Risk perceptions and Adapting to Climate Change

Wednesday, September 15th, 2010 by Carmen Elrick

Whilst analysing the outputs of a strategic climate change risk assessment undertaken for local communes in western Albania I was interested to note a clear differentiation between the risk levels assigned to physical resources (i.e. impacts on infrastructure and land) versus social resources (i.e. impacts on local livelihoods).

In all cases, risk levels assigned to physical objects or items were higher than the risk levels assigned to social impacts.

Does this represent a failure in clearly communicating risk? Are the links between livelihoods and physical impacts unclear? Or is this a reflection of the temporal understanding of risk, where respondents consider the physical impact as the first step (or frontline), with social impacts a secondary component?

What in turn does this mean for adaptation? Is the focus solely on reducing physical impacts? When do we start to balance consideration of the social component – which is real driver of change? If social impacts were a higher priority, would the approach to adaptation planning be different? Or would managing the physical change remain the focus of adaptation efforts – on the assumption that physical changes underpin or drive social adaptation?

I believe that focusing efforts on disentangling the complex relationships between climate change and social, cultural, and institutional systems may result in a differential response to climate change adaptation. In such a response, behavioural and institutional change would be an equally valuable component of climate change adaptation; rather than a strategic response taken in the absence of detailed information on the nature of physical impacts.

Understanding how perceptions of risk influence decision-making and, ultimately, how to effectively communicate climate change risk to facilitate adaptive action, is an integral step in achieving this objective (see work, for example, by Lisa Schipper, Anthony Leiserowitz and David Etkin). Tools such as the Social Amplification of Risk Framework (SARF) provide a useful starting point in this regard.

Beyond the Horizon

Monday, September 6th, 2010 by Robert Kay

I’ve been thinking a lot recently about those who inspire me personally and help face the future and present day challenges to the coast – including climate change.  Those individuals who motivate us to help read what the coast and the people that live there are telling us about change.

And then I read the moving, eloquent obituary in The Economist (22 July 2010) of Pius Mau Piailug, a master navigator of the Pacific who died on 12 July 2010 aged 78.

Mau Piailug was a traditionally trained ocean navigator who became famous for both his skill and teaching ability in the use of indigenous Micronesian navigation techniques.

Part of his obituary read: “He could detect shallower water by colour, and see the light of invisible lagoons reflected in the undersides of clouds. Sweeter-tasting fish meant rivers in the offing; groups of birds, homing in the evening, showed him where land lay.”

He could navigate beyond the horizon, using indicators around him to help define the best way forward by applying both his knowledge and experience gained over many years.

It is such navigators that we need to find (and foster their work) to help us in our journey into a greenhouse-gas modified future. And, if leaders like Mau Piailug can inspire us, we may not need to panic about the future of our coasts.

Learn more about the inspirational life of Mau Piailug and see videos of his teachings: