Public perceptions of the climate debate predominantly frame the key actors as climate scientists (CSs) versus sceptical voices (SVs); however it is unclear why CSs and SVs choose to participate in this antagonistic and polarised public battle. A narrative interview approach is used to better understand the underlying rationales behind 22 CSs? and SVs? engagement in the climate debate, potential commonalities, as well as each actor's ability to be critically self-reflexive. Several overlapping rationales are identified including a sense of duty to publicly engage, agreement that complete certainty about the complex assemblage of climate change is unattainable, and that political factors are central to the climate debate. We argue that a focus on potential overlaps in perceptions and rationales as well as the ability to be critically self-reflexive may encourage constructive discussion amongst actors previously engaged in purposefully antagonistic exchange on climate change.
The urgency of climate change is communicated profusely across governments, decision makers, scientific and research communities. In countries such as the UK, where the future impacts of climate change are hard to perceive, action does not reflect this urgency. Consequently there is a need for a tailored approach in terms of climate change communication, from information content and dissemination, audience targeting and considerations affecting its reception to maximise its impact on action. This paper addresses how climate change information can influence action by investigating opportunities for changes in travel behaviour. It presents results from a questionnaire survey of 903 householders and five focus group discussions conducted in Hampshire, South East UK, on the use of climate change messaging for behaviour change. It identifies three distinct awareness groups based on levels of understanding of the causes of climate change (?Human activities?, ?Unsure? and ?Non-human?) and demonstrates that individuals aged less than 25 years old and over 55 show a stronger likelihood of being unsure of the causes of climate change or thinking this is not related to human activities. In addition to identifying audiences to target, barriers to change are identified: low willingness to engage in sustainable travel behaviour was found to result from a perception that climate change is too forbidding to be tackled on a personal level. However environmental information was found to be a positive reinforcer of future behaviour rather than a direct driver of change. The paper concludes by presenting a framework on how to best deliver climate change information to influence lifestyle changes by clearly designing the information around behaviour, audience, messenger, content and delivery tools. It suggests that climate change information can be used directly to address perceived barriers to behaviour change and increase intention to change behaviours. Moving away from current models of linear and one-dimensional dissemination of climate information, the framework can be used for multiple audiences and behaviours allowing for comparison, monitoring, evaluation and transferability of results.
Narratives can help increase experiential engagement with climate change and build support for transitions to a low carbon future. The UK?s 2050 climate targets provide indicatives frames through which emissions reductions could be translated to different contexts. The scenarios outlined in the UK?s fifth carbon budget will require lifestyle changes which may need to counter low levels of acceptance of the need to change through technological, political and behavioural initiatives. This paper explores the role of narratives of the UK?s fifth carbon budget in increasing engagement to climate change. Data are presented from thirty semi-structured interviews with UK academic, policy and practitioner communities. Six narratives are identified that could enable positive engagement with a low carbon future and better engagement on climate change: (i) showcasing investment opportunities; (ii) maintaining independence and freedom of choice; (iii) guiding audiences to visualise a low carbon future; (iv) demonstrating broader appeal, salience and impact of not doing anything; (v) supporting transitions and change; (vi) highlighting benefits to quality of life. Implications of these findings to public engagement on climate change and perceptions of how life may need to be reconfigured in a low carbon future are discussed.
The nexus represents a multi-dimensional means of scientific enquiry which seeks to describe the complex and non-linear interactions between water, energy, food, with the climate, and further understand wider implications for society. These resources are fundamental for human life but are negatively affected by shocks such as climate change and characterize some of the main challenges for global sustainable development. Given the multidimensional and complex nature of the nexus, a transdisciplinary approach to knowledge development through co-production is needed to timely and effectively inform the decision making processes to build societal resilience to these shocks going beyond the sectorality of current research practice. The paper presents findings from five themed workshops (shocks and hazards, infrastructure, local economy, governance and governments, finance and insurance) with 80 stakeholders from academia, government and industry in the UK to explore the impact of climate and weather shocks across the energy-food-water nexus and barriers to related responses. The research identified key stakeholders? concerns, opportunities and barriers to better inform decision making centred on four themes: communication and collaboration, decision making processes, social and cultural dimensions, and the nature of responses to nexus shocks. We discuss implications of these barriers and how addressing these can better facilitate constructive dialogue and more efficient decision-making in response to nexus shocks.
