**4. Results**

We present the results through 5 different analyses:

#### **4.1 Analysis 1**

For the first analysis only students of the University of Granada from all branches of knowledge from first year to fourth year were surveyed. The results of this study are that 100% of the respondents recognise the existence of CC and its impact (global and individual) and that it is due to human causes and are highly confident about it. The students surveyed have very general knowledge about CC, but contradictions in climate science concepts. They give themselves medium individual and collective responsibility, however, the opinion regarding scientific consensus is 50%.

There are 3 questions in the questionnaire referring to health, 2 of which are answered incorrectly and only one correctly. It can be stated that the knowledge on CC causes/consequences/solutions is low and they add that the information received in the degree course/specific information on CC is also low.

Finally, significant differences were found between science and literature students, with the Environmental Science degree being the one with the highest knowledge of climate science and in questions referring to climate risks and health. Differences were also found between first-year and fourth-year students.

#### **4.2 Analysis 2**

The results of this analysis are the same as those of the previous analysis in terms of opinions on the existence of cc and the security in them, however, on this occasion we have compared it with a demoscopy of 2013 with the Spanish population in general and in terms of beliefs of the existence of cc increases by more than 8 percentage points and by 20 points in the security that it is happening.

In this second analysis, the questionnaire was divided into 4 dimensions. In the causes dimension it was observed that 83.5% believe that CC is mainly due to human causes. 77.3% think that there is scientific consensus on this, however, the percentage is divided between those who think that there is scientific consensus on the causes and those who do not.

On the other hand, 73.3% think that the greenhouse effect is of natural origin, which is correct, while 40.6% believe that the greenhouse effect is caused by human activity, which is not the case. We also found significant differences in the degree. We observe that in the dimension causes and origins of greenhouse gases (**Table 1**) practically all the questions are answered correctly, but in the dimension bio-physical processes (**Table 2**) we can observe that the percentage of correct questions is lower.

On the other hand, in the consequences dimension (**Table 3**), the percentage of correct answers is also quite high, as is the solutions dimension (**Table 4**), where all the questions are answered correctly.

#### **4.3 Analysis 3**

In this third analysis the questionnaire has also been divided by dimensions, but this time the sample includes university students from all branches of knowledge.

As can be seen in the following image, the average of the four dimensions is 2.77, with the answers dimension once again being the one that stands out from this average and once again it is the processes dimension that is below it (**Figure 2**).


#### **Table 1.**

*Questions concerning the causes and origin of greenhouse gases.*

*Social Representation of Climate Change among Young Spanish University Students DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98258*


#### **Table 2.**

*Questions related to the bio-physical processes linked to CC.*


#### **Table 3.**

*Questions concerning the consequences of the CC.*


#### **Table 4.**

*Questions concerning the solutions of the CC.*

#### *The Nature, Causes, Effects and Mitigation of Climate Change on the Environment*

#### **Figure 2.**

*Average score by dimension in the questionnaire.*


#### **Table 5.**

*Mean and SD by academic year and branch of knowledge.*

If we compare this average by year and branch of knowledge (**Table 5**), once again, the answers dimension is the one that exceeds the average, but we can see that there are no differences as the year progresses and no major differences between those in science and those in the arts. When we look at the analysis of variance (**Table 6**) per item according to branch and year, we can see that there are no differences between science and arts, nor between first and last year in 28% of the questions in the questionnaire. On the other hand, there are no differences between science and arts, but there are differences in the year in 12% of the questionnaire, and on the other hand, there are differences in 43%. Finally, it is observed that there are differences in both the branch of knowledge and the academic year in 15% of the items.

So it can be concluded that:

Average number of correct answers to the total test is 65%, which means that the degree of climate literacy is medium.

There is a remarkable symmetry in the trends of the two independent variable handled: Course (64.78% at the beginning and 65.87% at the end) and Academic branch (68.1% for Natural Sciences and Technology (NST) and 61.68% for Social Science and Humanities (SSH).

The level of knowledge is not homogeneous.

A higher degree of Climate Literacy (CL) is observed in consequences of CC and responses to mitigate greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions or adapt to the


*Social Representation of Climate Change among Young Spanish University Students DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98258*

#### **Table 6.**

*Analysis of variance by item according to academic branch and year.*

consequences of anthropogenic alteration of the Earth's climate; and a lower degree of CL in items referring to the causes and physical processes involved in CC.

Differences between NST vs. SSH are observed, reinforced when contrasting the results on the variable titration, with statistically significant differences in 60% of the items.

28% of the items show significant differences between 1st and last year and possible prevalence of common knowledge over scientific knowledge: there are items in which SSH students show a significantly higher competence than NST students.

#### **4.4 Analysis 4**

In this fourth analysis, the patterns are repeated in terms of questions referring to the existence of CC, in the certainty in it and that it is due to human causes. In this case, the social sciences and humanities students were used as the sample. The questionnaire was also divided into dimensions, but this time the results were shown as scores instead of averages. The maximum score that could be obtained was 128 and the minimum 32 (assigning 1 point to an incorrect answer and 4 to the correct one).

As can be seen in the figure (**Figure 3**), the average score is 86.71 points, and curiously, the degree with the highest score is History.

Once again, the consequences and solutions dimensions are the dimensions with the highest percentages of correct answers and therefore the highest levels of climate literacy.

Significant differences were also detected in all the categories analysed.

#### *The Nature, Causes, Effects and Mitigation of Climate Change on the Environment*

#### **Figure 3.**

**Figure 4.** *General opinion questions on CC.*

**Figure 5.** *General opinion questions on CC in the different context analysed.*

*Social Representation of Climate Change among Young Spanish University Students DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.98258*
