35 individual transilience in the face of climate change are beyond the scope of the present paper, as our aim was to test the validity of the scale) in all analyses.5 Method Participants and Procedure Questionnaires were distributed by students in specific areas of the city of Groningen (north-east of the Netherlands), where a high number of houses had a backyard. After introducing the purpose of the study, students asked one person per household for informed consent and agreed on a pickup time for the questionnaire; participants did not receive any compensation. The questionnaire was first developed in English and then translated into Dutch. A total of 212 participants were recruited for the study through door-to-door recruitment - data collection was stopped abruptly due to the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. After data inspection and cleaning,6 192 responses were retained (39% male; Mage = 39; SDage = 16.2; see more demographics in Supplementary Material). This sample meets the minimum required for scale validation (Boateng et al., 2018). Measures Measures were assessed on a 7-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, unless otherwise specified. For scales, we computed mean scores. See Table 2.8 for descriptives and reliability indicators.7 Climate Change Reality. The item ‘I believe climate change is real’ (van Valkengoed et al., 2021) was used for data cleaning purposes. Perceived Risks of Flooding. Participants were asked to rate the following two items: ‘If a flood happens, there is a high chance that I will have to deal with it’ (vulnerability); ‘If a flood happens, the consequences will be severe’ (severity). Scores on perceived risks were calculated by multiplying the perceived vulnerability and perceived severity scores (de Zwart et al., 2009). 5 The manipulation did not significantly affect any of the measures relevant for our research, and results of the analyses without these covariates are similar (see Supplementary Material). 6 We removed 20 participants (9.47%) from the initial sample, based on the following criteria. First, we removed participants who did not believe in the reality of climate change or who did not answer the climate change reality item (n = 3). Second, we removed participants who had missing values in any of the climate change transilience scale items (n = 17), given that having complete responses for all transilience items was key for validating the scale. 7 The survey included also measures of: current and intended effort put in greening the backyard; how green was the backyard when participants moved in the house; if the backyard has more concrete or plants; perceptions of human causes and consequences of climate change; number of residents in household; number of residents with an income; whether the house is owned or rented; whether people from outside the household take care of the garden; how long have participants lived in the house; how long they are planning to stay; manipulation checks. We do not report results on these variables as they are beyond the scope of the present paper. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw