Abstract
Background
Climate change is a risk multiplier for mental health that compounds existing social and health inequities. Aotearoa New Zealand (Aotearoa hereafter) carries a high mental-health burden, with rangatahi Māori (Māori youth) disproportionately affected. International studies link negative emotional responses to climate change with perceived government inaction, yet representative data are lacking in Aotearoa.
Methods
A cross-sectional online survey of 1167 youth (aged 16–25) in Aotearoa was conducted between September and October 2024. Participants reported on climate worry, climate-related emotions, daily functioning, and perceptions of government responses. Data were weighted to population benchmarks. Descriptive statistics, group comparisons (by gender and ethnicity), multivariable regression models, and Spearman’s correlation analyses were conducted.
Results
Negative climate-related emotional responses were common. Over half of respondents reported sadness, helplessness, powerlessness, anxiety, fear, and anger. Overall, 66.1% reported at least moderate climate-related worry, and 35.6% reported feeling very or extremely worried. Around half reported impaired daily functioning. Government responses were viewed more negatively (57.7%) than positively (39.1%), with feelings of betrayal exceeding reassurance. Climate-distress indicators were moderately associated with more negative perceptions of government responses. Rangatahi Māori commonly endorsed anger and negative government perceptions, alongside lower endorsement of some threat-related emotions such as anxiety, fear and powerlessness.
Conclusions
Climate-related emotional responses among youth in Aotearoa are widespread and are associated with more negative perceptions of government climate action. Findings highlight the importance of policy responses that are transparent, equitable, and developed in partnership with young people, including approaches grounded in Indigenous perspectives.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-026-28313-0.
Keywords: Climate change, Climate emotions, Climate-related distress, Youth, Māori, Indigenous, Aotearoa New Zealand
Introduction
Toitū te marae a Tāne-Mahuta, toitū te marae a Tangaroa, toitū te tangata.
If the land is well and the sea is well, the people will thrive.
The whakataukī (Māori proverb) above reflects the interconnection between environmental and human wellbeing, intrinsic to te ao Māori (the Māori worldview). Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reinforce this relational understanding, warning that ecosystem disruption presents direct (e.g., extreme weather) and indirect (e.g., displacement, cultural loss) mental health risks, particularly for populations already experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, reduced access to services, and disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards [1]. Research on climate change and mental health has expanded accordingly, highlighting complex emotional responses among youth, who are vulnerable due to their developmental stage and predicted long-term exposure [1–5]. A landmark global study by Hickman et al. [3] and subsequent studies [4, 6] document high levels of climate-related distress among youth worldwide, closely tied to perceived governmental inaction. Indigenous climate justice scholarship also highlights that climate-related risks are shaped by colonial and relational injustices [7]. To date, little is known about how such distress manifests within Aotearoa, particularly among rangatahi Māori (Māori youth), whose experiences of climate-related risks are shaped by colonisation and ongoing struggles for tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) [7, 8].
Climate change elicits a wide range of emotional responses, often termed climate emotions or eco-emotions, including both positive (e.g., optimism) and negative (e.g., sadness) emotions [9–11]. International studies consistently show that negative emotions are common among youth, with implications for wellbeing [3, 4, 6]. However, these responses exist along a continuum from normative concern and threat appraisal to more distressing experiences that may affect daily functioning [2]. In this study, we use the term climate-related distress to refer broadly to negative emotional responses and experiences associated with climate change, including worry, negative emotions, and perceived impacts on functioning, while recognising that these responses may overlap with mental-health outcomes but do not necessarily indicate psychopathology [12, 13]. Existing measures suggest that climate- and environmentally related anxiety can be distinguished from general anxiety, stress, and depression, but the boundaries between distress, impairment, and mental-health outcomes remain an active area of research, particularly in populations not well represented in existing validation studies [12, 13]. We examine both negative and positive emotions, as their imbalance may be central to climate-related distress, with negative emotions associated with poorer wellbeing and negative perceptions of government responses [3, 4, 6], while low levels of positive emotions (hope and optimism) may limit emotional regulation [5]. Terminology in this field remains conceptually inconsistent (e.g., climate anxiety, eco-grief, eco-anger, solastalgia), and some terms may risk pathologising climate-related distress through Western psychological framings that overlook Indigenous perspectives [8, 10, 14, 15]. Our approach therefore adopts a broad culturally contextualised framing of climate-related distress, explicitly capturing emotional, cognitive, and functional dimensions as measured in the survey. The measures used in this study were adapted from Hickman et al. [3], enabling comparison with international research while capturing a broad range of emotional and functional responses.
As a risk multiplier, climate change compounds existing vulnerabilities and stressors such as socioeconomic disadvantage, differential exposure to environmental hazards, and reduced access to health and social services, intensifying risks to mental health [16, 17]. This is especially salient in Aotearoa, where young people already face a significant mental-health burden: youth suicide rates are the highest in the OECD/EU, and rates for rangatahi Māori are nearly twice those of non-Māori [18]. Young people face systemic age-related disadvantages [19], and despite contributing least to the crisis, will likely experience its most enduring consequences [1]. Research shows that youth report higher climate-related distress than older generations, placing them at risk for long-term mental health impacts [2, 3]. In Hickman et al. [3], nearly 60% of 16–25-year-olds were very or extremely worried about climate change, and over 45% reported negative impacts on daily functioning (e.g., sleeping). Over half reported sadness, fear, powerlessness, anxiety, anger, helplessness and guilt, strongly linked to negative perceptions of government responses. Similar findings emerged in Canada [6] and the USA [4]. International research also indicates that climate-related distress can vary by gender, with females often reporting higher worry and distress-related emotions than males [2, 20–23].
Perceptions of government responses are an important correlate of youth climate emotions and climate-related distress. Hickman et al. found that negative perceptions of government responses, including their indicators of feeling betrayed rather than reassured, were associated with higher climate anxiety and distress among young people internationally [3]. Similar links between climate distress, negative views of government responses, perceived inaction, and limited youth agency have been reported in Canada, the USA, the UK, and Australia [4, 6, 24, 25]. In Aotearoa, government-response beliefs may be especially important for rangatahi Māori, whose perceptions of the New Zealand Government’s response to climate change sit within broader histories of colonisation, exclusion from decision making, Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations, and existing inequities in youth mental health [18, 19, 26, 27].
International research highlights cross-cultural variation in climate-related emotions [2, 3, 21, 28], yet much of the youth climate-distress literature remains concentrated in industrialised or Western contexts, with far less known about ethnic and cultural differences within nations, particularly among Indigenous populations [7, 15, 21, 29, 30]. This is important in Aotearoa, a multicultural nation with four large ethnic groups: Pākehā (of European descent), Māori, Asian, and Pacific Peoples. Rangatahi Māori, while not homogeneous, face the same projected climate risks as other youth but do so within contexts shaped by colonisation and systemic marginalisation, and often by deeply relational and spiritual connections to people, place, and natural systems [8, 19]. These connections mean that climate change may threaten not only physical environments, but also identity, cultural continuity, collective wellbeing, and tino rangatiratanga [8].
The present study
Despite growing global evidence, nationally representative data on climate emotions and climate-related distress among young people living in Aotearoa are lacking. This study first describes emotional responses to climate change, perceived impacts on daily functioning, and perceptions of the New Zealand Government’s response to climate change among 16–25-year-olds in Aotearoa. We then situate these national findings alongside international studies using similar measures [3, 4, 6], before examining whether patterns vary within Aotearoa by ethnicity and gender. Consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) and the need to address Indigenous health inequities, particular attention was given to rangatahi Māori. Retaining Māori, Pākehā, Asian, and Pacific Peoples as separate groups allows us to examine ethnic patterning within the wider youth population, while avoiding the assumption that non-Māori youth are homogeneous. Gender is examined descriptively, given international evidence of gendered differences in climate-related distress [2]. This study provides the first nationally representative account of youth climate emotions in Aotearoa and highlights the role of government responses in shaping emotional wellbeing in this context.
Method
Study design and participants
We conducted an anonymous online survey of 16–25-year-olds in Aotearoa between September 18 and October 3, 2024. No personal identifying information was collected or made available to the research team as the survey was anonymous. Recruitment was managed by Horizon Research Ltd, an approved all-of-government (AoG) independent research provider, and a member of Research New Zealand. The survey was hosted on Horizon’s secure online research platform. Participants were recruited through age-targeted online panels, including Horizon’s general population panel, their Māori panel, and two additional Research NZ member panels as sourced by Horizon. All panellists voluntarily register online and undergo a double opt-in process. Participants received standard panel incentives for survey completion which were unrelated to the survey topic or participants’ responses. Eligible participants were aged 16–25 and residing in Aotearoa.
Upon invitation, panellists were informed of the topic and the University of Canterbury affiliation. If panellists chose to start the survey they could access more information about the research via a hyperlink before consenting to start the survey. Of 1214 initial responses by respondents aged 16–25 years, 47 were excluded for incomplete surveys or straight lining all responses, resulting in 1167 valid responses.
As sample demographics did not match national distribution, raking (iterative proportional fitting) [31] was applied to age, gender, and ethnicity using 2023 NZ Census data [32]. This method iteratively adjusts the weights of the cases to match population distributions across multiple variables. All reported findings are based on these rake weighted data. Table 1 presents the demographic characteristics of the sample, showing the unweighted numbers and proportions, and the weighted numbers and proportions for age, gender and ethnicity. As participants were recruited through online research panels, it is important to acknowledge the sample may be subject to selection bias, including potential overrepresentation of individuals with internet access or interest in survey participation. The study was approved by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee (HREC 2024/71/LR-PS).
Table 1.
