	(1.60, 3.59)		0.21**	(0.08, 0.34)
Gender‡	1.31	(0.95, 1.81)		0.95	(0.66, 1.38)		0.29***	(0.18, 0.39)
Age, in years	0.98**	(0.97, 0.99)		0.98***	(0.97, 0.99)		−0.004*	(−0.01, −0.00)
Race/ethnicity§	1.24	(0.82, 1.89)		1.13	(0.71, 1.78)		0.06	(−0.09, 0.20)
Marital status¶	1.36	(0.99, 1.85)		0.89	(0.62, 1.27)		0.09	(−0.02, 0.19)
Duration of residence, in years	0.99*	(0.98, 1.00)		1.00	(0.98, 1.01)		−0.005**	(−0.01, −0.00)

The R2 provided is pseudo R2 for logistic regressions and adjusted R2 for linear regressions. Only those demographic variables that showed significant bivariate associations with dependent variables were included.

*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001.

†Reference group=no loss or injury due to wildfire.

‡Reference group=male.

§Reference group=White.

¶Reference group=married.

In block 1, experience of wildfire-induced loss/injury and more wildfire-related media exposure both increased the odds of having some cognitive-emotional (odds ratio (OR)_loss/injury=1.68, 95% CI 1.20, 2.34; OR_media=2.37, 95% CI 1.62, 3.46) and functional (OR_loss/injury=1.68, 95% CI 1.16, 2.45; OR_media=2.63, 95% CI 1.78, 3.90) impairment of climate change anxiety. Loss/injury and media exposure were also positively associated with anticipatory climate stress (b_loss/injury=0.15, 95% CI 0.03, 0.27; b_media=0.26, 95% CI 0.13, 0.39). Frequency of being in an evacuation zone was positively associated with anticipatory climate stress only (b=0.05, 95% CI 0.02, 0.08).

The abovementioned associations still held after the addition of demographic covariates in block 2. A few demographic features also emerged as significant. Younger age increased the odds of cognitive-emotional and functional impairment and was positively associated with anticipatory climate stress. Additionally, duration of residence decreased the odds of cognitive-emotional impairment. Not being male was positively associated with anticipatory climate stress, whereas duration of residence in the county was negatively associated with anticipatory climate stress. See Table 2 for full results.

Regressions for hypothesis 3

After controlling for demographic covariates, cognitive-emotional impairment of climate change anxiety (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=1.23, 95% CI 1.03, 1.47) and anticipatory climate stress (IRR=1.14, 95% CI 1.02, 1.28) increased the incidence of adopting micro preparation behaviours (ie, preparing an emergency kit, power outage supplies). Anticipatory climate stress was also positively associated with higher evacuation intention (b=0.12, 95% CI 0.02, 0.22). No other associations between climate change anxiety or anticipatory climate stress and preparation behaviours or evacuation intention were significant. Older age, not being male, having a bachelor’s degree or above, and shorter duration of residence were also related to preparation behaviours and/or evacuation intention. See Table 3 for full results.

Table 3. Associations between climate change anxiety, anticipatory climate stress, preparations for fire season and evacuation intention (n=813).

Variables	Preparedness						Evacuation intention
	Micro behaviours			Macro behaviours
	IRR	(95% CI)	R2	IRR	(95% CI)	R2	b	(95% CI)	R2
Models with predictor 1			0.004			0.002			0.056
Climate change anxiety (cognitive-emotional impairment)	1.23*	(1.03, 1.47)		1.03	(0.86, 1.23)		0.11	(−0.04, 0.27)
Gender†	0.94	(0.79, 1.12)		1.07	(0.90, 1.27)		0.43***	(0.28, 0.58)
Age, in years	1.01**	(1.00, 1.01)		1.00	(1.00, 1.01)		0.01*	(0.00, 0.01)
Education level‡	0.94	(0.79, 1.12)		1.03	(0.86, 1.22)		0.20*	(0.05, 0.35)
Duration of residence, in years	1.00	(0.99, 1.00)		1.00	(0.99, 1.00)		−0.005*	(−0.01, −0.00)
Models with predictor 2			0.002			0.002			0.055
Climate change anxiety (functional impairment)	1.07	(0.88, 1.31)		0.87	(0.71, 1.07)		0.10	(−0.08, 0.27)
Gender†	0.96	(0.81, 1.14)		1.07	(0.90, 1.27)		0.44***	(0.29, 0.59)
Age, in years	1.01*	(1.00, 1.01)		1.00	(1.00, 1.01)		0.01*	(0.00, 0.01)
Education level‡	0.95	(0.80, 1.13)		1.03	(0.87, 1.23)		0.20*	(0.05, 0.35)
Duration of residence, in years	1.00	(0.99, 1.00)		1.00	(0.99, 1.00)		−0.01*	(−0.01, −0.00)
Models with predictor 3			0.004			0.002			0.060
Anticipatory climate stress	1.14*	(1.02, 1.28)		1.06	(0.95, 1.19)		0.12*	(0.02, 0.22)
Gender†	0.92	(0.77, 1.10)		1.05	(0.88, 1.25)		0.40***	(0.25, 0.56)
Age, in years	1.01**	(1.00, 1.01)		1.00	(1.00, 1.01)		0.01*	(0.00, 0.01)
Education level‡	0.94	(0.79, 1.12)		1.02	(0.86, 1.22)		0.19*	(0.04, 0.34)
Duration of residence, in years	1.00	(0.99, 1.00)		1.00	(0.99, 1.00)		−0.005*	(−0.01, −0.00)

