The year 2023 brought record-breaking billion-dollar weather disasters, which took a tremendous financial and personal toll on Americans nationwide. As extreme weather continues to make headlines, a new Pew Research Center survey asks Americans what policies they support to address weather-related damage. We also ask people who recently lived through extreme weather events if they think climate change contributed to them, and how their lives were affected.

Jump to read more about: Views on extreme weather policies for places at high risk | Personal experiences with extreme weather | Climate change’s contribution to extreme weather | Negative personal impacts of extreme weather

Views on extreme weather policies for places at high risk

In response to extreme weather, home insurers are hiking premiums and governments are weighing construction restrictions in high-risk zones, among other proposals. Our survey finds some areas of consensus around policies that respondents like – and do not like – to deal with extreme weather.

Building regulations

Respondents like more oversight of construction in areas vulnerable to weather disasters but are much less supportive of outright building bans. When asked about government setting stricter building standards in these high-risk communities, 73% say this is a good idea. In contrast, just 37% say the same of measures to ban new construction.

Financial assistance

Americans have mixed views about government financial assistance, depending on the kind of support. More than half (57%) support aid for communities to rebuild after extreme weather events, with a far smaller share (20%) saying this is a bad idea. Views on providing support to pay rising home insurance costs are more divided, with 40% saying this is a good idea and 34% saying this is a bad idea. But when asked about government buying people’s homes in high-risk areas so they can purchase ones in lower-risk areas, more say this is a bad (38%) than good (25%) idea.

Required relocation

One policy idea that is unpopular among Americans is requiring people in high-risk areas to move out of their communities: Far larger shares say this is a bad rather than good idea (51% vs. 13%).

Policy views by party

There’s general bipartisan support for policies to set higher building standards, and to help pay rebuilding costs. Majorities of both Democrats (79%) and Republicans (68%) share the view that stricter standards for new construction in high-risk areas are a good idea. Just 15% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents and 6% of Democrats and Democratic leaners say this is a bad idea.

Similarly, across parties, when it comes to financial assistance to rebuild, larger shares say this is a good idea than bad. Half of Republicans say this is a good idea, compared with 26% who say it’s a bad idea. But the spread is much wider among Democrats, with 63% saying it’s a good idea and 16% saying it’s a bad idea.

Republicans and Democrats also are fairly united in their disapproval of requiring people to move out of high-risk areas. Very small shares of Republicans (10%) and Democrats (17%) say this is a good idea, while 61% of Republicans and 43% of Democrats say this is a bad idea.

Views differ somewhat by party when it comes to banning new construction. Larger shares of Democrats feel this is a good idea (44%) than a bad idea (20%). But among Republicans, these views are flipped, with 39% saying these bans are a bad idea and 31% saying they are a good idea.

There’s also a partisan split when it comes to helping people cover the rising cost of home insurance. Larger shares of Republicans say this is a bad idea (46%) than a good idea (30%). But for Democrats, 50% feel this is a good idea, versus 25% who say it’s a bad idea.

Related: Read our 2024 report How Americans View National, Local and Personal Energy Choices

Personal experiences with extreme weather

About seven-in-ten Americans (72%) report that their local community experienced at least one of the five types of extreme weather events we asked about in the past 12 months: severe weather, like floods or intense storms; long stretches of unusually hot weather; droughts or water shortages; rising sea levels; or major wildfires.

Regional differences

We found pronounced regional differences in reported extreme weather. Half of Westerners and 54% of Southerners say they experienced stretches of unusually hot weather in the past year, compared with roughly a third each in the Northeast or Midwest. And major wildfires are reported by 38% of respondents in the West, but only by 8% in the Northeast and Midwest.

Partisan reporting

Democrats are much more likely than Republicans to say they’ve experienced extreme weather events. For example, 57% of Democrats say they’ve lived through long periods of unusually hot weather, compared with 34% of Republicans. These partisan gaps hold even among Democrats and Republicans who live in the same region.

Climate change’s contribution to extreme weather

According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate change is driving increased extreme weather. Among respondents who say they’ve lived through any of the extreme weather events we asked about, there is broad agreement that climate change is a contributor.

For instance, an overwhelming majority (91%) make this link for rising sea levels, with 57% saying climate change contributed a lot and 34% saying it contributed a little.

The same goes for long periods of unusually hot weather, with 61% saying climate change contributed a lot and 28% saying it contributed a little.

Views by party on role of climate change

Among those who report experiencing extreme weather in the past year, large shares in both parties say that climate change contributes to these events at least a little. But while nearly all Democrats make this connection for each of the five types of extreme weather we asked about, smaller shares of Republicans share this view.

For example, 97% of Democrats see climate change as a contributor to long periods of unusually hot weather, compared with 74% of Republicans.

Democrats also hold stronger convictions than Republicans about the relationship between climate change and extreme weather. For instance, 65% of Democrats say climate change contributed a lot to the severe weather, like floods or intense storms, that they experienced, and 30% say it contributed a little. In contrast, among Republicans, 23% say that climate change contributed a lot, while 39% say it contributed a little.

Negative personal impacts of extreme weather

Extreme weather events can be devastating, straining household finances, damaging mental health and threatening lives. Among those who say they’ve experienced at least one of the extreme weather events asked about in our survey during the past 12 months, 70% say it had a negative impact on their own life. This includes 57% who say it had a minor negative impact and 13% who say it had a major negative impact.

Extreme weather’s impact, in their own words

We asked the respondents who said they’ve experienced negative impacts from extreme weather to answer an open-ended question about how these events negatively impacted their lives.

Here’s what they said:

Respondents whose jobs depend on reliable transportation or crop production mentioned how extreme weather events affected their livelihoods and income. One Midwestern woman in her 80s mentioned that “crops were not good so, of course, since we farm, our income was very low.”

Personal property damage or construction costs were mentioned in 15% of responses, spanning damage to houses, cars and yards. An additional 19% spoke of community impacts, like road closures and power outages. One woman in her 70s from the South said, “In the summer of 2023, we had to water the foundation of our home to try to avoid foundation problems like many in our community have had.”

In addition to the costs to repair personal property, 10% of respondents mentioned being hit with additional expenses like escalating utility bills or elevated home insurance premiums. One respondent noted that “the cost of home insurance, even with no claims, has tripled” (woman, 60s, South).

Lifestyle impacts were reported by 16%, with affected respondents mentioning being stuck inside due to heat or storms. One Southern woman in her 30s noted, “Major storms made it very dangerous for me [to] travel where I need to go, like to work and to medical appointments.” Relatedly, 5% said their work or schools were limited or even closed entirely.

Physical and mental health consequences of extreme weather were reported by 11% of affected respondents. They mentioned how hard it was to be stuck indoors and shared their anxiety about future weather disasters. One said, “It reduced my desire to get outside and exercise, which affected my (and my family’s) mood and physical health” (man, 40s, South).

This report is made possible by The Pew Charitable Trusts. It is a collaborative effort based on the input and analysis of the following individuals. Find related reports online at: pewresearch.org/science.

Primary research team       

Eileen Yam, Director, Science and Society Research
Alec Tyson, Associate Director, Science and Society Research
Brian Kennedy, Senior Researcher
Giancarlo Pasquini, Research Associate
Emma Kikuchi, Research Assistant    
Isabelle Pula, Research Assistant      

Editorial and graphic design          

Rebecca Leppert, Copy Editor
Kaitlyn Radde, Associate Information Graphics Designer

Communications and web publishing      

Haley Nolan, Communications Manager
Mithila Samak, Communications Associate
Reem Nadeem, Digital Producer

In addition, the project benefited greatly from the guidance of the Pew Research Center methodology team: Courtney Kennedy, Andrew Mercer, Ashley Amaya, Dorene Asare-Marfo, Dana Popky, Anna Brown and Arnold Lau.

The American Trends Panel survey methodology

Overview

The American Trends Panel (ATP), created by Pew Research Center, is a nationally representative panel of randomly selected U.S. adults. Panelists participate via self-administered web surveys. Panelists who do not have internet access at home are provided with a tablet and wireless internet connection. Interviews are conducted in both English and Spanish. The panel is being managed by Ipsos.

Data in this report is drawn from ATP Wave 148, conducted from May 13 to 19, 2024, and includes an oversample of non-Hispanic Asian adults, non-Hispanic Black adults, Hispanic adults, adults ages 18 to 29, and panelists who are using a Center-provided tablet, in order to provide more precise estimates of the opinions and experiences of these smaller demographic subgroups. These oversampled groups are weighted back to reflect their correct proportions in the population. A total of 8,638 panelists responded out of 9,567 who were sampled, for a response rate of 90%. The cumulative response rate accounting for nonresponse to the recruitment surveys and attrition is 3%. The break-off rate among panelists who logged on to the survey and completed at least one item is 1%. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 8,638 respondents is plus or minus 1.5 percentage points.

Panel recruitment

The ATP was created in 2014, with the first cohort of panelists invited to join the panel at the end of a large, national, landline and cellphone random-digit-dial survey that was conducted in both English and Spanish. Two additional recruitments were conducted using the same method in 2015 and 2017, respectively. Across these three surveys, a total of 19,718 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 9,942 (50%) agreed to participate.

