Next Article in Journal
Developing a Controlling Model for Analyzing the Subjectivity of Enterprise Sustainability and Expert Group Judgments Using Fuzzy Triangular Membership Functions
Previous Article in Journal
Status of the Marinas’ Development in the Southern Region of the Romanian Sea Coast: Implications for Sustainable Recreational Transport in the Black Sea
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/su15107980
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring Major League Baseball Fans’ Climate Change Risk Perceptions and Adaptation Willingness

by
Jessica R. Murfree
Department of Kinesiology and Sport Management, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA
Sustainability 2023, 15(10), 7980; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107980
Submission received: 12 April 2023 / Revised: 9 May 2023 / Accepted: 11 May 2023 / Published: 13 May 2023
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Major League Baseball (MLB) is particularly vulnerable to climate change due to its season duration, geographic footprint, and largely outdoor nature. Therefore, the purposes of this study were to investigate whether U.S.-based MLB fans’ climate change skepticism and experiential processing influenced their climate change risk perceptions and adaptation willingness, and to determine if those relationships were further influenced by fans’ sport identification with MLB. A cross-sectional survey design tested the study’s purposes using a sample (n = 540) of self-identified MLB fans. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling on the Mplus 8 statistical package to test the hypothesized model. The results indicated consistencies across low and highly identified MLB fans on their climate change risk perceptions and willingness to adapt, but revealed group differences between the factors influencing fans’ risk perceptions of climate change. The findings provide early empirical evidence to support the United Nations’ (UN) Sport for Climate Action Framework, and managerial implications regarding the nexus of climate change and sport consumer behavior research.

1. Introduction

Differing opinions of climate change persist across the American public despite the scientific consensus on its presence and severity [1,2]. Despite the U.S.’s resources and wealth, the effects of climate change result in physical damage, public health issues, and economic strife [3]. Still, the gap in climate change opinions for Americans perseveres on political, ideological, and social terms [4]. This study suggests that sport can help to bridge this gap.
The UN’s Climate Change Secretariat proposes that sport’s visibility and social influence can be leveraged for climate action [5]. Specifically, their Sports for Climate Action Framework asserts these attributes, “provide a strong platform for the sport sector to play an exemplary role in meeting the challenge of climate change, and inspire and engage large audiences to do the same” [5] (p. 3). It is important for individuals to relate to climate effects to engage in climate action [6]. However, anteceding the ability to engage is climate change awareness and a perception of its risks as being consequential. Establishing these prerequisites can be difficult when individuals feel insulated from climate harm [7].
Yet, climate change threatens the ability to enjoy sport in the U.S. [8]. For example, Hurricane Irma’s severity and duration canceled or postponed nearly two-dozen NCAA Division I football games in 2017 [9]. The 2020 wildfires burned hundreds of millions of acres along the west coast, compromising nationwide air quality, and affecting MLB and National Football League (NFL) games and practices [10,11]. Nationwide droughts amplify the severity of wildfires and extreme heat, both contributing to the lack of adequate snow cover for winter sports [12,13]. For athletes and spectators, climate change can make sport impossible to play, host, and watch [14,15].
While it is known that climate change affects and will continue to affect sport, it is unknown how fans perceive those risks or if risks can inspire action. Therefore, the present study investigates whether sport can enhance climate change risk perceptions and adaptation willingness in the U.S. Namely, this study sought to advance climate change risk perception research by focusing on fans in a sport context to build interdisciplinary bridges between climate science and sport management. Specifically, this study focuses on MLB as it has a greater exposure and vulnerability to climate change than other major American sports [16]. Accordingly, the purposes of this study were to (a) determine the influence of cognitive factors (skepticism and experiential processing) toward climate change on MLB fans’ general and sport specific climate change risk perceptions, and determine whether those risk perceptions influenced their willingness to adapt, and (b) to determine if those relationships were moderated by fans’ sport identification. It is hypothesized that the degree to which a fan identifies with MLB will create differences along model pathways, as highly identified fans are expected to perceive greater climate change risks to the sport. Additionally, sport management research frequently explores identification differences among fans, where managerial decisions largely focus on those who are highly identified [17,18,19,20,21]. By exploring differently identified fans, generally, the present study aims to discern where the differences lie in the hypothesized model.

Major League Baseball and Climate Change

MLB is the U.S.’s oldest major sport league and plays a central role in American culture [22]. This is the value of understanding MLB fans’ risk perceptions of climate change, as it is an issue threatening baseball’s franchise value, survivability, and status as America’s favorite pastime.
There are 30 MLB teams each competing in 162 regular season games between March and October. They cover a diverse geographic footprint spanning 17 states, Washington D.C., and Canada, and there are few climate-controlled stadiums that protect from climatic events. As such, rainouts, delays, and postponements often force doubleheaders, affecting game performance and the economic costs associated with such delays [9]. There were 54 weather-related postponements in 2018, a record, leading to an additional roofed ballpark in 2019 for the Texas Rangers [23]. Of the 22 open-air MLB stadiums, 12 are in major cities identified by The Weather Channel’s Climate Disruption Index’s top-25 U.S. cities facing climate change impacts [24]. Because of the geographic footprint, teams face a variety of climate hazards and stadium vulnerability varies by location [16]. Yet, while baseball is quintessentially American, climate change support is traditionally not [25]. The present study begins to address the stark juxtaposition of a climate-vulnerable sport with a scientific topic that is vigorously debated outside the scientific community.

