Cultural Dimensions of Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation

Abstract

Society's response to every dimension of global climate change is
mediated by culture. We analyse new research across the social sciences
to show that climate change threatens cultural dimensions of lives and
livelihoods that include the material and lived aspects of culture,
identity, community cohesion and sense of place. We find, furthermore,
that there are important cultural dimensions to how societies respond
and adapt to climate-related risks. We demonstrate how culture mediates
changes in the environment and changes in societies, and we elucidate
shortcomings in contemporary adaptation policy.

Full text

112 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | FEBRUARY 2013 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
Responding to climate change is about adjusting to risks,
either in reaction to or in anticipation of changes arising
from changing weather and climate. Research and policy
on adaptation and mitigation has largely focused on the material
aspects of climate change, including risks to lives and livelihoods,
the costs of decarbonizing economies and the costs of impacts
on various sectors of the economy1. ese are, for the most part,
quantiable and therefore conventionally included in policy anal-
yses. No less important, however, are the cultural dimensions of
climate change.
Culture is important for understanding both mitigation of and
adaptation to climate change, and of course plays its part in fram-
ing climate change as a phenomenon of concern to society. Culture
is embedded in the dominant modes of production, consumption,
lifestyles and social organization that give rise to emissions of
greenhouse gases. e consequences of these emissions—climate
change impacts—are given meaning through cultural interpreta-
tions of science and risk2–4. Culture is no less central to under-
standing and implementing adaptation: the identication of risks,
decisions about responses, and means of implementation are all
mediated by culture. Cultures are dynamic and reexive and so are
in turn shaped by the idea of climate change. Hence culture, and
its analysis, is central to understanding the causes and meaning of,
and human responses to climate change.
Here we focus on weather and climate-related risks and the
cultural dimensions of adaptation responses, while recognizing
that culture plays an equally central role in energy, technology
and mitigation. Our scope is restricted to cultural aspects of risks
and adaptation, and in particular the non-material processes and
resources that enable people to lead meaningful and dignied
lives, yet which are at risk from climate change. We analyse the
evidence from a wave of new social science research into these
hitherto under-emphasized cultural dimensions of climate change
risks and responses, and suggest how they might inform adapta-
tion planning. is recent body of work shows that climate change
exacerbates risks to cultures; that most contemporary responses
fail to address these critical dimensions of climate risk; that cli-
mate change adaptation can itself put some of these important ele-
ments of social life at risk; and that these elements may in turn be
enablers or barriers to adaptation.
Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts
and adaptation
W. Neil Adger1*, Jon Barnett2, Katrina Brown3, Nadine Marshall4 and Karen O’Brien5
Society’s response to every dimension of global climate change is mediated by culture. We analyse new research across the
social sciences to show that climate change threatens cultural dimensions of lives and livelihoods that include the material and
lived aspects of culture, identity, community cohesion and sense of place. We find, furthermore, that there are important cul-
tural dimensions to how societies respond and adapt to climate-related risks. We demonstrate how culture mediates changes
in the environment and changes in societies, and we elucidate shortcomings in contemporary adaptation policy.
Climate change and cultural change
Culture is dened here as the symbols that express meaning,
including beliefs, rituals, art and stories that create collective out-
looks and behaviours, and from which strategies to respond to
problems are devised and implemented5,6. It has both non-material
and material aspects. Culture, in the way we examine it here, is
oen closely tied to places (physical spaces that are given meaning
by people), even as both have become increasingly transnational-
ized through processes of globalization7–9. us, as culture and com-
munity are frequently rooted in place—from metropolitan areas
through to marginal rural settlements—climate change impacts in
these places may also change cultures and communities, oen in
ways that people nd undesirable and perceive as loss10.
Analyses of culture and place span disciplines from anthropol-
ogy to geography and human ecology, and use a range of theories
and methods. Cultural geographers, for example, suggest that pro-
duction of culture is tied up with the construction of landscapes that
“comprise all the physical, biological and cultural phenomena inter-
acting in a region, exhibiting historical depth in the shape of the
residues of antecedent landscapes”11. Alternatively, human ecology
analyses social–ecological systems to discern interactions between
social practices, values and change in the natural world12. In most
cases, the methods for studying culture tend to be qualitative, fre-
quently including ethnography and participant observation, and
data from these methods do not sit comfortably with the quantita-
tive approaches prevalent in other social and natural science on cli-
mate change. is is one reason why cultural aspects have not been
well integrated into climate change analyses and policies.
e expected impacts of climate change will aect cultures in
diverse ways (see Table1). e risks are manifest globally: few cul-
tures will escape the inuences of climate change in these coming
decades whether in cities in the developed world or in resource-
dependent subsistence economies (Box 1 documents contempo-
rary challenges on one Pacic island state). Cultural change is not
a phenomenon of marginal societies: indeed post-materialist values
in themselves are argued by some analyses to be those values most
challenged by environmental change13.
e changes that arise from climate change are only deemed
negative within a given cultural frame of reference, making it
dicult to predict which of the changes arising from climate
1Geography, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Amory Building, Rennes Drive, Exeter, EX4 4RJ, UK. 2Melbourne School
of Land and Environment, University of Melbourne, 221 Bouverie Street, Parkville, Victoria 3010, Australia. 3Environment and Sustainability Institute,
University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, Penryn, TR10 9EZ, UK. 4CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Climate Adaptation Flagship, ATSIP Building, James Cook
University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia. 5Department of Sociology and Human Geography, University of Oslo, Postbox 1096, Blindern, 0317
Oslo, Norway. *e-mail: N.Adger@exeter.ac.uk
REVIEW ARTICLE
PUBLISHED ONLINE: 11 NOVEMBER 2012 | DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1666
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | FEBRUARY 2013 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 113
change will lead to losses of cultural assets that communities value.
But some consequences are less ambiguous. e loss of access to
places as a result of coastal inundation, for example, or even as a
consequence of climate change adaptation or mitigation policies,
will have clear impacts on culture. When people are displaced from
places that they value, there is strong evidence that their cultures
are diminished, and in many cases endangered. ere are oen no
eective substitutions for, or adequate compensation for, lost sites
of signicance10,14,15.
e importance of these impacts is closely correlated with the
level of attachment that individuals experience around their settle-
ment or place. Attachment to place is a concept that describes the
level of connection that individuals have with the people and envi-
ronments in which they live16–18. e concept, well established within
sociology and geography, describes the identity created around a
settlement or place, the sense of pride associated with belonging to
a village, town or city, and the friendships and networks that exist
within them19,20. It contributes to individual and community well-
being and quality of life, and is widely used as an element in assess-
ing community sustainability.
Place attachment is thus emerging as an important factor for cli-
mate adaptation in regions where existing livelihoods are unlikely
to be maintained as the impacts of climate change are increasingly
manifest21–23. Attachment to a place may be closely linked to a sense
of belonging to a community8. Individuals with a strong attachment
to their community are oen unwilling to migrate to maintain their
income levels because they are reluctant to leave behind their social
and emotional support groups and adapt to a new community24.
Box2on migration and resettlement shows that attachment to place
is a critical factor in decisions about migration. Indeed, as has been
recently argued in this journal, for its impacts on communities and
cultures, wholesale resettlement of populations may oen be mala-
daptive, and should be a strategy of last resort25.
Individuals with a high level of place attachment can be dis-
tressed at the prospect of moving from their home communities.
ere is also strong evidence to suggest that control over whether
and how change in location occurs is important for psychological
and emotional well-being. Social scientists have explored the phe-
nomenon of place attachment in various ways26–28, but two are espe-
cially pertinent in the context of climate adaptation. First, continuity
of place can be an important component in maintaining or reinforc-
ing identity29. Discontinuing identity is associated with grief and
strong social impacts related to loss30,31. Second, although migrat-
ing to new places to secure income can positively contribute to the
adaptation process through opening new economic opportunities,
migration can also diminish the benets by increasing nancial and
emotional stress and weakening social structures in both source and
destination communities22,32.
Culture aects adaptive pathways
Insights into the cultural dimensions of climate change challenge
many of the fundamental assumptions that have guided research on
climate change adaptation. Most attempts to integrate adaptation
into models of climate change assume simple cause-and-eect rela-
tionships between environmental risks and social responses. Such
responses seldom appear in practice. In fact, impact models gener-
ally fail to explain why dierent groups exposed to the same sets of
changes display vastly dierent responses. For example, in Burkina
Faso dierent groups of pastoralists have responded to recurrent
drought in dierent ways, with the Fulbe struggling to nd alter-
native income streams, whereas their former slaves—the Rimaiibe
people—have diversied their livelihoods through more extensive
use of labour migration33. Similar dierentiation is demonstrated
in shing communities in India, where responses are bounded by
cultural practices within dierent ethnic groups34. Historically, too,
pre-modern cultures were able to adapt to environmental changes
with varying degrees of success: for example, drought seems to have
been a factor in the collapse of some civilizations, whereas others
were able to persist35.
