Table 2 Attention paid to and trust in climate information sources across countries

From: The public’s views on climate policies in seven large global south countries

Panel A: Attention to sources of climate information

Source

Chile

Colombia

India

Kenya

Nigeria

South Africa

Vietnam

Combined

Newspapers

9

5

3

6

9

8

5

4

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

TV

3

2

7

2

1

2

2

2

0.233***

0.211***

−0.231***

0.726***

0.554***

0.492***

0.051

0.280***

Radio

8

3

10

5

7

4

8

6

0.040

0.056

−0.344***

0.047

0.056

0.086*

−0.125**

−0.025

Social media

6

9

9

8

3

9

6

7

0.054

−0.127**

−0.334***

−0.010

0.265***

−0.031

−0.051

−0.031

Internet

2

7

8

9

5

6

9

8

0.262***

−0.097*

−0.280***

−0.105**

0.099*

0.050

−0.196***

−0.038**

Family

4

6

4

10

8

7

3

5

0.200***

−0.018

−0.045

−0.290***

0.029

0.030

0.019

−0.010

Friends

11

11

11

11

11

11

10

11

−0.238***

−0.567***

−0.366***

−0.701***

−0.255***

−0.313***

−0.293***

−0.384***

Scientists

1

1

1

1

2

1

4

1

0.971***

0.622***

0.127**

0.758***

0.504***

0.577***

0.007

0.487***

Religious leader

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

12

−0.916***

−0.781***

−0.670***

−0.739***

−0.405***

−0.507***

−0.492***

−0.632***

NGOs

10

10

6

4

6

5

11

9

−0.141***

−0.244***

−0.203***

0.352***

0.058

0.058

−0.404***

−0.083***

National government

5

4

2

3

4

3

1

3

0.118**

0.033

0.048

0.593***

0.250***

0.098*

0.097*

0.171***

Local government

7

8

5

7

10

10

7

10

0.047

−0.112**

−0.158***

−0.007

−0.239***

−0.133***

−0.121**

−0.102***

log likelihood

−11,119.52

−11,296.16

−11,589.39

−10,883.24

−11,447.5

−11,441.38

−11,640.07

−80,213.87

Panel B: Trust in sources of climate information

Source

Chile

Colombia

India

Kenya

Nigeria

South Africa

Vietnam

Combined

Newspapers

5

2

3

6

4

5

4

4

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

0.000

TV

7

5

6

2

2

2

1

2

−0.218***

−0.188***

−0.144***

0.471***

0.290***

0.268***

0.207***

0.083***

Radio

3

3

7

5

3

3

6

3

0.115**

−0.010

−0.165***

0.003

0.028

0.181***

−0.087*

0.007

Social media

11

10

11

10

9

9

9

10

−0.487***

−0.608***

−0.457***

−0.515***

−0.376***

−0.481***

−0.540***

−0.490***

Internet

4

6

10

8

7

6

8

8

0.048

−0.312***

−0.411***

−0.379***

−0.258***

−0.127**

−0.518***

−0.282***

Family

2

4

4

9

6

7

7

5

0.118**

−0.116**

−0.024

−0.462***

−0.135***

−0.154***

−0.150***

−0.134***

Friends

10

11

9

12

12

10

10

11

−0.397***

−0.681***

−0.271***

−1.049***

−0.651***

−0.537***

−0.642***

−0.595***

Scientists

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

0.893***

0.552***

0.309***

0.802***

0.453***

0.755***

0.145***

0.530***

Religious leader

12

12

12

11

10

11

12

12

−1.205***

−0.906***

−0.644***

−0.790***

−0.554***

−0.576***

−0.729***

−0.759***

NGOs

9

8

5

3

5

4

11

7

−0.310***

−0.396***

−0.114**

0.275***

−0.072

0.047

−0.650***

−0.190***

National government

8

7

2

4

8

8

3

6

−0.255***

−0.324***

0.050

0.238***

−0.279***

−0.463***

0.101**

−0.144***

Local government

6

9

8

7

11

12

5

9

−0.213***

−0.408***

−0.233***

−0.269***

−0.595***

−0.614***

−0.070

−0.345***

log likelihood

−10,943.08

−11,245.67

−11,528.50

−10,754.76

−11,324.95

−11,133.11

−11,317.76

−79,355.75

  1. Estimates from a rank-ordered logistic regression model. Predicted rank is shown in bold, with regression coefficients immediately below. Newspapers normalized to ‘0’ as reference. ***, ** and * indicate two-sided statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10%, respectively. Coefficients comparable within columns but not between.
Back to article page