Building on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?s (IPCC) review of how to make its
Assessment Reports (ARs) more accessible in the future, the research reported here assesses the
extent to which the ARs are a useful tool through which scientific advice informs local decisionmaking
on climate change in the UK. Results from interviews with local policy representatives and
three workshops with UK academics, practitioners and local decision-makers are presented. Drawing
on these data, we outline three key recommendations made by participants on how the IPCC ARs
can be better utilized as a form of scientific advice to inform local decision-making on climate
change. Firstly to provide more succinct summaries of the reports paying close attention to the
language, content, clarity, context and length of these summaries; secondly to better target and
frame the reports from a local perspective to maximize engagement with local stakeholders; and
thirdly to work with local decision-makers to better understand how scientific advice on climate
change is being incorporated in local decision-making. By adopting these, the IPCC would facilitate
local decision-making on climate change and provide a systematic review of how its reports are
being used locally. We discuss implications of these recommendations and their relevance to the
wider debate within and outside the IPCC as to the most effective way the IPCC can more effectively
tailor its products to user needs without endangering the robustness of its scientific findings.
Public perceptions of the climate debate predominantly frame the key actors as climate scientists versus sceptical voices; however, it is unclear why climate scientists and sceptical voices choose to participate in this antagonistic and polarised public battle. A narrative interview approach is used to better understand the underlying rationales behind 22 climate scientists? and sceptical voices? engagement in the climate debate, potential commonalities, as well as each actor?s ability to be critically self-reflexive. Several overlapping rationales are identified including a sense of duty to publicly engage, agreement that complete certainty about the complex assemblage of climate change is unattainable and that political factors are central to the climate debate. We argue that a focus on potential overlaps in perceptions and rationales as well as the ability to be critically self-reflexive may encourage constructive discussion among actors previously engaged in purposefully antagonistic exchange on climate change.
There has been a policy shift towards localism in the UK driving responses and decision-making processes to respond to the impacts of climate change. This shift capitalizes on local expertise and knowledge, empowering communities to take ownership of response strategies, with an increased focus on building resilience to nexus shocks. This comes at a time when the ability of local authorities to lead responses to nexus shocks is decreasing due to lack of capacity, funding and a statutory requirement to better respond to the impacts of climate change. We examine local resilience to nexus shocks and climate impacts as a complex process of collaboration, communication, adaptation, learning from past events and preparing for future shocks. Drawing on examples of resilience to extreme weather events in the UK, this review paper assesses: (i) local responses to nexus shocks in the UK, (ii) how and what evidence is used to inform decision-making in response to nexus shocks and (iii) how stakeholders increase local resilience to nexus shocks when faced with gaps in knowledge. We outline possible ways to extrapolate these insights beyond the UK context
The relationship between the energy-food-water nexus and the climate is non-linear, multi-sectoral and time
sensitive, incorporating aspects of complexity and risk in climate related decision-making. Current methods of
analysis were not built to represent such a complex system and are insufficiently equipped to capture and
understand positive and negative externalities generated by the interactions among different stakeholders involved
in the energy-food-water nexus. Potential amplification effects, time delays and path dependency of
climate policies are also inadequately represented. This paper seeks to explore how knowledge co-production
can help identify opportunities for building more effective, sustainable, inclusive and legitimate decision making
processes on climate change. This would enable more resilient responses to climate risks impacting the nexus
while increasing transparency, communication and trust among key actors. We do so by proposing the operationalization
of an interdisciplinary approach of analysis applying the novel methodology developed in
Howarth and Monasterolo (2016). Through a bottom-up, participative approach, we present results of five
themed workshops organized in the UK (focusing on: shocks and hazards, infrastructure, local economy, governance
and governments, finance and insurance) featuring 78 stakeholders from academia, government and
industry. We present participant?s perceptions of opportunities that can emerge from climate and weather shocks
across the energy-food-water nexus. We explore opportunities offered by the development and deployment of a
transdisciplinary approach of analysis within the nexus boundaries and we analyse their implications. Our
analysis contributes to the current debate on how to shape global and local responses to climate change by
reflecting on lessons learnt and best practice from cross-stakeholder and cross-sectorial engagement. In so doing,
it helps inform a new generation of complex systems models to analyse climate change impact on the food-water-energy
This perspective critically assesses how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) could facilitate a closer alignment of its activities and include lessons drawn from the policy and decisionmaking communities working on the ground at the regional/local levels. The objective is to facilitate practitioner input into the detailed choice of topics and priorities for IPCC review and in the conclusions drawn (we define practitioners as those engaged in the development and application of practical responses to climate change on the ground). By means of a series of workshops with academics, policy officials and decision-makers in the United Kingdom, the research reported here illuminates how the IPCC?s Working Group II (WGII) has been used in the past to inform decision-making and how practitioner responses to climate change could better inform the IPCC process in the future. In particular, we recommend three key actions. Firstly that IPCC WGII should incorporate more practitioners as authors to improve the awareness and understanding amongst the writing teams of the nature and detail of decisions being made in response to climate change; secondly a practitioner-led IPCC Special Report should be commissioned on good-practice responses to climate change; and thirdly a new body should be created, attached to the IPCC, to synthesise and report on good practice on climate response strategies in a timely manner. By adopting these recommendations, the IPCC could become more directly useful to decision-makers working on adaptation at the national, regional and local levels and enable more actionable decision-making.
Statistics show that unsustainable travel behaviour and global greenhouse gas emissions are growing and due to the perceived indispensable nature of personal travel, shifts to more sustainable modes remain a challenge. Automobility supports sustained local economic growth but also raises issues around safety, health, road fatalities, traffic and congestion and detrimental environmental impacts. This paper addresses the issue of sustainable mobility by investigating how to increase sustainable travel choices and, where this is not possible, ensure existing travel choices and patterns are as environmentally-friendly as possible. Existing soft initiatives aimed at increasing sustainable travel behaviour fail to fully acknowledge that travel decisions are made at the individual level and that tailored strategies would be more effective at targeting distinct behavioural patterns. Influencing changes in travel behaviour at the local level demonstrates significant potential where individual behaviour can be influenced if appropriate support at the system level is in place and complies with the needs of individuals. This paper demonstrates that, in doing so, this will simultaneously address other areas, such as accessibility, employability, health and sustainable growth, crucial to the establishment and survival of automobility by both supporting local economic growth and achieving reductions in Carbon emissions.
Climate scientists can do a better job of communicating their work to local communities and reignite interest in the issue. Local media outlets provide a unique opportunity to build a platform for scientists to tell their stories and engage in a dialogue with people currently outside the 'climate bubble'.
Labels play an important role in opinion formation, helping to actively construct perceptions and reality, and place individuals into context with others. As a highly complex issue, climate change invites a range of different opinions and dialogs about its causes, impacts, and action required. However, the polarized labels used in the climate change debate, such as skeptic or alarmist, are both reflecting and helping to frame the debate as antagonistic and combative. This paper critically reviews the literature on climate opinion labels, and the efforts taken within an academic context to categorize differences, create new taxonomies of more detailed sub-labels, or create or argue for the use of new labels such as denier or contrarian. By drawing on research on typologies of climate opinions, problems with labeling constructs and discussions around context and the implications for science-policy dialog, we argue that climate labels, both as constructed in the academic literature, and as applied in science and policy debates, are serving to isolate, exclude, ignore, and dismiss claims-makers of all types from constructive dialog. It suggests that context has been inadequately considered by the literature and that an emphasis on labels is accentuating division and diverting attention away from a focus on underlying motivations, which may be more conducive toward increasing public understanding and encouraging communication across this polarized debate
To provide a behavioural perspective on the relationship between transport and climate change.
The factors influencing travel behaviour and the elements critical to behaviour formation are reviewed. The importance of behaviour change measures to reduce the impact of transport on climate change, and the application of behaviour change measures to increase the sustainability of transport, are examined.
There have been a range of travel behaviour measures implemented, such as individualised marketing programmes and travel plans, which have demonstrated some behavioural change impacts, in turn affecting climate change emissions, although they tend to be localised and small-scale.
There is a real challenge to encourage individuals within society to exhibit more sustainable travel behaviour.
A range of behavioural issues still need to be resolved in terms of the relationship between transport and climate change, including a need to influence attitudes, to bridge the gaps between attitudes and both behaviour and intention, to make an impact at points of transition for individuals, to use cognitive dissonance as a way of harnessing social norms, and to understand more fully social pressure and group influence.
Labels play an important role in opinion formation, helping to actively construct perceptions and reality, and place individuals into context with others. As a highly complex issue, climate change invites a range of different opinions and dialogues about its causes, impacts and action required. Much work has been published in the academic literature aiming to categorise differences of opinion about climate change using labels. However, the debate about labels acts as a distraction to more fundamental and pressing issues of policy response (Howarth and Sharman, 2015). In addition, the undercurrent of incivility present in the climate change debate also contributes towards a hostile and unconstructive conflict.
This is an evolving area of academic enquiry. Recent work has examined how the different labels of climate change opinions are constructed, used in practice and portrayed differently in the public and policy spheres. The growing number of categorisation systems used in the climate debate is also argued to have implications for the science-policy interface, creating a polarised debate involving many different actors and interfaces.
Moving away from unhelpful use and construction of labels which lead to incivility would enable constructive and fruitful dialogue across this polarised debate. A way forward would be to explore further the role of underlying motivations and rationales as to why these different opinions about climate change come to exist in the first place. Focusing on potential overlaps in perceptions and rationales may encourage constructive discussion amongst actors previously engaged in purposefully antagonistic exchange on climate change.
Scientists are under increasing pressure to communicate their findings effectively to decision-makers and undertake public engagement activities. Research councils require researchers to demonstrate the Pathways to Impact of their funding and within the Research Excellence Framework to demonstrate an ?effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia? (Stern 2014, 43). However, scientists are often ill-equipped or may be restricted by resource and capacity to effectively engage in activities that can ensure the broad dissemination and uptake of their findings. Similarly, adoption of the ?information deficit approach? where more information is assumed to lead to better understanding, means the evidence-base on climate change can be abundant yet inaccessible and misaligned with the needs of different audiences. Cross-research collaboration and partnerships with artists could enable knowledge exchange and sharing of experiences to facilitate this. Processes through which scientists engage with the arts provide a unique opportunity to engage with different audiences in meaningful ways to enable scientific evidence on climate change to become salient and relevant, providing more potential to inform decision-making and practices. This commentary explores the science-arts relationship through an analysis of three case studies. ?The Prediction Machine,? ?A Conversation between Trees,? and ?Cold Sun.? We discuss insights that can be gained from these art-science collaborations on climate change. In particular, we explore how these collaborations can support scientists to further enhance salience to climate change and co-produce resilient solutions at different scales, to maximise dissemination of research
Howarth Candice (2018) Looking Ahead, In: Resilience to Climate Change pp. 87-110
The frequency and intensity of climate shocks are expected to increase under a changing climate with severe implications for sectors and those working across the food, energy, water, environment nexus. Impacts of these shocks will exacerbate the vulnerability of those sectors affecting resource availability, system pressures and decision-making processes. We reflect here on how communication, collaboration and co-production can play a fundamental role in informing nexus related decision-making and increasing resilience to shocks and discuss how mechanisms through which stakeholders working, across the nexus (e.g. on energy, food, water, environment) can more efficiently and more robustly co-create robust responses to nexus shocks. Fundamental to embedding communication, collaboration and co-production within responses to nexus shocks and building resilience is the availability and deployment of sufficient financial resources and capacity building in order to facilitate this process and ensure it is sustained in the long term.
The frequency and intensity of climate shocks such as heatwaves and flooding, are expected to increase under a changing climate with severe implications across the food, energy, water, environment nexus. This book critically explores how to improve resilience to climate shocks by examining the range of challenges and opportunities that exist in the aftermath of shocks and discusses factors that exacerbate and mitigate these. It innovatively discusses the importance of embedding communication, collaboration and co-production within resilience-building across sectors and stakeholders. Doing so with policy, practitioner and scientific communities, Candice Howarth argues, can pave the way to overcome challenges that emerge from climate shocks and facilitate the co-design of sustainable, robust and resilient responses.