Cultural perspectives help to explain dierences in responses
across populations to the same environmental risks. Recent research
shows that information about climate change does not connect with
all cultures and worldviews in the same way. Douglas and Wildavsky 2
argue that societies with shared values and beliefs produce their
own selective view of the natural environment, which inuences
how they interpret and respond to risk. Climate change narratives
oen interact with other beliefs to motivate responses, which in
some cases may not be consistent with the ‘rational’ responses advo-
cated by institutions promoting adaptation36. For example, people in
atoll islands in the South Pacic merge scientic information about
climate change with pre-existing narratives about cultural decline in
ways that discourage adaptation37,38.
Although local knowledge and practices can be eective for
progressively adapting to climate change, they may have limited util-
ity when cultures are confronted with rapid or nonlinear changes.
For example, although archaeological records suggest that the
Pueblo Indian peoples were able to use a mix of strategies to adapt
to drought, as drought became more prolonged and intense such
Table 1 | Examples of climate eects and possible cultural and representational impacts.
Projected biological and
physical impacts
Cultural impacts
Increased extent of areas affected
by drought
Pastoralism as a cultural phenomenon under threat. Erosion of social structures as populations exit from herding74,7 5.
Changes to availability or range of
fish stocks and coral reefs
Loss of fish stocks leads to loss of symbolic value and cultural practices attached to particular species. An example is
the ‘place spirits’ in sharks, rays and dolphins in Melanesia76. Cultural practices may not be adaptable to changes in fish
population dynamics.
Decreased snow and ice cover
in Arctic
Hunters and fishers forced to switch target fishing and hunting species and losing traditional knowledge and cultural
identity such as traditional housing77.
Retreat and loss of snow cover
and glaciers at high altitudes
Loss of winter culture and recreation and the place of snow in ritual and sense of place; observed in Europe, North America
and Australia78,79.
In high latitudes pastoralist and other cultures such as the Quechua-speaking villagers in southern Peru sense dislocation
from the natural world with retreat of the Quelccaya ice cap80.
Ecosystem disturbance and plant
and animal species at risk from
localized or global extinction
Loss of iconic and culturally significant habitats such as those of the uplands of England associated with cultural
expressions81.
Changes to phenology and seasons in England leading to dislocation from place81.
Loss of experienced weather patterns such as ‘soft rain’ in Ireland82.
Threats to global icons such as snow cover on Kilimanjaro83.
REVIEW ARTICLE
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1666
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

114 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | FEBRUARY 2013 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
strategies became less eective, leading to famine, social conicts
and increased migration39. For the St’át’imc people in British
Columbia, changes in the timing, abundance and quality of sockeye
salmon are so great that despite traditional knowledge, there seems
to be no eective adaptation to manage the eects of these changes
on St’át’imc culture40. For the Inuit in Nunavut, changes in the abil-
ity to predict the weather have not only aected hunting and travel
but have also had emotional, cultural and spiritual consequences41.
Place attachment may also shape adaptive responses. For exam-
ple, Mishra and colleagues42 observe that people with high levels of
place attachment were more likely to be motivated to prepare for
climate change events such as ooding because of their social and
economic investments within their region. Several other researchers
have also suggested that attachment to place is more likely to result
in pro-environmental behaviour43–45. ese observations suggest
that place attachment may inspire citizens to develop or participate
in climate adaptation planning processes46.
Culture also shapes values, and there is a considerable body of
research in the social sciences and humanities that considers how
values are related to culture, cognition and economic factors47. is
body of knowledge is reected in recent climate change research
that examines the relationship between values and adaptation
choices48,49. e emerging literature shows that dierences in values
may create tensions or discrepancies between adaptations that are
deemed rational and eective by governments and planners, and
those that are considered important to and desirable by individuals
and communities. In climate change adaptation, as in development
more generally, culture and politics interact to determine who has
voice, whose values count and what information is legitimate50.
To understand adaptation as a social process requires increased
attention to the meaning of climate change, including to the
opportunities created, and the ways it can inuence community
and identity. Climate change can directly challenge traditional or
established identities. Norgaard51, for example, considers how the
socially constructed national identity of Norwegians is increasingly
in contradiction to political economic relations, leading to so-called
implicatory denial of climate change (rejection of the psychological,
political or moral implications of information). Climate change is
oen portrayed as a global-scale problem: it oen does not reso-
nate with the values associated with many traditional, ethnocentric
worldviews, and may contribute to antagonism or cognitive disso-
nance. Yet in revealing linkages and connections that are not readily
perceived or visible, climate change can also promote humanist val-
ues that counter exclusive and conformist values. Changes in indi-
vidual and collective identities can open up possibilities for forming
symbolic identities with distant others and ‘elective’ communities
and facilitate new forms of collective action.
