Sie sind auf Seite 1von 49

1.

Introduction

Climate change and its associated impacts is experienced through changing temperatures and
precipitation, rising sea levels, changes in the frequency and severity of climate extremes and
in the dynamics of hazardous conditions (IPCC, 2007). Developing countries are considered
to be particularly susceptible to climate change because of their exposures and sensitivities to
climate-related extremes, and especially because of their limited adaptive capabilities to deal
with the effects of hazardous events. Given this limited capacity to adapt, they are considered
to be particularly vulnerable to damages associated with climate, just as they are particularly
vulnerable to other stresses (Kates, 2000; O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000; Smit and Pilifosova,
2001; Mirza, 2003).

Since the Industrial Revolution, greenhouse gas emissions have increased considerably.
These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007), “warming of the
climate system is unequivocal that study concludes that most of the warming over the last 50
years is attributable to human activities. As the earth warms, extreme heat conditions are
expected to affect both human health and ecosystems. Some damage to humans is caused
directly by increased heat, as shown by the heat waves that resulted in thousands of deaths in
Europe in production.”

Historically, climate change adaptation and development have been managed in different
arenas. Climate change adaptation emerged as a response to climate change impacts as
governed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Adopted in 1992 at the Earth Summit, the UNFCCC sets the overall framework for
intergovernmental efforts to manage climate change. The ‘ultimate objective’ of the
UNFCCC is the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions to prevent ‘dangerous’ climate
change. Thus, adaptation emerged under global governance structures from discussions of
climate change impacts and how they could be managed. This has developed into an
‘impacts-based’ approach to adaptation, which has resulted in what Klein defines as
‘technology based’ interventions such as dams, early-warning systems, seeds and irrigation
schemes based on specific knowledge of future climate conditions.

Bangladesh is frequently cited as one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change.
Bangladesh is vulnerable to climate change both because its geography makes it physically

1|Page
exposed to climatic hazards; but also because of the socioeconomic factors that make people
vulnerable to those hazards. Following on, not everyone in Bangladesh is equally vulnerable:
some are more ‘exposed’ than others, some are more socially vulnerable, and social
vulnerability often drives physical exposure, which in turn can exacerbate social
vulnerabilities.

In terms of geography, Bangladesh is a coastal country on the Bay of Bengal with a flat and
low-lying topography, exposing it to major storm and cyclone events as well as coastal
flooding. Most of Bangladesh is less than 10 m above sea level, with almost ten percent of
the country below 1 m. Between 1960 and 2002, Bangladesh experienced over 40 cyclones
with up to half a million human causalities per event.49 In November 2007, Bangladesh was
hit by the tropical cyclone Sidr, with a 160.934 km long front covering.

Bangladesh has approached adaptation mainstreaming both from a climate change


perspective, through the development of climate change specific plans, programs, and
institutions that address developmental aspects of vulnerability; and also from a development
perspective, integrating climate risk into development programs and policies to help build
broader resilience across sectors.

1.2 Origin of the study

This thesis is tilted “An analysis of Youth Understanding Level on Climate Change: Case
of Bangladesh” is prepared for fulfilling a partial requirement for B.Sc in Economics
program. To prepare this thesis, I have taken necessary assistance from my honorable
supervisor Ehsanur Rauf Prince, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics of Metropolitan
University Sylhet.

1.3 Rational of the study

1.3.1. Economic Impact

In May 2018, Stanford University scientists calculated how much global warming would cost
the global economy. If the world's nations adhered to the (Paris Climate Agreement), and
temperatures only rose 2.5 percent, then the global gross domestic product would fall 15
percent. If temperatures rose to 3 degrees Celsius, global GDP would fall 25 percent. If
nothing is done, temperatures will rise by 4 degrees Celsius by 2100. Global GDP would

2|Page
decline by more than 30 percent from 2010 levels. That's worse than the Great Depression,
where global trade fell 25 percent. The only difference is that it would be permanent.

The World Employment and Social Outlook 2018 estimated that climate change threatens 1.2
billion jobs. The industries most at risk are agriculture, fisheries, and forestry. Maine is
already seeing a decline in its lobster catches. Natural disasters have already cost 23 million
working life years since 2000. On the other hand, efforts to stop climate change would
create 24 million new jobs by 2030.

But we don't have to wait to see the of climate change. It's already cost the economy in many
ways. For example, as America experiences more extremely hot days, food prices will
increase. That's because corn and soybean yields in the United States plummet
precipitously when temperatures rise above 84 degrees Fahrenheit. Those crops feed cattle
and other meat sources. It's created spikes in beef, milk, and poultry prices rise. Worker
productivity declines sharply, particularly for outdoor jobs. That further increases the cost of
food.

Climate change is causing mass migration around the world. Immigrants are leaving flooded
coastlines, drought-stricken farmlands, and areas of extreme natural disasters. Since 2008,
extreme weather has displaced 22.5 million people according to the United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees. By 2050, climate change will force 700 million people to
emigrate.

In 2017, the U.S. Department of Defense reported that climate change is a “direct threat” to
U.S. national security. Extreme weather and rising sea levels caused by global warming
endanger 128 military bases. A 2018 Pentagon survey revealed that U.S. Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Md. has experienced storm surge flooding and hurricane damage. The Cape
Lisburne Long Range Radar Station in Alaska has lost a seawall from extreme weather. In
response, Congress asked DoD (Department of Defense) to identify the 10 most vulnerable
sites

1.3.2. Stern Review

The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, a controversial report commissioned
by the government of the United Kingdom and written by British economist Nicholas Stern
(1946–). The Stern Review predicted that climate change, if not mitigated, will eventually

3|Page
severely damage world economic growth, causing disruptions comparable to those of the
world wars and Great Depression of the twentieth century.

Stern marked the onset of a new consensus amongst economists regarding climate change.
The International Monetary Fund's October 2007 World Economic Outlook concluded that
the economic impacts of climate change were potentially substantial, and could include a
number of wide-ranging effects. These ranged from a direct negative impact on output and
productivity from long-term temperature change, particularly for agriculture, fisheries, and
tourism; to costs from sea-level rise and increased flooding. It also highlighted many of the
concerns mentioned by Stern, such as the increased risk of widespread migration and conflict;
weakened tax bases; and increasing national debt burdens. Positive effects were also
mentioned, such as long-term environmental health, natural resource protection, and the
“double dividend” promised by mitigation schemes.

Figure: The Stern Review

1.3.3. Marginal impacts

The social cost of carbon (SCC) is an aggregate measure of the impacts of climate change. It
is defined as the incremental (or marginal) social cost of emitting one more tone of carbon (as
carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere at any point in time (Yohe et al., 2007:821).