In August 2018, the ATP switched from telephone to address-based sampling (ABS) recruitment. A study cover letter and a pre-incentive are mailed to a stratified, random sample of households selected from the U.S. Postal Service’s Delivery Sequence File. This Postal Service file has been estimated to cover as much as 98% of the population, although some studies suggest that the coverage could be in the low 90% range.¹ Within each sampled household, the adult with the next birthday is asked to participate. Other details of the ABS recruitment protocol have changed over time but are available upon request.²

We have recruited a national sample of U.S. adults to the ATP approximately once per year since 2014. In some years, the recruitment has included additional efforts (known as an “oversample”) to boost sample size with underrepresented groups. For example, Hispanic, Black and Asian adults were oversampled in 2019, 2022 and 2023, respectively.

Across the six address-based recruitments, a total of 23,862 adults were invited to join the ATP, of whom 20,917 agreed to join the panel and completed an initial profile survey. Of the 30,859 individuals who have ever joined the ATP, 11,897 remained active panelists and continued to receive survey invitations at the time this survey was conducted.

The American Trends Panel never uses breakout routers or chains that direct respondents to additional surveys.

Sample design

The overall target population for this survey was noninstitutionalized persons ages 18 and older living in the U.S., including Alaska and Hawaii. It featured a stratified random sample from the ATP in which Hispanic men, non-Hispanic Black men, non-Hispanic Asian adults, adults ages 18 to 29, and panelists who are using a Center-provided tablet were selected with certainty. The remaining panelists were sampled at rates designed to ensure that the share of respondents in each stratum is proportional to its share of the U.S. adult population to the greatest extent possible. Respondent weights are adjusted to account for differential probabilities of selection as described in the Weighting section below.

Questionnaire development and testing

The questionnaire was developed by Pew Research Center in consultation with Ipsos. The web program was rigorously tested on both PC and mobile devices by the Ipsos project management team and Pew Research Center researchers. The Ipsos project management team also populated test data that was analyzed in SPSS to ensure the logic and randomizations were working as intended before launching the survey.

Incentives

All respondents were offered a post-paid incentive for their participation. Respondents could choose to receive the post-paid incentive in the form of a check or a gift code to Amazon.com or could choose to decline the incentive. Incentive amounts ranged from $5 to $20 depending on whether the respondent belongs to a part of the population that is harder or easier to reach. Differential incentive amounts were designed to increase panel survey participation among groups that traditionally have low survey response propensities.

Data collection protocol

The data collection field period for this survey was May 13-19, 2024. Postcard notifications were mailed to a subset of ATP panelists with a known residential address on May 13.³

Invitations were sent out in two separate launches: soft launch and full launch. Seventy panelists were included in the soft launch, which began with an initial invitation sent on May 13. The ATP panelists chosen for the initial soft launch comprised of 60 known responders who had completed previous ATP surveys within one day of receiving their invitation and a random sample of 10 panelists who are using a Center-provided tablet. All remaining English- and Spanish-speaking sampled panelists were included in the full launch and were sent an invitation on May 14.

All panelists with an email address received an email invitation and up to two email reminders if they did not respond to the survey. All ATP panelists who consented to SMS messages received an SMS invitation and up to two SMS reminders.

Data quality checks

To ensure high-quality data, the Center’s researchers performed data quality checks to identify any respondents showing clear patterns of satisficing. This includes checking for whether respondents left questions blank at very high rates or always selected the first or last answer presented. As a result of this checking, seven ATP respondents were removed from the survey dataset prior to weighting and analysis.

Weighting

The ATP data is weighted in a multistep process that accounts for multiple stages of sampling and nonresponse that occur at different points in the survey process. First, each panelist begins with a base weight that reflects their probability of selection for their initial recruitment survey. These weights are then rescaled and adjusted to account for changes in the design of ATP recruitment surveys from year to year. Finally, the weights are calibrated to align with the population benchmarks in the accompanying table to correct for nonresponse to recruitment surveys and panel attrition. If only a subsample of panelists was invited to participate in the wave, this weight is adjusted to account for any differential probabilities of selection.

Among the panelists who completed the survey, this weight is then calibrated again to align with the population benchmarks identified in the accompanying table and trimmed at the 2nd and 98th percentiles to reduce the loss in precision stemming from variance in the weights. This trimming is performed separately among non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Asian, Hispanic, and all other respondents. Sampling errors and tests of statistical significance take into account the effect of weighting.

The following table shows the unweighted sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey.

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request. In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Dispositions and response rates

© Pew Research Center 2024