2. Theoretical Foundations

Because this study suggests that sport can disseminate the realities of climate change and demonstrate climate vulnerability through risk perceptions, it is important to consider that not all fans are attached to sport in the same way [26]. For this reason, this study builds upon elements of risk perception theory [27] and the cultural theory of risk [28,29] to develop the hypothesized model. In this study, climate change risk is defined as the likelihood, or probability, of experiencing a host of adverse outcomes caused by climate hazards, exposure, vulnerability, and susceptibility [16,30]. Climate vulnerability fits within the definition of climate change risk, as the degree of vulnerability indicates the ability, or inability, for a system or community to cope with climate harm [31]. Therefore, climate change risk perceptions are defined as the “perceived likelihood of negative consequences to oneself and society” from climate harm [32] (p. 462). Risk perceptions are often used to explain cultural cognition, as cultural factors help shape the way individuals acknowledge, respond to, and make decisions around risks such as climate hazards [33,34]. For example, Seabra et al. [35] utilized risk perception theory to examine tourists’ terrorism risk perceptions when traveling, where safety concerns informed by news media predicted risk perceptions, and thus travelers’ decision-making. Cyclically, perceptions of terrorism risks influenced tourists’ desire to seek more information from the media. Like the present study’s model, tourists’ personal experiences with terrorism were the strongest predictor of their risk perceptions. In fact, climate change risk forms similarly to risk perceptions related to terrorism, public health concerns, economic crises, and other circumstances that could be deemed unsafe or unstable [36,37]. Culture creates an additional caveat through which risk perceptions are informed. For example, Barnett et al. [38] utilizes risk perception theory to explore healthcare workers’ risk perceptions of the public health hazards in the job. However, it is acknowledged that public health respondents are uniquely positioned in that they face public health risks and are trusted sources to communicate such risks, and so the cultural implications of this nexus are not considered in this study. Cultural theory of risk adds an extra layer through which the idiosyncrasies of social identity groupings can be specifically explored. For example, Schneider et al. [39] found, in addition to experiential knowledge, that socio-cultural worldviews shaped risk perceptions on the novel coronavirus and its subsequent vaccinations for people around the world. This pattern is observed in climate risk perception research, but has yet to be explored in a sport context [40,41,42,43].
Therefore, this research proposes that sport be considered among the factors contributing to cultural adherence. Sport identity theorists suggest fans orient themselves culturally around the sports and leagues they choose to support [44,45]. Oltedal et al. [46] note perceived risks are “closely tied to cultural adherence and social learning”, and explain how people act and behave in the world around them (p. 5). Because individuals perceive risks differently based on the socio-cultural groups to which they belong, this study suggests that sport fandom can be a socio-cultural group when perceiving climate change risks.
Cultural theory of risk [29] builds upon risk perception theory by explaining how culture influences the ways people perceive hazards and their potential dangers. In climate adaptation research, cultural theory of risk is used but needs further empirical trials for deep understanding [34]. However, it is well established that culture (e.g., embodying learned ideas, intentions, behaviors, and their patterns) informs how members of society come to understand climate change, develop risk perceptions, and decide to act [47,48,49,50]. Culture has long informed the climate change debate, but sport has been excluded from those cultural measures and conversations.
Accordingly, the hypothesized model (Figure 1) was developed and tested using climate change skepticism and two modes of experiential processing as antecedent to general climate change risk perceptions (Hypotheses 1 through 2b) [7,40]. Then, general climate change risk perceptions would predict fans’ sport-specific climate change risk perceptions (Hypothesis 3), and that their sport-specific climate change risk perceptions would influence their willingness to adapt (Hypothesis 4) [41]. Finally, and in an exploratory manner, it was hypothesized that sport identification would moderate the relationships of the model (Hypothesis 5) [51].

2.1. Climate Change Skepticism

Climate change skepticism often overpowers factual evidence [52]. Whitmarsh [53] considers the subjective nature of climate understanding as the catalyst for skepticism’s prevalence. For this reason, climate change skepticism is a notable barrier to the general public’s engagement with climate action. Further, climate change risk perceptions are positively associated with levels of concern, where more skepticism yields minimal concern for climate threats [54]. Climate change skepticism is regarded as a significant cognitive factor from which risk perceptions can be gauged, and it is deeply associated with personal and cultural attributes. Specifically, those who are more skeptical of climate change are more dismissive of its potential risks [43,55,56,57]. Therefore, the first hypothesis is the following:
 Hypothesis 1.
Climate change skepticism will negatively influence MLB fans’ general climate change risk perceptions.

2.2. Experiential Processing

Climate change skeptics tend to be more wary about its severity, rather than in disbelief regarding its presence [58,59]. To holistically understand a person’s climate change risk perceptions, an assessment of experiential processing models is used. Experiential processing is the sensory method of gaining knowledge through seeing, feeling, and doing. Experiential processing can be categorized into sensory and bodily realms: generalized emotion (sensory) and personal experiences (bodily) [40,60]. These are tools to help people understand ways of knowing through lived experiences. This study examines generalized emotion toward climate change and personal experiences with extreme weather events. Accordingly, experiential processing in environmental science has also been found to be a predictor of a person’s intentions to engage in climate adaptation and support adaptive strategies [61].

2.3. Generalized Emotion

Processing information emotionally has been shown to affect the judgement and risk perceptions of climate change [42,62]. In the present study, generalized emotion refers to a holistic “positive (like) or negative (dislike) evaluative feeling” toward climate change [40] (p. 115). Understanding generalized emotion helps assess a person’s climate change perceptions based on how they feel [63]. This is an effective measure particularly as the realities of climate change are associated with destruction and despair [54].
 Hypothesis 2a.
Negative generalized emotion will contribute to MLB fans’ general climate change risk perceptions.

2.4. Personal Experiences with Extreme Weather

Personal experiences, in prior research, have been shown to influence climate change skepticism [55] and risk perceptions [64], as the negative consequences of climate change may affect someone’s life. In other words, first-hand experiences of climate hazards (e.g., extreme weather events) reduce the psychological distance between oneself and the realities of climate change, thereby substantiating climate change [7]. Extreme weather events are catalyzed and exacerbated by climate change and are considered the main drivers of climate change risk perceptions, and they include wildfires, droughts, heat waves, floods, tropical cyclones/hurricanes, tsunamis, and tornadoes [55,65,66].
 Hypothesis 2b.
Personal experiences with extreme weather will positively influence MLB fans’ general climate change risk perceptions.

2.5. Climate Change Risk Perceptions

Scientific distrust and the perception of factual ambivalence on climate change have contributed to a range of climate change risk perceptions [30,53,67]. O’Connor et al. [32] suggest that environmental exposure informs risk perceptions, while Swim et al. [68] posit that exposure can influence ones understanding of climate change’s harm. Yet, the U.S. is afforded a cushion of resources and development to seemingly obscure the realities of climate change from the population’s everyday lives; thus, climate harm may not be as apparent and observable to the general population [66,69]. One way to potentially narrow the gap is by demonstrating the climate risks and harms to things people communally care about, such as sports.
 Hypothesis 3.
MLB fans who perceive general climate change risks will also perceive sport-specific climate change risks.

2.6. Sport-Specific Climate Change Risk Perceptions

A potential outcome of this study was to determine how sport-specific climate change threats help to actualize harm and shape the way fans perceive climate risks and adapt to them. As climate studies in sport emerge, they illustrate how the sport sector provides a realm through which the effects of climate change are particularly tangible [70,71,72]. Regarding environmental sustainability, sport ecology scholars suggest that sport-driven efforts can further encourage pro-environmental behaviors among fans, a response to the UN’s call-to-action through the Sport for Climate Action Framework [73,74,75]. Sociological inroads, such as those developed by enjoying sport, help people to understand their experiences with climate change and what their contributions could be.
 Hypothesis 4.
For MLB fans, sport-specific climate change risk perceptions will have a positive relationship with fans’ willingness to adapt their behaviors.

2.7. Willingness to Adapt

Assessing how willing a sport fan might be to act, given their perceptions of climate change risks or vulnerabilities, could present a suite of managerial opportunities for the sport industry. Personal climate adaptation strategies, such as willingness to pay more for fuel or travel less frequently by plane, could be tied to an individual’s relationship with MLB should sport enhance their climate change risk perceptions [41]. This study suggests that sport may catalyze greater risk perceptions than a person’s everyday life, and lead to behavioral change due to their identification with the sport and sport-specific climate change risks.

2.8. Sport Identification

Sport identification is the amount of attachment and preference a person has toward a sport [76]. Theoretically, sport identification is a relevant moderating variable when discussing sport fandom and consumer behaviors, as it is established that emotions, cognitions, and behaviors differ along a spectrum of identification [18,20,77] As the moderating variable, sport identification can help to explain the difference in sport-specific climate change risk perceptions by a degree of MLB fandom. It is hypothesized, based on sport consumer behavior research, that climate change risk perceptions would vary based on sport identification. Specifically, Hypothesis 5 implies that sport-specific climate change risk perceptions would be greater for those who are more connected to the sport [78,79,80,81]. This hypothesis is supported by the moderating power of sport, team, and fan identification research [82,83,84]. This study hypothesized that sport identification would create differences in the model’s relationships, as identifying with MLB could create meaning for fans regarding climate change and could shape their risk perceptions. Therefore, the intention is not to focus solely on highly identified fans, but to use broad MLB identification for a comprehensive illustration of the role sport identification plays in fans’ risk perceptions and adaptation willingness. Sport identification could potentially combat climate change polarization, create more tangible understanding, and shape managerial implications for sport organizations interested in improving climate action and environmental sustainability through fans.
 Hypothesis 5.
A statistically significant difference will exist on the paths in the hypothesized model between groups of low and high sport identification.

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Procedures

The Institutional Review Board at the author’s institution approved the study protocol for human subjects. To reach a diverse sample of MLB fans, data were collected via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). Only those who were at least 18 years old, U.S. residents, and self-identified as MLB fans from a menu of professional and collegiate U.S. sports were targeted. Prior sport management research measuring behaviors and intentions across differently identified sport consumers has found MTurk to be an advantageous crowdsourcing approach to participant recruitment [85,86,87]. Likewise, previous climate change and climate risk research has also relied on MTurk samples despite potential validity concerns [88,89,90]. Paolacci et al. [91] found MTurk to be a viable option for large-scale survey instrument hosting and data collection. Compared to in-person convenience samples, Berinsky et al. [92] found MTurk to be a credible resource for scholarly inquiry in the social sciences.
Several steps were taken to protect the integrity of the study and improve the trustworthiness of the instrument. First, the survey instrument was created and hosted on Qualtrics, with a direct link for American MTurk workers to access it as a human intelligence task (HIT). The HIT was named, “Sport Fandom and Environmental Perceptions” with no information about the study’s greater purpose to reduce self-selection. To further limit pattern response violations [93], attention and instructional manipulation checks were used such as “please select the color blue” and reCAPTCHA user validations.

3.2. Instrument

The questionnaire contained seven sections, one to screen participants for inclusion, and the remaining for each of the model’s five key variables and demographic information including gender, ethnicity, birth year, household income, education status, state of residence, favorite MLB team, and game attendance frequency. All items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale. A five-item measure of skepticism was adopted from Spence et al. [7] (α = 0.71), which included items such as “I am uncertain that climate change is really happening.” The two methods of experiential processing (i.e., generalized emotion and personal experiences with extreme weather) were adapted from van der Linden’s [40] measures of holistic affect (i.e., generalized emotion; α = 0.85.) and personal experiences with extreme weather. The three-item generalized emotion scale was measured using bi-polar adjectives and included items such as “To me, climate change is” (very positive to very negative). The personal experiences with the extreme weather scale were originally measured with two dichotomous items by van der Linden [40], with a single item isolating flooding from other extreme weather events (e.g., heat waves and droughts). For clarity and geographic variability across the U.S., the present study did not isolate flooding from other events, and instead tested personal experiences as a continuous single-item measure on a 7-point Likert scale: “Considering roughly the last 5 years, how often (in total) have you personally experienced any type of extreme weather event in your local U.S. area? (e.g., flooding, severe heat waves, droughts, snowstorms, wildfires, hurricanes, blizzards)” (never to frequently).
To measure MLB fans’ general climate change risk perceptions, participants were asked to indicate their perceived concern, likelihood, and severity of climate impacts generally on society. To do so, four societal risk (α = 0.95) items from van der Linden’s [40] Risk Perception Index (RPI) were adapted, including “How serious of a threat do you think that climate change is to the natural environment?” (not serious at all to very serious). This RPI scale was modified to measure sport-specific climate change risk perceptions as well. Modifications included replacing the original subject matter (e.g., “the natural environment”) with a sport-specific one (e.g., “Major League Baseball”). This adaptation created distinct parallels between items on van der Linden’s [40] general societal RPI and modified sport-specific RPI for this study. A six-item construct for willingness to adapt was adopted from Xie et al.’s [41] nine-item Personal Willingness Scale (α = 0.89), which includes items addressing what an individual is willing to do, or pay for, to reduce climate risks. This scale was adjusted from a 4-point to 7-point Likert scale for consistency and included items such as “Pay to offset the carbon emissions from my airplane flights to reduce carbon emissions” (not at all willing to very willing). The additional scale modification occurred following instrument pretesting, where the panel of experts suggested the exclusion of three Personal Willingness items, as those items were unrelated to an individual’s ability to adapt.
Finally, Robinson et al.’s [51] (α = 0.83) sport identification scale was adapted to test moderation effects in the current study. Similar identification scales in sport management research have been used to determine levels of team, event, and sport identification [20,94]. The original scale items were in reference to PGA and LPGA tours, e.g., “I consider myself to be a real fan of (the tour)” [51]. For the present study’s adaptation, this language was modified to be reflective of the MLB, rather than a single event: “I consider myself to be a real fan of MLB,” “I would experience a loss if I had to stop being an MLB fan,” and “Being an MLB fan is very important to me” (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

4. Results

4.1. Data Cleaning and Final Sample

In total, 1254 questionnaires were attempted, yet only 600 were successfully submitted. Then, pattern response violations were addressed and removed with other (n = 60) invalid submissions (e.g., incomplete surveys, duplicate submissions, and non-differentiation responses). Of the participants in the final sample (n = 540), 339 were male (62.8%), and 2 declined to report their gender. Participants’ ages ranged from 19 to 80, with a mean age of 41.15 years (SD = 12.32). Participants self-identified themselves as White (n = 411, 76.1%), Black or African-American (n = 78, 14.4%), Hispanic or Latinx (n = 27; 5.0%), or Other (n = 24, 4.4%).

4.2. Data Analysis

The data were normally distributed, and there were no multicollinearity or singularity concerns. After screening, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA; Table 1) performed in AMOS 27 on the measurement model with each of the first-order latent variables and the single-item measure of Personal Experiences with Extreme Weather (PE) showed that two items should be removed from the Skepticism scale due to low factor loadings (i.e., <0.707) [95]. The goodness-of-fit indices revealed an acceptable model fit (χ2 = 662.09, df = 175, χ2/df value = 3.78, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.05, RMSEA = 0.07). Convergent validity and reliability values were good. The average variance extracted (AVE) values ranged from 0.604 to 0.842, exceeding 0.500 [95]. Construct reliability (CR) coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 0.95, exceeding the cutoff value of 0.70 [96]. Finally, discriminant validity was good as the square roots for all AVE values exceeded the correlations of any two specified constructs (Table 2) [97]. The three-item Sport Identification scale (α = 0.92) was used as a moderator in the hypothesized model. The Sport Identification scale was dichotomized into low and high groups at the midpoint of the response format (4.00).

