Local knowledge and adaptation to climate change in natural resource-based societies of the Asia-Pacific

This paper reviewed 42 studies of how local knowledge contributes to adaptation to climate and climate change in the Asia-Pacific Region. Most studies focused on traditional ecological or indigenous knowledge. Three simple questions were addressed: (1) How are changes in climate recognized? (2) What is known about how to adapt to changes in climate? (3) How do people learn about how to adapt? Awareness of change is an important element of local knowledge. Changes in climate are recognized at multiple time scales from observations that warn of imminent extreme weather through expectations for the next season to identification of multi-year historical trends. Observations are made of climate, its impact on physical resources, and bio-indicators. Local knowledge about how to adapt can be divided into four major classes: land and water management, physical infrastructure, livelihood strategies, and social institutions. Adaptation actions vary with time scale of interest from dealing with risks of disaster from extreme weather events, through slow onset changes such as seasonal droughts, to dealing with long-term multi-year shifts in climate. Local knowledge systems differ in the capacities and ways in which they support learning. Many are dynamic and draw on information from other places, whereas others are more conservative and tightly institutionalized. Past experience of events and ways of learning may be insufficient for dealing with a novel climate. Once the strengths and limitations of local knowledge (like those of science) are grasped the opportunities for meaningful hybridization of scientific and local knowledge for adaptation expand.     

Stalled regime transition in the upper Tisza River Basin: the dynamics of linked action situations

In river basins transformation from traditions of reactive flood defense to more adaptive management regimes is difficult. How regime components reinforce each other to set its development path may induce inertia and path dependency. Transformation may require profound shifts in the institutions, technologies, and personnel as well as the ecological, economic and social processes they influence in setting the basin's trajectory. Regime change has become an issue in Hungary following repeated failures of conventional management policies to handle a series of floods on the Tisza river starting in 1997. Increasing public participation pushed water policy debate toward more experimentation with alternatives, but implementation appears stalled. In this paper we review hypotheses about what factors are bridges or barriers to transformation and then use the Management Transition Framework to examine how the interactions linking action situations, operational outcomes, knowledge and institutions influenced the river management policy debate in Hungary from 1997 to 2009. Specifically we examined which factors characteristic of conventional Control vs. progressive Adaptive management regimes influenced these interactions in ways that contributed to or hindered transformation. We found that governance and social learning issues predominated, with lesser roles played by factors related to integration of sectors and different levels in the science and policy of river management.     

What kinds of knowledge,knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas?: a theoretical overview

This paper considers what kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas in the context of sustainable development. It also explains why and how the SLIM project focused on social learning for managing water resources. The range of learning theories that informed SLIM are discussed, as is the historical pattern of lineages, relationships and discontinuities among these and other theories. Whilst conceptions of social learning are contested, most perspectives raise questions about the nature of knowledge and knowing. It is argued that becoming aware of our assumptions regarding learning, knowing and how we develop knowledge, can help us find out more about what we need to know.The nature of resource dilemmas, implications for learning, what learning involves, its interdisciplinary nature and its history of ideas are all considered. An overview of learning theories is given, explaining their potential relevance for researchers, policymakers and practitioners in environmental contexts. The discourse, theory and practice of social learning and factors that influenced the choice of social learning theories by SLIM researchers are discussed. The paper concludes by considering how understanding what social learning involves can contribute, in a practical way, to dealing with resource dilemmas.     

The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands

Environmental policy development increasingly refers to procedural approaches where local organisational structures are set up to initiate social interactions, to establish common working methods and to formulate collective agreements. In a context of complexity and uncertainty regarding environmental issues at stake, deliberations are mostly about managing interdependencies, i.e., building agreements and implementing changes so as to reconstruct the links between natural, technical and social phenomena. We see these deliberations as situations where social learning occurs; as an iterative process of knowledge co-production (i.e., of ‘knowing’) among stakeholders brought into interaction. Our research aims at better understanding these processes in the context of French Atlantic coastal wetlands where multi-stakeholder platforms for decision-making have become the dominant process for implementing natural resources management policies. Our studies focus on the challenge of managing the production and application of knowledge in social settings, in which scientists themselves come to play a role. They show how scientific knowledge can acquire heuristic value when used in the context of intervention research, as well as revealing some of the ethical dilemmas this may pose for the role of researcher.     

The social side of spatial decision support systems: Investigating knowledge integration and learning

Spatial decision support systems (SDSS) represent a step forward in efforts to account for the spatial dimension in environmental decision-making. The aim of SDSS is to help policymakers and practitioners access, interpret and understand information from data, analyses and models, and guide them in identifying possible actions during a decision-making process. Researchers, however, report difficulties in up-take of SDSS by the intended users. Some suggest that this field would benefit from investigation of the social aspects involved in SDSS design, development, testing and use. Borrowing insights from the literature on science-policy interactions, we explore two key social processes: knowledge integration and learning. Using a sample of 36 scientific papers concerning SDSS in relation to environmental issues, we surveyed whether and how the selected papers reported on knowledge integration and learning. We found that while many of the papers mentioned communication and collaboration with prospective user groups or stakeholders, this was seldom underpinned by a coherent methodology for enabling knowledge integration and learning to surface. This appears to have hindered SDSS development and later adoption by intended users.     

Framework for participative reflection on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs

In response to the increasingly complex social–ecological issues facing society, there is a growing trend to conduct environmental research in large collaborative programs. This approach is described as transdisciplinary research as it transcends formal disciplinary boundaries, explicitly acknowledges that many different perspectives are relevant to the resolution of complex problems, and actively involves the users of research. This poses challenges for the evaluation of “impact” as any evaluation process must take into consideration the different expectations, values, culture, language and reward structures of the main participating groups, the funders, researchers and end users. How can these participating groups learn about the progress of a transdisciplinary research program in a way that is purposeful and structured, continues through the life of the program, and includes explicit feedback mechanisms that facilitate adaptation during the course of the program? This paper presents a framework for co-reflecting on the accomplishment of transdisciplinary research programs. The framework incorporates the perspectives of funders, researchers and users, and recognizes that while they place different emphasis on measures of achievement such as efficiency, rigor and relevance, ultimate accomplishment in terms of translating knowledge into practice requires that the needs and expectations of all three groups are adequately addressed. What emerges from the framework is the importance of early investment in processes, behaviors and relationships that foster social learning and the co-production of the knowledge and understanding that are required to ensure relevance; while maintaining emphasis in the traditional areas of formally testing evidence and mentoring young researchers to ensure rigor and build confidence and capacity in transdisciplinary approaches.     

How are coastal households responding to climate change?

In Australia, shared responsibility is a concept advocated to promote collective climate change adaptation by multiple actors and institutions. However, a shared response is often promoted in the absence of information regarding actions currently taken; in particular, there is limited knowledge regarding action occurring at the household scale. To address this gap, we examine household actions taken to address climate change and associated hazards in two Australian coastal communities. Mixed methods research is conducted to answer three questions: (1) what actions are currently taken (mitigation, actions to lobby for change or adaptation to climate impacts)? (2) why are these actions taken (e.g. are they consistent with capacity, experience, perceptions of risk); and (3) what are the implications for adaptation? We find that households are predominantly mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and that impact orientated adaptive actions are limited. Coping strategies are considered sufficient to mange climate risks, proving a disincentive for additional adaptive action. Influencing factors differ, but generally, risk perception and climate change belief are associated with action. However, the likelihood of more action is a function of homeownership and a tendency to plan ahead. Addressing factors that support or constrain household adaptive decision-making and action, from the physical (e.g. homeownership) to the social (e.g. skills in planning and a culture of adapting to change) will be critical in increasing household participation in adaptation.     

Scientist and stakeholder perspectives of transdisciplinary research: Early attitudes,expectations, and tensions

Transdisciplinary approaches are becoming increasingly adopted as a way to research complex socio-environmental problems. Conceptually, transdisciplinarity aims to foster meaningful knowledge co-production through integrative and participatory processes that bring together diverse actors, disciplines, and knowledge bases. In practice, transdisciplinarity is more ambiguous. While there is a growing body of literature on such approaches, there remains no widely-accepted definition, concrete framework, or empirical strategy for how to carry out a transdisciplinary project. We propose that this lack of explicit structure and entrenched meaning leaves space for transdisciplinary approaches to be shaped by the evolving network of participating scientists and stakeholders, according to their perspectives of the approach and what it embodies. Here, we examine the perspectives of a diverse group of actors (n = 42) embarking on a 10-year transdisciplinary research project focused on building resilience to natural hazards and disasters in New Zealand. We present the findings of qualitative surveys and group interviews that investigate stakeholders’ and scientists’ early perspectives of transdisciplinary, or co-created, research. The study represents the first stage of longitudinal research that will continue over the course of the project. Results show that early actors in the project share an overall consistent understanding of co-created research. Participants described a process that integrated diverse people and knowledge; created benefits on both a social and personal level; fostered clear, two-way dialogue; and overcame pragmatic and intrinsic challenges. Collectively, participants agreed with adopting transdisciplinary approaches to natural hazard, risk, and resilience research, with stakeholders showing a stronger degree of agreement than scientists. While attitudes towards transdisciplinarity were overall positive, a number of underlying conflicts emerged in regards to carrying out new modes of knowledge production within traditional social and institutional structures. These conflicts result in a tension that is felt by actors involved in transdisciplinary projects early on, and in some cases, influences perception of their ability to fully participate in such an approach. Evaluating actor perspectives and expectations early in the transdisciplinary process can give insight into how attitudes, expectations, and conflicts might shape transdisciplinary efforts, and can provide relevant parameters for assessing change over time.     

Coupling Human Information and Knowledge Systems with social–ecological systems change: Reframing research,education, and policy for sustainability

The rapid acceleration and intensity of global environmental change places great demands on humanity for developing innovative views and processes for the integration of knowledge in ways that are conducive to sustainability learning. In this paper, we argue that in order to develop robust sustainability learning feedbacks between knowledge and action we need the coupling of Human Information and Knowledge Systems (HIKS) with social–ecological systems (SES) dynamics. In particular, a substantial change in core worldviews and understandings about the nature of HIKS and how they relate to SES is required. Changing such epistemological and ontological assumptions of the quality of robust social–ecological knowledge is a first step for the emergence of transformative pathways towards sustainability in research, education, and policy. To enhance our understanding of such complexity, we describe two general ideal-type worldviews of HIKS and their relationships with SES in Western culture. One worldview understands information and knowledge systems as evolving in a closed, ahistorical, social-ecologically disembodied linear space, in ways which can be reduced to a single form of representation. The other worldview understands information and knowledge systems as operating in an open space composed of multiple and diverse patterns of hybrid social–ecological practices and configurations, inevitably embedded in specific times, spaces and contextual conditions. We argue that the open, but socio-ecologically embodied worldview is better suited to support sustainability learning and transformation.     

Re-considering product design: a practical “road-map” for integration of sustainability issues

The proliferation of sustainability assessment principles, strategies, actions, and tools has created confusion about pathways forward for companies. It is unclear how existing approaches are complementary or distinct. How does a company assess current products and materials? How could designers create more sustainable products? What criteria, principles, approaches, and tools should be applied? Why? Is there a practical “road map” to guide product designers and product development managers in integrating sustainability issues into their decision-making processes?This article builds on previous frameworks for understanding the interconnections between various assessment principles, strategies, actions, and tools related to industrial ecology, human and labor rights, and corporate social responsibility [Waage S, Geiser K, Irwin F, Weissman A, Bertolucci M, Fisk P, et al. Fitting together the building blocks for sustainability: a revised model for integrating ecological, social, and financial factors into business decision-making. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13(12):1117–206; Robèrt K-H, Schmidt-Bleek B, Aloisi de Larderel J, Basile G, Jansen JL, Kuehr R, et al. Strategic sustainable development—selection, design and synergies of applied tools. Journal of Cleaner Production 2002;10(3):197–214; Robèrt K-H. Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a framework for sustainable development, and to each other? Journal of Cleaner Production 2000;8(3):243–54]. Expanding on past work, this piece suggests a “road map” for application by product designers and product development managers. A four-phase process is offered for integrating systems and sustainability perspectives into product design, manufacturing, and delivery decisions.     

Policy coherence in climate governance in Caribbean Small Island Developing States

Climate governance in Small Island developing States (SIDS) is a pressing priority to preserve livelihoods, biodiversity and ecosystems for the next generations. Understanding the dynamics of climate change policy integration is becoming more crucial as we try to measure the success of environmental governance efforts and chart new goals for sustainable development. At the international level, climate change policy has evolved from single issue to integrated approaches towards achieving sustainable development. New actors, new mechanisms and institutions of governance with greater fragmentation in governance across sectors and levels (Biermann and Pattberg, 2008) make integration of policy in the area of climate change governance even more of a challenge today. What is the Caribbean reality regarding policy coherence in climate change governance? Are the same climate change policy coherence frameworks useful or indeed applicable for environmental governance in developing states more generally and for SIDS in particular? What are the best triggers to achieve successful climate change policy integration in environmental governance—especially as the complex interconnectivity of new actors, institutions and mechanisms make the process of integration even more challenging? What facilitates and what hampers climate policy integration in the regional Caribbean context? This article reviews the debates around policy coherence for climate change governance, creates a framework to test or measure policy coherence and examines how relevant this has been to regional climate change governance processes in Commonwealth Caribbean States. The study found that though at the regional level, there is substantial recognition of the importance of and mechanics involved in climate policy coherence, this has not translated to policy coherence at the regional and national levels. There is a large degree of fragmentation in the application of climate policy in each Caribbean Island with no mechanism to breach the gap. Silos in public environmental governance architectures, unwillingness to share data, insufficient political will; unsustainable project-based funding and lack of accountability among actors are the main challenges to climate policy coherence. The findings fill a gap in the literature on the elements of climate policy coherence from a SIDS perspective.     

Understanding barriers to decision making in the UK energy-food-water nexus: The added value of interdisciplinary approaches

The nexus represents a multi-dimensional means of scientific enquiry which seeks to describe the complex and non-linear interactions between water, energy, food, with the climate, and further understand wider implications for society. These resources are fundamental for human life but are negatively affected by shocks such as climate change and characterize some of the main challenges for global sustainable development. Given the multidimensional and complex nature of the nexus, a transdisciplinary approach to knowledge development through co-production is needed to timely and effectively inform the decision making processes to build societal resilience to these shocks going beyond the sectorality of current research practice. The paper presents findings from five themed workshops (shocks and hazards, infrastructure, local economy, governance and governments, finance and insurance) with 80 stakeholders from academia, government and industry in the UK to explore the impact of climate and weather shocks across the energy-food-water nexus and barriers to related responses. The research identified key stakeholders’ concerns, opportunities and barriers to better inform decision making centred on four themes: communication and collaboration, decision making processes, social and cultural dimensions, and the nature of responses to nexus shocks. We discuss implications of these barriers and how addressing these can better facilitate constructive dialogue and more efficient decision-making in response to nexus shocks.     

Matching knowledge brokering strategies to environmental policy problems and settings

The benefits of utilizing intermediaries to broker understanding between environmental scientists and policy makers have become widely touted. Yet little is known about the tasks boundary spanners undertake to develop environmental policy solutions and how these tasks fit into frameworks intended to advance public policy decision making. Such frameworks may be constructed to aid decision makers in differentiating between the types of environmental policy issues that confront them or the policy settings in which they are operating. Consequently, this paper examines how six different knowledge brokering strategies; informing, consulting, matchmaking, engaging, collaborating and building capacity might be employed in responding to different types of environmental policy problems or policy settings identified in decision aiding frameworks. Using real world examples, four frameworks are reviewed. They are; Lindquist's [Lindquist, E.A., 1988. What do decision models tell us about information use? Knowledge in Society 1 (2), 86–111; Lindquist, E.A., 1990. The third community, policy inquiry, and social scientists. In: Stephen Brooks, S., Gagnon, A. (Eds.), Social Scientists, Policy and the State. Praeger, New York; Lindquist, E.A., 2001. Discerning policy influence: framework for a strategic evaluation of IDRC-Supported research] decision regimes, Turnhout et al.’s [Turnhout, E., Hisschemoller, M., Eijsackers, H., 2007. Ecological indicators: between the two fires of science and policy. Ecological Indicators 7 (2), 215–228] science policy typology, Holling's [Holling, C.S., 1995. What barriers? What bridges? In: Gunderson, L.H., Holling, C.S. (Eds.), Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 3–34] adaptive cycle and Kurtz and Snowden's [Kurtz, C.F., Snowden, D.J., 2003. The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Systems Journal 42 (3), 462–483] Cynefin domains. For the different problem types or policy settings described in the decision aiding frameworks primary knowledge brokering strategies are identified. While the frameworks differ in their conceptual constructions, the applicability of specific knowledge brokering strategies serve as a commonality across particular problem types and policy settings.     

Teaching sustainability as a contested concept: capitalizing on variation in engineering educators' conceptions of environmental,social and economic sustainability

This study documents variation in engineering academics conceptions of sustainability. We investigated how a group of Australian engineering academics described environmental, social and economic sustainability, and identified a broad range of actions that participating academics associated with achieving sustainability. The study suggested marked variation in the actions that participating academics viewed as coherent with sustainable engineering practice, and therefore, potentially marked variations in the sustainability actions academics might advocate to their undergraduate students. Rather than framing this variation as problematic for teaching and learning sustainable engineering, we suggest that such variation in conception of sustainability, and explicit contestation of this variation in the engineering classroom, offers opportunities to enrich undergraduate sustainability learning and teaching. We develop this argument by using some generic environmental, economic, and social theoretical frameworks to characterize the differences according to the values and assumptions that may underpin the observed variation. Validated frameworks are useful to move beyond discussions based on ‘opinion’, because they provide a framework for critical reflection by engineering students and academics about the values and assumptions that inform engineering practice generally and sustainable engineering practice, particularly.     

Transdisciplinary sustainability research beyond engagement models: Toward adventures in relevance

Transdisciplinary models of research are increasingly upheld as the gold standard of collaborative science to solve complex social and environmental problems, promising to ‘close the gap’ between knowledge and action, inject science with greater accountability, democratic participation, and include stakeholders as practitioners of research. Absent in transdisciplinary models are more ‘risky’ questions of relevance, subject positionality, and the lived encounters between researchers and stakeholders. Who are the ‘holders’ and who determines the ‘stakes’? This article examines how notions of roles, typologies, and effectiveness constrain relationships between researchers and stakeholders; and document the ways in which research teams, shot through with these tensions, in turn develop new roles, typologies, and markers of ‘success’. In drawing on recent philosophical scholarship on social science practices, we argue that relevance in transdisciplinary research cannot rest on typologies, logics, and templates of collaboration in which effectiveness is determined in advance. The growing business of team science and its predictive aspirations risk rendering transdisciplinary research irrelevant if its practitioners do not loosen the grip on realist perspectives on stakeholder roles, research outcomes, and metrics of success. Instead, we argue for the development of skills for paying attention to the categories, friction, and tensions that are provoked by collaborative interactions, discourses, and techniques with stakeholders. Environmental researchers must learn to be responsive to the durable existence of stakeholders and seek to develop the means to reveal what matters, and therefore is relevant, to them.     

Model consideration for the origin of life

In an attempt to understand the origin of living systems we encounter the following problems: How can we conceive the origin of the first self-reproducing forms, and by means of what stimuli could a constant increase in the complexity of such forms commence? How can a translation apparatus for genetic information develop? One cannot that such an apparatus for the synthesis of enzymes can function alone without the interference of enzymes themselves, which, however, could only become available after the construction of the apparatus itself. What stimulus mechanism is conceivable that leads to the division of the genetic apparatus into a replication system, and an enzyme-synthesis system?The main problem therefore, is not the search for basic theoretical concepts. It is not a question which can be answered by means of specific experiments. One should rather explore the principal possibilities of how molecules combine to produce more and more complicated functional units. We look for the fundamental structural changes in the organizational systems and the driving forces initiating these developments. Questions concerning the detailed chemical realization are of secondary importance. In trying to solve the puzzle of how the genetic apparatus is gradually built up as complex aggregates of molecules, we consider a consistent causal chain of simple and transparent physicochemical model steps.     

Institutionalising social learning: Towards systemic and adaptive governance

This paper critically examines how public policy makers limit policy and other institutional design choices by a failure to appreciate (i) how situations may be characterised or framed; (ii) how practices that generate neologisms (invented terms or concepts) or reify (make into a thing) abstract concepts can displace understandings, and (iii) the epistemological bases of governance mechanism choices. An inquiry into the coining of the neologisms ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems is reported and the implications for research and policy practice explored. As practices, neologising, reifying, categorising and typologising have unintended consequences – they remove us from the primary experiences and underlying emotions that provided the motivation for formulating these concepts in the first place. The failure to institutionalise the understandings and experiences that sit behind the invention of the terms ‘wicked’ and ‘tame’ problems (or similar framing choices such as ‘problematique’, ‘messes’, ‘lowland real-life swamps’, ‘resource dilemmas’ or ‘complex adaptive systems’) present systemic constraints to institutionalising social learning as an alternative yet complementary governance mechanism within an overall systemic and adaptive governance framework. Ultimately situations usefully framed as ‘wicked’,’ such as water managing and climate change are problems of relationship – of human beings with the biosphere. Re-framings, such as institutions as social technologies and other research and praxis traditions concerned with the breakdown of relationships may offer ways forward in the purposeful designing and crafting of more effective institutions.     

Designing a knowledge co-production operating space for urban environmental governance—Lessons from Rotterdam,Netherlands and Berlin,Germany

Challenges for a sustainable urban development are increasingly important in cities because urbanization and related land take come up with negative challenges for the environment and for city residents. Searching for successful solutions to environmental problems requires combined efforts of different scientific disciplines and an active dialogue between stakeholders from policy and society. In this paper, we present a comparative assessment of the way policy-science dialogues have achieved knowledge co-production about strategic urban environmental governance action using the cities of Berlin in Germany and Rotterdam in the Netherlands as case studies. The ecosystem services framework is applied as a lens for policy–science interaction and a ‘knowledge co-production operating space’ is introduced. We show how policy officers, urban planners, practitioners and scientists learned from each other, and highlight the impact of this knowledge co-production for governance practice. We found that the concerted collaboration and co-creation between researchers and policy officers have led to mutual learning and establishment of relationships and trust in both cities. Not only the policy-relevance of research and its policy uptake were achieved but also new insights for research blind spots were created. In our conclusions we reflect on co-production processes with two types of conditions that we introduced to be most influential in the way knowledge can be co-created. These are conditions that relate to the way knowledge co-production processes are set-up and, conditions that relate to the expected value or benefit that the co-produced knowledge will bring across society, policy and practice.     

Looking under the hood of local adaptation plans: shedding light on the actions prioritized to build local resilience to climate change

In the face of a changing climate, many United States (US) local governments are creating plans to prepare. These plans layout how a community is vulnerable to existing and future changes in climate as well as what actions they propose taking to prepare. The actions included in these plans provide insight into what local governments feel they have the ability to undertake, as well as what actions they believe are important to building resilience. To date, little to no analysis has been conducted on the content of these plans, leaving researchers, practitioners, and those supporting communities with limited understanding of what gaps need to be filled or how best to support locally prioritized climate action. This paper analyzes the content of 43 stand alone climate adaptation plans from US local communities to identify the types of actions proposed and how those actions compare to what researchers indicate the communities should be prioritizing based on regional climate projections. The results indicate that local communities include numerous and varied actions in their adaptation plans and that the majority of communities are selecting actions that are theoretically appropriate given projected changes in regional climate. Yet some types of actions, such as building codes and advocacy, are not being widely used. These results contrast with previous studies, which found that local communities focus primarily on capacity building approaches. Findings also demonstrate that plans rarely contain significant details about how actions will be implemented, raising questions about whether plans will translate into real-world projects.