Understanding the reluctance of some rural communities to connect climate change with increasing hazard exposure.

The "information deficit model" in the context of climate change refers to the idea that public skepticism or lack of action regarding climate change is primarily due to a lack of knowledge about the scientific facts, and that providing more information to the public will therefore effectively change their attitudes and behaviors towards climate change mitigation and adaptation. This study challenges the assumptions of the information deficit model by highlighting how community history, geopolitics, and vulnerability shape climate change attitudes in Down East, a rural coastal region in North Carolina with a formerly natural-resource-based economy. Residents are largely working class living in generational homes. Through a set of coded interviews with residents, we identified several key features of climate change denial and disengagement. We are working with local partners to develop pathways for climate risk conversations and project development. It is hoped that lessons learned can be exported to other rural, unincorporated areas of the US.

The study area is an unincorporated section of Carteret County adjacent to Cape Lookout National Seashore in eastern North Carolina. It is arguably one of the most sea level rise and storm vulnerable regions of the United States’ East Coast. Data collected by the Sunny Day Flooding Project show that high tide flooding inundated roads around 133 days in 2024. Sea level rise has lifted the local water table high enough that forests are dying and in-ground wastewater treatment systems (septic) are failing. Tropical storms routinely damage property and cut the community off from emergency access.

Despite these obvious changes and vulnerabilities, climate denialism and disengagement remain prevalent in the politically conservative, unincorporated communities of Down East North Carolina. Respondents frequently expressed concerns about government regulation, issues of scale, personal autonomy, and responsibility. A common theme was distrust in top-down governmental actions to address climate change, which often manifested as grievances regarding inadequate disaster relief efforts. In this politically conservative environment, disaster-related language tends to elicit stronger responses than discussions framed explicitly around climate change. For slow-onset events, such as recurrent high tide flooding, climate change discourse is less effective in guiding local decision-making. Although environmental oral traditions are traditionally viewed as a positive indicator of climate change awareness, this study found that they can generate varied beliefs. Interviewees with family histories in the fishing industry often invoked intergenerational knowledge to emphasize faith in a cyclical and balanced environment, underscoring a laissez-faire environmental ethic. Overall, we found that climate change denial in rural coastal communities is a complex phenomenon that cannot be fully explained by information deficit models. Given these gaps, future climate communication strategies should pursue avenues of reciprocal education and attentive listening. To this end, we have engaged with a local cultural heritage center to begin a conversation with local residents through schools, churches and civic organizations. Ultimately, the goal is to address climate change impacts through conversations surrounding storm impacts, while developing adaptation projects that address storm-driven flooding and sea level rise simultaneously.