4.3. Hypothesis Testing

Using the structural equation modeling (SEM) technique available in the Mplus 8.7 statistical package, a multi-group model (low vs. high Sport ID) was tested. The overall structural model fit was only adequate at best (χ2 = 1076.17, df = 384, χ2/df value = 2.80, CFI = 0.93, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.14, RMSEA = 0.08). The moderate to high RMSEA and SRMR values indicated that the model did not work well when constraining both low and high Sport Identification group models to be the same, indicating that Sport Identification does moderate the measurement model. A chi-square difference test on the low (χ2 = 640.74) and high (χ2 = 436.14) groups’ models (df = 1) indicated that a significant difference existed on the path coefficients between the two groups. Specifically, the path coefficients between Skepticism and General Climate Change Risk Perceptions were statistically significantly different between the low and high groups (Table 3), as were the paths from Generalized Emotion to General Climate Change Risk Perceptions (Figure 2 and Figure 3). Although the path coefficients varied, the amount of variance explained in General Climate Change Risk Perceptions, Sport Specific Climate Change Risk Perceptions, and Willingness to Adapt for each group did not differ that much (Figure 2 and Figure 3).

5. Discussion

To determine climate change risk perceptions and adaptation willingness for MLB fans, and ultimately differences in those perceptions based on sport identification, the model in Figure 1 was developed and tested. To combat the potential phenomenon of psychological distance [7], and to communicate climate change risk in a manner that matters to MLB fans, it was important to gauge fans’ general and sport-specific climate change risk perceptions. Drawing from risk perception theory and cultural theory of risk, which informed the first half of the model, understanding sport fans’ risk perceptions is a vehicle by which personal and consumer behaviors can be judged [98].
The measurement model had an adequate fit for the entire sample of MLB fans, but indicated that differences existed based on Sport Identification. This supported the need for moderation of Sport Identification in Hypothesis 5. The moderation yielded two measurement models, one for each group (Figure 2 and Figure 3). When not forcing low and high identified fans to be the same, the measurement models fit well, as nine of ten hypotheses were fully supported, and one hypothesis was partially supported (Hypothesis 2a for Low Sport ID).
The paths from Skepticism (Hypothesis 1) and Generalized Emotion (Hypothesis 2a) were moderated by Sport Identification, revealing that the differences between fan groups were present in the absence of sport-related items. Here, Skepticism explained 28.8% of the variance in General Climate Change Risk Perceptions for the Low Sport ID group, and 6.1% for the High Sport ID group. Alternatively, for the Low Sport ID group, Generalized Emotion was significant, but not meaningful [99], explaining 2.5% of the variance in General Climate Change Risk Perceptions. Generalized Emotion was the primary driver of General Climate Change Risk Perceptions for the High Sport ID group, explaining 25.5% of the variance. No differences existed between the Low and High Sport ID groups on Personal Experiences with Extreme Weather (Hypothesis 2b), as the confidence intervals for both groups overlap despite significant p-values. This suggests the bodily mode of experiential processing [40], or the frequency of having experienced a byproduct of climate change, which equally influenced General Climate Change Risk Perceptions for all fans. Similarly, General Climate Change Risk Perceptions explained 38.7% and 36.1% of the variance in Sport-Specific Climate Change Risk Perceptions for the Low and High Sport ID groups, respectively. Likewise, Sport-Specific Climate Change Risk Perceptions explained 52.1% and 52.4% of the variance in Willingness to Adapt for the same groups. Ultimately, no moderation was found in the latter half of the models (Hypotheses 3 and 4), which informs the practical implications discussed below, but all paths were statistically significant.

5.1. Theoretical Contributions

This study is interdisciplinary and contributes to growing bodies of climate change, sport ecology, and sport management research. First, this study supports prior research on the inverse relationship between climate change skepticism and risk perceptions. Kahan et al. [43] describe this relationship as the product of limited scientific knowledge among the general public. Because the Low Sport ID group was more skeptical than the High Sport ID group, an opportunity exists to combat climate change skepticism as fans become more highly identified with MLB. Additionally, existing climate change skepticism models find the purpose of skepticism to be a coping [55] or information avoidance [100] strategy, where those who are more skeptical have lower risk perceptions and are less likely to be concerned. Highly identified MLB fans have a reason to be concerned about climate risk to MLB given their connection to the sport. This finding is also consistent with the Generalized Emotion results, where highly identified fans reported greater negative emotions toward climate change, which affects their assessment of climate change [42,62], and evaluation of risk [60]. These findings advance discourse on risk perception theory and cultural theory of risk, by illustrating the role of sport culture as a persuasive tool to inform risk perceptions. At the time of writing, this study is one of the earliest, if not the earliest, applications of sport as a climate risk perception tool. In potentially risky settings, traditionally, other social groupings have framed individuals’ formulation of risk perceptions [35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43].
While this study is framed in a sport context, its findings illustrate how attachment to a social group, sport fandom, frames a person’s risk perceptions. Additionally, novel is that this distinguishment, that is the moderation of sport identification, does not affect the saliency of a person’s experiences with extreme weather in informing risk perceptions. While this finding is consistent with applications of cultural theory of risk, this study considers the exposure of sport to climate hazards. Because of MLB’s unique climate vulnerability, fans are exposed to the sport’s climate hazards in addition to the ones faced in their lives, generally. By increasing exposure to climate hazards, through sport, this study also finds additional points of attachment to climate change risk perceptions based on sport identification.
Identification with a sport provides an opportunity to inform climate change judgement. The model demonstrates socio-psychological constructs used to investigate climate change perceptions that can be successfully applied in sport-specific settings in the U.S. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, and impetus for the sport industry to engage in climate action, this model also extends burgeoning sport ecology research. Existing sport ecology research largely focuses on organizations’ efforts on environmental sustainability and climate action, and the scope of climate hazards on sport [101,102,103]. While a harmony exists among this research, prior to this study, it was unclear how fans, as consumers, perceive the risks underscoring those efforts. Contrary to identification principles in sport management research [81], the moderation effect did not take place in the sport-specific portion of the model (Hypotheses 3 and 4). The Low and High Sport ID fan groups perceived similar sport-specific risks and were similarly willing to adapt their behaviors. The lack of group differences here suggests a greater need for identification research in sport management, including more insight into how fans formulate perceptions and make behavioral decisions. While established identification measures in sport management research are helpful [94], a one-size-fits-all approach to sport identification may be obsolete when issues are as pressing as climate change.