4|Page
Different GHGs have different social costs. For example, due to their greater physical
capacity to trap infrared radiation, GHCs have a considerably higher social cost per ton of
emission than carbon dioxide. Another physical property that affects the social cost is the
atmospheric lifetime of the GHG.

1.4. Objectives of the Study

To analyze Bangladeshi youth understanding level on climate change

Specifically the study aimed:

 To explain relationship between climate change indicators and some selected


explanatory variables.
 To analyze relationship between climate change indicators and selected explanatory
variables.
 To explain relationship between climate change impact and selected independent
variables.
 To explain relationship between government intervention on climate change and the
selected explanatory variables.
 To analyze relationship between climate change policies and the selected explanatory
variables.

5|Page
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 General

The climate system is made up of a multitude of interlinking environmental components, and


therefore can be viewed as the status of the entire Earth system, including the atmosphere,
land, oceans, snow, ice and living things (as shown by Figure 1). The conditions of these
components of the climate system form the background conditions for the occurrence of
certain weather patterns.

Climate is generally defined as average weather conditions (over a period of typically 30


years or more) and can be determined on a regional or global scale (IPCC, 2007). Therefore if
the variability of the weather changes (as determined by statistics), this is what we understand
as climate change. Meteorological observations have shown that measurements of some
elements of weather, such as temperature and rainfall, in certain regions of the world, have
changed markedly during the 20th Century.

Whilst weather can be extremely chaotic, changing on a daily basis, climate is less variable as
it is a measure of average weather over a much longer period (MDP/UNITAR, 2009).
Therefore it must be noted that variability in the weather in any one location/region is not
evidence for or against any trend in the mean global climate regime; such that a cold winter
in a certain region is not evidence for or against the fact that climate change is occurring in
the long term on a global scale. There will always be extremes of hot and cold weather,
although their frequency and intensity may change as the climate changes.

Scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 1800s when natural changes in pale
climate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first quantified. Shortly after
thermometer was invented in the early 1600s, scientists began efforts to quantify and record
the parameters of weather. In the 1820s Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier discovered that
"greenhouse gasses" trap heat radiated from the Earth's surface after it has absorbed energy
from the sun. In 1859 another scientist John Tyndall suggested that ice ages were caused by a
decrease in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The idea of global warming
languished until 1938, when Guy S. Callender suggested that the warming trend revealed in
the 19th century had been caused.

6|Page
Figure 1: Schematic view of the components of the climate system 2.2 Global Climate
Change

Figure 2: Changes in GHGs from ice core and modern data

7|Page
Guy S. Callender suggested that the warming trend revealed in the 19th century had been
caused by a 10% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels
(Harding, 2007). During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming
viewpoint. In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization with the support of United
Nation Environment Programme established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) which continues its work on climate change issues with series of assessment reports
and supplemental reports that describe the state of scientific understanding at the time each
report is prepared.

IPCC’s fourth assessment report (2007) suggests that global climate change increases in the
average temperature of Earth’s atmosphere, oceans, and landmasses. Scientists believe that
the Earth is currently facing a period of rapid warming brought about by rising levels of heat-
trapping gases, known as greenhouse gases, in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases retain the
radiant energy (heat) provided to Earth by the Sun in a process known as the greenhouse
effect. Greenhouse gases occur naturally, and without them the planet would become too cold
to sustain life as we know it. Since the beginning of the first Industrial Revolution in the mid-
1700s, however, human activities have added more and more of these gases in the
atmosphere. For example, levels of carbon dioxide, a powerful greenhouse gas, has increased
by 35 percent since 1750, largely from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural
gas. With more greenhouse gases (GHG) in the mix, the atmosphere acts like a thickening
blanket and traps more heat (IPCC, 2007). Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important
anthropogenic GHG. Its annual emissions have grown between 1970 and 2004 by about 80%,
from 21 to 38 Giga tones (Gt). It represented 77% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions in
2004. The rate of growth of CO2-eq emissions was higher during 10-year period of 1995-
2004 (IPCC, 2007). For the next two decades (2020 to 2030) a warming of about 0.2°C per
decade is projected for a range of SRES emissions scenarios. Even if the concentrations of all
GHGs and aerosols had been kept constant at year 2000 levels, a further warming of about
0.1°C per decade would be expected.

8|Page
2.2 Changes in Global Temperature

Scientists suggest that global warming will continue at a rate that is unprecedented in
hundreds of thousands of years of Earth’s history. They suggest that 21st century because
higher the level of greenhouse gases are emitted, will experience more warming. In the last
from 1995 to 2005, 1998 and 2005 were the warmest two years in the global surface air
temperature record since 1850. Surface temperatures in 1998 were enhanced by the major
1997–1998 El Niño event but no such strong anomaly was present in 2005.

Eleven of the last 12 years (1995 to 2006) with the exception of 1996 were ranked among the
12 warmest years on record since 1850. Assuming higher emissions of GHG to continue
significantly during the century scientists suggest further warming of 2.4 to 6.4°C (4.3 to
11.5°F) by 2100 is possible. Even if a lower scenario of lower emissions in which emissions
grow slowly, peaking around the year 2050 is assumed, and modeling exercise suggests that
warming of 1.1 to 2.9°C(1.9 to 5.2° F) by the year 2100 (IPCC, 2007) is likely.

It is also reported that warming of the Polar Regions has been amplified by the melting of ice,
which in turn exposes Dark Ocean and dark land. Instead of reflecting radiation as the ice
does, the exposed dark land absorbs almost 80% of the incoming solar radiation leading to
rapid warming of the Arctic. This shift will enhance global mean temperature change around
world, potentially (due to cause-effect feedback mechanisms in the climate system) causing
higher rise in sea level and, in the most extreme climatic scenarios. For people living in
coastal areas, even an increase in the sea level by just a few centimeters could cause
significant problems of erosion flooding and damage to homes, livelihoods and infrastructure.
Changes in temperature patterns may damage food crops, disrupting food system in some
parts of the world. Plant and animal species will shift their ranges toward the poles or to
higher elevations seeking cooler temperatures and species that cannot do so may become

9|Page
extinct. According to IPCC (2007) increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere also
leads to increased ocean acidity, damaging ocean ecosystems.

Although Bangladesh is an insignificant or virtually zero contributor to the greenhouse gas


emissions that affect global climate change, it is ironic that it has to suffer so disastrously
from the effects of climate change that are likely to occur in the coming decades.