Self-reported sample characteristics and weighting
| N* | (Raked) Weighted numbers and weighted proportions † | |
|---|---|---|
| Age years (N = 1167) | ||
| 16–19 | 328 (28.1%) | 469 (40.2%) |
| 20–25 | 839 (71.9%) | 698 (59.8%) |
| Gender (N = 1167) | ||
| Male | 424 (36.3%) | 592 (50.7%) |
| Female | 737 (63.2%) | 561 (48.1%) |
| Another gender | 6 (0.5%) | 14 (1.2%) |
| Strongest Ethnicity (N = 1167) | ||
| Asian | 233(20.0%) | 160 (13.7%) |
| Māori | 154 (13.2%) | 232 (19.9%) |
| MELAA ‡ | 22 (1.9%) | 19 (1.6%) |
| Pacific Peoples | 70 (6.0%) | 129 (11.1%) |
| European/Pākehā | 663 (56.8%) | 620 (53.1%) |
| Other ethnicity | 25 (2.1%) | 7 (0.6%) |
*Respondent numbers (N) are unweighted
†Weighted numbers and proportions are weighted according to 2023 Census NZ data for gender, age and ethnicity, ‡MELAA = Middle Eastern/Latin American/African. Original survey categories ethnicity participants most strongly identified with were Asian, Indian, Māori, MELAA, Pacific Peoples, NZ European/Pākehā, Other European, Other; this variable was operationalised into six categories as per Level 1 of the NZ Census data: Asian, Māori, MELAA, Pacific Peoples, Pākehā and Other ethnicity [32]. Participants identifying as another gender were included in full-sample descriptive analyses but excluded from gender-based comparative analyses because of small cell size. Participants in the MELAA and Other ethnicity categories were included in full-sample descriptive analyses but excluded from ethnicity-based comparative analyses because of small cell sizes
Measures
The survey measures used in the present manuscript were adapted from Hickman et al. [3]. These measures formed part of a larger survey that included additional measures for related research questions outside the scope of the present manuscript. Measures reported here include climate-related worry, emotional responses to climate change, functional impact, affective and cognitive responses to the New Zealand Government’s response to climate change, and experiences of feeling ignored or dismissed when discussing climate change. The questionnaire items used in this study are included in the Supplementary Appendices.
Climate-related worry
Climate-related worry was assessed using a single item: “How worried are you that climate change threatens people and the planet?” Responses were rated on a five-point scale (1 = not worried to 5 = extremely worried).
Emotional responses to climate change
Emotional responses to climate change were assessed using a 16-item checklist. Participants were asked: “Does climate change make you feel any of the following?” Participants indicated whether they had experienced each emotion, including sadness, anxiety, anger, helplessness, powerlessness, optimism, and hopefulness (Yes/No).
Functional impact
Functional impact was assessed using a single item: “My feelings about climate change negatively affect my daily life.” The item specified impacts in at least one of the following domains: eating, concentrating, work, school, sleeping, spending time in nature, having fun, or relationships. Responses were rated on a five-point scale (1 = never to 5 = very often).
Affective responses to the New Zealand government’s climate response
Affective responses to the New Zealand Government’s climate response were assessed with the prompt: “When I think about how the New Zealand Government is responding to climate change I feel…”. Participants rated 14 feelings comprising seven positive responses including reassured and protected, and seven negative responses, including betrayed and abandoned. Each item was rated on a five-point scale (1 = not at all to 5 = extremely).
Cognitive appraisals of the New Zealand government’s climate response
Cognitive appraisals of the New Zealand Government’s response to climate change were assessed with the prompt: “In relation to climate change I believe that the New Zealand Government is…”. Participants responded “yes” or “no” to nine statements reflecting perceived adequacy, honesty, and effectiveness of government climate action.
Feeling ignored or dismissed
Participants were asked: “When I try to talk about climate change, other people have ignored or dismissed me.” Response options were “yes”, “no”, or “I don’t talk to other people about climate change”.
Data analysis
The analytical strategy aimed to describe the prevalence of climate-related distress among young people in Aotearoa New Zealand, situate findings alongside international studies using similar measures, and examine whether focal outcomes varied by ethnicity, with gender examined descriptively. For analysis, climate-related distress was operationalised using three components: climate worry, endorsement of climate-related emotions, and self-reported impacts on daily functioning.
Data were analysed using SPSS version 29. Raked survey weights were applied to align the sample with population distributions of young people aged 16–25 years in Aotearoa New Zealand by age, gender, and ethnicity [32]. Weighted analyses were conducted using the Complex Samples procedures in SPSS to account for the survey weighting, and weighted proportions were reported throughout.
Three composite measures were derived. Government climate response beliefs were assessed using nine binary items (Yes/No), scored and summed (range 9–18), with higher scores indicating positive evaluations and lower scores indicating more negative evaluations. Government climate response feelings were assessed using 14 items rated on five-point scales (1 = not at all, 5 = extremely), from which two indices were derived following Hickman et al.’s approach: Reassured (positive affective responses; α = 0.93) and Betrayed (negative affective responses; α = 0.92). Mean scores were calculated for each index, with higher values reflecting greater endorsement of the respective affective orientation.
Weighted descriptive statistics were calculated for the full sample. Comparative analyses were restricted to the four largest ethnic groups: Asian, Māori, Pacific, and Pākehā. Estimates for the remaining ethnic groups were reported descriptively where appropriate but not interpreted as focal comparisons because of small cell sizes. Gender comparisons were restricted to female and male participants because estimates for gender-diverse participants were unstable due to small cell sizes.
Group differences in binary climate-emotion outcomes were examined using chi-square tests. Multivariable linear regression models were used to examine associations between ethnicity and key continuous outcomes, adjusting for gender. Outcomes included climate-related worry, functional impact, government-response beliefs, and the Reassured and Betrayed indices. Results are reported as unstandardised regression coefficients with 95% confidence intervals. Associations between climate-related distress indicators and perceptions of government responses were examined using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients, with effect sizes reported as rho (ρ) values accompanied by 95% confidence intervals.
No a priori power analysis was conducted. A power-sensitivity analysis was therefore conducted in G*Power 3.1 for the adjusted ethnicity models, using the analytic sample for these models after excluding small gender and ethnicity groups from adjusted comparisons (N = 1116). Assuming α = 0.05, 80% power, three tested ethnicity parameters, and four total predictors including gender, the study was powered to detect a very small effect, Cohen’s f² = 0.010.
Results
Results are organised by focal outcome: climate-related worry and functional impact, emotional responses to climate change, perceptions of the New Zealand Government’s climate response, feeling ignored or dismissed when discussing climate change, and associations between climate-related distress indicators and government-response perceptions. Within each outcome section, weighted findings are presented for the full sample, followed by ethnic-group patterns, with particular attention to rangatahi Māori. Gender comparisons are reported descriptively where relevant. Weighted and unweighted demographic characteristics are shown in Table 1. Adjusted ethnicity models controlled for gender and used Pākehā respondents as the reference group. Full descriptive and inferential results supporting all reported group differences are presented in the Supplementary Appendices.
Climate-related worry and functional impact
Overall, two-thirds (66.1%) of respondents were at least moderately worried about climate change, and over one third (35.6%) were very or extremely worried (Fig. 1). Nearly half (48.9%) reported that their feelings about climate change affected daily functioning at least sometimes (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1.
Worry about climate change
Fig. 2.
Proportion of respondents reporting a negative impact on their functioning from their feelings about climate change. Data are shown for the whole sample and for the four largest ethnicity groups in Aotearoa
Ethnic-group differences in climate worry were small. Rangatahi Māori were more likely to report moderate or greater climate worry (70.3%) than Asian (63.5%) and Pākehā (62.7%) youth, but less likely than Pacific youth (76.0%). However, the adjusted ethnicity effect for climate-related worry was not statistically significant, Wald F(3, 1111) = 2.45, p = .062.
Differences in daily functioning impact were more pronounced (Fig. 2). Māori (59.9%), Pacific (59.2%), and Asian youth (56.3%) reported impacts on daily functioning (at least sometimes) more often than Pākehā youth (40.6%). Functional impact differed significantly by ethnicity in adjusted models, Wald F(3, 1111) = 7.38, p < .001. Compared with Pākehā youth, Asian youth (B = 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.57), rangatahi Māori (B = 0.28, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.52), and Pacific youth (B = 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69) reported greater impacts on daily functioning.
Emotional responses to climate change
Emotional responses were widespread. A majority endorsed six negative emotions: sad (68.7%), helpless (61.3%), powerless (59.5%), anxious (58.5%), afraid (56.0%), and angry (54.4%). Fewer respondents endorsed positive emotions, with around one quarter reporting feeling optimistic (27.2%) or hopeful (27.7%).
Emotional responses varied significantly by ethnicity for several emotions, including anxiety, fear, optimism, powerlessness, and hopefulness. Rangatahi Māori showed a distinctive emotional pattern: sadness (64.2%), helplessness (55.6%), and anger (56.5%) were majority-endorsed, while anxiety, fear, and powerlessness were endorsed by fewer than half. In Bonferroni-adjusted pairwise comparisons, rangatahi Māori were less likely than Pacific and Pākehā youth to endorse anxiety, less likely than Asian youth to endorse fear, and less likely than Pākehā youth to endorse powerlessness. Rangatahi Māori were also more likely than Pākehā youth to endorse optimism and hopefulness. Full item-level percentages, chi-square tests, and pairwise comparisons are provided in the Supplementary Appendices.
Perceptions of the New Zealand Government’s climate response
Perceptions of the New Zealand Government’s climate response were predominantly negative (Fig. 3). More respondents endorsed negative statements about government action across items (55.2% – 59.3%) than positive ones (36.0% – 42.4%). Respondents also reported significantly higher betrayal than reassurance in relation to the New Zealand Government’s climate response, although the effect was small, t(1166) = 6.83, p < .001, d = 0.20. Full descriptive statistics for the Reassured and Betrayed indices are provided in the Supplementary Appendices.
Fig. 3.
Endorsement of beliefs about the New Zealand Government’s climate response (whole sample)
Weighted percentage of respondents who answered “yes” to each belief statement. Items are grouped as positive and negative appraisals of the New Zealand Government’s response to climate change.
Government-response beliefs varied significantly by ethnicity. Asian youth reported the most positive beliefs, whereas rangatahi Māori, Pacific, and Pākehā youth reported more negative beliefs. Government-response beliefs differed significantly by ethnicity in adjusted models, Wald F(3, 1111) = 14.76, p < .001. Compared with Pākehā youth, Asian youth reported more positive beliefs about the New Zealand Government’s climate response (B = 1.53, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.00), whereas differences for rangatahi Māori and Pacific youth were not statistically significant.
Affective responses showed a similar pattern for reassurance, which also varied significantly by ethnicity. Asian and Pacific youth reported higher reassurance than Pākehā youth, while rangatahi Māori sat between these groups descriptively. Reassurance differed significantly by ethnicity in adjusted models, Wald F(3, 1111) = 22.06, p < .001. Compared with Pākehā youth, Asian youth (B = 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.87) and Pacific youth (B = 0.37, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.60) reported higher reassurance. The difference between rangatahi Māori and Pākehā youth was not statistically significant.
Feelings of betrayal were descriptively highest among Pacific youth and rangatahi Māori. However, the overall ethnicity effect was not statistically significant in adjusted models, Wald F(3, 1111) = 1.79, p = .147. Full ethnicity-specific descriptive and inferential statistics are provided in the Supplementary Appendices.