5.2. Practical Implications

This study found empirical evidence to support the United Nations’ suggestion that sport fans are critical when it comes to engaging in, and accelerating, climate action in the sport sector. Additionally, this study’s findings suggest that pro-environmental efforts pertaining to climate adaptation in MLB should include fans, and MLB should invest in removing barriers between fans and their willingness to adapt to climate change alongside organizational adaptation strategies. It was anticipated that fans’ perceptions of sport-specific climate change risks would explain a considerable amount of variance in Willingness to Adapt as the intermediary dependent variable. However, the lack of group differences here is encouraging, as it illustrates what many scholars and sport organizations have hoped: that the power of sport in climate action does not differ among fan groups.
Further, the model does not need to change to affect the two groups’ risk perceptions and adaptation willingness in the same ways because it fits well for both groups. Where the difference lies is in the cognitive factors. The meaningfulness here illustrates where to spend effort, time, and money. MLB can work to decrease climate change skepticism among fans with lower sport identification by making the climate harms and hazards more apparent to them and communicating climate risks to the sport. For highly identified fans, whose risk perceptions are driven by negative emotions toward climate change, including them in adaptive strategies to combat climate change can encourage engagement and further action.

5.3. Limitations

Despite the novel findings of this study, it is not without limitations. This study focused solely on U.S.-based fans of MLB. While the results of this study may provide insight into other sport leagues, or other baseball leagues (e.g., MiLB, NCAA), additional climate change research specifically on fans of other sports and geographic locations is needed. Online convenience sampling via MTurk resulted in a large, representative dataset. However, future studies focusing on fans’ identification should collect data during the sport season, thereby activating connection to the sport. There was opportunity for sport disconnect as the data were collected before the start of the MLB season, and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, a shortcoming of online convenience sampling is participants’ election to complete the survey [104], as selection bias may not represent all MLB fans. Regarding representativeness, the sample of MTurk workers may also be younger and less affluent than the general U.S. population [105,106]. While this would be true with a student sample, researchers should consider additional methods of generating representative, national samples.
Further, the scope of sport identification is broader than individual team identification. Team identification research, although abundant in sport management, has not been examined in the context of climate change risk perceptions and willingness to adapt. Practical implications from the present study suggest that a case study approach into a specific MLB team’s fan base may provide additional inroads for climate change risk perceptions and adaptation willingness specific to a team. Likewise, the present study adopted and adapted climate change risk perception measures to be used in a sport context. Sport-specific measures for climate change attitudes and risk perceptions will be needed to continue the advancement of climate-focused sport ecology research. While the present study’s instrument was proven as valid and reliable, efforts to grow additional measures will increase the applicability of climate understanding for sport industry research. Further, the need to understand additional linkages (e.g., indirect effects) between the exigent variables, a host of other potential influences on climate change risk perceptions, as well as nuances that can influence socio-cultural perceptions of climate change will provide more robust insights into the collective powers of sport for climate action, and provide more inclusive approaches for future research on this subject.