2.3 Changes in Global Precipitation

IPCC also suggests that an increase in the average global temperature is likely to lead to
changes in precipitation and atmospheric moisture because of changes in atmospheric
circulation and increases in evaporation and water vapor. From 1900 to 2005 precipitation
(rain, sleet and snow) increased significantly in parts of the Americas, northern Europe and
northern and central Asia, but declined in the Sahel, the Mediterranean, southern Africa and
parts of the southern Asia. Patterns of precipitation change are more spatially and seasonally
variable than temperature change, but where significant precipitation changes do occur they
are consistent with measured changes in stream flow (IPCC, 2007).

As the number of people and the volume and intensity of economic activities in cities are
growing worldwide, the influence of cities on the local and global environment is increasing.
The repercussions of this environmental change, in turn, are felt by the inhabitants of cities
and their hinterlands, as well as by the economic sectors that sustain livelihoods.

Climate change, with its impacts on infrastructures and the socioeconomic fabric of cities,
poses qualitatively new challenges for analysis and decision-making in the urban context.
With their concentration of economic activity, urban areas contribute significantly to the
emissions of greenhouse gases. As they begin to recognize their role as a contributor to global
climate change, cities – through intricate changes in behaviors and the built environment –
are attempting to cut emissions. But since past emissions will continue to influence climate
for decades to come, cities must also begin to adapt to the impacts of climate change on both
the infrastructures that influence urban living as well as broader climate-induced regional,
national and global environmental and socioeconomic trends.

Traditional urban analysis has focused on the drivers behind urban change and discrete
impacts on people, the economy, and the environment (e.g. Robson, 1969; Dear and
Dishman, 2002).

10 | P a g e
Although urban systems analysis is often rich in empirical detail or theoretical
conceptualizations dealing with both the temporal and spatial dimensions of urban change
(e.g. Black and Henderson, 1999; Fujita et al., 1999; Brenner, 2000).

"Economic analyses play a critical role in consideration of climate change policies.


Identifying, assessing and communicating the implications of economic uncertainty and
knowledge gaps remain a major challenge - for example - in characterization of long-term
technology change and valuation of non-market impacts. I believe that Climate Change
Economics can provide an important forum to consider fundamental economic issues that
will enhance understanding and improve climate policy deliberations. (Dr. Brian P. Flannery,
Science, Strategy and Programs Manager, Exxon Mobil Corporation).

2.4 Climate Change Facts and Effect on the Economy

Climate change is the Earth’s response to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These
greenhouse gases trap infrared heat from the sun. That has raised the earth’s average
temperature at least 1.2 degrees Celsius since the late 19th century.

Climate change is nothing new in the Earth's history. But previous changes occurred much
more slowly. Slight changes in the earth’s orbit created those warming and cooling periods.
Scientists agree that humans are causing this bout of climate change.

Income inequality is tied to climate change. A recent study found that the planet's wealthiest
one billion people emit 60 percent of greenhouse gases. The poorest three billion produce
only 5 percent. (United Nations Climate Change)

The increase in global warming has created other problems. The oceans are absorbing the
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In response, they’ve become 30 percent more acid since
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. They’ve also become warmer. The top 2,300 feet
are 0.3 degrees warmer since 1969, causing them to expand. When ocean water expands, sea
levels rise.

In 2017, the Arctic had 448,000 square miles less sea ice than normal. The ice is melting
more than usual in the summer, but not regaining its mass in the winter. A 2018 study found
the Arctic Ocean has lost 95 percent of its oldest, thickest ice. That ice is the glue that keeps
the Arctic frozen in the summer.

11 | P a g e
Less ice means less white snow to reflect the sun's rays. That speeds up the melting
process. Scientists predict that by 2050 there will be no Arctic ice in the summer. The dark
ocean that replaces it will absorb even more heat.

The Arctic is warming faster than the rest of the region. The differential between the two
causes the jet stream.

As it weakens, it brings cold air south and pumps warm air north. That's what causes
blizzard-like conditions along the U.S. East Coast.

The resulting onslaught of fresh water is shifting the global circulation of the oceans.
Typically, surface waters traveling toward the poles become colder. As they chill, they
become denser and sink. Once the hit the ocean floor, they roll back toward the equator. The
cycle is called convection.

Melting glacial ice puts fresh water into the equation. It is less dense than salty water. As a
result, it doesn't sink as it should. It stays on the ocean's surface, slowing the "ocean conveyor
belt."

The "Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation" is the conveyor belt that brings tropic
water to the shores of Great Britain and northern Europe. As it slows, that area cools, since
it's at the same latitude as Newfoundland in North America. This Gulf Stream conveyor belt
has slowed 15 percent since 2008. It's now the weakest in the last 1,600 years. As a result, the
ocean cools south of Greenland and warms along U.S. Atlantic coast. When Greenland stays
cooler in the summer, it allows warm air from the south into Europe. It helped cause the 2015
European heat wave. (The world Employment and social Outlook 2018)

A similar event is happening near the Antarctic. Freshwater from melting glaciers blocks cold
salt water from sinking to the ocean's floor. As a result, warm water is melting the ice
shelves from underneath. It's triggering a feedback loop that will melt the glaciers even faster.
The Antarctic ice caps are melting by 1.6 meters per year. Before 1992, they were only
melting at a rate of 3.8 centimeters a year. (U.S Department of Defense 2017)

Between 60 and 90 percent of the world’s fresh water is frozen in the ice sheets of Antarctica.
If it all melted, it would increase sea levels by 200 feet.

12 | P a g e
So far, melting polar ice sheets have increased sea levels 8.9 inches in the last 100 years.
Glaciers and snow cover are also shrinking. That heats up the atmosphere even more since
snow reflects heat back into space. Higher temperatures have created more damaging and
frequent natural disasters. (Pentagon survey 2018)

In 2018, a new development is worrying scientists. Dark algae are spreading across the
world's ice. As temperatures warm, it creates the perfect environment for these blooms. Dark
algae absorb more sun, melting the ice even faster than previously thought.

2.5 Climate change impact of Bangladesh

The impact of climate change in Bangladesh is 63 million children in Bangladesh may


become physically and socially vulnerable due to increased frequency and enormity of
hazards like floods, cyclones and storm surges, tornadoes, riverbank erosion, drought and sea
level rise. Physical vulnerability may include death, injury, diseases, physical abuse, chronic
malnutrition and forced labour. Social vulnerability may include loss of parents and family,
internal displacement, risk of being trafficked, loss of property and assets, and lack of
educational opportunities.

Four different geo-climatic zones are vulnerable to different kinds of hazards in Bangladesh.
Drought and floods in the north, cyclone and tidal surges in the south and river erosion and
flood in the middle of the country are the major climate change hazards for Bangladesh.

