Climate Awareness and Adaptation with the Utah Climate Access Portal

Intervention (Public)
This study compares two approaches to climate change communication. Participants are randomly assigned to either interact with an interactive, web-based climate communication tool that combines local climate data with place-based storytelling, or to read a traditional scientific article on climate change. Both activities take approximately 15–60 minutes and are completed online as part of a take-home course assignment. Surveys administered before and after the activity measure changes in climate knowledge, attitudes, and behavioral intentions.

2026-04-07

2026-04-14

Belief that climate change is happening
Self-rated understanding of climate change
Perceived impact of climate change on Utah-specific hazards: extreme heat, wildfires, droughts, and flooding
Perceived harm from climate change — personally, to Utah residents, and to future generations

All primary outcomes are measured using continuous slider scales (0–100) administered identically in the pre- and post-surveys. Composite scores will be constructed by averaging the four Utah-hazard items (extreme heat, wildfires, droughts, flooding) into a single perceived regional impact score, and averaging the three harm items (personal, Utah residents, future generations) into a single perceived harm score. Treatment effects will be estimated using pre/post differences between groups.

Perceived usefulness of the communication tool (treatment only)
Engagement and tool interaction breadth (treatment only)
Qualitative reflections on climate thinking change (both groups)
Compliance/dosage measures: time spent, percent of material consumed, sections read (both)

Secondary outcomes are measured through a combination of closed and open-ended items in the post-survey only:
Perceived usefulness and engagement is assessed through open-ended questions asking participants to describe situations where the assigned material would be useful and to share their genuine thoughts about it (both post-surveys). For the treatment group only, additional open-ended items capture suggestions for improving the tool and how interacting with UCAP affected their climate thinking.

Tool interaction breadth (treatment only) is measured through a checklist of UCAP features the participant interacted with, including the tutorial, Data tab, Story tab, Take Action tab, Letters from the Future stories, slider bars, location search, and emissions scenario toggle . The most and least liked features are also captured.

Qualitative change in climate thinking is captured in both groups through an open-ended item asking how the assigned activity affected their thinking about climate change.

Compliance and dosage measures are collected in the control post-survey through items on time spent reading, percentage of the article read, and sections of the article completed. An attention-check item asking about the spatial resolution of the assigned article is also included to assess reading compliance. For the treatment group, feature interaction checklists serve as the equivalent dosage measure.

This study uses an individual-level randomized controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of an interactive web-based climate communication tool compared to reading a traditional scientific article. Undergraduate students enrolled in a biology course at Utah State University voluntarily participate as part of a take-home extra credit assignment. Participants complete a pre-survey measuring baseline climate beliefs, self-rated understanding, perceived regional hazard impacts, and perceived harm from climate change. They are then randomly assigned to either interact with an interactive climate web tool or read a scientific article on climate change for a comparable amount of time. Immediately after completing the assigned activity, participants complete a post-survey measuring the same outcomes. Treatment effects are estimated by comparing pre- to post-survey changes between the two groups.

Not available

Randomization is performed by computer using Canvas's built-in random assignment and grouping function, which assigns consenting participants to one of two study groups (treatment or control) upon completion of the pre-survey.

The unit of randomization is the individual participant. Each student is independently and randomly assigned to either the treatment or control condition, with no clustering at the classroom or session level.

No

Not applicable. This study does not use cluster randomization. Randomization is conducted at the individual level. Approximately 350 individual participants are expected to be enrolled.

350 individual participants (undergraduate students enrolled in USU Biology 1620). Each participant contributes one pre-survey and one post-survey observation, for a total of approximately 700 survey observations. The sample is expected to be split evenly between the treatment and control conditions, with approximately 175 participants per group.

175 individual participants — Treatment condition (UCAP web tool)
175 individual participants — Control condition (scientific article reading)
Total: 350 individual participants

With 175 participants per arm (350 total), a two-tailed test, a significance level of α = 0.05, and 80% power, the minimum detectable effect size (MDE) is approximately 0.30 standard deviations (Cohen's d). For the primary outcomes measured on 0–100 slider scales, assuming a standard deviation of 20–25 points, this corresponds to a minimum detectable difference of approximately 6–7.5 points on the scale. No clustering adjustment is required as randomization is at the individual level.