5.4. Future Research Opportunities

The catalyst for this study was MLB’s unique vulnerability to climate change conflicts and its indispensability to American sport culture. Simultaneously, the U.N. Secretariat for Climate Change’s assertion that sport can be leveraged for climate action, including at the consumer and fan levels, without empirical support warranted exploration. These competing perspectives do not alleviate MLB’s vulnerability to climate change. However, forays into MLB fans’ skepticism, experiential processing, risk perceptions, and willingness to adapt provide opportunities for additional research and discourse. There are several avenues through which this model could be additionally framed, including religious, political, and educational identities. Each of these are influential in determining individuals’ orientation toward climate change and its risks. Future research should consider the role of these areas coupled with sport identification’s saliency to determine a hierarchy of influence [107].
Because the overall model was significant, this is an indication that MLB and its teams can specifically market climate adaptation and environmental sustainability efforts to fans for additional support. Future research should explore ways in which MLB communicates these efforts, raises awareness of its own vulnerabilities, and engages fans. However, because Sport Identification moderated the paths from Skepticism and Experiential Processing, researchers should consider the strategic involvement of fans in the implementation of climate mitigation strategies based on perceived risks. For example, research specific to fans’ personal experiences with extreme weather in sport-settings (e.g., evacuations, delays, and cancellations) may help strengthen the relationship between general and MLB-specific climate change risk perceptions. Subsequent studies can explore additional antecedents that shape and inform sport fans’ perceptions and understanding of climate change.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Institutional Review Board for research with human subjects at the University of Louisville (#21.0217 on 19 March 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Leiserowitz, A.; Maibach, E.; Rosenthal, S.; Kotcher, J.; Bergquist, P.; Ballew, M.; Goldberg, M.; Gustafson, A.; Wang, X. Climate Change in the American Mind: April 2020; Yale Program on Climate Change Communication: New Haven, CT, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  2. Weber, E.U.; Stern, P.C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 2011, 66, 315–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Karl, T.R.; Melillo, J.M.; Peterson, T.C.; Hassol, S.J. (Eds.) Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2009; ISBN 978-0-521-14407-0. [Google Scholar]
  4. McCright, A.M.; Dunlap, R.E. The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol. Q 2011, 52, 155–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. United Nations. Sports for Climate Action Framework. Available online: https://unfccc.int/climate-action/sectoral-engagement/sports-for-climate-action (accessed on 1 February 2023).
  6. Hale, T. “All hands on deck”: The Paris agreement and nonstate climate action. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2016, 16, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Spence, A.; Poortinga, W.; Pidgeon, N. The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal. 2011, 32, 957–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Orr, M.; Inoue, Y. Sport versus climate: Introducing the climate vulnerability of sport organizations framework. Sport Manage. Rev. 2019, 22, 452–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Murfree, J.R.; Moorman, A.M. An examination and analysis of Division I football game contracts: Legal implications of game cancellations due to hurricanes. J. Legal Asp. Sport 2021, 31, 123–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. ESPN News Services. San Diego Padres-Seattle Mariners Moved Due to Air-Quality Concerns. Available online: https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/29907715/san-diego-padres-seattle-mariners-moved-due-air-quality-concerns (accessed on 20 September 2020).
  11. Wagoner, N. 49ers Adjust Practice Schedule Due to Wildfires in Bay Area. Available online: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story?id=29712701&_slug_=49ers-adjust-practice-schedule-due-wildfires-bay-area (accessed on 20 August 2020).
  12. Kakamu, T.; Wada, K.; Smith, D.R.; Endo, S.; Fukushima, T. Preventing heat illness in the anticipated hot climate of the Tokyo 2020 Summer Olympic Games. Environ. Health Prev. Med. 2017, 22, 68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Knowles, N.; Scott, D.; Steiger, R. Winter sports and climate change. In Sport and Environmental Sustainability; Dingle, G., Mallen, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2020; pp. 140–181. ISBN 978-0-367-43503-5. [Google Scholar]
  14. Bürki, R.; Elsasser, H.; Abegg, B. Climate change—Impacts on the tourism industry in mountain areas. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Climate Change and Tourism, Djerba, Tunisia, 9–11 April 2003. [Google Scholar]
  15. Scott, D.; Steiger, R.; Rutty, M.; Johnson, P. The future of the Olympic Winter Games in an era of climate change. Curr. Issues Tour. 2015, 18, 913–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Orr, M. On the potential impacts of climate change on baseball and cross-country skiing. Manag. Sport Leis. 2020, 25, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Brown-Devlin, N.; Devlin, M.B. Winning with personality: Underscoring antecedents for college students’ motives for team identification. Comm. Sport 2020, 8, 364–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Greenwood, P.B.; Kanters, M.A.; Casper, J.M. Sport fan team identification formation in mid-level professional sport. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2006, 6, 253–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Kwon, H.H.; Trail, G.; James, J.D. The mediating role of perceived value: Team identification and purchase intention of team-licensed apparel. J. Sport Manag. 2007, 21, 540–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ross, S.D.; Walsh, P.; Maxwell, H.D. The impact of team identification on ice hockey brand associations. Int. J. Sport Manag. Mark. 2009, 5, 196–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Silverman, A. Demographic Data Shows Which Major Sports Fan Bases Are Most Likely to Support or Reject Social Justice Advocacy. Available online: https://morningconsult.com/2020/09/10/sports-fan-base-demographic-data/ (accessed on 1 November 2020).
  22. Voigt, D.Q. Reflections on diamonds: American baseball and American culture. J. Sport Hist. 1974, 1, 3–25. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kellison, T.K.; Orr, M. Climate vulnerability as a catalyst for early stadium replacement. Int. J. Sports Mark. 2020, 22, 126–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Berger, M. The weather.com Climate Disruption Index: 25 U.S. Cities Most Affected by Climate Change. Available online: http://stories.weather.com/disruptionindex (accessed on 17 August 2020).
  25. Leiserowitz, A. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Anal. 2005, 25, 1433–1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Robinson, M.J.; Trail, G.T. Relationships among spectator gender, motives, points of attachment, and sport preference. J. Sport Manag. 2005, 19, 58–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Douglas, M. Natural Symbols: Explorations in Cosmology, 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 1996; ISBN 978-0415138264. [Google Scholar]
  28. Douglas, M. Cultural Bias; Royal Anthropological Institute: London, UK, 1978; ISBN 978-0900632167. [Google Scholar]
  29. Wildavsky, A.; Dake, K. Theories of risk perception: Who fears what and why? Daedalus 1990, 119, 41–60. [Google Scholar]
  30. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers: Global Warming of 1.5 °C. An IPCC Special Report on the Impacts of Global Warming of 1.5 °C. Available online: https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/ (accessed on 12 April 2023).
  31. Stocker, T.F.; Clarke, G.K.C.; Le Treut, H.; Lindzen, R.S.; Meleshko, V.P.; Mugara, R.K.; Palmer, T.N.; Pierrehumbert, R.T.; Sellers, P.J.; Trenberth, K.E.; et al. Physical Climate Processes and Feedbacks. In IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J., Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maske, K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2001; pp. 417–470. ISBN 978-0-521-01495-3. [Google Scholar]
  32. O’Connor, R.E.; Bord, R.J.; Fisher, A. Risk perceptions, general environmental beliefs, and willingness to address climate change. Risk Anal. 1999, 19, 461–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kahan, D.M.; Braman, D. Cultural cognition and public policy. Yale Law Policy Rev. 2006, 24, 147–170. [Google Scholar]
  34. McNeeley, S.M.; Lazrus, H. The cultural theory of risk for climate change adaptation. Weather Clim. Soc. 2014, 6, 506–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Seabra, C.; Abrantes, J.L.; Kastenholz, E. The influence of terrorism risk perception on purchase involvement and safety concern of international travellers. J. Mark. Manag. 2014, 30, 874–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Weber, E.U. What shapes perceptions of climate change? New research since 2010. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2016, 7, 125–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morton, T.A.; Rabinovich, A.; Marshall, D.; Bretschneider, P. The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Barnett, D.J.; Balicer, R.D.; Blodgett, D.W.; Everly, G.S.; Omer, S.B.; Parker, C.L.; Links, J.M. Applying risk perception theory to public health workforce preparedness training. J. Public Health Manag. Prac. 2005, 11, S33–S37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Schneider, C.R.; Dryhurst, S.; Kerr, J.; Freeman, A.L.J.; Recchia, G.; Spiegelhalter, D.; van der Linden, S. COVID-19 risk perception: A longitudinal analysis of its predictors and associations with health protective behaviours in the United Kingdom. J. Risk Res. 2021, 24, 294–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. van der Linden, S. The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. J. Environ. Psychol. 2015, 41, 112–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Xie, B.; Brewer, M.B.; Hayes, B.K.; McDonald, R.I.; Newell, B.R. Predicting climate change risk perception and willingness to act. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 65, 101331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Leiserowitz, A. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery, and values. Clim. Change 2006, 77, 45–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kahan, D.M.; Wittlin, M.; Peters, E.; Slovic, P.; Ouellette, L.L.; Braman, D.; Mandel, G.N. The tragedy of the risk-perception commons: Culture conflict, rationality conflict, and climate change. Temple Leg. Stud. 2011, 1–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Biscaia, R.; Hedlund, D.; Dickson, G.; Naylor, M. Conceptualising and measuring fan identity using stakeholder theory. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2018, 18, 459–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Wann, D.L.; Dimmock, J.A.; Grove, J.R. Generalizing the team identification-psychological health model to a different sport and culture: The case of Australian rules football. Group Dyn. 2003, 7, 289–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Oltedal, S.; Moen, B.-E.; Klempe, H.; Rundmo, T. Explaining Risk Perception. An Evaluation of Cultural Theory; Rotunde: Trondheim, Norway, 2004; ISBN 82-7892-025-7. [Google Scholar]
  47. Adger, W.N.; Barnett, J.; Brown, K.; Marshall, N.; O’Brien, K. Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 112–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Gerlach, L.P.; Rayner, S. Culture and the common management of global risks. Pract. Anthropol. 1988, 10, 15–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. O’Riordan, T.; Jordan, A. Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: Towards a common analytical framework. Glob. Environ. Change 1999, 9, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Rayner, S. A cultural perspective on the structure and implementation of global environmental agreements. Eval. Rev. 1991, 15, 75–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Robinson, M.J.; Trail, G.T.; Kwon, J. Motives and points of attachment of professional golf spectators. Sport Manag. Rev. 2004, 7, 167–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Corner, A.; Whitmarsh, L.; Xenias, D. Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Clim. Change 2012, 114, 463–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Whitmarsh, L. Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob. Environ. Change 2011, 21, 690–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sundblad, E.-L.; Biel, A.; Gärling, T. Cognitive and affective risk judgements related to climate change. J. Environ. Psychol. 2007, 27, 97–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Haltinner, K.; Sarathchandra, D. Climate change skepticism as a psychological coping strategy. Sociol. Compass 2018, 12, e12586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Hoffman, A.J. Talking past each other? Cultural framing of skeptical and convinced logics in the climate change debate. Organ. Environ. 2011, 24, 3–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Kellstedt, P.M.; Zahran, S.; Vedlitz, A. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal. 2008, 28, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Carrus, G.; Panno, A.; Leone, L. The moderating role of interest in politics on the releations between conservative political orientation and denial of climate change. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2018, 31, 1103–1117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sunstein, C.R.; Bobadilla-Suarez, S.; Lazzaro, S.C.; Sharot, T. How people update beliefs about climate change: Good news and bad news. Cornell. Law Rev. 2017, 102, 1431–1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gadeikis, D.; Bos, N.; Schweizer, S.; Murphy, F.; Dunn, B. Engaging in an experiential processing mode increases positive emotional response during recall of pleasant autobiographical memories. Behav. Res. Ther. 2017, 92, 68–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Broomell, S.B.; Budescu, D.V.; Por, H.-H. Personal experience with climate change predicts intention to act. Glob. Environ. Change 2015, 32, 67–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Smith, N.; Leiserowitz, A. The rise of global warming skepticism: Exploring affective image associations in the United States over time. Risk Anal. 2012, 32, 1021–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Lowenstein, G.F.; Weber, E.U.; Hsee, C.K.; Welch, E. Risk as feelings. Psychol. Bull 2001, 127, 267–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Reser, J.P.; Bradley, G.L.; Glendon, A.I.; Ellul, M.C.; Callaghan, R. Public Risk Perceptions, Understandings, and Responses to Climate Change and Natural Disasters in Australia and Great Britain; National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility: Gold Coast, Australia; ISBN 978-1-921609-54-1.
  65. Hoover, K.; Hanson, L.A. Wildfire Statistics. Available online: https://crsreports.congress.gov (accessed on 7 January 2023).
  66. Zanocco, C.; Boudet, H.; Nilson, R.; Flora, J. Personal harm and support for climate change mitigation policies: Evidence from 10 U.S. communities impacted by extreme weather. Glob. Environ. Change 2019, 59, 101984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Bertoldo, R.; Mays, C.; Böhm, G.; Poortinga, W.; Poumadère, M.; Tvinnereim, E.; Arnold, A.; Steentjes, K.; Pidgeon, N. Scientific truth or debate: On the link between perceived scientific consensus and belief in anthropogenic climate change. Public Underst. Sci. 2019, 28, 778–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Swim, J.; Clayton, S.; Doherty, T.; Gifford, R.; Howard, G.; Reser, J.; Stern, P.; Weber, E. Psychology and Global Climate Change: Addressing a Multi-Faceted Phenomenon and Set of Challenges. A Report by the American Psychological Association’s Task for on the Interface between Psychology and Global Climate Change. Available online: https://www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change (accessed on 22 June 2022).
  69. Lo, A.Y.; Chow, A.T. The relationship between climate change concern and national wealth. Clim. Change 2015, 131, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Inoue, Y.; Kent, A. Sport teams as promoters of pro-environmental behavior: An empirical study. J. Sport Manag. 2012, 26, 417–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Orr, M.; Inoue, Y.; Seymour, R.; Dingle, G. Impacts of climate change on organized sport: A scoping review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 2022, 13, e760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rixen, C.; Teich, M.; Lardelli, C.; Gallati, D.; Pohl, M.; Pütz, M.; Bebi, P. Winter tourism and climate change in the Alps: An assessment of resource consumption, snow reliability, and future snowmaking potential. Mt. Res. Dev. 2011, 31, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Casper, J.M.; Pfahl, M.E.; McCullough, B. Intercollegiate sport and the environment: Examining fan engagement based on athletics department sustainability efforts. J. Iss. Intercoll. Ath. 2014, 7, 65–91. [Google Scholar]
  74. Trail, G.T.; McCullough, B.P. Differential effects of internal and external constraints on sustainability intentions: A hierarchical regression analysis by market segment of running event participants. J. Manag. Glob. Sus. 2018, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Trail, G.T.; McCullough, B.P. Marketing sustainability through sport: Testing the sport sustainability campaign evaluation model. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2020, 20, 109–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wann, D.L.; Branscombe, N.R. Sports fans: Measuring degree of identification with their team. Int. J. Sport Psychol. 1993, 24, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  77. Hong, S.P.; Rhee, Y.-C. Effect of SNS on purchasing intention for sport product. Sport J. 2016, 20, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  78. Casper, J.M.; McCullough, B.P.; Pfahl, M.E. Examining environmental fan engagement with initiatives through values and norms with intercollegiate sport fans. Sport Manage. Rev. 2020, 23, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Casper, J.M.; Pfahl, M.E.; McCullough, B.P. Is going green worth it? Assessing fan engagement and perceptions of athletic department environmental efforts. J. App. Sport Manag. 2017, 9, 106–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Kellison, T.B.; Cianfrone, B.A. Distinctions in environmental attitudes between soccer and American football fans. Int. J. Sports Mark. Spos. 2023, 24, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Branscombe, N.R.; Wann, D.L. The positive social and self concept consequences of sports team identification. J. Sport Soc. Issues 1991, 15, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ahn, T.; Suh, Y.I.; Lee, J.K.; Pedersen, P.M. Sport fans and their teams’ redesigned logos: An examination of the moderating effect of team identification on attitude and purchase intention of team-logoed merchandise. J. Sport Manag. 