River floods affect from 20% to 65% of the country every year. The frequency and height of
floods will increase due to rising sea levels and extended monsoon. Along with regular
floods, occurrences of irregular flash flood, tidal flood and rain flood will increase hampering
schooling of children

In 2008 approximately 49 schools were washed away and 700 schools were seriously
damaged causing severe disruption in access to education for around 50,000 children. The
total rehabilitation cost to the damages was approximately USD 8 million.

Tropical cyclones from the Bay of Bengal accompanied by storm surges are another climate
change hazard that will have serious negative impact on Bangladesh. The cyclone SIDR
affected education of more than 100,000 children in 589 schools in 12 districts of the country.
The total cost of reconstructing of the schools, supply of textbooks and other materials was

13 | P a g e
approximately USD 85 million. This is almost 30 times higher than the average USD 35 per
pupil expenditure.

2.6 Climate Change and Adaptation

Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or


their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities" (IPCC, 2007).
Responding to climate change, societies can respond to climate change by adapting to its
impacts and by reducing GHG emissions (mitigation), thereby reducing the rate and
magnitude of change. The capacity to adapt and mitigate is dependent on socio-economic and
environmental circumstances and the availability of information and technology. The
capacity to adapt is dynamic and is influenced by a society’s productive base, including
natural and man-made capital assets, social networks and entitlements, human capital and
institutions, governance, national 18 income, health and technology. It is also affected by
multiple climate and non-climate stresses, as well as development policy (IPCC synthesis,
2007). More recent literature and studies suggest that adaptation is more than ―coping‖. In
well-adapted systems, people are doing well despite changing conditions. They are doing
well either because they shift strategies or because the underlying systems on which their
livelihoods are based are sufficiently resilient and flexible to absorb the impact of changes
(NCVST, 2009). Adaptation measures are categorized into two parts.

2.6.1. Planned Adaptation:

Planned adaptations can be either reactive or anticipatory (undertaken before impacts are
apparent) (Shrestha et al., 2003). It includes programs and projects that governments, NGOs,
and international donors implement as a result of specific climate impacts and vulnerability
assessments. Planned adaptations are generally made to respond to predicted impacts on
ecosystem and hydrological system (NCVST, 2009).

2.6.2. Autonomous Adaptation:

Autonomous adaptation includes actions that individuals, communities, businesses and other
organizations undertake on their own in response to the opportunities and constraints they
face as the climate changes. Autonomous actions are individual or collective responses,
almost entirely in the poorly recorded informal sector. These involve changes in practices and

14 | P a g e
technologies, diversification of livelihood systems, access to financial resources, migration,
resource rights and collective action to assess services, resources or markets (NCVST, 2009).

15 | P a g e
METHODOLOGY

3.1Conceptual Framework

This study falls under the behavioral economics - branch of economics that uses
psychological experimentation to develop theories about human decision making and has
identified a range of biases as a result of the way people think and feel. Burke et al. (2016)
argued that when the effectiveness of a given policy is closely tied to how individuals interact
with it, it is important to understand these dynamics more clearly. Behavioral Economics
does not assume that humans make choices in isolation, or to serve their own interest; it also
considers social forces, aside from cognitive and affective (emotional) dimensions, in that
decisions are made by individuals who are shaped by and surrounded with social
environments (Samson, 2014). In environmental issues, people constantly take actions and
behave in certain ways that reflect the most appropriate and effective environmental choices
(Clover, 2002). Addressing such environmental behaviors, understanding individual
motivations and differences in behavior by environmental educators are important (Heimlich
and Ardoin, 2008). Our belief, in this context, is that understanding of climate change is
based on the level of education, training, and conferences, a family who talks about climate
change in their family, knowledge about government policy, access to mobile phone and the
internet as called ICTs and member of the social network. It is apparent that high level
educated youth have more knowledge, the ability to understand and suppose to expect to
change, able to forecast future scenario and have greater access to information and
opportunities thereafter (Uddin et al., 2017). Hence, the notion of awareness and
understanding are interrelated (Masud et al., 2016).

3.2. The Empirical Model

In this study, perception is measured by a dummy variable in the model which was assigned a
value of 1 for youth who understands about climate change and a value of 0 for youth who
did not. It indicates that the probability of a young with a given set of attributes fall in one
choice (perceive) rather than the alternative (or not) but not both. The understanding level of
climate change is measured on various aspects as understanding of climate change,
understanding of climate change indicator, hampering of climate change, government
intervention of climate change and climate change policies. A logistic regression model was
selected to identify the significant variable that determines whether youth understanding level

16 | P a g e
about climate change or not. Since logit model is best to describe observational data, which is
the main data of our study, this study used a logit model to identify the factors affecting youth
understanding level about climate change and other variables. The advantage of logit model
is that it guarantees the estimated probability increase and never crosses the range of 0 – 1.
Suppose Y is the knowledge of climate change among the youth which is a random variable
and X is the socioeconomic factors, use of ICTs etc. For such a dichotomous outcome, the
inferential statistical analysis used for this study is a logistic model (Mabe et al., 2014).

3.2.1. Binary Logistic Regression Model

 Logistic regression is an extension of simple linear regression.

 Where the dependent variable is dichotomous or binary in nature, we cannot use


simple linear regression. Logistic regression is the statistical technique used to predict
the relationship between predictors (our independent variables) and a predicted
variable (the dependent variable) where the dependent variable is binary (e.g., sex
[male vs. female], response [yes vs. no], score [high vs. low], etc…).

 There must be two or more independent variables, or predictors, for a logistic


regression. The IVs, or predictors, can be continuous (interval/ratio) or categorical
(ordinal/nominal).

 All predictor variables are tested in one block to assess their predictive ability while
controlling for the effects of other predictors in the model.

Assumptions for a Logistic regression:

1. Adequate sample size (too few participants for too many predictors is bad!);
2. Absence of multicolinearity (multicolinearity = high inter-correlations among the
predictors);
3. no outliers

 The statistic -2LogL (minus 2 times the log of the likelihood) is a badness-of-fit
indicator, that is, large numbers mean poor fit of the model to the data.

 When taken from large samples, the difference between two values of -2LogL is
distributed as chi-square.

17 | P a g e
The effect of X on the response probabilities, P(y = j/x) can be estimated by using binary
logit model which is expressed as:

The logit regression equation, that is used to ascertain variables influencing youth
understanding level of climate change, is

3.3 The Data

The study used an exploratory quantitative research design and describes the level of
understanding of the youth regarding climate change. It analyzes the level of understanding
with the technological changes and other parameters. The data collected from different
university School College in Bangladesh. Survey data of a total of 212 youth students,
studying at different education levels, were collected during the month of September 2018. in
the different Division of Bangladesh.

Available universities are selected purposively as per their existence in the City and the
programs affiliated with the universities to represent different aspects of the environmental
education (or climate change) related to teaching among the students at different levels.
Country, the Sylhet city and capital of the country, possesses the most of the educational
institutions. Even if universities based outside the Capital and Sylhet,

3.4 Data Collection Method:

The study adopted a questionnaire as the main data collection tool. A questionnaire was
constructed aiming to gather information on knowledge of educated youth regarding
changing the climate, access and use of ICT for such climatic purpose and how well they are

18 | P a g e
aware about government policy and plan towards climate change adaptation and mitigation
strategies. In order to measure their diverse opinion, the survey includes the different levels
of education in 39 different universities of Bangladesh along with Higher Secondary level
and School Level. The self-administered questionnaire, that covers 14 questions were given
to the 212 respondents corrections on the questionnaire as required and data collected by
online from all students.

3.5. Hypothesis

Since this study aims to measure five different dependent variables on the basis of given
explanatory variables, the hypothesis for each dependent variables are as follows:

= there is no significant relationship/association between climate change and the given


explanatory variables.

= there is no significant relationship/association between climate change indicators and


the given explanatory variables.

= there is no significant relationship/association between climate change impact and the


given explanatory variables.

= there is no significant relationship/association between government intervention on


climate change and the given explanatory variables

= there is no significant relationship/association between climate change policies and the


given explanatory variables.

19 | P a g e
3.6. Description of the Explanatory Variables

20 | P a g e
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

4.1 Background of the Respondents:

4.1.1. Gender:

The destitution of respondent gender revealed that out of 212 respondents, 133 (62.7%) are
male and the rest 79 (37.3%) are Female. Graphical presentation is given bellow:

Gender Frequency Percentiles

Male 133 62.7

Female 79 37.3

Total 212 100%

Figure 1: Gender male and responses percentage

21 | P a g e
4.1.2. Age of the respondents:

Age

49 Series1
38
30
26
22
19
14
8
3 1 1 1

Figure2: Age of the Respondents

Comments:

The Bar Chart shows that out of total respondents, about 8 respondents’ age is 19. On the
other hand, out of total respondents, about 22 respondents’ age is 20. In Contrast, out of total
respondents, about 30 respondents’ age is 21 whereas 49 respondents’ age is 22. Out of total
respondents, about 38 respondents’ age is 23 while about 26 respondents’ age is 24. Out of
total respondents, about 19 respondents’ age is 25 where about 14 respondents’ age is 26. Out
of total respondents, about 3 respondents age is 27 where 1 respondent’s age is sequentially
29,30 and 34.

22 | P a g e
4.1.3. Family Income of Respondents

Figure 1 Family Income

Comments:

The Pie Chart represents that 26 people (12.3%) has the family income 1000-15000 while 53
people (25%) have family income of 15000-30000. 30000-450000 family income is retained
by 60 (28.3%) people and family income more than 45000 is retained by 73 peoples (34.4%).

23 | P a g e
4.1.4. Number of Family Member of Respondents

Figure 2 Number of family Member of respondents

Comments:

The pie chart represent that the family member 3-5 is 73 peoples (34.4%) while family
member 5-7 is 55 peoples (25.9%) where as 7-9 family member are 26 (12.3%) and family
member more than 9 is 58 peoples (27.4%).

24 | P a g e
4.1.5. Location of educational institutions of respondents

Figure 3 Location of educational institutions of respondents

Comments:

The Bar chat shows that the location of educational institutions of Dhaka the capital of
Bangladesh number of respondents is 31(14.6%). Chittagong number of respondents is
11(5.2%). Rajshahi number of respondents is 9 (4.2%).Khulna number of respondents is 9
(4.2%).Barisal number of respondents is 5(2.4%). Sylhet number of respondents is
134(63.2%). Rangpur number of respondents is 5(2.4%). Comilla number of respondents is
8(3.8%).

25 | P a g e
4.1.6. Educational qualifications of respondents

Figure 4 Educational qualifications of respondents

Comments:

The educational qualification of the respondents is SSC 5(2.4%) HSC 130 (61.3%)
Graduation 65 (30.7%) Masters 11 (5.2%) and above Master 1 (0.5%).

26 | P a g e
4.1.7. Access of Internet

Figure 7 access of internet

Comments:

Most of the respondents have access of internet 97.6% (207) while those only2.4 % ( 5)
respondents do not have access of internet who belongs to secondary school.

27 | P a g e
4.1.8. Use of Mobile Phone

Figure 8: Use of Mobile phone

Comments:

Most of the respondents use mobile phone 98.1% (208) while those only 1.9% (4)
respondents do not use the mobile phone that belongs to secondary school.

28 | P a g e
4.1.9. Frequently use of Internet

Figure: 9 frequently use of internet

Comments:

Most of the respondents frequently use of internet 82.5% (175) while only 17.5% (37)
respondents do not frequently use of internet.

29 | P a g e
4.1.10. Member of social network

Figure: 10 member of social network

Comments:

The graph shows that 89.2% (189) respondents are belong to social network where as 10.8%
(23) respondents are not belongs to social networks.

30 | P a g e
4.2. Respondents Understanding Level on Climate Change

4.2.1. Respondents Participate seminar training or Conference

Figure: 11Respondents Participate seminar training or Conference

Comments:

This pie chart shows that 50.5% (107) Respondents are participate seminar training or
Conference and 49.5 % (105) did not participate any seminar training or conference.

31 | P a g e
4.2.2. Respondents Knowledge about Impact of Climate change

Figure: 12 Impact of Climate change

Comments:

This Pie Chart Shows that the 75.9%(161) knows about impact of climate change on the other
hand 24.1% (51) don’t know about impact of climate change but most important thing is in
figure 6 many of respondents are did not attended any seminar training or conference but here
in figure 7 many of them respondents knows the impact of climate change without attended
any seminar training or conference.

32 | P a g e
4.2.3. Respondents Family and Society Discuss about Climate Change

Figure 13: Respondents Family and Society Discuss about Climate Change

Comments:

This figure represents that 63.2% (134) respondent’s family and society talk about climate
change on the other hand 36.8(78) respondents family and society do not talk about climate
change.

33 | P a g e
4.2.4. Respondents Knowledge on use mobile phone to know about climate change

Figure: 5 use mobile phone to know about climate change

Comments:

This figure represent that 72.6% (154) use mobile phone to know about news on climate
change on the other hand 27.4% (58) respondents do not use mobile phone to know about
news on climate change.

34 | P a g e
4.2.5. Respondents Knowledge on Mobile Phone used to mitigate the climate Change

Figure: 15 Mobile Phone used to mitigate the climate Change

Comments:

This figure represent that 54.7% (116) can use to mobile phone to mitigate the bad impact of
climate change on the other hand 45.3%(96) respondents cannot use to mobile phone to
mitigate bad impact of the climate change.

35 | P a g e
4.2.6. Respondents Knowledge on heating up the Environment by Mobile Phone

Figure: 16 Respondents Knowledge on heating up the Environment by Mobile Phone.

Comments:

This figure represents that 55.2% (117) mobile phones are responsible to heat up the
environment of climate change on the other hand 44.8% (95) mobile phone are not
responsible to heat up the environment of climate change.

36 | P a g e
4.2.7. Respondents knowledge on Climate change Indicators

Climate Change Indicators %


Deforestation 3.80%
Sea Surface Temperature 45.30%
Humidity 44.40%
Rising of Sea Level 45.30%
Radioactive waste 35.40%
Extiction of species 27.80%
Using up the Earth's Resources 24.10%
The hole in the ozone layer 26.40%
River Erosion 54.20% Climate Change Indicators %
Traffic Congestion 57.50%
Poor waste management 40.10%
Litter 29.20%
Flooding 63.70%
Pollution of rivers & seas 72.20%
Air pollution 86.30%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%


Climate Change Indocators

Figure: 6 Respondents knowledge on Climate change Indicators

Comments:

Though people said that they were aware of climate change, the majority of the respondents
were not able to respond to climate change adaptation as well as mitigation strategies
prevailing to them. So the bar chart shows that out of total respondents, about 86.3% of
respondents think the major indicator of climate change is Air pollution, whereas 72.2%
respondents think the second major indicators of climate change are Pollution of river and
seas, while 63.7% respondents think the third major indicator of climate change is Flooding.
On the other hand 57.5% respondents think the fourth major indicator of climate change is
Traffic congestion where 54.2% respondents think the fifth major indicator of climate change
is River erosion. In Contrast 45.3% respondents think the both sixth and seventh major
indicator of climate change is Rising of sea level and Sea surface temperature where 44.8%
respondent think the eighth major indicators of climate change is Humidity. Out of total
respondents 40.1% respondents think the ninth major indicators of climate change is a Poor
waste management (e.g. overuse of landfills) while 35.4% respondents think the tenth major

37 | P a g e
indicator of climate change is Radioactive waste. Out of total respondents 29.2% respondents
think the eleventh major indicators of climate change is Litter where 27.8% respondents think
the twelfth major indicators of climate change Extinction of species. Out of total respondent
26.4% respondents think the thirteenth major indicator of climate change is a the hole in the
ozone layer where 24.1% respondent think the fourteenth major indicators of climate change
is a Using up the earth's resources. Out of total respondents only 2.8% respondents think the
major indicators of climate change is Deforestation.

4.2.8. Respondents knowledge on Main Impact of Climate Change in Bangladesh

Figure: 18 Main Impact of Climate Change in Bangladesh

Comments:

The Pie chart shows that out of total respondents, 34% respondents think the major impact of
climate change are Extreme temperature and drought where 28.8% respondents think the
major impact of climate is Floods/flash floods. Out of total respondents, 20.8% respondents
think the major impact of climate change is River erosion. Out of total respondents 6.1%
respondents think the major impact of climate change are Deforestation and Cyclone as well
as storm surges where 4.2% respondents think the major impact of climate change is Salinity
intrusion.

38 | P a g e
4.2.9. Respondents knowledge on Government intervention of climate change.

Figure: 19 Government intervention of climate change.

Comments:

The graph shows that 67.5 % (143) respondents are aware of Bangladeshi government intervention
plans on climate change where as 32.5% (69) respondents are not aware of Bangladeshis government
intervention plans on climate change.

39 | P a g e
4.2.10. Respondents knowledge on Climate change policies adopted by government

Figure: 20 Climate change policies adopted by government

Comments:

The graph shows that 62.3%( 132) respondents know about climate change policies adopted by
Bangladeshi government on climate change where as 37.7% (80) respondents don’t know about
climate change policies adopted by Bangladeshi government on climate change.

40 | P a g e
4.3. Logistic Regression Results

Variables Climate Climate Climate Government Climate


Change Change Change Intervention Change
(Model Indicators Impact on Climate Policy
1) (Model 2) (Model 3) Change (Model
(Model 4) 5)
Study Level (Bachelor 1.67* -0.306 0.54* -0.00444 -0.385
and Above)

Age 0.103 0.129*** 0.0296 0.410*** 0.907***

Gender 0.0970 0.337** 0.0951 0.319** 0.218

Formal Education 2.5*** 0.49*** 0.58*** 0.653*** 1.104***


About Climate Change

Participation on 0.912 0.105 0.189 -0.127 0.339**


Training

Climate Change Talk 0.534 0.59** 0.238 0.339* -0.0150


on the Society

Family Talking About 0.423 -0.0636 0.331*** -0.246 0.259


Climate Change

Access of Mobile -0.872 -0.173 -0.0949 1.290** -0.599*


Phone

Whether Mobile is 2.2** 0.637*** 0.286* 0.658*** 0.792***


Used for Climate
Change Learning

Use of Internet 0.674 -0.0821 0.368 -0.198 0.592

Frequency of Use of -0.120 0.0970 0.173 0.000222 -0.268


Internet (Daily)

Members of Social -0.234 0.00911 0.334 -0.154 0.0484


Networks

Constant -1.749 -5.498*** 2.558*** -7.081*** -


3.258***

R2 0.2573 0.0645 0.0510 0.1111 0.0825

Observations 212 212 212 212 212


Standard errors in parentheses *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

41 | P a g e
Study level, Formal education about climate change, Use of mobile phone for climate
change learning have significant effect on young people’s knowledge on climate change
in Bangladesh (MODEL 1). If the study level is bachelor and above , then the
probability that the young people will know about climate change will increases by
1.67%, 2.5% and 2.2%.

Age, Formal education about climate change, Climate change talk on the society, Use of
mobile phone for climate change learning have significant effect on the respondent’s
knowledge on climate change indicators in Bangladesh (MODEL 2).If the Age, Formal
education about climate change then the probability that the youth’s will know about
climate change will increases by 0.129%, 0.337%,0.49%, 0.59%, and 0.637%.

Study level, , Formal education about climate change, family talk about climate change,
Use of mobile phone for climate change learning have significant effect on the youth’s
knowledge on climate change impact in Bangladesh (MODEL 3). then the probability
that the young people will know about climate change will increases by 0.54%, 0.58%,
0.331%, and 0.286%.

Age, Gender, Access of mobile phone and Use of mobile phone for climate change
learning significant effect on the young people's knowledge on Government’s
intervention on climate change(MODEL 4). Then the probability that the youth’s people
will know about climate change will increases by 0.410%, 0.319%, 0.653%, 0.339%,
1.290%, and 0.658%.

Age, Formal education about climate change, Training, , Access of mobile phone and
Use of mobile phone for climate change learning significant effect on the young people's
knowledge on climate change policy (MODEL 5). Then the probability that the youth’s
people will know about climate change will increases by 0.907%, 1.104%, 0.339%, and
0.792% but if access of mobile phone and Use of mobile phone not for climate change
learning significant effect on the young people's knowledge on climate change policy
Then the probability that the youth’s people will know about climate change will decreases
by -0.599%.

42 | P a g e
5. Conclusion

The present paper described the knowledge about climate change and its sources among
the respondents; participations on climate-related conferences and trainings; the societal
and family talked about climate change; knowledge about climate change indicators,
perception about impact made by such climatic change; knowledge about climate change
adaptation and mitigation; information about climate change program and policies
initiated by the government and various non-governmental organizations and access to
ICTs and the use of such ICTs in climate change information and knowledge purpose. In
this research formal education on climate change and access of mobile phone for climate
change learning are found to be the most important factors for increasing young people's
knowledge on climate change in Bangladesh. Thus, to aware people more about climate
change, government should include chapters on climate change in the textbooks. In
addition people should be taught how to get different news on climate change factors
through using mobile phones from the primary level.

43 | P a g e
References

ADB, 2009. The economics of climate change in Southeast Asia: A regional review. Manila:

Asian Development Bank.

Baede, A.P.M., E. Ahlonsou, Y. Ding and D.S. Schimel, 2001. The climate system: An

overview. In climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Cambridge


University Press. pp. 87-98.

Bierbaum, R. and M. Stults, 2013. Adaptation to climate change: Context matters. Michigan

Journal of Sustainability, 1.

David Webster, Anncorinne Freter, and Nancy Golin. Copan: The Rise and Fall Of An
Ancient Maya Kingdom. (Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace Publishers, 2000);

Brander, J. A. and M. S. Taylor (1998). “The Simple Economics of Easter Island: A Ricardo-
Malthus Model of Renewable Resource Use,” The American Economic Review,
88(1), pp. 119–138.

Boykoff, M.T. and J.T. Roberts, 2007. Media coverage of climate change: Current trends,

strengths, weaknesses. Human Development Report, 2008 (3).

Burke, M., M. Craxton, C.D. Kolstad and C. Onda, 2016. Some research challenges in the

economics of climate change. Climate Change Economics, 7(02): 1650002.

Capstick, S., L. Whitmarsh, W. Poortinga, N. Pidgeon and P. Upham, 2015. International

trends in public perceptions of climate change over the past quarter century. Wiley
Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 6(1): 35-61.

Carter, J.G., G. Cavan, A. Connelly, S. Guy, J. Handley and A. Kazmierczak, 2015. Climate
change and the city: Building capacity for urban adaptation. Progress in Planning, 95: 1-
66.

CBS, 2012. National population and housing census 2011 (National Report). Central Bureau
of Statistics, Kathmandu, Nepal.

44 | P a g e
Clover, D., 2002. Traversing the gap: Concientización, educative-activism in environmental
adult education. Environmental Education Research, 8(3): 315-323.

Conway, D. and J. Mustelin, 2014. Strategies for improving adaptation practice in developing
countries. Nature Climate Change, 4(5): 339-342

Corner, A., O. Roberts, S. Chiari, S. Völler, E.S. Mayrhuber, S. Mandl and K. Monson, 2015.
How do young people engage with climate change? The role of knowledge, values,
message framing, and trusted communicators. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate
Change, 6(5): 523-534

Devkota, N. and R.K. Phuyal, 2015. Climatic impact on wheat production in Terai of Nepal.
Journal of Development and Administrative Studies, 23(1-2): 1-22.

Devkota, R.P., 2014. Climate change: Trends and people's perception in Nepal. Journal of
Environmental Protection, 5(4): 255.

Dulal, H., G. Brodnig, C.G. Onoriose and H.K. Thakur, 2010. Capitalising on Assets:
vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in Nepal. Washington, DC: The World
Bank.

Heimlich, J.E. and N.M. Ardoin, 2008. Understanding behavior to understand behavior
change: A literature review. Environmental Education Research, 14(3): 215-237.

Huda, M.N., 2013. Understanding indigenous people’s perception on climate change and
climatic hazards: A case study of Chakma indigenous communities in Rangamati Sadar
Upazila of Rangamati District, Bangladesh. Natural Hazards, 65(3): 2147-2159.

Innocent, E.O. and R.H.E. Odoh, 2014. Role of the youths in National development.
Singaporean Journal of Business, Economics and Management Studies, 3(2): 164-181.

Karn, P.K., 2014. The impact of climate change on rice production in Nepal.SANDEE
Working Paper No. 85-14.

Le, T.T., K.A.T. Nguyen and C.M. Jolly, 2016. Perception, preparedness and severity of
climate change triggered events in Ben Tre Province, Vietnam. International Journal of
Food and Agricultural Economics, 4(4): 29.

45 | P a g e
Leiserowitz, A., N. Smith and J.R. Marlon, 2011. American teens’ knowledge of climate
change. Yale university. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change
Communication, 5.

Lineman, M., Y. Do, J.Y. Kim and G.J. Joo, 2015. Talking about climate change and global
warming. PloS one, 10(9): e0138996.

Mabe, F.N., G. Sienso and S. Donkoh, 2014. Determinants of choice of climate change
adaptation strategies in Northern Ghana. Research and Applied Economics, 6(4): 75-94.

Malla, G., 2009. Climate change and its impact on Nepalese agriculture. Journal of
Agriculture and Environment, 9: 62-71.

Masud, M.M., A.Q. Al-Amin, H. Junsheng, F. Ahmed, S.R. Yahaya, R. Akhtar and H.
Banna, 2016. Climate change issue and theory of planned behaviour: Relationship by
empirical evidence. Journal of Cleaner Production, 113: 613-623.

MOPE, 2016. Nationally determined contributions. Kathmandu: Ministry of Population and


Environment. Government of Nepal.

MOYS, 2014. Nepali youth in figures. Kathmandu: Ministry of Youth and Sports.
Government of Nepal.

Niles, M.T. and N.D. Mueller, 2016. Farmer perceptions of climate change: Associations
with observed temperature and precipitation trends, irrigation, and climate beliefs.
Global Environmental Change, 39: 133-142.

