Overcoming social barriers to learning and engagement with climate change adaptation: experiences with Swedish forestry stakeholders

Abstract

Climate change is expected to significantly affect forestry in the coming decades. Thus, it is important to raise awareness of climate-related risks -and opportunities -among forest stakeholders, and engage them in adaptation. However, many social barriers have been shown to hinder adaptation, including perceptions of climate change as irrelevant or not urgent, underestimates of adaptive capacity and lack of trust in climate science. This study looks into how science-based learning experiences can help overcome social barriers to adaptation, and how learning in itself may be hindered by those barriers. The study examines the role of learning in engagement with climate change adaptation with the help of the theory of transformative learning. Our analysis is based on follow-up interviews conducted with 24 Swedish forestry stakeholders who had participated in a series of focus group discussions about climate change impacts and adaptation measures. We find that many stakeholders struggled to form an opinion based on what they perceived as uncertain and contested scientific knowledge. The study concludes that engagement with climate change adaptation can be increased if the scientific knowledge addresses the needs, objectives and aspirations of stakeholders and relates to their previous experiences with climate change and extreme weather events.

Joint knowledge production for improved climate services: Insights from the Swedish forestry sector

“…Our empirical analysis using the JKP framework (see Table 3) reinforces the findings of previous studies (e.g., Groot et al, 2014;Jönsson & Gerger Swartling, 2014;Vulturius & Gerger Swartling, 2015) suggesting that barriers to effective participatory processes are closely linked to maintaining stakeholder commitment and engagement throughout the process. Strong stakeholder engagement is also important to overcome language barriers and to clearly identify needs, perceptions, and expectations of the process (André et al, 2012;Larsen et al, 2012).…”

“…These include (a) social factors such as stakeholders' risk perceptions, values, cultures, and perspectives relating to climate change impacts and adaptation measures (Adger et al, 2009;Vulturius & Gerger Swartling, 2015); (b) differences in how stakeholders and researchers frame and understand the problem being addressed (Groot, Hollaender, & Swart, 2014;Hegger et al, 2012;Larsen et al, 2012); (c) issues with identifying common research questions; (d) "fatigue" with research projects among stakeholders Jönsson & Gerger Swartling, 2014); (e) identifying the "right" participants, including the size of the group and composition of knowledge systems (André, Simonsson, Gerger Swartling, & Linnér, 2012;Runhaar et al, 2016); These include (a) social factors such as stakeholders' risk perceptions, values, cultures, and perspectives relating to climate change impacts and adaptation measures (Adger et al, 2009;Vulturius & Gerger Swartling, 2015); (b) differences in how stakeholders and researchers frame and understand the problem being addressed (Groot, Hollaender, & Swart, 2014;Hegger et al, 2012;Larsen et al, 2012); (c) issues with identifying common research questions; (d) "fatigue" with research projects among stakeholders Jönsson & Gerger Swartling, 2014); (e) identifying the "right" participants, including the size of the group and composition of knowledge systems (André, Simonsson, Gerger Swartling, & Linnér, 2012;Runhaar et al, 2016);…”

“…A number of multilevel and cross-level challenges to coproducing knowledge and thus connecting climate science to policy and practice have been identified in the recent literature. These include (a) social factors such as stakeholders' risk perceptions, values, cultures, and perspectives relating to climate change impacts and adaptation measures (Adger et al, 2009;Vulturius & Gerger Swartling, 2015); (b) differences in how stakeholders and researchers frame and understand the problem being addressed (Groot, Hollaender, & Swart, 2014;Hegger et al, 2012;Larsen et al, 2012); (c) issues with identifying common research questions; (d) "fatigue" with research projects among stakeholders Jönsson & Gerger Swartling, 2014); (e) identifying the "right" participants, including the size of the group and composition of knowledge systems (André, Simonsson, Gerger Swartling, & Linnér, 2012;Runhaar et al, 2016);…”

Use of simulations to enhance knowledge integration and livestock producers’ adaptation to variability in the climate in northern Uruguay

“…This study leads us to suggest that we can distinguish two types of knowledge produced: (1) knowledge that allows us to better understand the world we inhabit and (2) knowledge that allows us to act, as explained by Simon (1996) and March (2010). It can be argued (Vulturius and Gerger Swartling 2013) that both types of knowledge improve adaptation as expressed by the producers who participated in the workshops. Learning is difficult to assess because it must take account of the potential action capacity of those involved, and this capacity is itself difficult to evaluate (Ison et al 2000).…”

On Social Value of Risk Information in Risk Communication

“…For instance, the scientific uncertainty associated with climate change is one major reason that the public is reluctant to take adaptive action. The public prefers unanimous scientific descriptions of problems [46]. Therefore, increasing the precision of scientific knowledge will always benefit stakeholders as a whole.…”