Feelings ignored or dismissed when discussing climate change
Overall, 60.1% of respondents reported discussing climate change with others, while 29.2% reported feeling ignored or dismissed when doing so. Pacific (38.5%) and Māori (33.2%) youth were more likely than Pākehā youth (25%) to report feeling ignored or dismissed, while Pākehā youth were least likely to discuss climate change with others (42.9%).
Associations between climate-related distress and government-response perceptions
Spearman’s rank correlations indicated that greater climate worry was moderately associated with greater impacts on daily functioning (ρ = 0.35) and stronger feelings of government betrayal (ρ = 0.39), and was negatively associated with more positive beliefs about government climate responses (ρ = − 0.30). Daily functioning difficulties were also moderately associated with government betrayal (ρ = 0.44). Positive beliefs about government climate responses were strongly associated with feeling reassured by government responses (ρ = 0.61) and moderately negatively associated with feelings of betrayal (ρ = − 0.42). The moderate correlations observed between worry, functional impacts, and feelings of betrayal suggest these measures capture related aspects of climate distress rather than entirely independent constructs. Other associations were small in magnitude.
Table 2.
Spearman’s correlation coefficients between climate-related worry, functional impact, and government response perceptions (N = 1167)
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Worry | – | – | – | – |
| 2. Functional impact | .35*** | – | – | – |
| 3. Government beliefs | − .30*** | − .07* | – | – |
| 4. Feeling betrayed by government | .39*** | .44*** | − .42*** | – |
| 5. Feeling reassured by government | − .09** | .19*** | .61*** | − .08** |
Note. Values are Spearman’s rho (ρ). *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
Gender-specific patterns are presented in the Supplementary Appendices. In brief, females reported higher climate-related worry than males and endorsed a broader range of climate-related emotions, while males reported more positive perceptions of the New Zealand Government’s climate response. Gender patterns were not the primary focus of the present analyses.
Discussion
This study adds to the evidence base by providing nationally representative data on climate-related distress among youth in Aotearoa, disaggregated by ethnicity, with particular attention to rangatahi Māori. Consistent with international findings [3, 4, 6], data from Aotearoa show that climate-related distress is common among youth and is associated with negative perceptions of government responses. Although levels of climate worry were lower than in comparable international studies, worry was nevertheless widespread. Negative emotions and perceived impacts on daily functioning were also common. Across outcomes, perceptions of government climate (in)action emerged as central to youth climate-related distress.
Though cross-national comparisons should be interpreted cautiously given design and contextual differences, climate-related distress in Aotearoa showed both similarities and differences with international findings. A clear cross-national difference was the intensity of climate worry: 35.6% were very or extremely worried, compared with 59% globally [3], 57.9% in the USA [4], and 48% in Canada [6]. Conversely, 13.3% reported no worry, more than double the global and Canadian rates (5.0%), and over four times higher than in the USA (3.2%). Lower levels of intense worry in Aotearoa may reflect diminished perceptions of vulnerability. Although severe weather events have increased, Aotearoa’s overall exposure remains comparatively lower than in many other countries [33], which may have reinforced psychological distance and reduced climate-related distress. This interpretation is broadly consistent with Hickman et al. [3], who found that countries reporting higher worry and functional impact tended to be poorer, located in the Global South, and more directly impacted by climate change. Furthermore, Aotearoa’s “clean and green” national identity may also reduce perceived vulnerability [34].
Consistent with international data, more than half of respondents endorsed sadness, helplessness, powerlessness, anxiety, fear, and anger. However, the pattern of emotional responses in Aotearoa diverged in key ways. Sadness, helplessness and powerlessness were most commonly endorsed, suggesting a predominantly loss-oriented pattern and diminished sense of agency [10]. Anxiety, fear and anger followed, emotions associated with climate-related threat and justice-oriented responses [10, 12, 35]. By contrast, sadness, anxiety, and fear were most frequent in international samples, including eight of ten countries in Hickman et al. [3], Canada [6], and the USA [4], where higher worry suggested a combined pattern of loss and threat. Internationally, only the UK and the Philippines ranked sadness as their top emotion [3], a pattern also evident in Aotearoa.
In Aotearoa, the prominence of helplessness and powerlessness alongside sadness may indicate that climate-related distress is shaped less by acute fear and more by perceived loss, constraint, and limited agency. Gender-specific findings, reported in the Supplementary Appendices, were broadly consistent with international research showing higher climate-related distress among females [2, 20, 21, 23, 36, 37].
Ethnic disaggregation added critical nuance to the national picture. Rangatahi Māori predominantly endorsed sadness, anger, and helplessness, alongside elevated worry, greater daily functioning disruption than Pākehā youth, and negative perceptions of government climate action. These emotions align with Indigenous literature linking sadness to climate grief arising from ecological and cultural loss [8, 38] and anger about ongoing injustices, including those associated with colonisation and marginalisation [7, 30, 38–40]. Anger may also serve as a protective force, signalling injustice while sustaining resistance, and has been associated with better mental health compared with climate-related anxiety and depression [35]. Notably, rangatahi Māori were less likely than other groups to report anxiety, fear, and powerlessness, emotions often associated with uncertainty and future threat. This pattern may reflect how climate change is understood in relation to present, historical, and intergenerational contexts, rather than only as an abstract future risk [19, 30, 41]. Rather than indicating disengagement, this pattern may reflect engaged distress shaped by wider contexts of climate injustice, colonisation, structural inequity, and trust in government decision-making [7, 8, 10, 35].
Other ethnic group patterns provide further context for interpreting the national findings. Pacific youth reported high worry and functional impacts, alongside high anxiety, powerlessness, and fear, suggesting a more anticipatory pattern of distress. This may reflect concern for ancestral homelands facing disproportionate climate risks [30, 42–44]. Asian youth reported distress alongside more positive perceptions of government responses, suggesting that negative climate emotions can coexist with institutional trust. Compared with other groups, Pākehā youth showed lower worry and functional impacts, alongside lower hope, optimism, and reassurance in government responses to climate change, suggesting a more muted or resigned pattern of climate-related engagement [5].
A systems-level perspective suggests that these emotional patterns may reflect youth perceptions of structural and political contexts, particularly government responses, rather than isolated psychological processes [1, 16]. Correlations supported this view: climate worry was moderately associated with more negative government beliefs and stronger feelings of betrayal, while reassurance was weakly or inversely associated with distress [3]. These dynamics suggest that climate-related distress reflects both psychological responses to climate change and beliefs shaped by structural inequality and historical power imbalances [7, 45, 46]. These findings echo evidence that governmental inaction contributes to youth climate-related distress and feelings of betrayal, and that such distress must be understood within broader ethical, political, and colonial contexts [3, 7, 26, 45]. For rangatahi Māori, the moral and relational dimensions of climate-related distress may be intensified by colonisation, systemic exclusion, and enduring struggles for tino rangatiratanga [8, 19, 30, 41]. Despite these stressors, the emotional patterns observed among rangatahi Māori in this study may also signal agency in the face of systemic injustice [7, 8, 17, 40, 41]. Accordingly, responses to youth climate-related distress should extend beyond individual-level support to include structural and policy-level responses that rebuild trust and legitimacy, including meaningful youth and rangatahi Māori participation in climate decision-making [3, 16, 19]. Reports of feeling ignored or dismissed when discussing climate change further underscore the need for participatory responses that take youth concerns seriously.
Limitations
While this study offers valuable insights, several limitations should be noted. Its cross-sectional design precludes causal inference, including whether perceptions of government responses contribute to climate-related distress, whether distress shapes perceptions of government responses, or whether both reflect broader social and political contexts. Longitudinal research is needed to examine how climate-related distress and perceptions of government action influence one another over time. Self-reported data may be influenced by social desirability, although anonymity likely reduced this risk [47]. Disclosure of the climate change topic before survey participation may have introduced selection bias, which could be mitigated by revealing the topic after survey initiation. Climate worry and functional impact were each assessed using single items, which may limit measurement precision; however, these items were adapted from widely used international measures, supporting comparability across studies [3, 6]. In addition, while interpretations were informed by Indigenous scholarship and the colonial context of Aotearoa, the measures were adapted from international studies and were not developed specifically for rangatahi Māori perspectives. Future research could use qualitative and Indigenous-informed approaches to develop culturally grounded measures of climate-related distress, relational wellbeing, and perceptions of climate governance [7, 8].
Conclusion
In conclusion, several years after Hickman et al. issued an urgent warning about the scale of climate-related distress among children and young people globally, our findings show that such concerns remain highly relevant in Aotearoa. This study reinforces international evidence that climate-related distress among young people is associated with perceptions of government climate action, with perceived inadequate action potentially exacerbating distress [3, 4, 6, 24]. In Aotearoa, these findings are particularly salient given existing mental-health inequities among rangatahi Māori and recent environmental policy shifts that have raised concerns about weakened protections, reduced public participation, and Te Tiriti obligations [48, 49]. Importantly, the findings also show that climate-related distress and perceptions of government action are not uniform across the youth population, underscoring the need for further research in this area and for responses that recognise the different social, cultural, and political contexts shaping youth climate-related distress. Supporting youth wellbeing requires credible climate action, meaningful participation by young people, including rangatahi Māori, and culturally responsive approaches that rebuild trust, legitimacy, and collective wellbeing.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the young people who contributed to this study, especially rangatahi Māori (Māori youth), whose perspectives are central to this research kaupapa. We acknowledge Te Kāhui Pā Harakeke | Child Well-being Research Institute at the University of Canterbury | Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha for supporting this project. Ngā mihi nui ki ngā kaitautoko katoa o tēnei rangahau.
Authors’ contributions
SMH: conceptualisation, literature search, figures, study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, funding acquisition, writing, review and editingCS: study design, supervision, review and editingBH: conceptualisation, supervision, review and editingLM: cultural supervision, review and editingDWH: conceptualisation, study design, funding acquisition, validation, data analysis, data interpretation, supervision, review and editing.
Funding
This research was funded by Te Kāhui Pā Harakeke | Child-Wellbeing Research Institute, University of Canterbury | Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, Christchurch, New Zealand. The funder had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.
Data availability
Due to ongoing analyses and additional planned studies using this dataset, the data are not openly available at present. Data may be made available upon reasonable request after completion of the wider research programme, subject to review and in alignment with Māori data sovereignty guidelines. Requests should be directed to Miranda Huston (miranda.huston@pg.canterbury.ac.nz).