Nwobodo, C.E. and A.E. Agwu, 2015. Knowledge level of youth farmers on climate change
in Benue State of Nigeria. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 10(30): 2875-2881.

Ochieng, M.A. and J. Koske, 2013. The level of climate change awareness and perception
among primary school teachers in Kisumu municipality, Kenya. International Journal of
Humanities and Social Science, 3(21): 174-179.

Sada, R., A. Shrestha, S.A. Kumar and M.L. Anna, 2014. People's experience and facts of
changing climate: Impacts and responses. International Journal of Climate Change
Strategies and Management, 6(1): 47-62.

46 | P a g e
Samson, A., 2014. The behavioral economics guide 2014. Behavioral Science Solutions Ltd.
Dostupnona.

Schreiner, C., E.K. Henriksen and H.P.J. Kirkeby, 2005. Climate education: Empowering
today's youth to meet tomorrow's challenges: 3-49.

Shahadu, 2012. Youth understanding of climate: Towards a theory of social adaptation to


climate change in Africa. M. Sc. Dissertation.

Shwom, R.L., A.M. McCright, S.R. Brechin, R.E. Dunlap, S.T. Marquart-Pyatt and L.C.
Hamilton, 2015. Public opinion on climate change. In: Dunlap, R. E. and R. J. Brulle,
(Eds.), Climate Change and Society: Sociological Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press. pp: 269-299.

Singh, A.K. and S.P. Singh, 2011. Analysis of perception and attitude on climate change of
Indian Youth. Indian Journal of Development Research and Social Action, 7(1-2): 79-
113.

Smit, B., I. Burton, R.J. Klein and J. Wandel, 2000. An anatomy of adaptation to climate
change and variability. Climatic Change, 45(1): 223-251.

Standish, S., 2005. Business and climate change: Examining drivers for action. Sustainable
Dev. L. & Pol'y, 5: 9.

Swim, J.K., P.C. Stern, T.J. Doherty, S. Clayton, J.P. Reser, E.U. Weber and G.S. Howard,
2011. Psychology's contributions to understanding and addressing global climate
change. American Psychologist, 66(4): 241-250.

Tamrakar, R.M., 2013. Consolidation of stakeholders' initiatives to mitigate adverse impacts


of climate change in Nepalese context. Nepalese Journal of Geoinformatics, 12: 1-9.

Taylor, A.L., S. Dessai and W.B. De Bruin, 2014. Public perception of climate risk and
adaptation in the UK: A review of the literature. Climate Risk Management, 4: 1-16.

Uddin, M.N., W. Bokelmann and E.S. Dunn, 2017. Determinants of farmers’ perception of
climate change: A case study from the coastal region of Bangladesh. American Journal
of Climate Change, 6(01): 151.

47 | P a g e
Upadhyay, V.K. and K. Sachdeva, 2010. Climate change and food security: Priority concerns
in Indian agricultural sector. International Journal of Applied Environmental Sciences,
5(4): 553–557.

Weber, E.U. and P.C. Stern, 2011. Public understanding of climate change in the United
States. American Psychologist, 66(4): 315.

Whitmarsh, L., 2009. Commonalities and differences in public understanding of “climate


change” and “global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4): 401-420.

Devkota,N(2007). An analysis of Nepalese youth understanding level on climate change.(


Asian Journal of Economic Modelling). Vol. 5, No. 3, 342-353. Retrieved from .
www.aessweb.com

Das.P.K (2010). Climate Change and education Bangladesh (Genesis (Pvt.) Ltd.). .Retrieved
from.www.googlescholar.com /climate change and education Bangladesh.

Rahman, S.M.A, Tasnim.S, Uddin.M.K, Islam, M.T ,and Sajuuddin. M (2014). Climate
Change Awareness among the High School Students: Case Study from a Climate
Vulnerable Country. (Faculty of Built Environment, Universiti Teknolog Malaysia).
Retrieved from. http: // www.ijbes.utm.my

Thapa.K (2011). Effects of Climate Change In Highland Agriculture and Local Adaptive
Strategies: A Case Study Of Timure Vdc, Rasuwa. ( Central Department of
Environmental Science Tribhuvan University, Kirtipur, Nepal) Retrieved from
http://www.scribebd.com.

Pouliotte.J, Smit.B and Westerhoff.L (2009). Adaptation and development: Livelihoods and
climate change in Subarnabad, Bangladesh (Department of Geography, University of
Guelph, Guelph, ON,N1G 2W1, Canada ,Earth Journal ).Retrieved from
www.earthscanjournals .com.

Brouwer et al .(2007). Socioeconomic Vulnerability and Adaptationto Environmental Risk: A


Case Study of ClimateChange and Flooding in Bangladesh.( Risk Analysis). Vol. 27,
Retrieved from,www.googlescholar.com.

Amin.M.R et al.(2015).Effects of Climate Change on the Yield and Cropping Area of Major
Food Crops: A Case of Bangladesh.(ISSN2071-1050).Retrieved from,

48 | P a g e
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability.

Ali.A (1999). Climate change impacts and adaptation assessment in Bangladesh.(Space


Research and Remote Sensing Organization (SPARRSO), Vol. 12:PP:109-116.

Uddin,M.N et al.(2014). Factors Affecting Farmers’ Adaptation Strategies to Environmental


Degradation and Climate Change Effects: A Farm Level Study in Bangladesh (ISSN
2225-1154). Retrieved from. www.mdpi.com/journal/climate.

Karim.M.F and Mimura.N. (2008). Impacts of climate change and sea-level rise on cyclonic
storm surge floods in Bangladesh.( Global Environmental Change).Retrieved from
www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha.

Kartiki.K. (2011). Climate change and migration: a case study from rural Bangladesh.(
Routledge). Retrieved from http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cgde20.

Ayers,J.M, Huq, S Faisal, A, M and Hussain, S.T.(2014). Mainstreaming climate change


adaptation into development: a case study of Bangladesh.Vol:5 Retrieved from.
wires.wiley.com /climate change.

Ruth,M. and Coelho,D(2007). Understanding and managing the complexity ofurban systems
under climate change.( Climate Policy)PP:317-336.Retrieved from.
www.climatepolicy.com

Tol,R.S.J and G.yohe (2006) “A Review of the Stern Review” World Economics 7(4):233-
50.

The Balance (2019) Kimberly Amadeo: Climate change fact and Effect on the Economy.

Book Reference

Tietenburg, T & Lewis, L. (2012). Environmental and Natural Resource Economics.


Peasron. 9th Edition.

49 | P a g e