Where culture itself is able to change during times of ux—for
example by developing new narratives, alternative meanings or
strategies to lead meaningful lives—then it can serve as an impor-
tant enabler of change. Indeed, culture is dynamic, and climate
change may prompt benecial as well as negative changes. In eect,
current framing of cultural dimensions of climate change demon-
strates apparently paradoxical insights. First there is considerable
evidence that climate change poses risks and threats to values and
Niue is a Polynesian island with a population of 1,500. Climate
change poses a considerable risk to aspects of Niuean culture
that Niueans themselves value. e island is exposed to cyclones:
Heta in 2004 caused damage to resources that sustain material
culture, including to stocks of the moota (Dysoxylum forsteri)
tree used to make the distinctive outrigger canoes, an important
symbol of Niuean culture. Attempts to sustain Niuean culture
have focused on canoe building and traditional shing practices
from these canoes. Cyclone Heta also damaged culturally sig-
nicant artefacts, including the Niue national museum and the
Huanaki cultural centre, which was the central venue to meet
and take part in traditional dances, singing and narration of
oral histories88.
Niue has also suered from signicant population decline
since 1971. Of all present Niueans born in Niue, about 5,500
live in New Zealand—more than three times the number of the
current resident population. Niueans living in Niue therefore
perceive themselves as trustees of Niue’s ‘Taoga’—their precious
possessions, including its resources, customs and traditions,
language, and arts and cras. Niueans perceive their Taoga as
how they interact with the land and sea, and with each other.
For example, harvesting talo and sh ritualizes Niuean belong-
ing to the land and seas: these foods are the material products of
cultural practice. As climate change undermines yields of these
resources it simultaneously undermines the sustainability of
Niuean culture.
Finally, Niueans are well aware of climate change and the
risks it is said to pose to their lives and livelihoods. Cyclone Heta
was immediately understood as being a harbinger of things to
come. us Niueans receive information about climate change
and interpret it in terms of their existing concerns: cyclones and
droughts, and population decline. Knowledge about climate has
therefore subtly changed Niueans’ condence in the sustainabil-
ity of their island and culture, making their island home seem
less safe, and the future less secure89.
Box 1 | Culture and climate change in a small island state.
An emerging focus on migration as a rational response to climate
change impacts90 with evidence shows that:
(1) Migration is a benecial strategy for spreading risk in
sensitive economic sectors and regions;
(2) Migration is limited to those with threshold levels of eco-
nomic resources and human capital, and hence immobility
is an important dimension of the problem91;
(3) Planned resettlement is likely in the future both in response
to climate risks and also as a by-product of energy invest-
ments and land-use changes for mitigating climate change92.
Identity is an important dimension of migration decisions,
including in choice of destination for migrants, and in the
adaptation strategies of migrants in these destination regions
and countries.
Specic work on identity and migration to environmental
risks nds:
(1) ose at risk almost always exhibit and state their desire not
to relocate, expressed as being for cultural reasons93;
(2) ose being resettled oen resist attempts by authorities to
move them;
(3) In some circumstances the eects of population decline on
communities from which migrants move can undermine
community cohesion, cultural continuity and adaptive
capacity, although diaspora links are oen critical mediat-
ing inuences15,94,95;
(4) Migrants themselves oen move to areas at risk; loss of
their localized environmental knowledge makes them
more vulnerable to environmental risks in new localities96.
Yet much of the evidence so far accumulated has under-
emphasized the role of place and identity in individuals’ decisions
to adapt in one place or relocate.
Box 2 | Identity and attachment in migration and resettlement
decisions in response to climate risks.
REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1666
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | FEBRUARY 2013 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 115
cultural expressions that matter to individuals and communities,
and that their capacity to adapt will be profoundly shaped by these
risks. Second, there is increasing recognition that the idea of cli-
mate change, whether as a process or phenomenon, may itself be
inuencing cultural values, individual and collective identities and
notions of community.
Implications for policy and science
ese new insights into how culture interacts with climate-related
risks could radically alter understanding of social responses to
climate change, and aect how adaptation policies are designed.
Most areas of public policy seek to promote societal goals through
ecient policy mechanisms. Government action seeks to allocate
resources eciently to aect a desirable distribution in areas where
autonomous actions and markets fail to do so. Given imperfect
information on risks, much government action has been focused
on reducing uncertainty, increasing information and protecting
productive assets52, for example by providing climate risk informa-
tion and reducing risk through regulation and planning53,54. Yet as
Douglas and Wildavsky note2, responses based on assessments of
physical risks and subjectively biased individual perceptions of risk
are likely to fail without a cultural understanding of risk.
ere is emerging evidence that current policies, at least for
specic cases, partly by overlooking cultural dimensions, lead to
maladaptive outcomes27,55–57. Protecting property through hard
sea defences, for example, reduces public goods such as beaches.
Similarly, transferring large amounts of water across river basins for
economic reasons comes at the cost of place-specic cultural values
of water and the integrity of small communities. Moving people to
maintain their livelihoods comes at the cost of community cohesion
and sense of place, and even switching to new agricultural practices
to sustain production comes at the cost of the cultural values of food
and its production.
Adaptation strategies can thus potentially undermine the resil-
ience of communities and cultures, particularly when they promote
private interests at the expense of public goods such as cultural
heritage or community cohesion58. Adger and colleagues59 reviewed
a range of responses to climate change and showed how some dam-
age resilience. is was related to a narrow framing of the problem
and lack of consideration of interaction between climate change and
other stressors; the institutions involved in responses; and a failure
to recognize dynamic feedbacks.
Cultural factors shape how people support adaptation interven-
tions, and their motivation to respond to them. e attachment that
people have to their community may be an important predictor of
how they might adapt and support strategies designed at higher
levels. For example, people who value the stability associated with
remaining in the one community22,60 may experience deterioration
in quality of life if they are forced to relocate as an adaptation to
climate impacts22. Consequently, adaptation strategies that directly
aect attachment to place may not be supported, and dierent strat-
egies that allow people to remain in their current place are more
likely to be successful. However, people who remain within their
chosen place regardless of the tenability of the location are likely
also to become ‘losers’ in the adaptation process.
Sometimes, of course, societies do invest in policies to support
actions for powerful cultural reasons. An example is drought policy
in Australia, where it has long been the case that government subsi-
dies to farms have implicitly sought to sustain rural communities61,
but were arguably maladaptive given climatic changes increased the
incidence of drought. Hurlimann and Dolnicar demonstrate that
such policies were popular in the recipient communities and any
policy change to promote adaptation through relocation and migra-
tion would be resisted by populations surveyed across Australian
farming settlements62.
So how could policy incorporate culture more explicitly? is
would rst require recognizing the explanatory power and the lim-
itations of the methods of inquiry into culture. Ethnography is a
primary method of cultural inquiry based on the immersion of the
researcher in places. Cultural inquiry is also undertaken collabo-
ratively with multiple stakeholders to understand how global pro-
cesses (from emerging carbon markets to heat waves in cities) are
articulated in local contexts63. ese methods focus on issues such
as perceptions of change; valuation and meaning of change; knowl-
edge of climate, weather and risks; and documented responses in
behaviour and practice64,65. Other methods of participant observa-
tion, narrative and historical analyses provide rich, context-specic
qualitative data. Mental models approaches, such as companion
modelling or agent-based modelling, explore knowledge systems
and oen aim to integrate traditional and scientic perspectives on
change or to specically support the design of adaptive manage-
ment strategies.
Even armed with robust knowledge of cultural change, how-
ever, there is no simple blueprint for such action, as it is dicult in
practice to incorporate multiple and marginalized voices and plu-
ral values into robust and replicable decision-making. Much of the
vigorous promotion of community-based adaptation suggests that
local-scale decision-making is more likely to promote plural and
Table 2 | Examples of large-scale climate and other assessments and their attempts to incorporate cultural dimensions.
Assessments Objectives How they assessed cultural dimensions
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)84 Global and subregional
assessment of changes in
ecosystems and links to
human wellbeing
Assessment of cultural services (chapter in the report) through review of
published science and case studies; focus on knowledge systems, spiritual
values, aesthetics and art.
Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (2005)85 Regional scientific assessment
of climate change impacts
Observations of environmental and climate change by indigenous peoples
documented using case studies based on existing projects (chapter in the
report). Other scientific findings subjected to ‘community review’.
National Ecosystem Assessment—United
Kingdom (2011)86
National assessment of
ecosystems and contributions
to well-being
Chapter on assessment of cultural services using economic valuation,
deliberative evaluation and applying Human Scale Development Matrix to
link ecosystems and changes to subjective and objective well-being.
Climate Witness (on-going)87 Collating individual
observations and experiences
of change to publicize impacts
and campaign for policies to
address climate change
Structured interviews and posting of videos and photos on website used to
build up an international database of stories of the meaning and experience
of changing weather and resources.
