The Cultural Theory of Risk for Climate Change Adaptation

Abstract

The way in which people perceive climate change risk is informed by their social interactions and cultural worldviews comprising fundamental beliefs about society and nature. Therefore, perceptions of climate change risk and vulnerability along with people’s “myths of nature”—that is, how groups of people conceptualize the way nature functions—influence the feasibility and acceptability of climate adaptation planning, policy making, and implementation. This study presents analyses of cultural worldviews that broaden the current treatments of culture and climate change mitigation and adaptation decision making in communities. The authors use insights from community-based climate research and engage the Cultural Theory of Risk conceptual framework to situate community understandings of, and responses to, climate impacts. This study looks at how the issue of climate change manifests socially in four cases in the United States and Tuvalu and how ideas about climate change are produced by the institutional cultural contexts across scales from the local to the global. This approach helps us identify local and regional priorities and support the development of new relationships for adaptation research and planning by helping to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation, assist improved communication through framing/reframing climate issues based on shared understandings and collective learning, and help move from conflict to cooperation through better negotiation of diverse worldviews.

Explaining differential vulnerability to climate change: A social science review

“…In California in 2010–2011, the Oakland Climate Action Coalition's work with local coastal communities succeeded because it incorporated community risk perceptions by engaging community stakeholders throughout the 18‐month planning process (Garzon et al, ). Adaptation options that include “clumsy solutions,” in which a diversity of people can see their own cultural worldviews, perceptions of risk, and experiences reflected, may be less politically tidy but more likely to be agreed upon and enforced (Lazrus, , ; McNeeley & Lazrus, ; Verweij & Thompson, ).…”

Understanding Climate Change Perception in Community-Based Management Contexts: Perspectives of Two Indigenous Communities

“…Cultural theory aims to explain how people perceive and act about the world around them (Oltedal et al 2004). The approach provides a basis for examining the cultural locations within which CC is conceptualized and offers a way to understand how worldviews, sociocultural factors, and personal experiences influence CC perceptions (Gierlach et al 2010;McNeeley and Lazrus 2014). Therefore, cultural theory could support the inclusion of local and cultural differences in the design of CC adaptation strategies.…”

“…We used cultural theory as an instrument to explain whether different ways of managing natural resources and understanding social relations could explain different perceptions of CC. In relation to cultural theory, this research suggests that (i) people can hold different worldviews in different situations (Oltedal et al 2004) and (ii) cultural types are not clearly distinguishable, (Douglas 1992) but rather complement each other (McNeeley and Lazrus 2014). More research should be conducted to continue the examination of cultural theory as a valid theoretical framework that can be used in contexts other than Western societies, beyond survey designs, and as a tool to explore cultural differences.…”

Assessing the Operationalization of Cultural Theory through Surveys Investigating the Social Aspects of Climate Change Policy Making

“…The myth of nature ephemeral corresponds with an egalitarian worldview, which believes that nature is fragile and our attempts to manage it should aim at maximum preservation to avoid complete collapse. McNeeley and Lazrus (2014) aptly point out that in this case the word ''myth'' does not refer to a tale or falsehood, but rather it is used to call attention to the idea that each interpretation of the resilience of nature is not 100% right or wrong but instead each can be partially true at the same time, or a ''partial representation of reality'' (O'Riordan and Jordan 1999;Thompson et al 1990, p. 70).…”