The research, conducted by a collaborative team from the Indian Institute of Forest Management in Bhopal, the Nature Conservation Foundation-India, and the Department of Biodiversity Sciences at the University of Turku in Finland, set out to examine how people in two contrasting coastal socio-ecological settings perceive, understand and respond to climate change. The comparison is technically instructive. Vypin and Kozhikode sit within the same broad geographic and climatic region, yet the communities inhabiting them described strikingly different climate realities. Residents of the low-lying island articulated concerns anchored in hydrological and geomorphological processes: inundation, land subsidence and the encroachment of the sea. On the mainland coast, the dominant concerns were ecological and economic, centring on declining fish abundance and changes in the size of sardines, a species that anchors local livelihoods. The finding demonstrates that even within a broadly similar environment, climate vulnerability is experienced, interpreted and articulated in ways shaped by geography, livelihood and place.

One of the study’s most significant contributions lies in what it reveals about the gap between climate awareness and scientific understanding. Participants were broadly aware that their environment was changing, and many produced detailed, observant accounts of those changes, describing shifting shorelines, altered rainfall patterns and transformations in marine ecosystems. Yet they did not frame these observations exclusively through the scientific vocabulary of greenhouse gases and anthropogenic warming. Instead, respondents connected climate change to deforestation, pollution, plastic waste disposal, urbanisation and other visible local environmental degradations. Some interpreted the changes through religious and cultural worldviews, invoking ideas of divine control, punishment or an approaching end of the world. Others held the misconception that climate change is caused primarily by local environmental problems such as the dumping of plastic waste. The researchers are careful to note that these framings should not be dismissed as ignorance; rather, they reveal how communities make sense of a complex and uncertain phenomenon through culturally embedded ways of understanding the world.

That interpretive diversity matters for policy in ways that go beyond communication aesthetics. Doctoral Researcher P. Afna of the Indian Institute of Forest Management, the study’s lead author, points out that certain misconceptions about the causes of climate change can create an inflated sense of individual and community responsibility. If people believe that changing their own behaviour alone can solve a problem driven by large-scale structural processes, attention may shift away from the obligations of governments, high-emitting sectors and other powerful actors to provide adaptation support, climate finance and other forms of assistance. In other words, misattributed causality is not merely a knowledge deficit; it can redistribute perceived moral responsibility in ways that let institutional actors off the hook. Effective climate communication, the study suggests, must therefore correct causal misunderstandings without simultaneously devaluing the local knowledge systems through which communities have organised their environmental observations for generations.

The study also documents that climate vulnerability is not experienced uniformly even among people living within sight of the same sea. Participants described a spectrum of concerns ranging from livelihood losses and temporary relocation to threats against homes, education, health and psychological well-being. Some expressed the fear that rising seas could eventually take their houses altogether, while others considered migration as a possible response to mounting vulnerability. These differentiated accounts of exposure and anxiety complicate the assumption, embedded in many top-down communication strategies, that coastal populations constitute a homogeneous audience receiving a uniform risk. A fisher whose sardine catch is collapsing and an islander whose compound floods each monsoon are living through different climate emergencies, and messages that fail to speak to those specific realities risk being ignored, misunderstood or actively distrusted.

Crucially, the communities studied were not passive victims awaiting external rescue. Participants described a range of self-initiated responses, including afforestation, reducing plastic pollution, coastal protection works and nature-based approaches. In Vypin, some residents identified mangroves as a means of reducing erosion and protecting settlements, and some had already planted mangroves around their own homes. This existing reservoir of local agency represents a significant, often overlooked asset for climate adaptation policy. The quantitative dimension of the study underlines how unevenly that agency is distributed: 65 percent of participants in Vypin said they could do something to address climate change, compared with only 16.25 percent in Kozhikode. Understanding why perceived agency differs so sharply between two nearby coastal communities could itself inform how adaptation programmes are designed, targeted and communicated.

When the researchers compared their empirical findings with current climate change policies in Kerala, they identified a structural mismatch. State-level climate communication continues to rely on broad, top-down messaging and scientific terminology that bears little relationship to what residents actually observe, fear and value in their immediate environments. The study argues that communication cannot succeed on these terms. Instead, it needs to connect scientific knowledge with lived experience, translating global climate science into the idioms of flooding fields, thinning sardine shoals and eroding shorelines that people already monitor daily. Doctoral Researcher Jithin Vijayan of the University of Turku’s Department of Biodiversity Sciences frames the challenge directly: people living at the forefront of climate change already possess important and relevant knowledge about the changes occurring around them, and the task is to connect that lived experience with scientific understanding without dismissing local knowledge, cultural beliefs or community perspectives.

To that end, the study calls for place-responsive approaches that deliberately bring together scientific knowledge, local and indigenous knowledge systems, community experiences and diverse cultural worldviews. The researchers recommend a practical toolkit: locally adapted communication materials tailored to specific socio-ecological settings, participatory dialogues that treat residents as knowledge holders rather than passive recipients, experiential education grounded in the landscapes people inhabit, and the co-production of climate knowledge with communities themselves. They also propose a roadmap for implementing these findings within the existing policy framework, suggesting that the gap between research and governance can be bridged without waiting for entirely new institutions. The emphasis on co-production reflects a broader shift in climate science toward recognising that adaptation is most effective when the people expected to adapt help define what adaptation means.

The implications extend well beyond Kerala. As climate impacts intensify across the Global South, governments and international agencies face mounting pressure to communicate risk at scale, and the temptation to standardise messaging is strong. This study offers a technical and ethical counterargument: standardisation erases precisely the local detail that makes climate change legible and actionable to exposed communities. Lived experience, the researchers show, can provide a detailed understanding of climate change even when people lack scientific terminology to describe it, and those understandings shape people’s sense of agency, their willingness to act and their expectations of institutional responsibility. Policy reforms that acknowledge and incorporate these local realities, rather than flattening them into uniform risk narratives, are likely to produce communication that is trusted, adaptation that is appropriate and climate governance that treats exposed communities as partners rather than audiences. In an era when the gap between climate science and public action remains stubbornly wide, the coastal voices of Kerala suggest that the missing ingredient may not be more information, but more listening.

Subject of Research: Local perceptions and lived experiences of climate change in coastal Kerala communities and their implications for climate communication and policy

Article Title: Acknowledging local climate change experiences is essential for policy reforms

Article References: Acknowledging local climate change experiences is essential for policy reforms. (n.d.). Original publication

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: Not provided

Keywords: climate change, Kerala, coastal communities, climate communication, local knowledge, sea-level rise, Vypin, Kozhikode, climate policy, Global South, community adaptation, Ocean & Coastal Management