Climate change scenarios and citizen-participation: Mitigation and adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures

Abstract

This paper discusses adaptation and mitigation strategies as outlined in climate change scenarios. The adaptive perspective is closely connected to the concept of resilience understood as different views on nature's capacity to absorb shocks, renewal and re-organization. In constructing normative scenarios images of the future are generated illustrating potential ways of living, travelling and consuming products and services where certain goals such as a reduced climate impact are fulfilled. This paper argues that tension arising from climate strategies relying on either adaptation or mitigation strategies, or combining the two strategies, warrant further examination. In this paper the inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation is discussed by examining processes of citizen-participation in constructing scenarios and applying the concepts of resilience, vulnerability and adaptive capacity. We discuss this using the concept of deliberative planning processes as a means to achieve legitimate, effective and sustainable futures. As a part of this approach, we argue that methods for citizen-participation applied in exploring different science and technology options also provide useful insight for this type of planning processes. The theoretical arguments are combined with examples from environmental scenario construction in practice. The paper brings attention to tensions between sustainability content values, such as reduced climate impact, and more process oriented values such as legitimacy and participatory scenario construction. Moreover, the concept of open innovation processes is introduced to the context of participatory scenario construction as a means to increase the robustness of action plans implemented to reduce climate change.

Public Understanding of Climate Change as a Social Dilemma

“…The present study has been limited to considering the ways in which participants understand climate change as a social dilemma in terms of mitigatory responses at the personal, national or international level. There is however increasing recognition that public engagement in climate change adaptation will be required now and in the future [58,59] and that, as with mitigation, collective responses are also required for adaptation [60,61]. Whilst research studies have begun to examine public perceptions of climate change adaptation (e.g., [62][63][64][65]) the specific means by which adaptation may be understood by people to constitute a social dilemma are, however, yet to investigated.…”

A participatory systems approach to understanding climate adaptation needs

“…It is important in informing local communities about likely change effects, for identifying and dealing with potential risks and vulnerabilities, and also for encouraging and mobilising community activities geared to minimising these risks. Studies have stressed that programs or meetings directed at creating a shared vision amongst community members need people with a willingness to engage with others in open, unfettered and respectful multi-disciplinary discussion (Larsen and Gunnarsson-Östling 2009;Mastrandrea et al 2010). Such approaches aim to break down the top-down-bottom-up nexus and build an interactive process that engages holistically, incorporating the differing views held by the variety of stakeholders.…”

Participation, scenarios and pathways in long-term planning for climate change adaptation

“…The case study was also a transdisciplinary research experience (Hadorn et al, 2006), involving a number of scientific disciplines and knowledge domains. The criterion for selecting participants was to identify the beneficiaries of climate change adaptation in the region, as well as important actors for implementing policies and measures (Larsen & Gunnarsson-Östling, 2009;Wood & Stocker, 2009). The group of participants included representatives of local administrations (e.g.…”

“…The storylines were based on climate change scenarios and risk assessment maps and were purposely extreme and normative (Larsen & Gunnarsson-Östling, 2009) to promote a critical discussion (Schmidt-Thomé & Klein, 2013). The storylines were read by the workshop facilitator as fictional narratives, and provided three alternative visions of what the future could be according to different courses of action.…”