Promoting effective responses to climate change, especially among people who reject its anthropogenic causes, has been challenging. Following a qualitative study, we experimentally induce one of four frames of reference (identity, biodiversity conservation, economic prosperity, and climate change), and assess their effects on participants' behavioral intentions using three scales (consumption-investment, consumption-reduction, and political participation). The sample (N 5 156) included people who thought climate change is natural and those who thought it is human-induced. Results show a significant impact of the identity frame, relative to the climate-change frame, for both consumption scales, in the total sample, and among those who reject the anthropogenic causes. These results offer a way to address behavioral resistances associated with antagonistic views on climate change.

Dealing with climate change is one of this century's most difficult challenges demanding new strategies to steer societies towards common transformational goals. A growing literature involving “climate governance” is evolving and should advance the discussion on transformations and the involvement of different actors in climate action. However, it is unclear that the Global South's particularities are being integrated. This study has a three‐fold goal: (a) identify the different approaches to climate governance found in the mainstream literature, (b) explore the degree of integration of the Global South in those approaches, and (c) contribute to the ongoing discussion on this issue from a southern perspective. A systematic literature review on “climate governance” was conducted, distinguishing different approaches and their significance for the Global South. Results clustered in six groups use the characterizations: multi‐level, global, adaptive, transnational, polycentric, and experimental/transformative. These terms account for different levels of decision‐making, emerging values, and the importance of non‐State and sub‐national actors. Approaches vary, in relation to change and participation, from an incremental improvement focus to a more transformative perspective and from the promotion of community influence to processes based on traditional institutions. In the Global South, multi‐level, multi‐actor climate governance occurs in a context of deep inequality and asymmetric power relations, rising environmental conflicts, and a lack of adequate mechanisms for community participation. Addressing climate change here will require, acknowledging the State alone cannot solve the issue, that different views must be considered and that contextualized perspectives from the Global South must be integrated.

Climate adaptation is a growing imperative across all scales and sectors of governance. This often requires changes in institutions, which can be difficult to realize.Explicitly process-oriented approaches explaining how and why institutional change occurs are lacking. Overcoming this gap is vital to move beyond either input-oriented (e.g., capacity) or output-oriented (e.g., assessment) approaches, to understand how changes actually occur for addressing complex and contested governance issues. This paper analyses causal conditions and mechanisms by which institutions develop in climate adaptation governance. It focuses on urban climate governance through an in-depth case study of Santiago, Chile, over a 12-year period (2005-2017), drawing on primary and secondary data, including 26 semistructured interviews with policy, academic, and civil society actors. It identifies and explains a variety of institutional developments across multiple levels (i.e., programmatic, legislative, and constitutional), through a theory-centric process tracing methodology. This reveals a multiple-response pattern, involving several causal mechanisms and coexisting institutional logics. Findings suggest that although adaptation may be inherently protracted, institutions can nevertheless develop in both related and novel directions.Overall, the paper argues for a new research agenda on process-oriented theorizing and analysis in climate and environmental governance.

No abstract

No abstract