Within my last blog post I wrote about closing the knowledge-action gap, both on a personal level as well as within the context of my 501 group work. I reflected on the shift I’d made in moving from asking, “when will I know enough”, to instead asking “what can I do now, with what I know now?” and the impact this shift had on my understanding of how to engage individuals in taking up climate action work. Similarly my group came to the realization that we needed to support community members in taking up climate action with the individuals in their communities through nature-based solutions. As I move through the CALS 503 Climate Risk Assessment course, I have started to unpack the importance of understanding the worldviews of those you engage, and the importance of critically considering how an individual’s positionality will influence the ways in which they will engage in climate work, whether that be an open-source educational tool like we are building in CALS 501 or the creation of a climate risk assessment. The question I am now facing is – who are we moving towards climate action and how will their lived experience enhance or limit the work in question.
We started CALS 503 with a reading by Linda Tuhiwai Smith called Decolonizing Methodologies – Research and Indigenous Peoples. Within this reading, the author guides readers through understanding the origins of an individual’s worldview and the importance of one’s subjectivity. Smith details that for Western researchers, knowledge comes from an “‘archive’” of knowledge, systems, rules and values referred to as “the West” which has been shaped by legacies of colonialism and classifies societies into categories, providing a “standard model of comparison”, and a “criteria of evaluation against which other societies can be ranked” (Tuhiwai Smith, 2012, p.93). Researchers and practitioners are not always aware of the origins of their own worldviews, or the limitations of their lived experiences. As expressed by Osborne (2015), “It can be difficult to see, let alone study, structures that privilege has rendered invisible, partly due to self-interest, as ‘to some degree their privilege depends on the continued oppression of others’”(p.142).
I was able to witness this in practice within CALS 503 when assessing a climate risk assessment for a City in Ontario. The assessment took a “top-down” approach, meaning that a limited group of stakeholders were engaged (CCME, 2021, p.9), which in this case meant only City administrators were asked to participate. A notable gap in the assessment was any involvement of Indigenous participants, or community members belonging to equity-seeking groups who could provide vital input based on lived experience. The risk assessment was missing key perspectives and didn’t account for the varying experiences of its community members and the different vulnerabilities which might have been identified should they have included individuals with diverse lived experiences. Similarly within our CALS 501 group assignment, we have been in discussion about our original design, and the implications of nature-based solutions for different communities. As highlighted by groups such as Indigenous Climate Action, there are issues surrounding nature-based solutions and further questions to be asked around who defines nature-based solutions (Sinclair, 2021). A fantastic example of this (and a model our group is now closely investigating) is the Community Toolshed Project led by Cheryl Bryce, Member of the Songhees Nation. Cheryl’s work offers an approach to nature-based solutions which is rooted in Traditional Ecological Knowledge and engages community members (both Indigenous and settlers), in recognizing “invasive and introduced species, and even climate change” as visible impacts of colonization which alter the ability of Indigenous Peoples as stewards of their territories to “build strong relationships with the land and water – relationships to which all Indigenous Peoples have rights”(Bryce, 2017). The Toolshed Project engages community members in removing invasive and introduced species as a way of disrupting colonization.
As I continue within the MCAL program, this question of who is being engaged and the importance of including individuals with diverse knowledges and lived experiences will continue to influence my work heavily. If climate adaptation work is to be rooted in equity, this question of who is engaged within the planning process is vital, as expressed by Osborne, “planning scholarship and practice is not only embedded in the individual privilege of the planner/researcher, but in the same systems that have created the problems these planners may be seeking to address – it is ‘a product of the society it is called upon to change’” (2015, p.142).
Works Cited
Bryce, C. (2017). Decolonized Landscapes. #Next150. Retrieved February 16, 2022, from
CCME. (2021). Guidance on good practices in climate change risk assessment.
Tuhiwai, S. P. L. (2012). Decolonizing methodologies : Research and indigenous peoples. Zed
Books.
Osborne, N. (2015). Intersectionality and kyriarchy: A framework for approaching power
and social justice in planning and climate change adaptation. Planning Theory, 14(2), 130– 151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095213516443.
Sinclair, R. (2021, October 23). Indigenous rights & false solutions at COP26. Indigenous
Climate Action. Retrieved February 10, 2022, from https://www.indigenousclimateaction.
com/entries/indigenous-rights-amp-false-solutions-at-cop26