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the University of Canterbury Human Ethics Committee (HREC 2024/71/LR-PS). Participants were provided with access to the study information sheet before participation and provided informed consent electronically before beginning the survey. The study was conducted in accordance with the approved ethics protocol, relevant New Zealand ethical standards and regulations, and applicable international ethical principles, including the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.IPCC. Climate change 2023: synthesis report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2023. 10.59327/IPCC/AR6-9789291691647 [DOI]
- 2.Clayton SD, Pihkala P, Wray B, Marks E. Psychological and emotional responses to climate change among young people worldwide: differences associated with gender, age, and country. Sustainability. 2023;15(4):3540. 10.3390/su15043540. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hickman C, Marks E, Pihkala P, Clayton S, Lewandowski RE, Mayall EE, et al. Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(12):e863–73. 10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00278-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Lewandowski RE, Clayton SD, Olbrich L, Sakshaug JW, Wray B, Schwartz SEO, et al. Climate emotions, thoughts, and plans among US adolescents and young adults: a cross-sectional descriptive survey and analysis by political party identification and self-reported exposure to severe weather events. Lancet Planet Health. 2024;8(11):e879–93. 10.1016/s2542-5196(24)00229-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Ojala M. Regulating worry, promoting hope: how do children, adolescents, and young adults cope with climate change? Int J Environ Sci Educ. 2012;7(4):537–61. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Galway LP, Field E. Climate emotions and anxiety among young people in Canada: a national survey and call to action. J Clim Change Health. 2023;9:100204. 10.1016/j.joclim.2023.100204. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Whyte K. Too late for indigenous climate justice: ecological and relational tipping points. WIREs Clim Change. 2020;11(1):e603. 10.1002/wcc.603. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Taiapa K, Moewaka Barnes H, Wright S. Climate change and mātauranga Māori: making sense of a western environmental construct. Kōtuitui. 2024;20(4):405–16. 10.1080/1177083X.2024.2350195 [DOI]
- 9.Cianconi P, Hanife B, Grillo F, Betro S, Lesmana CBJ, Janiri L. Eco-emotions and psychoterratic syndromes: reshaping mental health assessment under climate change. Yale J Biol Med. 2023;96(2):211–26. 10.59249/EARX2427. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Pihkala P. The process of eco-anxiety and ecological grief: a narrative review and a new proposal. Sustainability. 2022;14(24):16628. 10.3390/su142416628. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Pihkala P. Toward a taxonomy of climate emotions. Front Clim. 2022;3:738154. 10.3389/fclim.2021.738154. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Clayton S, Karazsia BT. Development and validation of a measure of climate change anxiety. J Environ Psychol. 2020;69:101434. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2020.101434. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Hogg TL, Stanley SK, O’Brien LV, Wilson MS, Watsford CR. The Hogg Eco-Anxiety Scale: development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Glob Environ Change. 2021;71:102391. 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102391. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Dixon B, Tassell-Matamua N, Sta Ana O, Reyes M. The Asia-Pacific climate crisis and psychology’s responses. In: Clinton A, Dixon B, Morrissey T, editors. Climate action and global psychology. Wellington: New Zealand Psychological Society; 2022. pp. 69–85. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Ramadan R, Randell A, Lavoie S, Gao CX, Manrique PC, Anderson R, et al. Empirical evidence for climate concerns, negative emotions and climate-related mental ill‐health in young people: a scoping review. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2023;17(6):537–63. 10.1111/eip.13374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Berry HL, Waite TD, Dear KBG, Capon AG, Murray V. The case for systems thinking about climate change and mental health. Nat Clim Chang. 2018;8(4):282–90. 10.1038/s41558-018-0102-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Middleton J, Cunsolo A, Jones-Bitton A, Wright CJ, Harper SL. Indigenous mental health in a changing climate: a systematic scoping review of the global literature. Environ Res Lett. 2020;15(5):053001. 10.1088/1748-9326/ab68a9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand. Suicide data web tool [Internet]. Wellington (NZ): Te Whatu Ora;. Available from: https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/for-health-professionals/data-and-statistics/suicide/data-web-tool. Cited 2025 Sep 5.
- 19.Ritchie J. Movement from the margins to global recognition: climate change activism by young people and in particular Indigenous youth. Int Stud Sociol Educ. 2021;30(1–2):53–72. 10.1080/09620214.2020.1854830. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Bush SS, Clayton A. Facing change: gender and climate change attitudes worldwide. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2023;117(2):591–608. 10.1017/s0003055422000752. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 21.du Bray M, Wutich A, Larson KL, White DD, Brewis A. Anger and sadness: gendered emotional responses to climate threats in four island nations. Cross-Cult Res. 2019;53(1):58–86. 10.1177/1069397118759252. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Knight KW. Explaining cross-national variation in the climate change concern gender gap: a research note. Soc Sci J. 2019;56(4):627–32. 10.1016/j.soscij.2018.08.013. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Wullenkord MC, Tröger J, Hamann KRS, Loy LS, Reese G. Anxiety and climate change: a validation of the Climate Anxiety Scale in a German-speaking quota sample and an investigation of psychological correlates. Clim Change. 2021;168(3–4):10584. 10.1007/s10584-021-03234-6. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Russell T. A ‘greenhouse affect’? Exploring young Australians’ emotional responses to climate change. Clim Change. 2024;177:75. 10.1007/s10584-024-03737-y. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Vercammen A, Oswald T, Lawrance E. Psycho-social factors associated with climate distress, hope and behavioural intentions in young UK residents. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023;3(8):e0001938. 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001938. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Jones R. Climate change and Indigenous Health Promotion. Glob Health Promot. 2019;26(3 Suppl):73–81. 10.1177/1757975919829713. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Jones R, Bennett H, Keating G, Blaiklock A. Climate change and the right to health for Māori in Aotearoa/New Zealand. Health Hum Rights. 2014;16(1):54–68. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Ogunbode CA, Doran R, Hanss D, Ojala M, Salmela-Aro K, van den Broek KL, et al. Climate anxiety, wellbeing and pro-environmental action: correlates of negative emotional responses to climate change in 32 countries. J Environ Psychol. 2022;84:101887. 10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101887. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Vecchio EA, Dickson M, Zhang Y. Indigenous mental health and climate change: a systematic literature review. J Clim Chang Health. 2022;6:100121. 10.1016/j.joclim.2022.100121. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Tiatia-Seath J, Tupou T, Fookes I. Climate change, mental health, and well-being for Pacific peoples: a literature review. Contemp Pac. 2020;32(2):399–430. 10.1353/cp.2020.0035. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kalton G, Flores-Cervantes I. Weighting methods. J Off Stat. 2003;19(2):81–97. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Stats NZ. Population estimates and projections. Wellington (NZ): Stats NZ; Available from: https://www.stats.govt.nz. Cited 2025 Sep 5.
