While Hamburg is Germany’s second-largest city with a high population density and approximately 1,78 million residents (Statistisches Amt für Hamburg und Schleswig-Holstein 2019), Otterndorf is a small town in a rural area with 7,202 inhabitants (Landesamt für Statistik Niedersachsen 2017). Hamburg has a huge but less dense social network that makes it possible to stay isolated. Otterndorf is located in a rural area with a low population density (Stadt Otterndorf 2016).
In the literature it is assumed that in rural settings, “everyone knows everyone”, and that social connections are closer than in the city: “[C]
ompared to personal networks in urban settings, personal networks in rural settings contain ties of greater intensity and role multiplexity, are based more on kinship and neighborhood solidarities rather than on friendship, are smaller, are denser, and have greater educational, race-ethnic, and religious homogeneity, but less age and gender homogeneity”
(Beggs, Haines, and Hurlbert 1996: 306).
Cities in general have a far more heterogeneous population than smaller communities, which can lead to the formation of sub-cultures and sub-networks in which traditional ties (e.g. relatives, neighbors) no longer play a role: “community, notably urbanism, also affects the social contexts from which people draw their relations, albeit far more weakly than social class, life cycle, and other personal traits” (Fischer 1982: 79-80).
Coastal protection plays an important role in climate change adaptation. Hamburg has a EUR 600 million flood protection system consisting of mechanical barriers and a central warning system (called KATWARN). Detailed risk maps define the dangers and protection measures for the neighborhoods close to the river (Müller and Gönnert 2016). The system has been constructed with future upgrades in mind, required due to sea level rise (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg 2012).
Otterndorf, in contrast, has not recently renewed its protections, the most important of which is the dike. Some of its pumping stations and floodgates have been in use for decades (Niedersächsischer Landesbetrieb für Wasserwirtschaft, Küsten- und Naturschutz) or even centuries (the Otterndorf floodgate was put into service in 1854 and last reworked in 1985, Kosch 2020).
Table 4.3: Spatial aspects indicating differences between
This study is part of a larger research project at the Universität Hamburg called “Down to Earth”2 (Brüggemann et al. 2017). It analyzes how the media coverage of COP 21 reached and affected citizens in Germany.
The project combines three interconnected sub-studies with different methodological approaches: a quota-based online panel survey (n
= 1,121) including three waves, digital communication diaries (n = 42), and four focus group interviews (n = 15). All sub-studies have a
2 The project was funded by the German Research Foundation’s “Integrated Climate System Analysis and Prediction” (CliSAP) Cluster of Excellence, Universität Hamburg. Further information can be found at https://climatematters.blogs.uni-hamburg.de/down-to-earth/
common interest in shedding light on media reception of climate politics.
The qualitative parts of the project allow us a deeper understanding of how people make sense of COP 21, while the standardized survey allows to draw broader conclusions about public perceptions of climate policy in Germany. In this chapter, we concentrate on material from the focus groups and media diaries and contextualize the results with data obtained from the online survey.
Focus group discussions: We conducted four focus group discussions—
two in Otterndorf (n = 9) and two in Hamburg (n = 6)—during the final week of COP 21. The conference was on the media agenda, but the focus groups took place before the final press conference, so the outcome of the conference did not overshadow participants’ memories of the entire coverage. Participants were aged 30 to 75. A “contrasting case selection”
sampling strategy (Flick 2007) was used, which aims to vary the central aspect of theoretical interest so that alternative explanations can be found, and thereby helps to explore the research question as openly as possible. If spatial aspects play a central role in the reception of climate change communication, the results from both groups should vary, at least in parts.
On the basis of the literature analysis we assume that it is not only the physical space that effects how people interpret media coverage on climate change, but also the social aspects of space, for example a feeling of “Heimat” [belonging], the degree of connectedness to others, the set of experiences made at a certain place (e.g. floodings), etc. Thus, for the focus groups we varied the degree of connectedness people have to their living spaces. We were not able to realize pre-interviews to fully understand these aspects a priori. Instead, we focused on a more objective criterion, which is the length someone had lived at her/
his current address. We grouped participants in each location in two homogenous groups, one with “long-term inhabitants” and one with
“short-term inhabitants” (living less than six years in the current place).
Additionally, a rough quota target for diversity regarding age (min:
30; max: 75), gender (5 w: 10 m) and professions (e.g., administration employee, electro technician, translator, pensioner, teacher) was implemented.
The collected data was analyzed via a qualitative content analysis (Schreier 2013), and categories were built inductively and deductively.
The initial classification mainly contains the two dimensions detailed in sub-research questions (a) patterns of information and communication and (b) patterns of interpretation.
Communication diaries: During the two weeks of COP 21, 42 participants from Hamburg and Otterndorf filled out digital communication diaries on a daily basis. In these online diaries, they noted their daily media use and face-to-face conversations about climate change. To encourage steady participation, the respondents received a financial incentive. The focus group participants were also part of the diary survey.
Three-wave online panel survey (n = 1.121): A three-wave online panel survey was administered throughout the event: the baseline measurement was conducted two weeks before COP 21, the main survey was carried out during the conference, and a final survey four weeks after.
Results
This section interprets the findings of the focus groups and media diaries;
the results of the online panel study are described to contextualize the statements of the participants. Quotes are translated, and participants’
names are pseudonyms.