June 10, 2022

In reflecting on incremental versus transformative adaptation to climate change, Gardiner’s (2011) seminal book, A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change, comes to mind. Gardiner reminds us that the climate crisis is fundamentally an ethical issue. Euro-western society has an affinity to focus our responses on the spheres of science, technology, policies, and geo-politics. Furthermore, our responses are predominantly incremental and near-term in scale. This raises key questions: are we solving the right problem, could incrementalism be amplifying the climate crisis, and what is at risk if we are working on the wrong problem?

Drawing on the metaphor of a fishing boat caught in three intersecting storms, any of which could sink the boat, Stephen Gardiner (CGC, 2020) highlights three ethical challenges of climate change. The first is the global storm: to recognize that no matter where we emit carbon to support our present-day comforts, the impacts are global and those least responsible for emissions are bearing profound costs for our benefits. The second is the inter-generational storm: to recognize the time lag between emissions release and climate change impacts. These impacts will impose unfathomable losses and costs on future generations. The third is the ecological storm: to recognize the vast species loss that is occurring to support our day-to-day conveniences and comforts. This metaphor illustrates that the root problem is a human problem – one that requires reflection on ethics and values.

Calls for transformative change echo through the narratives of climate and sustainability leaders, and increasingly in global action frameworks including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and the Paris Agreement. Intuitively we understand that there is a substantive difference between incremental and transformative change, but do we understand what defines transformative change and how we get there? In the absence of clarity on what constitutes transformative adaptation and what we seek to transform, can we meaningful progress? Or are the words “transformative adaptation” destined to be green jargon fading over time like bleaching coral reefs. So, what is transformative adaptation?

Fedele et al. (2019) define transformative adaptation as fundamental systems change with six distinctive characteristics including restructuring, path-shifting, innovative, multiscale, systemwide, and persistent (p. 119). They contrast transformative adaptation, fundamental alterations to social and/or ecological systems, with incrementalism where adjustments in systems occur but the underlying characteristics of systems remain unchanged. Lonsdale et al. (2015) similarly define transformative adaptation as systemic and fundamental change in contrast to incremental “change at the margins” (p. 5). They also pose the question of what is needed to move ‘transformative adaptation’ from a concept to a practice and offer a survey of practice models. Each of these directions provide insight towards understanding transformative adaptation, but do they point us to the right problem?

At its essence, the climate crisis is an ethical crisis, not a technology, policy, or procedural crisis. Ethics involve our individual values, what matters to us at the most fundamental levels (CGC, 2020). If transformative change requires addressing root causes (Fedele et al., 2019), then transformative responses to the climate crisis will require connecting our ethics and values to our decision making. Retolaza’s (2011) research on the dimensions of social change supports this assertion. Three of four of Retolaza’s social change dimensions centre on human ways of knowing, being, and doing – each of which are values centred. These include personal transformation, transforming collective patterns of action and thinking, and transforming relationships (see Figure 1). The fourth dimension is transforming structures and procedures. If we begin by focusing on personal values, mindsets and ways of knowing, we are more likely to reach transformative and systemic change in our structures and procedures. How then do we do this?

Figure 1.

Four Dimensions of Social Change

Note. Adapted from Wilber 1996, 2007; Thomas 2006; Retolaza 2008. Source Lonsdale et al. (2011).

One powerful pathway to reconnecting to values and transforming ways of knowing lies in the wisdom and teachings of Indigenous knowledge systems. Indigenous knowledge systems are “broad, holistic, place-based, relational, and intergenerational” (Government of B.C., 2021, p. 22). They provide a fundamentally different worldview from Western science and culture. Indigenous knowledge systems can help us to think in different temporal scales drawing from ancestral knowledge of seven generations past to the caring for seven generations forward, an antidote to Gardiner’s inter-generational storm. They remind us of the interconnection of social and ecological systems, and that our health and well-being are inseparable from the health and well-being of the natural world, an antidote to Gardiner’s ecological storm. In Returning the Gift (2014), Robin Wall Kimmerer’s poetic words remind us of the need for a change of ethics.  

“I don’t think that it is more technology we need, or more money or more data. We need a change in heart, a change in ethics, away from an anthropocentric worldview that considers the Earth our exploitable property to a biocentric, life-centered worldview in which an ethic of respect and reciprocity can grow” (Kimmerer, 2014, p. 22).

The lure of incrementalism or quick wins in climate adaptation and mitigation is strong. We seek validation that we are good citizens, good organizations, and good countries. Incrementalism creates complacency with simply doing less bad which distracts from the larger problems at hand, and this substantially increases risk and cost to future generations who will be left facing far greater challenges than us today. It also allows continued degradation of our natural world. This raises important questions when developing the business case for change. For example, how can we integrate ethics (consideration of global, inter-generational, and ecological well-being) into the business case analysis for adaptation and mitigation? What tools and methods do we need to centre values and ways of knowing within planning and decision making for climate action? Can we reconceive incremental change as capacity building steps within a larger vision of transformative change?   

The climate crisis is fundamentally an ethical dilemma. If transformative change requires addressing root causes (Fedele et al., 2019), then transformative responses to the climate crisis will require connecting our ethics and values to our decision making. To disrupt the perfect moral storm, we must reach beyond the fleeting rewards of incremental less bad and transform our value systems.  The “transformative quest to change the future of humanity” (CGC, 2020, 22.37) is then principally a quest of changing values and mindsets.

References:

CGC (Cambridge Global Conversations). (2020). Stephen Gardiner on Climate ethics: A perfect moral storm [Video]. Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/376304243

Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hannah, L., & Hole, D. G. (2019). Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy, 101, 116–125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901119305337?via%3Dihub

Gardiner, S.M. (2011). A Perfect Moral Storm: The Ethical Tragedy of Climate Change. Oxford Press Scholarship Online. DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195379440.001.0001.

Government of B.C. (2021). Climate preparedness and adaptation strategy: Draft Strategy and Phase 1 Actions for 2020-21. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/climate-change/adaptation/cpas_2021.pdf

Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P. & Turner, B. (2015). Transformative adaptation: what it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects
/uuid:40000abd-74a0-4a3e-8e7334374852474c/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe
_filename=UKCIP-transformational-adaptation-final.pdf&type_of_work=Report

Retolaza, I.E. (2011). Theory of Change: A thinking and action approach to navigate in the complexity of social change processes. GSDRC Applied Knowledge Services. https://gsdrc.org/document-library/a-theory-of-change-a-thinking-and-action-approach-to-navigate-in-the-complexity-of-social-change-processes/

Robin Wall Kimmerer. (2014). Returning the Gift. Minding Nature. https://www.turtlelodge.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Kimmerer-Returning-the-Gift.pdf

April 12, 2022

The IPCC Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change report brings to light the ‘emissions gap’ between current country-level commitments and the Paris Agreement commitments to limit global warming to 2C and preferably 1.5C. It also underscores the ‘implementation gap’ between the nationally determined contributions (NDCs) of countries and their current climate policies (Hausfather, 2022). Hausfather’s (2022) analysis of this IPCC report in Carbon Brief identifies that current climate policies are projected to result in an approximate 3C warming over pre-industrial levels by 2100. What then is needed to accelerate our societal pace and scale of ambition to close these gaps? A compelling idea that emerged for me through the transdisciplinary focus of the MACAL program is that disrupting the persistent inertia found in our economic, political, and cultural systems will entail changes in individual mindsets and collective patterns of thinking. At its core, the climate crisis is a human problem and to achieve transformative change will require a human-centric approach.

Building on Ken Wilber’s foundational concept of “all quadrants, all levels” (2006), Lonsdale, Pringle and Turner (2015) identify four dimensions of social change (see Figure 1) that link human-centric approaches and transformative change. These include personal transformation (mindsets), transforming collective patterns of thinking (collective behavior and shared identify), transforming relationships (dialogue and relational behaviors), and transforming structures, systems and experiences (policies and procedures). While many authors have argued that sustainable transformation requires operating simultaneously at multiple scales (Lonsdale et al., p. 13), my observation is that in practice we have an affinity to largely focus on changing the external procedural systems in organizations and societies. For example, codes, standards, and policies; systems that are easy to see and quantify. However, if we focus on these external systems without also addressing the internal dimensions, I argue that we are likely to continue a path of incremental change that does not match the scale of innovation that unprecedented climate change requires of us. If on the other hand we employ a human-centric approach that focuses on transforming the internal dimension of personal mindsets and collective patterns of thinking, we significantly expand the potential for transformative change.  How then do we do this?

Participatory and dialogic processes, particularly those that include storytelling, offer a pathway to transforming relationships as well as collection patterns of thinking and action; this in turn expands personal transformation. Our individual “attitudes, emotions, norms and values” (Hodson, 2019, p. 2) colour how we receive information on climate change. Moser’s (2016) research identifies that participatory dialogic processes can “open minds, deepen understanding, foster empathy, [and] change attitudes” (p. 352). Within dialogic processes, the use of storytelling and narratives, particularly locally framed narratives, deepens the potential to shift values and beliefs. Sundin, Anderson, and Watt (2018) remind us that storytelling is a long-held art form that can “inspire, educate, and communicate values and cultural traditions” (p. 2), one that helps us cultivates imagination, and make sense of the world around us and our place in it. Indigenous storytelling offers a powerful pathway to open new perspectives. Sium and Ritskes (2013) emphasize that Indigenous storytelling can “bind communities together spiritually and relationally” (p.5), and that they are agentic in knowledge building, and in disrupting long held and limiting worldviews. Dialogic processes and storytelling offer a human-centric approach to transforming mindsets, relationships and collective patterns of thinking. Integral to this process is our human capacity for empathy.

The design thinking challenge project undertaken in our MACAL 501 class employed the Stanford Design Thinking model with five distinct steps: empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test. This process also offers a human-centric approach to climate action engagement. Drawing on the four dimensions of social change and my assertion that reaching transformative change necessitates transformation at the personal level and in our collective patterns of thinking, my reflection is that the first step (empathize) of the design thinking process is the most important. When we slow down, ask questions and listen more deeply, we learn from the insights and lived experiences of others, and we gain new perspectives (Crichton & Carter 2017, p 34). This also leads to improved understanding of the problem, particularly for complex issues such as climate change. When we understand the problem more deeply, we can then shape more effective and transformational responses. Here again our human capacity for empathy lies at the foundation of change. Reflecting on this, I would expand the Dimensions of Social Change model by adding “empathy” to the heart of the model.

To avoid surpassing 1.5C climate warming requires change at “organizational [and] sectoral level[s], as well as changing perceptions, sense-making frameworks, practices and beliefs at a personal level” (Lonsdale et al., 2015, p. 14). The Dimensions of Change model (Lonsdale et al., 2015) reminds us of the multi-dimensional nature of the work to be done and that we need a human-centric approach. Participatory and dialogic processes, particularly those that include Indigenous storytelling, offer a pathway to transforming relationships, collection patterns of thinking and action, and personal mindsets. With this in place we open pathways to the innovation and ambition necessary to transform the external systems of governance, policies, and practices to close the ’emissions and implementation gap’ required to meet the commitments of the Paris Agreement.

References

Hausfather, Z. (2022). Analysis: What the new IPCC report says about how to limit warming to 1.5C or 2C. Carbon Brief. https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-what-the-new-ipcc-report-says-about-how-to-limit-warming-to-1-5c-or-2c

Hodson, J. (2019). An ecological model of climate marketing: A conceptual framework for understanding climate science related attitude and behavior change. Cogent Social Sciences, 5:1, 1625101. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2019.1625101

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [ authors]. Publisher. In Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf

Lonsdale, K., Pringle, P., and Turner, B. (2015). Transformational adaptation: what it is, why it matters & what is needed. UK Climate Impacts Programme, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/UKCIP-transformational-adaptation-final.pdf).

Moser, S.C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? WIREs Climate Change May/June, 345-369. WIREs Clim Change 2016, 7:345–369. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.403   

Sium, A., Ritskes, E. (2013). Speaking truth to power: Indigenous storytelling as an act of living resistance. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education and Society. Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. I-X. https://jps.library.utoronto.ca/index.php/des/article/view/19626/16256

Sundin, A. Andersson, K., & Watt, R. (2018). Rethinking communication: integrating storytelling for increasing stakeholder engagement in environmental evidence synthesis. Environmental Evidence 7(6), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-018-0116-4

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral Spirituality: A Startling New Role for Religion in the Modern and Postmodern World. Shambhala.

April 10, 2022

The role of self-interest as an incentive for undertaking climate action is problematic, even if at its core it contains the fact that if we do not address climate change we will all be harmed. Culturally, motivation is a complex issue and when combined with the uncertainties of climate change the rational notion that we primarily make decisions based on self-interest quickly unravels.

Our cultural perspectives, how we view the world and our place in it, influence how we conceive self-interest. Western and Indigenous cultural perspectives differ significantly and are shaped by different knowledge systems built over millennia. Western worldviews have roots in both religion and philosophy, each of which imparts a cultural perspective of humanity as separate from nature. One argument for the genesis of the Western worldview of humanity as separate from and superior over nature can be seen in Lynn White, Jr.’s seminal article “The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis”. White (1967) writes: “Man named all the animals, thus establishing his dominance over them. God planned all of this explicitly for man’s benefit and rule: no item in the physical creation had any purpose save to serve man’s purposes” (p. 5-6). This stands in stark contrast to Indigenous spirituality in which nature and humanity are inseparable.

In Western philosophical thought logic/reason was first articulated by the ancient Greeks. Within this philosophical tradition, humanity is seen as separate from the natural world. In The Logic of the Gift: Reclaiming Indigenous Peoples’ Philosophies Rauna Kuokkanen (2006) analyzes and compares our Westerns philosophical attitudes towards our environment with Indigenous worldviews. She characterizes the Western perspective as remote or removed from nature creating a separation between humanity and nature. This resulting duality establishes a realm of nature and a realm of people/culture. She writes: “The hierarchical dualism and control of reason over nature have also contributed to the creation of the fault-line between the West (the sphere of reason) and indigenous [sic] peoples (the sphere of nature)” (p. 251). Western worldviews conceive of the natural world as separate, and because of this they have difficulties in viscerally understanding that protecting nature is integral to wellbeing and self-interest.

In contrast Kuokkanen (2006) describes Indigenous philosophies as holistic and relationship based. Indigenous philosophies “are  particularly concerned of the human relationship with the world” (p. 255). Kuokkanen expands drawing on the writing of Tim Ingold: “the world is not an external domain of objects that I look at, or do things to, but is rather going on, or undergoing continuous generation, with me and around me” (Ingold, 2000, as cited in Kuokkanen, 2006, p. 255). The contrast in Indigenous and Western philosophical underpinnings is perhaps most clearly demonstrated through the Indigenous practices of gifts, where gifts are given to “acknowledge and renew a sense of kinship and coexistence” (p. 256) with the natural world. In contrast, Western practices view nature through a one-way lens, one of commodification in which ‘natural resources’ exist to support the economic ‘needs’ of people. In these contrasting worldviews we can glint why Western cultural perceptions are predisposed to disregard climate action as being in their self-interest. Western perceptions do not see that we are interdependent with the natural world, but believe that human ingenuity will mold the natural world to meet our needs and overcome the climate crisis.

While Western worldviews prioritize rational thinking, our actions are not as rational as we like to believe. Self-interest or doing what is best for oneself is a primal and instinctual behavior. Our bodies react in protective ways when in danger, for example, shutting our eyes when something gets too near or our instinctual ‘fight or flight’ response in the face of physical or psychological danger. The notion of ‘homo economicus’ who consistently approaches problems through the rational lens of self-interest is an illusion. Empirical evidence suggests that humans are not strictly rational creatures. If we were truly rational and motivated only by economic self-interest there would be no need for advertising firms that appeal to emotion and sex appeal to sell us different brands of vehicles. We would simply review the product data and purchase the best performing vehicle, we might even choose alternative transportation options as there is rarely a return on investment in buying a car. But that is not how we work. We have multiple motivations for the choices we make at individual and societal levels.

In her chapter essay “Climate Change and Economic Self-Interest”, Julie A. Nelson (2019) confronts the question of what motivates climate action. Her article challenges COP21 director Christiana Figueres’ statement that “this summit [COP21] would reach an agreement because nations are now recognizing that it is in their national self-interest—and, more precisely, in their national economic self-interest—to reach a pact” (Nelson, 2019, p. 112). Nelson critiques this assumption based on both theory and social science research, which contradicts the assertion that “self-interest is the strongest motivator” (p. 113). Drawing of the fields of social psychology and cognitive neuroscience, Nelson highlights the large body of evidence on the “complexity and sociality of human motivations” (p. 116). She identifies several ethical and moral motivators for national actions such as ethical sensibilities, sanctity, responsibility, ‘doing the right thing’, Defense of Freedom, or National Honor. She adds “some actions may be motivated by the desire to preserve one’s identity—one’s sense of who one is in the world-even when this is economically costly” (p. 117).

Considering the role of self-interest as an incentive for climate action raises many questions, incongruences, and complexities. Our cultural perspectives, how we view the world and our place in it, shape our decision-making and influence how we conceive self-interest. Self-interest and self-preservation are a powerful instinctual motivator of action and urgency. If Western cultures can recognize humanities interdependence with nature and its dependence on a stable climate system we can unlock the ambition and innovation necessary for the change we need. Hope also lies in the research and empirical evidence that affirms ethical and moral foundations are powerful and often used motivators in decision making.

References

Kuokkanen, R.  (2006). The logic of the gift: Reclaiming Indigenous peoples’ philosophies. In Botz-Bornstein, T., & Hengelbrock, J. (Eds.). Re-ethnicizing the minds? Cultural revival in contemporary thought.  Brill Rodopi. https://rauna.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/s21_sip_17_rauna-kuokkanen.pdf

Nelson, J.A. (2019). Chapter 6: Climate change and economic self-interest. In Kanbur, R., & Shue, H. (Eds.). Climate justice:  Integrating economics and philosophy.  Oxford University Press. https://moodle.royalroads.ca/moodle/pluginfile.php/957059/mod_book/chapter/220197/Nelson%20%282019%29%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Economic%20Self-Interest.pdf

White, L. (1967). The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis. Science. New Series, Vol.155, No.3767 (Mar. 10, 1967), pp. 1203-1207. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1720120?seq=1

---

February 12, 2022

Robert Burns observation that “the best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men / Gang aft agley” (go often awry) has relevance in climate change risk assessment and adaptation planning. The social-ecological complexities of climate change together with the human dynamics of adaptation work elevate the risk of best laid plans going awry and the potential for ‘maladaptation’. Barnett and O’Neill (2010) define maladaptation as “action taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce vulnerability to climate change that impacts adversely on, or increases the vulnerability of other systems, sectors or social groups” (p. 211). My observation is that the process itself of adaptation planning either amplifies or mitigates the risk of maladaptation. In the CALS501 design challenge we are developing a workshop prototype to help Albertans explore what climate change means to their community, identify adaptation approaches, and empower action. The following are reflections on maladaptation and risk reduction of relevance to this work.

The human impacts of climate change are “place and culture specific” (Reed & Kendrick, 2018, p. 6) and are differentially experienced by Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples (p. 6). When assessing climate change risks and formulating adaptative strategies, how does the exclusion of Indigenous voices lead to maladaptation?  

Western models of climate risk assessments pose blind spots rooted in a cultural-economic system that neglects the interdependence of people and nature, elevates people over nature, and favours short-term thinking (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012, pp. 100-109). While adaptation planning solely derived from Western knowledge systems may provide near-term benefits for some parts of Western systems, Reed and Kendrick (2018) highlight that they may also promote maladaptation through failing to consider how these approaches may increase vulnerability and risks to Indigenous peoples (p. 13). They assert that these risks can be mitigated by early engagement with Indigenous knowledge holders to shape the risk assessment and adaptation planning process, and further by including Indigenous voices in the deployment of these processes (p. 8-11). While our class project did not allow for co-development with Indigenous knowledge keepers, we requested input on our prototype from an Indigenous advisor. One learning outcome was the potential to transform mindsets and enhance agency through the integration of Indigenous storytelling in the workshop process. Another was the importance of integrating guidance in our prototype on the protection of Indigenous knowledge from misappropriation.

Participatory community engagement processes comprise individuals with diverse values, worldviews and identities. Moser (2016) emphasises that such attributes colour an individual’s perception and interpretation of climate science, and subsequently the acceptability of potential adaptation approaches (p.350). Moser underscores that efforts to “bring into consciousness the momentousness of what is actually occurring” (p. 347) can give rise to both acceptance and resistance. Leaders of participatory adaptation processes may be faced with strong responses such as denial, disbelief, grief, and anxiety, which can pose risks to the participants and to workshop outcomes. How then do we mitigate these risks?

Climate communications research literature offers guidance on participatory climate action approaches that is of relevance to our prototype. For example, Moser (2016) recommends a set of strategies when communicating about climate change to lower the psychological defenses that may arise as individuals seek to avoid the discomfort associated with this information (p. 354-356). Framing is also highlighted as effective in climate communications (Armstrong, 2018). Framing refers to the “features of a message to evoke ideas and ways of thinking” (p. 59); for example, climate change health framing. Our prototype employs local framing which can help dimmish the sense that climate change is far away in time and place by “localizing the consequences and… giving personal, local meanings to global issues” (Altinay, 2017, p. 295). To mitigate the risk of being overwhelmed by the magnitude of the climate challenge, our prototype offers a participatory process that encourages dialogue to foster shared understanding, motivate self-efficacy and collective agency, and inspire hope (Armstrong, 2018, p. 60). Finally, to address the risk that participants may experience anxiety and grief, our prototype will include resources on eco-anxiety.

In climate adaptation planning, the process employed either amplifies or mitigates the risk of maladaptation. Including Indigenous voices in community adaptation planning initiatives promotes holistic thinking about climate impacts and adaptation approaches as well as outcomes that reduce risks to Indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Climate change communications research literature offers insights to reduce risks within participatory community engagement processes. These include strategies to reduce psychological defenses, framing approaches to give local meaning to global climate change, and participatory dialogue to foster shared understanding, collective action, and hope. The complexity of this work necessitates pre-emptive planning to mitigate best laid plans from going awry.

References

Altinay, Z. (2017). Visual communication of climate change: Local framing and place attachment. Coastal Management 45(4), 293-309. doi: 10.1080/08920753.2017.1327344. (17 pages) https://go.openathens.net/redirector/royalroads.ca?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1080%2F08920753.2017.1327344

Armstrong, A. K., Schuldt, J. P., & Krasny, M. E. (2018).  Establishing trust. Communicating climate change: A guide for educators. Cornell University Press. Ebook. (1 page) https://cornellopen.org/9781501730795/communicating-climate-change/  

Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S. (2010) Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change 20, 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.004

Burns, R. (1785). To a Mouse. Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43816/to-a-mouse-56d222ab36e33

Moser, S.C. (2016). Reflections on climate change communication research and practice in the second decade of the 21st century: What more is there to say? WIREs Climate Change May/June, 345-369.  (24 pages). WIREs Climate Change 2016, 7:345–369. doi: 10.1002/wcc.403  https://go.openathens.net/redirector/royalroads.ca?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwires.onlinelibrary.wiley.com%2Fdoi%2Ffull%2F10.1002%2Fwcc.403%3Fsid%3Dworldcat.org

Reed, G., & Kendrick, A. (2018). Including Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Canada’s climate assessment.  Including Indigenous Knowledge Systems in Canada’s climate assessment (02 -25-2018v).

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies – Research and Indigenous Peoples (2nd Ed.). Zed Books. Retrieved from the Ebook Central e-book database*.

November 17, 2021

(Blog 4, Prompt 5 Story Spline)

This story employs the story spine (bolded words) as presented by Rotman (2017).

So, there we were, in 2046, amazingly both still alive. The old wood bench, silvered with time, still holds us both. Nearby is the old concrete fountain, its edges covered in lichen. We sip our warm tea and watch the House Sparrows splashing in the fountain. It is good to see them home again. To our delight a pair of Chickadees joins the Sparrows. The last time we saw the Chickadees was over ten years ago, before our community landscape adaptation initiative. We reminisce about where we began…

Every day we used to watch the birds that visited our small garden. Each season brought a new set of visitors. In winter Cedar Waxwings would descend to gorge on the fermenting red berries of the Mountain Ash. They would fly crazy in a drunken stupor after so many berries. Wild hares would later feast on the many berries that the Waxwings had knocked to the ground. In spring the large Lilac would explode with sweet purple blossoms and the song of the House Sparrows nesting in her branches. The Pear tree would burst into a bouquet of white flowers and hum for weeks with the sound of bees. In summer the Chickadees, White-Breasted Nuthatches, and House Sparrows would splash together in the fountain. It was a joy to see the different species playing together in the water – some showing-off going under water and splashing the others. The tiny Downy Woodpeckers were shyer and would only come when the other birds left. Our yard was abundant with the life and colour of the changing seasons.

But one (spring) the Chickadees did not come, the next year the Nuthatches too were gone. The Dogwood shrubs and Cotoneasters became stressed, and aphids took over sapping new growth, the shrubs slowly faded, and we had to remove them. Each year the berries on the Mountain Ash that feed so many birds were fewer and fewer, and we had to cut back her dying branches. The Wax Wings stopped coming in the winter, so too the hares. The Pear tree lost her spring blooms and the pollinators did not come, she stopped bearing fruit. Without the pollinators the whole garden lost its blooms and fruits. Our climate was warming, the soil was drying, and the Bow River flow was dramatically down leading to tight watering restrictions. The shrubs and trees were all under stress, many were dying, and the birds and bees were disappearing. We could see the same all around our neighbourhood. The ecosystem was changing; life was fading.

Because of these changes we knew we needed a landscape climate change adaptation plan, not just for our garden but for our whole neighbourhood. We had an idea. It started with short conversations while dog walking about what was happening in our neighbourhood. This led to meetings in the community hall where we invited speakers to help our community learn more. We met twice a month with speakers on projected climate changes for our city, pollinator health, native and adaptive plant species, grey-water recycling, Indigenous knowledge systems, and more. After six months of listening and learning we were ready. We hosted a series of ideation workshops to design our climate change landscape adaptation approach. We dubbed this work: ‘The Bird and the Bees’. The experts helped us and new partners joined. After another six months we had a plan and a business model. Our plan included a pallet of tree, shrub and plant species that would thrive in our drier and warmer climate with regional partners to supply them, a soil amendment approach to better absorb and hold the less frequent but very heavy rains, landscape design strategies to manage heavy rains, and an easy to implement retrofit kit to install grey-water recycling systems in order provide a water source for pollinator gardens. We even had local companies offering biodegradable soaps suitable for grey-water recycling systems. Spring was coming and we were excited to pilot our first installation.   

But then the local municipality said “you cannot do this, grey-water recycling is a contravention of City Bylaws, this will cause a human health risk.” After much discussion, the City agreed we could do one pilot project to study the grey-water water quality. If a health risk was found we would have to remove the system. We volunteered our yard and The Birds and Bees partnered with the local university for the water quality testing. The one-year pilot confirmed no water quality health risk, but we discovered some challenges with the grey-water system.

Because of that we refined the design and ran the pilot another year. The pilot went well and both the City and The Bird and Bees felt more confident. The next year, we implemented the plan in two more yards on our block. We refined again and the next year we did a full block. The change was amazing. The plants were thriving, birds and pollinators were coming back, and news was spreading of our success. People from other communities came to learn. They too wanted adaptive landscapes in their neighbourhoods. Adaptation gardens started popping up all over the city.

Until, finally the municipality said this is a great idea, but we need many more projects to ensure pollinator health across the city. They offered property tax rebates for home owners that installed the landscape adaptation kits and grants to low income residents. They added a landscape adaptation option to their Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) program to provide upfront funding for landscape adaptation retrofits with the cost paid back over time through annual property taxes. There was rapid uptake and the local start-up companies to support the program grew into thriving businesses.

And, ever since then life has come back to our neighbourhoods – particularly the birds and pollinators. Some species did not return as the climate is now too warm for them. Many birds from the south of Alberta now make their home here. In our yard the Mountain Ash and Pear tree are gone, but the Lilac has adapted. Our landscape now is mostly shrubs offering an abundance of habitat, food and colour: Snowberries with white year-round berries, Wild Roses with scented pink flowers in spring and bright red rose hips in winter, Western Sand Cherries with snowy white flowers and black cherries in late summer, Golden Currants, and Sweetgrass. With the help of the grey-water, they are withstanding the long periods of drought and high temperatures that come frequently now. The ecosystem is different, but life is abundant and across the city community gardens are once again growing.

A cool breeze reminds us our tea is gone. We slowly make our way down the gravel path to the front door feeling deeply grateful for the return of the Chickadees and the many people that made this urban landscape adaptation plan come to fruition. Together we have done what none of us could do alone.

Reference

Rotman, S. (2017). “Once upon a time…” Eliciting energy and behaviour change stories using a fairy tale story spine. Energy Research & Social Science, 31, 303-310. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2017.06.033. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/royalroads.ca?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1016%2Fj.erss.2017.06.033

November 14, 202`

(Blog 3: Prompt 7)

I grew up in the heart of the boreal forest in north central British Columbia and I have a deep connection to this landscape. I know the silent beauty in the deep of winter with a pure white landscape and ice crystals sparkling across the deep blue sky, the flush of green foliage emerging alongside the trickling streams as they break free of winter ice, the fragrance of spruce needles basking in the summer sun, and the calm among the birch with their golden leaves gently chattering in the fall breeze as the silent Nechako River rolls by. This deep love of place has travelled with me across the places I have lived and travelled. Was it this original experience that made me open to connecting with nature in other places? I know that many carry their own deep connection to place, both natural and built environments. This leads me to wonder: how can place attachment shape the framing of climate change communications?

Scannell and Gifford (2010) define place attachment as the “bonding that occurs between individuals and their meaningful environments” (p. 1). This bonding is an outcome of multiple experiences and motivations. Scannell and Gifford (2010) delineate a three-part framework for understanding place attachment including the elements of person, place, and process (p. 2). The ‘person’ element addresses who is attached and can occur at individual and group levels, the ‘place’ element addresses the object of attachment and can occur in physical or social environments, finally the ‘process’ element addresses the psychological dimension (p. 3). This includes affect: our emotional process; cognition: our ways of understanding and meaning-making; and behavior: our proximity-maintaining actions (p. 3). Scannell and Gifford also raise the question of why people develop such enduring bonds to place and suggest three common reasons including “survival and security, goal support, and continuity” (p. 6). ‘Survival and security’ address our need for physical resources such as food and water, and to maintain proximity and knowledge on how to use these resources. ‘Goal support’ addresses our need for places that support our personal goals and desire for cognitive freedom. ‘Continuity’ speaks to our predilection for continuity with people and places that represent our personal values and preserve our memories. Reflecting on this diversity of elements and motivations for place attachment can offer a more nuanced approach to framing of climate change communications. Perhaps this can then strengthen connections around shared values and through this provide the opening to deepen engagement and mobilize action to protect the places and people we love or that have meaning to us.

Climate change communications can also be framed at local or global context; however, research findings on which is more effective are varied and contradictory. Altinay (2017) highlights the strength of local framing in imparting “local meanings to global issues” (p. 1) and notes that this has potential to heighten personal perceptions of climate change risk (p. 1). Altinay’s study comparing the effectiveness of local versus global framing; however, found that local framing did not increase participants interest in supporting policies to help mitigate climate change (p. 11). Surprisingly, global framing was found to be more effective than local framing (p. 11). One suggested reason for this is a cognitive disconnection that may arise when local climate change information is presented to those that perceive climate change as a distant global issue (p. 11). Another is that the magnitude of local climate change impacts may lead to a loss of perceived self-efficacy to address these impacts (p. 11). Altinay’s research did identify that local framing was successful when paired with meaningful actions that people can take. For example, actions to mitigate a climate risk or reduce carbon emissions. Importantly, the study identified that participants with a strong place connection had an increased sense of risk perception and orientation to action (p. 43). In contrast to Altinay’s findings, Schroth et al. (2014) highlight that literature on the use of iconic global climate change imagery shows that this approach has contributed to the perception that climate change is a distant issue both in place and time. This research suggests that images of local climate change impacts may be more effective (p. 413). This small sampling of research highlights the complexity of framing climate change communications.

My own experience with place bonding leads me to believe that framing climate change communication through place attachment offers a powerful instrument for connecting and in turn engaging in dialogue about shared action to protect what we value. As a human species we share a commonality of place attachment, recognizing that what we are attached to and why may vary. While some have lost place connection through displacement, they still possess the memory and emotion of this connection. Visual images offer a powerful tool to create/recreate connection, elicit emotion, and help frame complex issues such as climate change. Though I no longer live where my original place connection was formed, I deeply connect to the beauty in the diverse landscapes of the foothills and the Rocky Mountains near where I now live. I also experience positive emotion and a sense of connection to images of nature in other places, and I am equally motivated to take actions to protect all these places.

References

Altinay, Z. (2017). Visual Communication of Climate Change: Local Framing and Place Attachment. Coastal Management 45(4), 293-309. doi:10.1080/08920753.2017.1327344. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/royalroads.ca?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1080%2F08920753.2017.1327344

Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494409000620

Schroth, O., Angel, J., Sheppard, S., Dulic, Aleksandra. (2014). Visual Climate Change Communication: From Iconography to Locally Framed 3D Visualization. Environmental Communication 8(4), 413-432. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2014.906478. https://go.openathens.net/redirector/royalroads.ca?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.1080%2F17524032.2014.906478

November 14, 2021

(Blog 2: Prompt 5, Metaphors and Analogies)

My only brother died young. He was a vibrant man and a strong athlete. He also had a terrible diet. He was warned that his diet was impacting his health but like many overconfident young men, he believed he was somehow an exception to health science. The words “I’m not changing my diet” echo in my mind. He was wrong. He lost his life at 38 leaving behind his very young family and more than half of his life.

In many ways the climate crisis is like a personal health crisis. Just as the over consumption of high fat foods leads to a build-up of plaque in our arteries so too does the overproduction of greenhouse gas emissions lead to a build-up of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. In my lifetime, greenhouse gas emission concentrations have risen over 30%. We now have a climate health crisis.

Greenhouse gas emissions come from various sources, and they earned this moniker because their presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect. They form an insulating blanket in the atmosphere that traps heat in. This results in a warming world. Like in a greenhouse, this warmth leads to increased water vapour in the air. When we walk into a greenhouse, we experience warmth and humidity. Moisture evaporates from the soil, the water sources, and from the evapotranspiration of plants. Unlike a greenhouse where we can simply open a window or vent to release heat and humidity, we cannot do this with the atmosphere. Instead heat and humidity accumulates resulting in wicked storms and hurricane events. Our Earth’s temperature will continue to rise until we remove the blanket, and this is not easy task.

Much of the developed world is in a health crisis from the overconsumption of high fat foods and a sedentary lifestyle. Just as this human health crisis is putting livelihoods and lives at risk, so too is our climate health crisis putting livelihoods and lives at risk. In people, an unhealthy diet leads to multiple elevated health risks like diabetes, stroke, cancer, heart attack and even dementia. Similarly, releasing an unhealthy level of greenhouse gases into our atmosphere leads to multiple elevated health risks. These include loss of food production systems due to drought and floods, heat related deaths, increased frequency and intensity of floods and hurricanes that devastate communities, loss of ecosystems that sustain life and our economy, increased vector borne diseases, and more. Like human health risks, multiple planetary health risks can also occur at the same time.

Just as we cannot simply open a port to release cholesterol and plaque from our arterial systems, we cannot open a port to release greenhouse gas emissions from the atmosphere. Instead, we need a sustained focus on lifestyle change to progress our way back to health. The path to heart health requires dietary changes to remove disease causing food and increase health generating foods in concert with exercise. Planetary health requires similar changes. We need to eliminate actions that produce greenhouse gas emissions such as the combustion of fossil fuels, changes in land use, and unnecessary energy use. We also need to remove greenhouse gasses from our atmosphere by preserving and restoring our forest and grassland ecosystems. These ecosystems are the primary planetary systems that can do this job.

When faced with a human health crisis such as heart disease, focusing on diet alone does not provide an effective motivation for change or an enduring solution. Instead, health care professionals are shifting to more holistic approaches that promote healthy lifestyles. This approach centers on the things we gain from moving to an active lifestyle and good food choices. Active time with children and friends, the ability to do things on our bucket lists, longevity, and more. These benefits provide the motivation for holistic change, particularly for changes that are hard. Similar motivations are needed to rebuild climate health.

We often hear the climate crisis framed in war metaphors such as “the war on climate”. War metaphors comes with experiences of command and control, fear, destruction, and militarization. Reframing climate action to the rebuilding climate health offers a far more inspiring metaphor. Our climate is an amazing and life sustaining gift. Our words matter and are powerful in meaning making. This small change of words moves us from acts of fear and control to acts of care and creation.

“Let’s Connect“

https://youtu.be/g5h_13AgymE