![\"Sun](\"https:\/\/webspace.royalroads.ca\/jperdue\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/908\/2021\/11\/100_2920.jpg\")
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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Scannell and Gifford (2010) define place attachment as the \u201cbonding that occurs between individuals and their meaningful environments\u201d (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 \u2018person\u2019 element addresses who<\/em> is attached and can occur at individual and group levels, the \u2018place\u2019 element addresses the object<\/em> of attachment and can occur in physical or social environments, finally the \u2018process\u2019 element addresses the psychological<\/em> 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 \u201csurvival and security, goal support, and continuity\u201d (p. 6). \u2018Survival and security\u2019 address our need for physical resources such as food and water, and to maintain proximity and knowledge on how to use these resources. \u2018Goal support\u2019 addresses our need for places that support our personal goals and desire for cognitive freedom. \u2018Continuity\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201clocal meanings to global issues\u201d (p. 1) and notes that this has potential to heighten personal perceptions of climate change risk (p. 1). Altinay\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Altinay, Z. (2017). Visual Communication of Climate Change: Local Framing and Place Attachment. Coastal Management<\/em> 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<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Scannell, L., & Gifford, R. (2010). Defining place attachment: A tripartite organizing framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology.<\/em> https:\/\/www.sciencedirect.com\/science\/article\/pii\/S0272494409000620<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n