REVIEW ARTICLE
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1666
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

116 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | FEBRUARY 2013 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange
cultural values and that it incorporates culture by building on local
social norms and eecting change from within66. But community-
based adaptation faces the challenges that some cultural expres-
sion “may be deeply and narrowly dened and thereby resistant
tochange”67.
Good practice in public participation in adaptation decision-
making usually includes notions of proportionality, inclusiveness
and transparency68. Yet dealing with the cultural dimensions of
climate change impacts is about more than an “illusion of inclu-
si o n” 69, given that community-led processes are constrained by
the same focus on material assets and interests as politics at other
scales. Nicholson-Cole and colleagues have shown, consistent with
ndings across the United Kingdom and elsewhere70,71, that the per-
ception of loss of control and lack of inclusion in the process of deci-
sion-making are the greatest barriers to legitimate incorporation of
plural values. Rather, incorporating cultural dimensions requires
recognizing diverse perspectives and promoting decision-making
at appropriate and oen multiple, scales.
Cultural dimensions highlighted here are rarely and only partially
included in conventional assessments of climate change impacts and
adaptation. Participatory monitoring of change and ‘citizen science’
approaches use lay knowledge and observations to gather data72,73,
but are limited in the extent to which they incorporate cultural per-
spectives and values. e IPCC assessments, for example, restrict
themselves to peer-reviewed science. Table 2 shows how various
international assessments attempt to include cultural factors: dier-
ent methods used at dierent scales, ranging from primarily reli-
ance on published science papers, perhaps subject to community
review (in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment), to attempts to
encompass more plural cultural values (in the National Ecosystem
Assessment), to more open narrative ‘story-telling’ approaches to
documenting multi-faceted change (Climate Witness). us these
initiatives seek to provide new platforms and new ways to engage
with cultural dimensions of environmental change.
Conclusions
We highlight here the frontiers of research on culture and cli-
mate change including the potential threats to cultural assets and
the role of culture in adaptation. Culture and identity are di-
cult to incorporate into public policy: losses of public goods such
as community and place are not easily compensated or swayed
by arguments over economically rational adjustments to risk.
Acknowledging the importance of cultural factors is, however,
an important rst step. e challenge remains to address cultural
dimensions, perhaps through appropriate-scale individual and
community involvement in determining the goals of adaptation
policies and shaping their means of implementation. is will be
painstaking work; the scales of analysis and engagement will be
smaller, with multiple policy communities, pathways and negotia-
tions. Yet if the cultural dimensions of climate change are ignored,
it is likely that both adaptation and mitigation responses will fail to
be eective because they simply do not connect with what matters
to individuals andcommunities.
Received 3 January 2012; accepted 25 July 2012; published online
11 November 2012
References
1. National Research Council America’s Climate Choices: Adapting to the Impacts
of Climate Change (National Academies Press, 2010).
2. Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of
Technological and Environmental Dangers (Univ. California Press, 1982).
3. Shove, E. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: e Social Organization of
Normality (Berg, 2003).
4. Hulme, M. e conquering of climate: Discourses of fear and their dissolution.
Ge ogr. J. 174, 5–16 (2008).
5. Swidler, A. Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. Am. Sociol. Rev.
51, 273–286 (1986).
6. Hays, S. Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociol. eory
12, 57–72 (1994).
7. Escobar, A. Culture sits in places: Reections on globalism and subaltern
strategies of localization. Polit. Geog r. 20, 139–179 (2001).
8. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L. & Cook, J. Birds of a feather: Homophily in
social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001).
9. Hess, J.J., Malilay, J.N. & Parkinson, A.J. Climate change: e importance of
place. Am. J. Prevent. Med. 35, 468–478 (2008).
10. Kirsch, S. Lost worlds: Environmental disaster, ‘culture loss’, and the law.
Curr. Anthropol. 42, 167–198 (2001).
11. Brace, C. & Geoghegan, H. Human geographies of climate change: Landscape,
temporality, and lay knowledges. Prog. Human Geogr. 35, 284–302 (2011).
12. Berkes, F. Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: Lessons from
resilience thinking. Natural Hazards 41, 283–295 (2007).
13. O’Brien, K. in Adapting to Climate Change: resholds, Values, Governance
(eds Adger, W.N., Lorenzoni, I. & O’Brien, K.) 164–180 (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2009).
14. Crate, S.A. Gone the bull of winter? Grappling with the cultural implications
of and anthropology’s role(s) in global climate change. Curr. Anthropol.
49, 569–595 (2008).
15. Garrett, B.L. Drowned memories: e submerged places of the Winnemem
Wintu. Archaeologies, 6, 346–371 (2010).