2013, 27, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Smith, A. Theorising the relationship between major sport events and social sustainability. J Sport Tour. 2009, 14, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ngan, H.M.K.; Prendergast, G.P.; Tsang, A.S.L. Linking sports sponsorship with purchase intentions: Team performance, stars, and the moderating role of team identification. Eur. J. Mark. 2011, 45, 551–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Asada, A.; Ko, Y.J.; Jang, W.E. Effects of relative size and homogeneity of sports fan community on potential fans’ support intentions. J. Sport Manag. 2020, 34, 103–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Havard, C.T.; Eddy, T.W.; Ryan, T.D. Examining the impact of team identification and gender on rival perceptions and consumption intentions of intercollegiate athletics fans. J. Appl. Sport Manag. 2016, 8, 33–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Jang, E.; Wu, L.; Wen, J. Understanding the effects of different types of meaningful sports consumption on sports consumers’ emotions, motivations, and behavioral intentions. Sport Manag. Rev. 2021, 24, 46–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Chan, E.Y.; Lin, J. Political ideology and psychological reactance: How serious should climate change be? Clim. Change 2022, 172, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ettinger, J.; Walton, P.; Painter, J.; DiBlasi, T. Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos. Clim. Change 2021, 164, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Crosman, K.M.; Bostrom, A.; Hayes, A.L. Efficacy foundations for risk communication: How people think about reducing the risks of climate change. Risk Anal. 2019, 39, 2329–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Paolacci, G.; Chandler, J.; Ipeirotis, P.G. Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm. Decis. Mak. 2010, 5, 411–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Berinsky, A.J.; Huber, G.A.; Lenz, G.S. Evaluation online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s mechanical Turk. Polit. Anal. 2012, 20, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Malhotra, N.K. Analyzing marketing research data with incomplete information on the dependent variable. J. Mark. Res. 1987, 24, 74–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lock, D.; Heere, B. Identity crisis: A theoretical analysis of ‘team identification’ research. Eur. Sport Manag. Q. 2017, 17, 413–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Hu, L.T.; Bentler, P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 1999, 6, 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Hair, J.F.; Anderson, R.E.; Tatham, R.L.; Black, W.C. Multivariate Data Analysis, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 1998; ISBN 978-0138948585. [Google Scholar]
  97. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Douglas, M.; Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technological and Environmental Dangers; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1982; ISBN 0-520-05063-0. [Google Scholar]
  99. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates: New York, NY, USA, 1988; ISBN 978-0203771587. [Google Scholar]
  100. Hoffman, A.J. How Culture Shapes the Climate Debate; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2015; ISBN 978-0-8047-9422. [Google Scholar]
  101. McCullough, B.P.; Orr, M.; Kellison, T. Sport ecology: Conceptualizing an emerging subdiscipline within sport management. J. Sport Manag. 2020, 34, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Ross, W.J.; Orr, M. Predicting climate impacts to the Olympics Games and FIFA Men’s World Cups from 2022–2032. Sport Soc. 2022, 25, 867–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Orr, M.; Murfree, J.R.; Stargel, L. (Re)scheduling as a climate mitigation and adaptation strategy. Manag. Sport Leis. 2022, 27, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bethlehem, J. Selection bias in web surveys. Int. Stat. Rev. 2010, 78, 161–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Chandler, J.; Rosenweig, C.; Moss, A.J.; Robinson, J.; Litman, L. Online panels in social science research: Expanding sampling methods beyond Mechanical Turk. Behav. Res. Methods 2019, 51, 2022–2038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Huff, C.; Tingley, D. “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Res. Pol. 2015, 2, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Casper, J.M.; McCullough, B.P.; Smith, D.M.K. Pro-environmental sustainability and political affiliation: An examination of USA college sport sustainability efforts. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 07980 g001 550
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
Sustainability 15 07980 g001
Sustainability 15 07980 g002 550
Figure 2. Structural model for low sport identification group.
Figure 2. Structural model for low sport identification group.
Sustainability 15 07980 g002
Sustainability 15 07980 g003 550
Figure 3. Structural model for high sport identification group.
Figure 3. Structural model for high sport identification group.
Sustainability 15 07980 g003
Table
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis.
ConstructβMSD
Skepticism (AVE = 0.604; CR = 0.82)
 I am uncertain that climate change is really happening0.7393.5262.006
 The seriousness of climate change is exaggerated0.9183.4742.015
 It is uncertain what the effects of climate change will be 0.6504.2671.725
Generalized emotion (AVE = 0.842; CR = 0.94)
 I see climate change as something that is very pleasant/very unpleasant0.9265.2201.572
 Overall, I feel that climate change is very favorable/very unfavorable0.9135.3151.567
 To me, climate change is very positive/very negative0.9145.3301.546
Personal experiences with extreme weather
 Considering roughly the last 5 years, how often (in total) have you personally experienced any type of extreme weather event in your local U.S. area? N/A4.0461.625
General climate change risk perceptions (AVE = 0.795; CR = 0.94)
 In your judgement, how likely do you think it is that climate change will have very harmful, long-term impacts on our society? 0.8715.3501.388
 How serious of a threat do you think that climate change is to the natural environment? 0.8845.4311.436
 How serious would you rate current impacts of climate change around the world?0.9065.3201.402
 How serious would you rate current impacts of climate change for the U.S.?0.9045.3391.431
Sport specific climate change risk perceptions (AVE = 0.838; CR = 0.95)
 In your judgement, how likely do you think it is that climate change will have very harmful, long-term impacts on MLB? 0.8944.4021.567
 How serious of a threat do you think that climate change is to MLB?0.9354.3721.633
 How serious would you rate current impacts of climate change on MLB?0.9034.1761.693
 How serious would you rate current impacts of climate change on [Team]?0.9304.3021.730
Willingness to adapt (AVE = 0.663; CR = 0.92)
 Pay more for fuel and use my vehicle less often0.8294.0301.828
 Pay more for and use less electricity0.8653.9131.887
 Pay a higher price for consumer goods from companies with good environmental records0.8674.2981.785
 Buy more expensive electrical appliances that have better energy-efficient ratings rather than equivalent cheaper appliances0.7334.7331.699
 Increase the number of times I use public transportation, walk, or cycle each week0.7434.2201.895
 Pay to offset the carbon emissions from my airplane flights to reduce carbon emissions 0.8374.1311.932
Table
Table 2. Correlations, descriptive statistics, construct reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) for model variables.
Table 2. Correlations, descriptive statistics, construct reliability, and average variance extracted (AVE) for model variables.
Constructs123456
1.Skepticism (0.777)
2.Generalized emotion −0.648(0.917)
3.Personal experiences with extreme weather0.252−0.159N/A
4.General climate change risk perceptions−0.5370.5090.271(0.891)
5.Sport specific climate change risk perceptions−0.086−0.0010.4360.595(0.915)
6.Willingness to adapt−0.0590.0230.4450.5670.720(0.814)
M 3.7555.2884.0465.3604.3134.221
SD 1.6361.4771.6251.3001.5521.555
AVE 0.6040.842N/A0.7950.8380.663
Note. Items in diagonal parentheses are the square roots of the AVE values.
Table
Table 3. Structural model analysis for hypothesized paths.
Table 3. Structural model analysis for hypothesized paths.
Standardized Estimate (β)90% CISECritical Ratio (t)p
LLUL
H1SKEP–GCCRP (low)−0.537−0.632−0.4420.058−9.2680.000
SKEP–GCCRP (high)−0.248−0.403−0.0930.094−2.6300.009
H2aGE–GGCCRP (low)0.1590.0610.2560.0592.6740.007
GE–GGCCRP (high)0.5050.3750.6360.0796.3740.000
H2bPE–GCCRP (low)0.4580.3940.5220.03911.7260.000
PE–GCCRP (high)0.3670.2590.4750.0665.5980.000
H3GCCRP–SSCCRP (low)0.6220.5680.6760.03318.9280.000
GCCRP–SSCCRP (high)0.6010.5220.6800.04812.5550.000
H4SSCCRP–WTA (low)0.7220.6790.7650.02627.4640.000
SSCCRP–WTA (high)0.7240.6670.7810.03520.8990.000
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Murfree, J.R. Exploring Major League Baseball Fans’ Climate Change Risk Perceptions and Adaptation Willingness. Sustainability 2023, 15, 7980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107980

AMA Style

Murfree JR. Exploring Major League Baseball Fans’ Climate Change Risk Perceptions and Adaptation Willingness. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):7980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107980

Chicago/Turabian Style

Murfree, Jessica R. 2023. "Exploring Major League Baseball Fans’ Climate Change Risk Perceptions and Adaptation Willingness" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 7980. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15107980

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop