This article seeks to explain how and why church congregations mobilise on environmental issues and what -if anything -is distinctive about that mobilisation. Building on and adapting Resource Mobilisation Theory (RMT), we develop the idea of "spiritual resources" to help explain how a collection of spiritual identities, values, symbols and narratives can facilitate distinctive collective action on environmental issues. Our analysis draws on data derived from an in-depth case study of climate active groups in Scotland. It includes content analysis of websites, news stories as well as ethnographic observation of selected church and secular groups engaged in climate activity. We find church groups do enjoy a distinct set of resources -comprising tradition, rituals and symbols shaped by theology and doctrine -which are not wholly captured by other explanations of climate mobilisation. While these spiritual resources do not directly translate into specific environmental or climate action they can, especially when combined with other resources, lead to environmental activities distinctly motivated, and distinctly practised at the individual and community level. ARTICLE HISTORY

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This qualitative study draws on in‐depth interviews and documentary analysis conducted between 2014 and 2016 to investigate the nature of pro‐environmental behaviour of members within the Eco‐Congregation Scotland network. We argue for an integrative analytical frame, that we call “eco‐theo‐citizenship,” which synthesises strengths of values‐, practice‐ and citizenship‐based approaches to the study of pro‐environmental behaviour within the specific context of religious environmental groups. This study finds the Eco‐Congregation groups studied are not primarily issue driven, and instead have an emphasis on “community‐building” activities and a concept of environmental citizenship which spans multiple political scales from local to international. Primary values emphasised included “environmental justice” and “stewardship.” Analysis of the data indicated that groups in this network are distinctive in two particular ways: (1) group focus on mobilising values and environmental concern towards “community building” can produce what looks like a more conservative approach to climate change mobilisation, preserving and working slowly within institutional structures, with a primary focus not on climate change mitigation per se but on the consolidation and development of the community and broader network; and (2) these groups can often under‐report their accomplishments and the footprint of their work on the basis of a common religious conviction which we have termed a “culture of modesty.”

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creat ive Commo ns Attri bution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

No abstract

There is increasing recognition of the wicked nature of the intertwined climate, biodiversity and economic crises, and the need for adaptive, multi-scale approaches to understanding the complexity of both the problems and potential responses. Most science underpinning policy responses to sustainability issues, however, remains overtly apolitical and focussed on technical innovation; at odds with a critical body of literatures insisting on the recognition of systemic problem framing when supporting policy processes. This paper documents the experience of implementing a mixed method approach called quantitative story-telling (QST) to policy analysis that explicitly recognises this normative dimension, as the methodology is part of a post-normal science (PNS) toolkit. The authors reflect on what was learnt when considering how QST fared as a tool for science–policy interaction, working with European Union (EU) level policy actors interested in sustainable agriculture and sustainable development goal 2. These goals—also known as UN Agenda 2030—are the latest institutionalisation of the pursuit of sustainable development and the EU has positioned itself as taking a lead in its implementation. Thus, the paper illustrates our experience of using PNS as an approach to science policy interfaces in a strategic policy context; and illustrates how the challenges identified in the science–policy literature are amplified when working across multiple policy domains and taking a complex systems approach. Our discussion on lessons learnt may be of interest to researchers seeking to work with policy-makers on complex sustainability issues.

No abstract