16. Twigger-Ross, C.L. & Uzzell, D.L. Place and identity processes. J. Environ.
Psychol. 16, 205–220 (1996).
17. Hidalgo, M.C. & Hernandez, B. Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical
questions. J.Environ. Psychol. 21, 273–281 (2001).
18. Lewicka, M. What makes neighbourhood dierent from home and city? Eects
of place scale on place attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 35–51 (2010).
19. Flora, J.L. Social capital and communities of place. Rural Sociol.
63, 481–506 (1998).
20. Stedman, R.C. Sense of place as an indicator of community sustainability.
Forest. Chron. 75, 765–770 (1999).
21. Igor, K. Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceived climate.
J. Environ. Psychol. 25, 207–218 (2005).
22. Agyeman, J., Devine-Wright, P. & Prange, J. Close to the edge, down by the
river? Joining up management retreat and place attachment in a climate change
world. Environment and Planning A 41, 509–513 (2009).
23. Adger, W.N., Barnett, J., Chapin III, F.S. & Ellemor, H. is must be the place:
Under representation of identity and meaning in climate change decision-
making. Global Environmental Politics 11(2), 1–25 (2011).
24. Field, D.R. & Burch, W.R.J. Rural Sociology and the Environment
(Greenwood, 1988).
25. Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S. Islands, resettlement and adaptation.
Nature Clim. Change 2, 8–10 (2012).
26. Morgan, P. Towards a developmental theory of place attachment.
J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 11–22 (2010).
27. Raymond, C.M., Brown, G. & Weber, D. e measurement of place
attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections.
J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 422–434 (2010).
28. Scannell, L. & Giord, R. Dening place attachment: A tripartite organizing
framework. J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 1–10 (2010).
29. Hernández, B., Martín, A.M., Ruiz, C. & Hidalgo, M.C. e role of place
identity and place attachment in breaking environmental protection laws.
J.Environ. Psychol. 30, 281–288 (2010).
30. Danglova, O. Rural-community in the process of socioeconomic changes.
Colleg. Antropol 19, 129–144 (1995).
31. Fried, M. Continuities and discontinuities of place. J. Environ. Psychol.
20, 193–205 (2000).
32. Force, J.E., Machlis, G.E., Zhang, C. & Kearney, A. e relationship between
timber production, local historical events, and community social change: A
quantitative case study. Forest Sci. 39, 722–742 (1993).
33. Nielsen, J.Ø. & Reenberg, A. Cultural barriers to climate change adaptation: A
case study from Northern Burkina Faso. Glob. Environ. Change
20, 142–152 (2010).
34. Coulthard, S. Adapting to environmental change in artisanal sheries: Insights
from a South Indian Lagoon. Glob. Environ. Change 18, 479–489 (2008).
35. DeMenocal, P.B. Cultural responses to climate change during the late
Holocene. Science 292, 667–673 (2001).
36. Bravo, M.T. Voices from the sea ice: e reception of climate impact narratives.
J. Histor. Geog. 35, 256–278 (2009).
37. Kuruppu, N. & Liverman, D. Mental preparation for climate adaptation:
e role of cognition and culture in enhancing adaptive capacity of water
management in Kiribati. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 657–669 (2011).
38. Rudiak-Gould, P. Climate change and anthropology: e importance of
reception studies. Anthropol. Today 27, 9–12 (2011).
39. Blinman, E. 2000 years of cultural adaptation to climate change in the
southwestern United States. Ambio 37, 489–497 (2008).
REVIEW ARTICLE NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1666
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE | VOL 3 | FEBRUARY 2013 | www.nature.com/natureclimatechange 117
40. Jacob, C., McDaniels, T. & Hinch, S. Indigenous culture and
adaptation to climate change: Sockeye salmon and the St’át’imc people.
Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 15, 859–876 (2010).
41. Fox, S. in e Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic
Environmental Change (eds Krupnik, I. & Jolly, D.) 13–53 (ARCUS, 2002).
42. Mishra, S., Mazumdar, S. & Suar, D. Place attachment and ood preparedness.
J. Environ. Psychol. 30, 187–197 (2010).
43. Marshall, N.A., Fenton, D.M., Marshall, P.A. & Sutton, S. How resource-
dependency can inuence social resilience within a primary resource industry.
Rural Sociol. 72, 359–390 (2007).
44. Devine-Wright, P. Rethinking nimbyism: e role of place attachment and place
identity in explaining place-protective action. J. Commun. Appl. Soc. Psychol.
19, 426–441 (2009).
45. Scannell, L. & Giord, R. e relations between natural and civic place
attachment and pro-environmental behavior. J. Environ. Psychol.
