CALS 501

As I started to write the final blog post for CALS 501 Leading Climate Action in Society, I looked back on my initial blog post at the start of the course and the program itself. The post centered around the concept of design thinking and all of the nuances we were learning about; however, after a year of the design thinking challenge, I think it is safe to say that the only way to really understand design thinking is to experience it. Our team went through many iterations, ideas, and concepts before arriving at the prototype that we presented last week. Each course provided us with a fresh perspective and new learnings to consider and incorporate into the design thinking challenge.

Starting the program, climate anxiety was an area of interest for me, partially because I was transitioning from working in mental health and I wanted to bridge the gap with my previous experience, and partially because I had experienced some level of climate anxiety myself. At the beginning of the design thinking challenge, addressing climate anxiety was low on the list of elements to incorporate into our idea. By the end of the challenge, we had created a prototype for an app called “Resilience” that addresses climate grief and anxiety for parents and youth by transforming anxiety into action through daily challenges.

The theory of change that we used to inform our thinking allowed me to view climate anxiety and grief in a whole new way. By engaging parents first as role models, we can mobilize youth to take climate action (Elsen & Ord, 2021). Inter-generational climate action can be taken once psychological, emotional, and social barriers have been addressed. (Ojala, 2012). The daily challenges provided by the app utilize therapeutic coping skills, decolonizing knowledge, place attachment, and collective action to foster psychological resilience, both on an individual level and community level.

Prior to this, I had never thought of decolonizing knowledge, place attachment, or inter-generational climate action as ways of coping with climate anxiety. Exploring the research that is being done in these areas provided hope for the future of collectively managing feelings of climate anxiety. There are many examples of how the various courses that we took throughout our first year informed our thinking for the design thinking challenge. One example that I will speak to specifically is the concept of place attachment. Place attachment is an emotional bond between a person and a place and is shown to have benefits for human health and pro-environmental behaviours (Junot et al., 2018). This is a concept that we learned and experienced in CALS 502 Communication for Climate Action. One of our assignments was to have a sit spot that we visited weekly to experience place attachment. This is just one example of a concept that we learned and experienced the power of, which resulted in our team including it in the prototype.

This first year and the design thinking challenge have allowed for major learning and growth. Connecting with my design thinking team and the whole cohort has been a fulfilling experience and I’m looking forward to continuing to connect and push the agenda on climate action with this group.

References

Elsen, F. & Ord, J., 2021). The Role of Adults in “Youth Led” Climate Groups: Enabling Empowerment. Frontiers in Political Science. DOI:10.3389/fpos.2021.641154 

Junot, A., Paquet, Y., & Fenouillet, F. (2018). Place attachment influence on human well-being and general pro-environmental behaviors. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, 2(2), 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/jts5.18 

Ojala, M. (2012). How do children cope with global climate change? coping strategies, engagement, and well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(3), 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.02.004 

To set the scene, we are now checking in after completing CALS 502- Communication for Climate Action, having completed the first half of CALS 503- Climate Risk Management, and ideating the Design Thinking (DT) Challenge, which is an ongoing component of CALS 501- Leading Climate Action in Society Part 1. The DT challenge is an iterative process, my DT team has been through many versions of our idea and we are now at the prototyping stage of the challenge. The question that we are trying to answer with the DT challenge is “what are ways we might encourage the public [businesses, politicians, educational institutions, not for profits, communities] to use their voice and understanding to become more actively engaged in creating and implementing climate adaptation strategies?” We chose to focus on youth and create an open education source to empower youth to take action on climate change.

Recently in CALS 503- Climate Risk Management, we studied different approaches to climate risk assessments. A bottom-up approach focuses on involving partners or stakeholders from the first stages of the process and using their knowledge and expertise of the area. Building trust is a key element of a bottom-up approach, which takes time. The hope is that this is time well spent because it is proven that involving stakeholders or partners in all stages of the process improves the chances of long-term success in reducing risk. (CCME, 2021).

At this point in the DT challenge, we are focusing on facilitating a DT challenge for the youth participants. This concept would provide youth with the tools and supports for them to be the experts and leaders of their own ideas and climate solutions. Similarly to a bottom-up approach of climate risk assessment, it focuses on the youth/stakeholder/partner being involved from the beginning of the process. As mentioned, one key factor in the a bottom-up approach is forming a trusting relationship. How do we ensure that trust is part of the equation so that youth feel seen, heard, and ready to take action?

The concept of trust between educator and audience was explored more deeply in CALS 502- Communication for Climate Action. “Trust between the educator and the audience plays a key role in audience receptivity to climate change messages. Educators can establish trust by working with local trusted partners and opinion leaders and by thinking carefully about the messenger” (Armstrong et al., 2018, p. 76). The text goes on to state that environmental educators are often already considered a trusted source of information. As mentioned, the aim of our DT challenge concept is to give youth the tools and resources to take action. How do we create trust between the concept we are creating (the educator) and the youth (the audience)?

In a presentation on risk, vulnerability, and resilience, Dr Lori Peek states that “young people learn the most, they remember the most, and they are able to affect the most change when they are the ones to identify both the problems and the solutions” (The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center, 2016). Giving the youth as much independence and control as possible has been a key focus in our team’s DT thinking challenge process.

Establishing trust in the climate action space is a theme that has surfaced in each course so far and is a component that I hope our team can incorporate into the DT challenge. The questions that I still have are how can we establish trust from an online platform? Will the level of trust established impact the amount of leadership and independence taken on by the youth?

References

Armstrong, A. K., Krasny, M. E., & Schuldt, J. P. (2018). Communicating climate change: A guide for educators. Comstock Publishing Associates, an imprint of Cornell University Press.

Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). (2021). Guidance on Good Practices in Climate Change Risk Assessment.

The National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center. (2016, February 18). Risk, vulnerability, and resilience. [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlXWot27Omk

Throughout the first week of the learning intensive in the MACAL program, we explored many ideas and concepts that were somewhat new to me. From open learning, transdisciplinary learning, complexity and systems thinking, to design thinking. After reviewing my notes and digesting the material from week 1, the thing that I found surprising was that open learning was a new concept for me. Now that I know a more about open learning, it just makes sense.

Out of all of the ideas that we explored in week one, the idea that stands out to me the most is design thinking. The real-world examples of design thinking that were explored were truly impressive and often life changing projects. “Design thinking uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity” (Brown, 2008).

Cankurtaran and Beverland state that the three stages in the design thinking process are; disrupt, define and develop, and transform. I found disrupt to be the most unique element of design thinking compared to other planning and problem solving strategies. It is often default to hear of a problem and jump right to finding a solution. The disrupt stage ensures that everyone’s perspectives and the problem itself are understood before defaulting to a solution. Disrupt consists of naïve questioning, problem interrogation, and contextual immersion. The naïve questioning piece involves asking seemingly simple questions. When you think you have asked enough questions, ask more. According to Cankurtaran and Beverland, this will “uncover existing assumptions, and help generate ideas for new alternatives.” Problem interrogation allows you to spend more time on the problem, rather than jumping straight to an attempted solution. And lastly, contextual immersion, which is all about empathizing with the person/client involved.

Design thinking focuses on the needs and lived experiences of the person/client and does not jump to a solution without fully understanding the problem from their perspective. When learning about this valuable process, we were given many examples of how wonderfully design thinking had worked with specific people and communities. It wasn’t until we practiced design thinking and I was interviewing my partner in the “disrupt” stage that I fully understood the power of design thinking. Without realizing it, I had jumped to what I thought was a solution to the problem. After spending what I thought would feel like a long time (but actually went by quickly) naïve questioning, I realized that the “solution” that I had come up with in my head would not have worked at all. That experience taught me the power and importance of listening in the context of design thinking.

References

Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86 (6), 84-92.

Cankurtaran, P., & Beverland, M. B. (2020). Using design thinking to respond to crises: B2B lessons from the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 255–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.030