- 33.Adil L, Eckstein D, Künzel D, Schäfer L. Climate Risk Index 2025: Who suffers most from extreme weather events? Bonn: Germanwatch; 2025. https://www.germanwatch.org/en/93013. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Hopkins D, Campbell-Hunt C, Carter L, Higham JES, Rosin C. Climate change and Aotearoa New Zealand. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2015;6(6):559–83. 10.1002/wcc.355. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Stanley SK, Hogg TL, Leviston Z, Walker I. From anger to action: differential impacts of eco-anxiety, eco-depression, and eco-anger on climate action and wellbeing. J Clim Change Health. 2021;1:100003. 10.1016/j.joclim.2021.100003. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Zavala MD, Cejas C, Rubinstein A, Lopez A. Gender inequities in the impact of climate change on health: A Scoping Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2024;21(8):1093. 10.3390/ijerph21081093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Chaplin TM. Gender and emotion expression: a developmental contextual perspective. Emot Rev. 2015;7(1):14–21. 10.1177/1754073914544408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Cunsolo Willox A, Stephenson E, Allen J, Bourque F, Drossos A, Elgarøy S, et al. Examining relationships between climate change and mental health in the Circumpolar North. Reg Environ Change. 2015;15(1):169–82. 10.1007/s10113-014-0630-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Houkamau C, Bahamondes J, Osborne D, Sibley C. Region-level Pākehā warmth towards Māori enhances collective action intentions: An extension of the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA). Int J Intercult Relat. 2024. 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101918. 98,101918. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Petrasek MacDonald J, Cunsolo Willox A, Ford JD, Shiwak I, Wood M. Protective factors for mental health and well-being in a changing climate: perspectives from Inuit youth in Nunatsiavut, Labrador. Soc Sci Med. 2015;141:133–41. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41.Harmsworth GR, Awatere S. Indigenous Māori knowledge and perspectives of ecosystems. In: Dymond JR, editor. Ecosystem services in New Zealand: conditions and trends. Lincoln (NZ): Manaaki Whenua; 2013. pp. 274–86. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Handmer J, Monson R, Schinko T. Addressing the diversity of Loss and damage in Pacific Island countries to foster a just transition towards a climate-resilient future. Clim Dev. 2024;1–13. 10.1080/17565529.2024.2437133. [DOI]
- 43.Newport C, Tiatia-Siau J, Aimiti Ma’ia’i K, Underhill-Sem Y, Woodward A. Anchored in pacific protocols - climate change, mental health and wellbeing. Clim Dev. 2024;16(6): 540–50. 10.1080/17565529.2023.2255563 [DOI]
- 44.Anchored in pacific protocols - climate changeTiatia J, Langridge F, Newport C, Underhill-Sem Y, Woodward A. Climate change, mental health and wellbeing: privileging Pacific peoples’ perspectives - phase one. Clim Dev. 2023;15(8):655–66. 10.1080/17565529.2022.2145171. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 45.Lawrance EL, Thompson R, Le Newberry J, Page L, Jennings N. The impact of climate change on mental health and emotional wellbeing: a narrative review of current evidence, and its implications. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2022;34(5):443–98. 10.1080/09540261.2022.2128725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Whyte K. Indigenous climate change studies: indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. Engl Lang Notes. 2017;55(1–2):153–62. 10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Randall DM, Fernandes MF. The Social Desirability Response Bias in Ethics Research. J Bus Ethics. 1991;10(11):805–17. 10.1007/bf00383696. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Boston J. Assessing Aotearoa’s latest ‘war on nature’ or ‘Goodbye Freddy’. Policy Q. 2024;20(4):3–25. 10.26686/pq.v20i4.96279. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Hellmann O. Mobilising the historical past in climate and conservation politics: the case of Aotearoa New Zealand’s Fast-track Approvals Bill. Aust J Polit Sci. 2026:1–21. 10.1080/10361146.2026.2641460 [DOI]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
Due to ongoing analyses and additional planned studies using this dataset, the data are not openly available at present. Data may be made available upon reasonable request after completion of the wider research programme, subject to review and in alignment with Māori data sovereignty guidelines. Requests should be directed to Miranda Huston (miranda.huston@pg.canterbury.ac.nz).