Making sense of maladaptation: Nordic agriculture stakeholders’ perspectives

Abstract

The need for climate change adaptation has been widely recognised and examples of successful adaptation are increasingly reported in the literature, but little attention has so far been paid to the potential negative impacts of implemented adaptation measures. As the agricultural sector is implementing measures to adapt to or cope with climatic variability and change, the potential negative consequences of these measures need to be explored in order to avoid increased vulnerability or (unintended) environmental impacts. This paper employs serious gaming and focus group methodology to study how agricultural stakeholders in Sweden and Finland frame and negotiate the unintended negative impacts of adaptation measures. The results of our interactional frame analysis suggest that the participants negotiated the potential maladaptive outcomes depending on: (1) whether they agreed that this was indeed a potential consequence of an adaptation measure, (2) whether they considered this to be a negative outcome, and if so whether it was (3) a negative outcome which they could adapt to, (4) a negative outcome that would make it preferable not to adapt at all (5) negotiable in terms of a trade-off with alternative outcomes. While it may be obvious that adaptation options

Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?

“…This is not entirely unexpected as countries have different national histories of science and education [ 42 ] [ 43 ] and commit to societal engagement of science in different ways through, for instance, policy imperatives, public debates, government directives, or promote some sciences before others (different public visibility of disciplines). For instance, the somewhat higher level of outreach activity in the agricultural sciences may go back to the tradition of USA land-grant universities and their extension services [ 44 ], which expanded internationally to many countries [ 45 ] [ 46 ]. It might also reflect the many controversies over the years on agriculture related topics (climate change, biofuels, or genetically modified crops).…”

Benefits and challenges of serious gaming – the case of “The Maladaptation Game”

“…We incorporated these research findings in the game by integrating climate adaptation options and potential negative outcomes in the game design. This synthesis indicates a number of trade-offs that are related to adaptation decision-making, which are important to address in future adaptation strategies (see also Neset et al 2019).…”

Focus groups and serious gaming in climate change communication research—A methodological review

“…In focus group studies, moderators often use material or interventions to spur discussions, such as images, video clips, short texts, or ranking exercises (Kitzinger, 1994; Wibeck et al, 2007). Similarly, several participatory studies, based on different methodologies, have discussed interactive visualization tools of various kinds (Bohman, Neset, Opach, & Rød, 2015; Gammelgaard Ballantyne et al, 2018; Neset, Asplund, Käyhkö, & Juhola, 2019; Sheppard et al, 2011; Wiréhn et al, 2017).…”

“…While the first three present risks for agricultural production, the challenge of the prolonged growing season entails potential opportunities for agriculture, which nevertheless require adaptation measures to be taken to capitalize on these changes. Adaptation measures and the potential maladaptive outcomes which are related to each of the measures are based on a literature review and interviews (Neset et al, 2019;Wiréhn et al, 2017). For each challenge, the player selects from a number of adaptation measures, each assigned with a cost, but also a potential unintended negative consequence.…”