This chapter introduces ?nexus shocks?. It explores who and what they impact and how, why they are important, and why the lens of nexus shocks provides a useful approach to practically explore and inform decision-making about climate shocks to food-energy-water-environment (FEWE) resources. Characteristics of nexus shocks are presented and discussed in the context of decision-making as well as how interpretation of these characteristics across stakeholder groups and sectors can lead to detrimental decision-making processes. The chapter closes with an overview of the Nexus Shocks project, the findings of which form the basis of this book.
This paper explores the use and perceived usefulness of the 2012 and 2017 United Kingdom Climate Change Risk
Assessment (CCRA) reports to identify potential areas of improvement for UK adaptation policy. We conducted
interviews with key stakeholders and analysed each CCRA in the context of objective, audience, budget, frame,
key findings, dissemination, and how they informed policy. We found that stakeholders used the CCRA in three
main ways: (i) to make a business case for their work; (ii) to shape direction of policy or work; and (iii) practical
applications. Our findings suggest that the way in which both CCRAs have been operationalized are symptomatic
of the UK state reinforcing scientific reductionism in adaptation assessments for policymaking.
Recommendations from interviews for future CCRAs included (i) adopting more innovative methodological
approaches, (ii) developing more effective mechanisms for operationalisation of the CCRAs, and (iii) improving
communication of the CCRAs, their risks and recommendations. This would enable better alignment with user
needs and more robust inclusive decision-making processes in the assessment of future UK climate risks and
impacts. We discuss how a new framework is needed in which evidence assessments such as the CCRA can be
further developed utilising methods of co-production.
This chapter explores how responses to nexus shocks can help reduce impacts or make them worst. It draws on findings from five co-production workshops with the UK Met Office, Atkins, Chatham House, Lloyds of London and Willis Re, Cambridge Cleantech and LDA Design, to assess the factors that exacerbate and mitigate climate shocks to the food, energy, water, environment nexus and subsequent impacts. These are especially important to consider, as they enable opportunities for lessons learnt and better and more resilient responses to nexus shocks in future. However, these are often inadequately explored, and more is needed to ensure decision-making remains relevant and aligned with the needs of stakeholders affected by nexus shocks, when dealing with the complex nature of these shocks.
Nexus shocks are non-linear, spanning multiple sectors and geographies, with decisions often made with a sectoral focus. This can lead to failures to consider the impacts on and interactions of other sectors and stakeholders. A number of challenges and opportunities emerge when examining the impacts of climate shocks to the food, energy, water, environment nexus, particularly when exploring the relationship between society, the system on which it depends and its components (e.g. infrastructure, healthcare etc.). A system?s vulnerability and exposure to the risks produced by nexus shocks will affect its capacity to respond and the behaviours of people within it. This is where the co-production of approaches and space for bottom-up initiatives can pave the way to overcome challenges that emerge from nexus shocks and facilitate the design of sustainable and resilient responses to nexus shocks.
Building resilient responses to nexus shocks requires effective communication and collaboration across sectors and stakeholders, yet this is not always achieved. The Nexus Shocks project examined how communication and collaboration could be enhanced, adopting a co-production methodology with policy, practitioner and scientific communities. This chapter discusses the barriers and challenges to communication and collaboration on specific nexus shocks, such as heatwaves and flooding, and identifies pathways to strengthen responses. Co-production provides a constructive way to deliver more salient decision-making processes which incorporate the needs of those affected in managing and responding to nexus shocks.
At present, there is little guidance on how to communicate the dangers relating to hot weather events and on how to better prepare for them. Social responses to hot weather risks need to be a priority as populations around the world become more exposed to these under a changing climate. In this commentary, we argue that policy interventions focused on improving resilience to hot weather need to be more closely aligned with broader sustainability challenges and more effectively incorporate communication, behaviour, and social insights. With a particular focus on the UK, we highlight the risks of not taking these into account and outline ways in which policy-making on hot weather events could be improved, by drawing on international best practice and supporting decision-making within a range of relevant institutions across the health, transport and housing sectors.