The public perception of climate change in Taiwan and its paradigm shift Chou Kuei Tien n Graduate Institute of National Development, National Taiwan University, No.1, Section 4, Roosevelt Road, Taipei 10167, Taiwan HIGHLIGHTS  The public had critical view on the policy decision-making of climate change.  There is low public trust in the government's capacity to resist climate change.  The public requested more risk communication, transparency and participation.  The pursuit of an alternative sustainable economic society is highly expected.  People supported renewable energy by higher prices for carbon reduction. article info Article history: Received 1 April 2013 Accepted 6 June 2013 Available online 9 July 2013 Keywords: Climate change perception Governance paradigm shift Public awareness abstract This study attempts to explore the risk perceptions of climate change in Taiwan. It probes into the public's views toward governments' risk communication regarding climate change, citizens' participation in decision-making, and their trust in the capacity of governments toward risk governance, as well as their attitude towards corporate social responsibility. For analysis, we developed ten types of perceptions under three dimensions: namely the severity of climate change (Type 1), the development of sustainable society (Types 2, 3, 4 and 5), and the risk governance and communication (Types 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) to discuss whether the Taiwanese public's perception of climate change was prepared for a socially reflective paradigm shift. Regarding the three dimensions in the questionnaire design, although this study individually measured the public's risk perception, there was a high correlation between the variance analysis results among the three dimensions. This could systematically explain the potential change of the governance paradigm in Taiwanese society concerning structural transformation. & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction With the impact of severe global climate change, the develop- ment paradigm of modern sustainable society has changed from that of environmental governance to climate change risk govern- ance. Since the 1990s, especially with the Declaration for Sustain- able Development made at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, climate change governance has attracted more attention, as it is seen reflected by the Kyoto Protocol established in 1997. At the begin- ning of the 21st century, the world encountered severe climate disasters and diverse impacts of technology on ecology. Thus governments, and the public, around the world began paying more attention towards risk governance, and the precautionary principle of climate calamities and combined disasters. The uncertain impact of climate change on global industry, environment, health, food safety, community and social sustain- ability has exceeded the scope of scientific evaluation and data analysis. The decision-making related to stakeholders relies on more diverse, long-term and interactive risk governance (with citizen participation). The world has not only established interna- tional climate governance research networks, but has also constructed participatory technological assessment of related policies in various countries and regions. Discussion of significant policies of a particular country via risk communication, including social participation, democratic diversity and negotiation, and risk perception mechanisms in precautionary principles, is the key reference for international organizations to measure the systema- tic and complete risk governance of the country (WHO, 2002). Regarding the challenge of governance, modern governments cannot deal with climate change through traditional methods of control. In order to obtain the public's trust and enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, they must include the public's risk perception and communication in control and decision-making. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol Energy Policy 0301-4215/$ - see front matter & 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.016 n Tel./fax: +886 2 23658693. E-mail address: ktchou@ntu.edu.tw Energy Policy 61 (2013) 1252–1260