The R2 provided is pseudo R2 for negative binomial regressions and adjusted R2 for linear regressions. Only those demographic variables that showed significant bivariate associations with dependent variables were included.

*p<0.050, **p<0.010, ***p<0.001.

†Reference group=male.

‡Reference group=associate degree or below.

IRR, incidence rate ratio.

Discussion

In this study conducted among a sample of residents of a high-risk county at the start of an annual wildfire season, we found that individuals who had prior experiences with wildfires, floods and/or landslides, and those with greater exposure to wildfire-related media, were more likely to report higher levels of climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress. Additionally, individuals who reported higher levels of anxiety and/or stress were more likely to have prepared an emergency kit and power outage supplies, as well as express intentions to evacuate as instructed in case of a fire.

Individuals with prior wildfire experiences were at least somewhat anxious about the threat of climate-related disasters, which is consistent with previous studies.^{3 7 11} Media exposure was also associated with psychological responses to climate change, which is consistent with a body of research on media and mental health following different types of disaster events.²² Climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress were temporally appropriate given our study was uniquely fielded at the start of a fire season, so it was natural for residents to experience elevated levels of these negative emotions. In fact, given the timing when a potential fire was most likely to occur, the observation that many respondents had not prepared for the upcoming fire season was alarming. In this case, the future orientation of anxiety and anticipatory stress is particularly relevant because this could direct people’s attention to the uncertain yet probable incident of a wildfire. Because climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress were associated with important disaster-related planning and mitigation behaviours, they are not necessarily maladaptive, as they might be positive signals that accompany self-protective behaviours. Previous studies similarly found that disaster-specific worries were positively associated with disaster preparedness.^{12 13}

As psychological responses to climate change gain increased media coverage and public attention, the scientific literature has also critically discussed the potentially adaptive implications of climate change anxiety^{7 8} and worry^{5 23} in encouraging pro-environmental behaviours. In line with the broad idea that psychological reactions related to climate change could be associated with important actions, our study extends existing research to address disaster preparedness in the context of a high-risk disaster-prone area.

We found that simpler preparations that did not require much effort or money (eg, preparing an emergency kit or power outage supplies) were more consistently associated with climate-related anxiety and anticipatory stress. This suggests that these behaviours were more strongly linked to emotion-based motivations. Though simple, these preparatory behaviours are important in and of themselves. In contrast, preparations that required higher temporal and financial costs, along with intentions to evacuate, might be harder to shift merely with appeals to people’s cognitions/emotions.¹¹ It is important to understand that the community from which our sample came is a disadvantaged one. Because many high-risk regions prone to climate disasters are also affected by structural inequity in health disparities,²⁴ even when residents do have the intention to engage in disaster preparation behaviours, they might refrain from taking action if they lack financial and other resources. From a policy-making perspective, equipping underprivileged, socioeconomically challenged residents with the physical resources needed for disaster preparation is crucial.

Additionally, only the climate change anxiety factor assessing cognitive-emotional impairment (eg, rumination, crying), but not functional impairment (eg, the interference of emotions with one’s ability to work/socialise), correlated with preparation behaviours. Similar patterns were observed in other studies, where environmental behaviours were positively associated with the cognitive-emotional impairment factor of climate change anxiety only, but not functional impairment.^{7 25} This might suggest that climate change anxiety is double-sided, simultaneously consisting of both adaptive and maladaptive facets. Broadly speaking, anxiety and anticipatory stress, depending on their specific content, could on the one hand undermine well-being but on the other hand motivate people to actively cope with upcoming stressful events.²⁶ Thus, anxiety and anticipatory stress might initiate both positive and negative responses.¹³ Our findings suggest that it may be best to use emotion-based motivations to encourage disaster preparation.

The geographical and temporal aspects of this study provide critical insights into the lived experiences of residents in a wildfire-prone region. Our findings highlight the importance of tailoring disaster preparedness strategies to the specific contexts of high-risk areas, particularly at times when residents are most attuned to imminent threats, such as at the start of a wildfire season. While we conducted this study in Lake County, a region with very high wildfire activity and a significant percentage of disadvantaged communities, our results may be scalable and transferable to other communities with comparable socioeconomic, climate and natural hazard characteristics (eg, East Coast and Northeast United States, Canada, Australia). This broader applicability highlights the potential for our findings and methods to inform resilience and adaptation strategies in diverse settings, particularly those with vulnerable populations facing similar socioeconomic and climatic challenges.

We acknowledge several limitations of our study. First, the cross-sectional data collection prevents causal inferences. For example, the association between media exposure and anxiety/anticipatory stress could suggest a cyclical loop. Different media content could also be differentially related to psychological responses, but our study was not able to fully tease out these specifics. Second, our study had a relatively low participation rate, although it is impossible to calculate a participation rate with certainty as we do not know whether non-respondents actually received or read our recruitment materials. Third, the Climate Anxiety Scale is an imperfect instrument in comprehensively capturing climate change anxiety. For example, further conceptual and psychometric work could examine whether functional impairment is truly a subfactor inherent to climate change anxiety, as opposed to a behavioural consequence of anxiety instead. Finally, our findings must be interpreted in the context of their relatively small effect sizes. Notwithstanding these limitations, our study had several strengths. First, our sample was representative given its demographics closely matched the demographic composition of the county. Second, it was launched at the start of an annual fire season, which captured a unique temporal snapshot. Our results can provide important implications guiding emergency management and media intervention in future cases of similar disasters.

Moving forward, future research could benefit from longitudinal studies to map out the dynamic patterns of people’s anxiety, anticipatory stress, disaster experiences and behavioural responses over time at different phases of a fire cycle. Better measurements for climate change anxiety, further inclusion of psychopathology (eg, psychiatric history, postdisaster symptoms) and the use of field experiments conducted in communities at high risk for climate-related disasters would add greatly to the findings presented here.

Clinical implications

Accompanying the climate crisis on a global scale, mental health-related concerns are also receiving much attention. Our results respond to an important discussion on whether anxiety and anticipatory stress due to climate change are indicators of subsequent mental health problems warranting treatments or whether they are adaptive responses to true danger.^{6 27} During the 2019–2020 Australian bushfire season, for example, higher bushfire impact was associated with psychological distress arising from unwanted environmental changes, which was in turn associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress, distress and lower well-being.²⁸ These results might potentially inform our understanding of the links between excessive climate change anxiety, anticipatory climate stress and psychopathological conditions. This is particularly relevant given that clinically significant mental health burden is elevated due to climate change and extreme weather events.²⁹ Meanwhile, our findings also suggest it could be natural for individuals who have been previously exposed to climate disasters to experience higher levels of climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress, particularly when they are anticipating another climate disaster. It is equally important, therefore, not to overpathologise anxiety and stress, as a reasonable level of these cognitions and emotions could be adaptive reactions to real societal problems.³⁰

For mental health practitioners working in the field (eg, wildfire-prone communities), it is important to acknowledge that people can manifest different psychological responses, and it could be challenging but is undoubtedly critical to correctly identify and distinguish between the adaptive and the maladaptive presentations of anxiety and anticipatory stress reactions. When people report anxiety and stress due to climate change, an informative assessment would benefit from a thorough functional analysis of these experiences. This would include evaluating the reasonability of these cognitions/emotions given the specific context and timing, as well as weighing and balancing between the relative contributions of these experiences to adaptive behaviours and to debilitating distress. This would be a critical starting point for any subsequent interventions. Additionally, public-facing psychoeducation on psychological reactions due to climate change would have community-wide benefits for mental health literacy and promotion.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that among residents in communities that have experienced significant climate-related disasters, prior experiences with climate disasters were associated with climate change anxiety and anticipatory climate stress, which were themselves related to preparedness for another climate disaster. These findings have deepened our understanding of how psychological processes are implicated in coping with wildfires, as well as human behaviours in a disaster context. They bear value in informing future interventions to promote self-protective preparatory behaviours to prevent and mitigate the worst impacts of climate-related disasters.

The funders played no role in the design, data collection, analysis or the decision to disseminate these findings.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request.