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

Title

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

Authors

Gregor Vulturius a, b * and Åsa Gerger Swartling a b

a Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm Office, Linnégatan 87 D, 115 23 Stockholm, Sweden b School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Drummond Street, Edinburgh EH8 9XP, UKc Stockholm Resilience Centre, Kräftriket 2b, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden * Corresponding author [email protected] +46 73 460 4851 [email protected]

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all participants in this project for their time and interest.

We are also grateful for the work of Karin André at SEI in Stockholm, Louise Simonson at

the Swedish Defence Agency (FOI), and Maja Dahlin, who organized the data collection for

this study. We thank the two anonymous reviewers, as well as Marion Davis and John

Forrester at SEI, Carina Keskitalo at Umeå University and Ryan Plummer at Brock University

for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. We acknowledge the financial

support of the Swedish Foundation for Environmental Research (Mistra). This study is part

of the Mistra-SWECIA programme on climate, impacts and adaptation in Sweden.

1

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.

Keywords

Climate Change; Climate Change Adaptation; Forestry; Transformative Learning; Climate

Change Communication

2

Introduction

Climate change is expected to have significant impacts on forests in the 21th century,

suggesting that adaptation measures should be taken to reduce the vulnerability of forests

and forestry stakeholders to climate change risks (Locatelli et al. 2010). For forests in

Northern Europe, rising temperatures and changes in precipitation levels due to climate

change are expected to increase risk from pests and vulnerability to storms (Jönsson &

Bärring 2011) – but also to improve growing conditions (Swedish Commission on Climate

and Vulnerability 2007). Knowledge is growing about appropriate forestry management

strategies and measures that can help the forestry sector to adapt to climate change risks

or potential benefits (Jönsson et al. 2013).

Thus far, however, adaptation research has only had limited success in promoting

adaptation among policy-makers (Westerhoff & Juhola 2010; O’Brien 2012; Klein & Juhola

2014) or forestry stakeholders (Keskitalo et al. 2011; Ulmanen et al. 2012). Governments

and organizations seeking to promote adaptation learning and engagement have often

focused on disseminating scientific information about climate change impacts and adaptive

measures (Deci 2009), yet it has also been recognized that social barriers can limit the

success of such strategies in changing perceptions and behaviours (Lorenzoni et al. 2007;

Adger et al. 2009; Moser & Ekstrom 2010; Wibeck 2013). A recent study on European

forest owners suggests that personal belief in climate change and experiences with climate

change risks can more accurately explain adaptive action than access to economic

resources (Blennow et al. 2012).

This study applies transformative learning theory to examine social barriers to learning and

engagement with climate change adaptation. This approach focuses on how critical

discourse and reflection can change the frames of reference that shape someone’s

perceptions, preferences and behaviours. People’s understanding of climate change – as

3

shaped by their frames of reference – may determine which policies they support and how

willing they are to change their behaviour (Moser & Dilling 2011). The question we ask is

how transformative learning can help overcome social barriers to climate action and

behaviour change, and how learning in itself is impeded by those social barriers. In detail,

we focus on the role transformative learning takes in shaping people’s perception of

climate change risks and their own adaptive capacity (Grothmann & Patt 2005); as well as

their trust in climate science (Sjöberg 2012).

The study builds on interviews with 24 stakeholders in the Swedish forestry sector who had

been participating in a series of focus group discussions with climate scientists about

climate change risks and adaptation measures (for a more detailed description, see André

2013). Our findings shed light on social barriers to adaptation and could help governments

and researchers improve outreach and communication efforts to promote adaptation.

Transformative learning

Learning is a key mechanism in both individuals’ and societies’ adaptation to changing

conditions or persistent stressors in social-ecological systems (Folke et al. 2003). It entails

the acquisition of new experiences, information and skills, sense-making, and forming a

new understanding of reality by reinterpreting old and new knowledge (Muro & Jeffrey

2008). A learning experience can change not only people’s knowledge base, but also their

beliefs, perceptions and behaviour (Diduck 2010). Research about the cognitive and

emotional processes underpinning responses to climate change suggests that individual

learning both shapes and is shaped by the frames of reference that determine how people

respond to experiences and knowledge about climate change (Kempton 1991; Wolf &

Moser 2011).

4

Transformative learning theory, developed by Mezirow (2006), offers a framework to

examine the learning experiences of adults. The theory identifies critical discourse and

reflection in social contexts as key drivers that can change a person’s frames of reference,

with potential consequences on that person’s behaviour. Frames of reference are defined

as mental structures through which individuals make sense of personal experiences and

which predetermine a person’s cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses to new

experiences – in other words, filters that “shape and delimit our perception, cognition and

feelings by predisposing our intentions, beliefs, expectations and purposes” (Mezirow 2006,

p. 26). Transformative learning is defined as “the process by which we transform

problematic frames of reference […] to make them more inclusive, discriminating, open,

reflective and emotionally able to change” (Mezirow 2006, p. 26). New frames of reference

are expected to be more suitable to guide decision-making under changing conditions

(Diduck et al. 2012).

Transformative learning theory considers two domains of learning: instrumental learning

and communicative learning. Both instrumental and communicative learning consist of

critical reflections and critical discourse (Kitchenham 2008). Through both processes,

individuals critically validate new experiences, opinions and the underlying assumptions

that shape perceptions and behaviours (Mezirow 2000).

Instrumental learning is task-oriented and focuses on problem-solving to help individuals

improve the performance of their activities and better achieve their objectives (Armitage et

al. 2008). It includes acquisition of and insights into ecological, social or economic

knowledge; legal and administrative framework conditions; and measures and strategies

that help mitigate risks and adapt to new environmental conditions (Diduck et al. 2012). In

terms of climate change adaptation, instrumental learning may encompasses the

acquisition of knowledge about potential risks and impacts of climate change and

knowledge about the efficacy and application of adaptation measures.

5

Communicative learning refers to the improvement of people’s ability to understand their

own and others´ beliefs, values, interests and actions, and identify commonalities and

disagreements between them (Diduck 2010; Diduck et al. 2012). It can encompass changes

in a person´s understanding of principles and drivers that shape prevailing environmental

management strategies (Wilner et al. 2012). In relation to climate change adaptation,

communicative learning may change a person´s perception of how other actors deal with

scientific knowledge about and personal experience with climate change impacts.

Transformative learning can be either informative, increasing or changing what is known, or

transformational, changing how knowledge and meaning is constructed (Kegan 2009).

Whereas informative learning contributes knowledge that supports existing frames of

reference, transformational learning changes the very ways in which a person constructs

meaning: “Transformational learning is always to some extent an epistemological change

rather than merely a change in behavioural repertoire or an increase in the quantity or fund

of knowledge” (Kegan 2009, p.41). Mezirow (2000) names three ways in which learning can

change a person’s frames of reference: It may build on existing frames of reference,

supporting established beliefs and perceptions. It may lead to the assimilation of new

frames, building on a propensity to perceive and evaluate related issues in a certain

manner. Or it can actually transform pre-existing frames of reference. Transformative

learning is more likely to change attitudes than deeply rooted values and beliefs, as

comprehensive transformations of existing frames of reference are rare Mezirow (2006).

Social barriers to engagement with climate change adaptation

Engagement with climate change can be described as “a personal state of connection with

the issue of climate change […] concurrently comprising cognitive, affective and behavioural

aspects” (Lorenzoni et al. 2007, p. 446). That distinction may help explain the long-

recognized gap between public awareness of climate change and action to address it

6

(Ungar 1994; Blake 1999). Research has shown that there is no direct correlation between

awareness of climate change and corresponding behavioural change (Nerlich et al. 2010). It

has also been argued that providing more information is not enough to increase public

engagement with climate change (see, among others, (Moser & Dilling 2011). Hence, a

growing literature has focused on social and cognitive barriers that impede learning and

engagement with climate change (Adger et al. 2009; Nisbet & Scheufele 2009; Moser &

Ekstrom 2010; Dow et al. 2013).

Understanding of the barriers to engagement with adaptation is still limited, but growing.

Empirical evidence from previous studies suggests that pre-existing pro-environmental

values, perceived benefits of action, sense of self-efficacy, peer pressure and practical

assistance are critical factors for fostering meaningful engagement with climate change

(Gardner & Stern 1996; Takahashi 2009; Dietz et al. 2009). The literature on risk and

environmental psychology has also highlighted the influence of past behaviour, knowledge,

experiences, feelings, social networks, social and institutional trust, and demographic

background (Lorenzoni et al. 2007). These findings suggest that barriers to adaptation are

socially constructed constraints (Moser & Ekstrom 2010), that can be overcome given

sufficient will, effort and resources (Adger et al. 2009).

A key factor in people’s level of engagement with adaptation is their perception of climate

change risks – of the likelihood that they will be affected, and of the severity of that

potential impact. Risks may be perceived as greater if they threaten something that is

highly valued (Grothmann & Patt 2005) – and thus, people’s values are crucial in shaping

their perception of climate risks and adaptation needs (Wolf et al. 2013). If people do not

perceive risks from climate change as significant, they are very unlikely to take adaptive

action (O’Brien et al. 2006; Dow et al. 2013).

7

A second factor that is crucial for a person´s level of engagement with adaptation is the

perceived proximity to climate change risks. Simply speaking, if the impacts of climate

change are perceived to be distant in time and space, and the benefits of adaptive action

are perceived as uncertain or delayed, engagement with adaptation remains low (Moser

2010). However, a recent study of European forest owners found a substantial share of

respondents believed that they were currently experiencing and/or had experienced

climate change impacts (Blennow et al. 2012). The study also showed that personal belief in

climate change and perceived experiences with climate change risks were strong predictors

of adaptive action.

A third major factor in adaptation engagement is perceived adaptive capacity. This

encompasses three factors: the perceived efficacy of available adaptation measures

(whether they can actually reduce or eliminate a risk), the perceived cost of those measures

(relative to their perceived benefits), and perceived self-efficacy – whether a person

believes he/she can successfully execute and maintain adaptive measures (Grothmann &

Patt 2005).

Lack of trust in climate science, and the view that scientific knowledge about climate

change and adaptive measures is uncertain, can also pose barriers to adaptation. Trust in

scientists has a strongly mediating influence on how people interpret scientific knowledge

about climate change (Moser 2010). The credibility of climate science and scientists has

been shown to be a key determinant of the success of climate change communication

(Peters et al. 1997). It has also been suggested that if people perceive climate science as

biased, faulty, incomplete or inapplicable to them, levels of engagement will remain low

(Rowe & Frewer 2005). Similarly, the perception of climate science as uncertain can hinder

learning and engagement (Pidgeon & Fischhoff 2011) and lead people to take a “wait and

see” attitude towards adaptive action (Sterman 2008).

8

Materials and methods

Results presented in this study are based on follow-up interviews with Swedish forestry

stakeholders who had been participating in a series of focus group discussions about

climate change risks and adaptation. A total of 27 stakeholders, divided into four groups,

participated in three meetings each, or 12 altogether, and attended a final workshop

together (for a detailed description, see (André 2013). Follow-up interviews with 24 of the

stakeholders were conducted roughly six months after the last focus group meetings.

The focus groups brought together private forest owners from two Swedish counties,

Kronoberg in the south, and Västerbotten in the north, as well as representatives of the

Swedish Forestry Agency, the timber and sawmill industry, forest owner associations and

municipal governments. Participants were selected based on a comprehensive stakeholder

mapping exercise that looked at exposure to climate risks, previous experience with

extreme events, expected adaptive capacity, and – in the case of forestry professionals –

relevance to adaptation (i.e. interest in, or mandate for, facilitating and implementing

adaptation) (André & Simonsson 2011).

The focus group participants came from two geographically distant counties with different

level of experience with extreme natural events: Forests in Kronoberg were severely

affected by Hurricane Gudrun 2005 and Hurricane Per in 2007 and have also experience

damages from bark beetles, while Västerbotten was largely left unscathed by the two

storms and pests (Skogh 2009). The two counties also differ in terms of bioclimatic

preconditions, level of tree species diversification, and forest structure and ownership.

Kronoberg, in the hemiboreal zone in southern Sweden, has a high share of pine and

deciduous trees and share of private forest ownership of forest properties. Västerbotten, in

the boreal zone in northern Sweden, has a comparatively smaller share of pine and

deciduous trees and private forest ownership (Skogsstyrelsen 2011).

9

Focus group discussions were divided into three separate meetings for all four groups.

During the first meeting, participants discussed future climatic risks and challenges and

their personal impressions of climate change. In the second meeting, forestry stakeholders

discussed future climate scenarios and scientific knowledge about adaptive forestry

management presented by researchers from the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological

Institute (SMHI) and the Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science at Lund

University. Data from climate scenarios included estimates of the impact of climate change

on future temperatures, precipitation levels, storm risks, condition of ground frost, duration

of growing periods, future levels of bark beetle infestation and other related issues

(Jönsson & Bärring 2011; Nikulin et al. 2011; Samuelsson et al. 2011). In the final meeting,

participants were asked to rank and discuss barriers to and opportunities for adaptation

which had been mentioned in the previous two meetings. The subsequent workshop

provided a forum for all the stakeholders to exchange experiences and knowledge.

In the follow-up interviews, focus group participants were first asked about their general

reflections about climate change and adaptation, then about their personal learning

experiences. Questions that were asked in this structured interview included whether their

awareness, knowledge and opinions about climate change had changed as a result of the

focus group discussions, and whether they had considered climatic risks and adaptation

measures in their own forestry planning. The interviews were recorded and transcribed,

and the data was analysed with the assistance of the software MAXQDA. Where quotations

are presented in the section that follows, they are taken verbatim (but translated from

Swedish) from the interview transcripts.

Results

Transformational learning theory suggests critical reflection and discourse as the two key

processes by which individuals change their frames of reference and, potentially, their

10

behaviour. The great majority of forestry stakeholders described their involvement in focus

group discussions as an exciting and stimulating experience. Many emphasized that the

discussions had raised previously unknown or unclear issues and had given them an

opportunity to learn about the different ways in which laypeople and scientists interpret

scientific knowledge about future climate risks and adaptation measures.

I think it was very interesting to hear comments about the different scenarios

and figures that you presented; that added new knowledge, if you will. […] It

was interesting to see how these discussions were guided and how different

people understand these issues. We in our group were quite unanimous, but

you still learnt a lot about something new when trying to understand what

someone else says.

– Forest owner, Kronoberg

These results show how the focus group discussions provided participants with the

opportunity for both instrumental (fact- and skill-focused) learning and communicative

learning (understanding one’s own and others’ perspectives), as discussed above. Focus

group discussions served as a platform for forestry stakeholders to familiarize themselves

with climate science and adaptation knowledge, and gave them a chance to openly discuss

issues that went beyond their day-to-day concerns, with the scientists and with one

another.

The majority of forest stakeholders said their involvement in the focus group discussions

had at least a modest impact on their knowledge and awareness of the impacts of climate

change on forestry. Ten forest stakeholders said the focus group meetings had marginally

or only indirectly influenced their views on climate change, while nine reported some or

considerable change in level of awareness, and four said the focus groups had no influence

at all on how they perceived climate change impacts and adaptation needs. Among many

11

forestry stakeholders, the increase in interest and awareness about climate change came as

a result of instrumental learning and improved understanding about climate science.

I admit that my focus has changed during this project, which I think is a

consequence of gathering more information in this area. As I gathered more

information, I became more aware about environmental and climate change

issues.

– Forest owner, Västerbotten

Focus group participants also mentioned that the discussions had increased their interest in

the coverage of climate change in the media. This is significant because many forest

stakeholders said that media coverage had great influence on their personal level of

awareness and knowledge about climate change. It suggests that engagement with climate

change adaptation can result from communicative learning that changes the way in which

an individual perceives information in the media and relates it to personal and scientific

knowledge about climate change.

Results also show that increased level of knowledge and awareness of climate change was

not, however, followed by a rise in the sense of urgency about adaptation. Notably, the

majority of both forest owners and forestry professionals said that the science presented to

them about climate impacts and adaptive measures did not have direct implications for

their current forest activities. Many forest stakeholders continued to perceive the impacts

of climate change as distant in both time and space.

By the look of things, climate change seems to be very distant and long-term,

and I don’t have a clear picture of how it is going to affect us. […] It happens

on such a long time scale, which makes it difficult to really grasp the issue.


12

One of the key reasons why the focus group discussions did not increase forest

stakeholders’ sense of urgency about adaptation among forestry stakeholders is that they

saw a discrepancy between what climate scientists predicted for the future and their own

experiences. Several attributed observed anomalies to natural climate variability, citing

recent weather conditions.

I think [climate change] has calmed down. We had a hard winter, and the

coming one is equally cold. It didn’t use to get so cold. We had not had it that

insanely cold in 25, 30 years. […] What I would say is that the climate is

following a sinus curve, it goes up and then it goes down. I might be that this

curve rises and that the temperature increases by a few degrees…


This suggests that a potential barrier to engagement with climate change adaptation is the

way in which people consider personal experiences with weather conditions when forming

their opinion about the validity and informative value of climate science. Results also

suggest that preconceived notions about the relation between weather phenomena and

climatic changes are particular resistant to learning and change.

For the majority of forestry stakeholder, focus group discussions had only a modest effect

on their views of the efficacy of adaptation measures and their own ability to successfully

implement them. Four out of 12 forestry professionals reported that they would use or are

already using experience and knowledge they gathered from focus group meetings,

whereas only two forest owners said the same. Many forest owners and forestry

professionals also said they already had applied effective risk mitigation measures, and that

future climate change did not warrant adopting completely new measures to prevent

damages from climatic risks.

13

I don’t think I would do something different in the current situation. If

something changes [in the future], there is nothing that we can do today; it’s

something we can adapt to in the future. And adaptation in itself is no more

difficult than moving some of the methods that we use in the South to the

North.

– Forestry professional, Västerbotten

These results suggest that one of key barriers to instrumental learning about climate

change and engagement with climate change adaptation is how people make sense of and

deal with scientific uncertainty. Many forestry stakeholders took a “wait-and-see” attitude,

saying there was not enough scientific certainty about impacts yet to warrant

comprehensive changes in forest management strategies.

I think it is very hard to say today that we need to make radical changes in

forestry. Thus far we have not noticed big [climatic] changes that would

suggest we need to make changes. The question is what we need to change

if we don’t know what it is going to be like. Is it going to be harder or easier?

We can’t make adjustments if you don’t know what to adapt to.

– Forestry professional, Kronoberg

In addition, results also indicate that scientific knowledge about adaptation measures had

limited practical relevance for focus group participants. Many forestry stakeholders said

they would refrain from taking action because it would take too long to find out whether

the suggested adaptation measures were effective or not.

Because of these long rotation periods [the time between when trees are

planted and when they are harvested], you don’t know if you got it right or

wrong immediately. You need to wait 40, 50 or 60 years. This means that we

need to treat this advice with a great deal of caution. One of course needs to

14

respect researchers, but you also need to have a gut feeling and use

common sense. You ought not to swallow everything.


For some forestry stakeholders, however, the focus group discussions contributed to a

greater sense of self-efficacy in adaptation to future climate change. Particularly in

Västerbotten, higher engagement with climate change adaptation resulted from

instrumental learning about how to mitigate climate change risks and at the same time

exploit potential positive economic opportunities from climate change.

Based on my involvement in this project, I think that climate change will be

very good for my forest. There are some small risks from climate change, but

they are largely offset by the positive factors. It feels like that we are among

the winners in this game. […] Risks from fungi or insects have been

something that I have been slightly anxious about in the past, and this

project has helped me to become calmer.


Data from the follow-up interviews indicates that the focus group discussions also led to

communicative learning and higher engagement with adaptation. In some cases forestry

stakeholders elaborated their existing frames of reference and connected climate risk

reduction measures with environmental objectives they want to achieve with their forestry

activities, such as protection of biodiversity or climate change mitigation.

I am connecting climate change adaptation more to my own forestry work

and with forestry in general, and with carbon sequestration. By being more

active as forestry managers, we can achieve a somewhat milder climate

change and better utilize the natural resources of the forest.

15


The learning experiences from the focus group discussions were most transformative for

forest owners in Kronoberg, who often drew connections between their experiences with

Hurricane Gudrun, and scientific knowledge about climate change impacts and adaptive

measures.

I feel that it was right what I did after Gudrun when we decided to plant

different tree species and starting thinking more about drainage. So I think I

have got arguments for what we did back then and that we need to dare to

try out something new…


These findings show that greater engagement with adaptation and a greater sense of self-

efficacy can be generated when people learn how to link scientific knowledge about

adaptation measures with their personal objectives and experiences with weather

phenomena. It also indicates that stakeholders can learn about climate change adaptation

by building on their past experiences with risk mitigation measures.

Results also strongly suggests that trust in climate science is of key importance for

stakeholders’ learning experience and their level of engagement with adaptation. Many

participants expressed the opinion that scientific knowledge needed to be well-founded,

tested and generally accepted to become the basis for decision-making in the forestry

sector.

The basic idea is that scientific knowledge is the only thing you can base your

decision on ... but a lot of science needs to be looked at the same way you

look at tarot cards. We need to unanimous about the scientific description of

a given problem.

16


Data also shows that at least among some forest stakeholders, focus group discussions had

led to communicative learning that increased the perceived credibility of climate science.

The discussions also contributed to instrumental learning, improving stakeholders’ ability to

make sense of climate scenarios and to understand the nature of uncertainties about future

climatic change.

I think it is very important to be able to simulate different scenarios. The

visualization of precipitation curves and temperature curves really made me

think.


Distrust about climate scientists was strong among a small number of forestry stakeholders

who also showed the lowest gains in transformative learning. Interviewees who dismissed

climate change said they perceived it as erroneous and biased towards environmentalism.

Some said their distrust in climate science was due to what they saw as tendency among

scientists to exaggerate environmental problems for their own benefit.

I am generally sceptical. I grew up with the debate about acid rain, and

according to everything that was being said at the time, the forest should be

dead by now. I do think that we might get a warmer climate, but we can also

fix it. I don’t believe in everything that is being said. I think it’s very similar to

the debate about acid rain; it is easy for researchers to get money if they can

make worry people enough. If you worry enough people, you get money for

research and for adaptation projects.

– Forestry professional, Kronoberg

17

These results show that learning and engagement with climate change adaptation are at

least partly determined by the level of trust individuals have in the objectivity and validity

of climate science. They also indicate that trust in climate science is shaped by previous

experiences with scientific knowledge and political decision-making based on it.

Discussion

The objective of this study has been to examine how social barriers can affect learning and

engagement with climate science and adaptation – and how, in turn, learning might help

overcome those barriers. We looked at how participation in focus group discussions had

affected forestry stakeholders’ perception of the relevance of climate change impacts, the

urgency of adaptive action, the efficacy of adaptation, and the credibility of climate science.

We analysed follow-up interview responses through the lens of transformative learning

theory, an approach to adult learning that sees learning as a change in a person’s frames of

reference and behaviour as a result of critical discourse and reflection (Mezirow 2000).

According to this theory, such changes can result from both instrumental learning –

acquisition of new skills and knowledge – and communicative learning – gaining insight

about one’s own and others’ knowledge, knowledge and opinions.

Our analysis suggests that the focus group discussions had moderate success in raising

knowledge and awareness about future impacts from climate change and possible adaptive

measures, but they had only a very limited effect on the perceived relevance of climate

science and urgency of adaptive action. Most forestry stakeholders perceived the potential

impacts from climate change as distant in both time and space and saw no near term need

for new risk-mitigating measures. They also expressed concern about uncertainties in

future climate projections and the efficacy of adaptive actions, and cited them as reasons to

refrain from taking immediate action. These results could be seen as evidence that

transformative learning did not occur, but the reality is more complex: there is a great deal

18

of uncertainty about how much adaptive action is warranted at this time, and expert

guidance on adaptation (PROVIA 2013) suggests that when risks are distant, adaptation

measures are costly, and the benefits of adaptation will only come in the long term, waiting

is, in fact, appropriate. In that context, transformative learning might result in heightened

awareness of climate risks, which could facilitate more prompt and effective action in the

future.

Our results strongly suggest that learning and engagement with adaptation greatly depend

on how well the scientific knowledge conveyed about climate impacts and adaptive

measures fits the practical needs, objectives and aspirations of stakeholders. We found that

instrumental and communicative learning led to a heightened sense of self-efficacy among

focus group participants. The forestry stakeholders who were able to connect newly

acquired scientific knowledge with their objectives related to timber production, risk

management, climate mitigation and biodiversity preservation became more engaged with

adaptation. This, in turn, highlights the importance of tailoring the communication of

climate science to the needs of specific target audiences, connecting with those audiences’

own objectives, past and future decision-making processes, etc. (Cash et al. 2003;

Featherstone et al. 2009; Pidgeon & Fischhoff 2011).

Results also support studies showing that personal experiences with extreme natural

events can motivate people to take action to lower the risks from natural hazards (Brody

2009; Albright 2011; Kreibich et al. 2011) Stakeholders from Kronoberg, especially, were

motivated to learn and engage with climate change adaptation when they linked the

scientific knowledge discussed with the focus groups to their own recent experiences with

storm risks. However, the adaptive measures taken by stakeholders who fit that profile

focused almost exclusively on addressing risks that they had already experienced, not new

risks that might arise in the future. These findings also help to clarify earlier findings which

have suggested that experiences with extreme events and belief in climate change can

19

accurately explain risk mitigating behaviour among forestry stakeholders (Blennow et al.

2012). Our analysis indicates that experiences with extreme natural events can be a key

factor in engagement with adaptation if people attribute their experience to climate change

(Whitmarsh 2008; Moser 2010).

This study also supports earlier work showing that trust in climate science is of great

importance for learning and engagement with scientific knowledge (Peters et al. 1997;

Sjöberg 2012). Our findings suggest that distrust in climate science is deeply rooted in a

person’s frames of reference – such as past experiences in which scientific projections

turned out to be wrong. Such distrust can be very difficult to overcome through learning

and poses a great barrier to engagement with climate change. This finding also supports

earlier research showing that if climate science conflicts with your personal experience, it

can be a significant cognitive barrier to engagement with climate change (Lorenzoni et al.

2007).

Finally, our findings show that conceptions about scientific knowledge and uncertainty can

be key barriers to learning and engagement with climate change adaptation. In particular,

individuals who see the development of science as a unidirectional and incremental process

may struggle to comprehend the inherent complexity and uncertainty of climate science.

Our results suggest that learning experiences are likeliest to increase engagement with

climate change adaptation if they can expand or convert pre-existing mental models that

people have about the causes and scope of environmental change and climatic risks

(Morgan et al. 2002). Our findings also show that communicative learning brought by direct

interaction with climate scientists and scientific knowledge can help overcome barriers

regarding scientific uncertainty, complexity and credibility.

The results and conclusions from this study contribute to the growing literature on climate

change communication (Sterman 2008; Nerlich et al. 2010; Moser & Dilling 2011). Its

20

findings suggests that science communication that aims to foster learning and engagement

with climate science and adaptation should more closely attend to stakeholders’ values,

objectives and experiences. It also seems crucial that science communication more directly

address issues of trust and credibility. In addition, greater efforts may be necessary to

ensure that stakeholders understand climate science and feel confident in drawing

conclusions and taking action even in the context of scientific uncertainty and complexity.

21

References

Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A. 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change. 93:335–354.

Albright EA. 2011. Policy Change and Learning in Response to Extreme Flood Events in Hungary: An Advocacy Coalition Approach. Policy Stud J. 39:485–511.

André K. 2013. Climate change adaptation processes : Regional and sectoral stakeholder perspectives [Anpassningsprocesser inför klimatförändringar: Regionala och sektoriella intressentperspektiv] [Doctoral thesis, The Tema Institute, Department of Water and Environmental Studies] [Internet]. Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University; [cited 2013 Nov 6]. Available from: http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?searchId=1&pid=diva2:613535

André K, Simonsson L. 2011. Report describing stakeholder landscape for forestry case study, including roles and responsibilities concerning adaptation and climate risk reduction. [place unknown].

Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R. 2008. Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Change. 18:86–98.

Blake J. 1999. Overcoming the “value action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions‐ between national policy and local experience. Local Environ. 4:257–278.

Blennow K, Persson J, Tomé M, Hanewinkel M. 2012. Climate Change: Believing and Seeing Implies Adapting. PLoS ONE. 7:e50182.

Brody SD. 2009. Policy learning for flood mitigation: A longitudinal assessment of the community rating system in Florida. Risk Anal. 29:912–229.

Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 100:8086–8091.

Deci C for R on E. 2009. The Psychology of Climate Change Communication: A Guide for Scientists, Journalists, Educators, Political Aides, and the Interested Public [Internet]. New York: Columbia University. Available from: http://cred.columbia.edu/guide/

Diduck A. 2010. The Learning Dimension of Adaptive Capacity: Untangling the Multi-level Connections. In: Armitage D, Plummer R, editors. Adaptive Capacity and Environmental Governace. Berlin, Germany and Heidelberg, Germany: Springer; p. 199–221.

Diduck A, Sinclair AJ, Hostetler G, Fitzpatrick P. 2012. Transformative learning theory, public involvement, and natural resource and environmental management. J Environ Plan Manag. 55:1311–1330.

Dietz T, Gardner GT, Gilligan J, Stern PC, Vandenbergh MP. 2009. Household actions can provide a behavioral wedge to rapidly reduce U.S. carbon emissions. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 106:18452–18456.

22

Dow K, Berkhout F, Preston BL. 2013. Limits to adaptation to climate change: a risk approach. Curr Opin Environ Sustain. 5:384–391.

Featherstone H, Weitkamp E, Ling K, Burnet F. 2009. Defining issue-based publics for public engagement: climate change as a case study. Public Underst Sci. 18:214–228.

Folke C, Colding J, Berkes F. 2003. Synthesis: building resilience and adaptative capacity in social-ecological systems. In: Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C, editors. Navigating Social-Ecologial Systems. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press; p. 352–387.

Gardner GT, Stern PC. 1996. Environmental problems and human behavior. Needham Heights, MA, US: Allyn & Bacon.

Grothmann T, Patt A. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change. 15:199–213.

Jönsson AM, Bärring L. 2011. Future climate impact on spruce bark beetle life cycle in relation to uncertainties in regional climate model data ensembles. Tellus A. 63:158–173.

Jönsson AM, Lagergren F, Smith B. 2013. Forest management facing climate change – an ecosystem model analysis of adaptation strategies. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change. published online July 2013. Available from: http://link.springer.com.ezproxy.library.tufts.edu/article/10.1007/s11027-013-9487-6

Kempton W. 1991. Public understanding of global warming. Soc Nat Resour. 4:331–345.

Keskitalo ECH, Klenk N, Bullock R, Smith AL, Bazely DR. 2011. Preparing for and Responding to Disturbance: Examples from the Forest Sector in Sweden and Canada. Forests. 2:505–524.

Klein RJT, Juhola S. 2014. A framework for Nordic actor-oriented climate adaptation research. Environ Sci Policy. 40: 101–115.

Kreibich H, Seifert I, Thieken AH, Lindquist E, Wagner K, Merz B. 2011. Recent changes in flood preparedness of private households and businesses in Germany. Reg Environ Change. 11:59–71.

Locatelli B, Brockhouse M, Buck A, Thompson I, Bahamondez C, Murdock T, Roberts G, Webbe J. 2010. Forests and Society – Responding to Global Drivers of Change. In: Mery G, Katila P, Galloway G, Alfaro RI, Kanninen M, Lobovikov M, Varjo J, editors. Vienna: International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO); [cited 2013 Jul 3]. Available from: http://www.iufro.org/science/special/wfse/forests-society-global-drivers/

Lorenzoni I, Nicholson-Cole S, Whitmarsh L. 2007. Barriers perceived to engaging with climate change among the UK public and their policy implications. Glob Environ Change. 17:445–459.

Mezirow J. 2000. Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. 1st ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Mezirow J. 2006. An overview on transformative learning. In: Sutherland P, Crowther J, editors. Lifelong Learn Concepts Contexts. Milton Park and New York: Routledge; p. 24–38.

23

Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. 2002. Risk Communication: A Mental Models Approach. Cambridge, UK, and New York: Cambridge University Press.

Moser SC. 2010. Communicating climate change: history, challenges, process and future directions. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 1:31–53.

Moser SC, Dilling L. 2011. Communicating Climate Change: Closing the Science-Action Gap. In: Dryzek JS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D, editors. Oxf Handb Clim Change Soc. Oxford: Oxford University Press; p. 161–174.

Moser SC, Ekstrom JA. 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 107:22026–22031.

Muro M, Jeffrey P. 2008. A critical review of the theory and application of social learning in participatory natural resource management processes. J Environ Plan Manag. 51:325–344.

Nerlich B, Koteyko N, Brown B. 2010. Theory and language of climate change communication. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 1:97–110.

Nikulin G, Kjellström E, Hansson U, Strandberg G, Ullerstig A. 2011. Evaluation and future projections of temperature, precipitation and wind extremes over Europe in an ensemble of regional climate simulations. Tellus A. 63:41–55.

Nisbet MC, Scheufele DA. 2009. What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. Am J Bot. 96:1767–1778.

O’Brien K. 2012. Global environmental change III Closing the gap between knowledge and action. Prog Hum Geogr. 37: 587–596.

Peters RG, Covello VT, McCallum DB. 1997. The Determinants of Trust and Credibility in Environmental Risk Communication: An Empirical Study. Risk Anal. 17:43–54.

Pidgeon N, Fischhoff B. 2011. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nat Clim Change. 1:35–41.

PROVIA. 2013. PROVIA Guidance on Assessing Vulnerability, Impacts and Adaptation to Climate Change [Internet]. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme; [cited 2014 Jan 30]. Available from: http://www.unep.org/provia

Rowe G, Frewer LJ. 2005. A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values. 30:251–290.

Samuelsson P, Jones CG, Willén U, Ullerstig A, Gollvik S, Hansson U, Jansson C, Kjellström E, Nikulin G, Wyser K. 2011. The Rossby Centre Regional Climate model RCA3: model description and performance. Tellus A. 63:4–23.

Sjöberg PL. 2012. Risk Perception and Societal Response. In: Roeser S, Hillerbrand R, Sandin P, Peterson M, editors. Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer Netherlands; p. 661–675.

Skogh G. 2009. Statens ekonomiska ansvar vid naturkatastrofer och stora industriella olyckor [Public responsibility for natural disasters and large industrial accidents]. Stockholm, Sweden: Epertgruppen för miljöstudier; [cited 2013 Mar 13]. Available from: http://www.ems.expertgrupp.se/Uploads/Documents/2009_2%20hela.pdf. Swedish.

24

Sterman JD. 2008. Risk Communication on Climate: Mental Models and Mass Balance. Science. 322:532–533.

Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability. 2007. Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities [Internet].; [cited 2013 Jun 27]. Available from: http://www.government.se/sb/d/574/a/96002

Takahashi B. 2009. Social Marketing for the Environment: An Assessment of Theory and Practice. Appl Environ Educ Commun. 8:135–145.

Ulmanen J, Gerger Swartling Å, Wallgren O. 2012. Climate Change Adaptation in Swedish Forestry Policy: A Historical Overview, 1990–2010 [Internet]. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute; [cited 2013 Jun 28]. Available from: http://www.sei-international.org/publications?pid=2220

Ungar S. 1994. Apples and oranges: Probing the attitude-behaviour relationship for the environment. Can Rev Sociol Can Sociol. 31:288–304.

Westerhoff L, Juhola S. 2010. Science-policy linkages in climate change adaptation in Europe. Int J Clim Change Strateg Manag. 2:222–241.

Whitmarsh L. 2008. Are flood victims more concerned about climate change than other people? The role of direct experience in risk perception and behavioural response. J Risk Res. 11:351–374.

Wibeck V. 2013. Enhancing learning, communication and public engagement about climate change – some lessons from recent literature. Environ Educ Res.:1–25.

Wilner KB, Wiber M, Charles A, Kearney J, Landry M, Wilson L, on behalf of the Coastal CURA Team. 2012. Transformative learning for better resource management: the role of critical reflection. J Environ Plan Manag. 55:1331–1347.

Wolf J, Moser SC. 2011. Individual understandings, perceptions, and engagement with climate change: insights from in-depth studies across the world. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change. 2:547–569.

25