30, 289–297 (2010).
46. Wolf, J., Brown, K. & Conway, D. Ecological citizenship and climate change:
Perceptions and practice. Environ. Polit. 18, 503–521 (2009).
47. Boudon, R. e Origin of Values: Sociology and Philosophy of Beliefs
(Transaction, 2001).
48. O’Brien, K. & Wolf, J. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation
to climate change. WIREs Clim. Change 1, 232–242 (2010).
49. Hulme, M. Why We Disagree about Climate Change (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2009).
50. Kothari U. in Participation: e New Tyranny? (eds Cooke, B. & Kothari, U.)
139–152 (Zed, 2001).
51. Norgaard, K. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life
(MIT Press, 2011).
52. Aakre, S. & Rübbelke, D.T.G. Objectives of public economic policy and the
adaptation to climate change. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 53, 767–791 (2010).
53. Tompkins, E.L. etal. Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of
transition to a well-adapting society. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 627–635 (2010).
54. Biesbroek, G.R. etal. Europe adapts to climate change: Comparing national
adaptation strategies. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 440–450 (2010).
55. Abel, N. et al. Sea level rise, coastal development and planned retreat:
Analytical framework, governance principles and an Australian case study.
Environ. Sci. Policy 14, 279–288 (2011).
56. Godden, L., Ison, R. & Wallis, P.J. Water governance in a climate change world:
Appraising systemic and adaptive eectiveness. Wat. Resour. Manage.
25, 3971–3976 (2011).
57. Loring, P. & Gerlach, S. Food, culture, and human health in Alaska: An
integrative health approach to food security. Environ. Sci. Policy
12, 466–478 (2009).
58. Brooks, N., Grist, N. & Brown, K. Development futures in the context of
climate change: Challenging the present and learning from the past.
Dev. Policy Rev. 27, 741–765 (2009).
59. Adger, W.N. et al. Resilience implications of policy responses to climate
change. WIREs Clim. Change 2, 757–766, (2011).
60. Dixon, J. & Durrheim, K. Dislocating identity: Desegregation and the
transformation of place. J. Environ. Psychol. 24, 455–473 (2004).
61. Nelson, R., Howden, M. & Staord-Smith, M. Using adaptive governance to
rethink the way science supports Australian drought policy. Environ. Sci. Policy
11, 588–601 (2008).
62. Hurlimann, A. & Dolnicar, S. Voluntary relocation: An exploration of
Australian attitudes in the context of drought, recycled and desalinated water.
Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1084–1094 (2011).
63. Crate, S.A. Climate and culture: Anthropology in the era of contemporary
climate change. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 40, 175–194 (2011).
64. Nelson, D.R., West, C.T. & Finan, T.J. Introduction to “In focus: global change
and adaptation in local places”. Am. Anthropol. 111, 271–274 (2009).
65. Roncoli, C., Crane, T. & Orlove, B. in Anthropology and Climate Change: From
Encounters to Action (eds Crate, S.A. & Nuttall, M.) 87–115 (Le Coast, 2009).
66. Dumaru, P. Community-based adaptation: Enhancing community adaptive
capacity in Druadrua Island, Fiji. WIREs Clim. Change 1, 751–763 (2010).
67. Ensor, J. & Berger, R. in Adapting to Climate Change: resholds, Values,
Governance (eds Adger, W.N., Lorenzoni, I. & O’Brien, K.) 237 (Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2009).
68. Dietz, T. & Stern, P.C. (eds) Public Participation in Environmental Decision-
making. (National Academies, 2008).
69. Few, R., Brown, K. & Tompkins, E. Public participation and climate change
adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim. Policy 7, 46–59 (2007).
70. Nicholson-Cole, S. & O’Riordan, T. in Adapting to Climate Change:
resholds, Values, Governance (eds Adger, W.N., Lorenzoni, I. & O’Brien, K.)
368–383(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).
71. Marino E. e long history of environmental migration: Assessing vulnerability
construction and obstacles to successful relocation in Shishmaref, Alaska.
Glob. Environ. Change 22, 374–381( 2012).
72. Lawrence, A. e rst cuckoo in winter: Phenology, recording, credibility and
meaning in Britain. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 173–179 (2009).
73. Smith, K. An army of observers. Nature Clim. Change 1, 79–82 (2011).
74. Tache, B. & Oba, G. Is poverty driving Borana herders in southern Ethiopia to
crop cultivation? Hum. Ecol. 38, 639–649 (2010).
75. Galvin, K.A. Transitions: Pastoralists living with change. Annu. Rev. Anthropol.
38, 185–198 (2009).
76. Foale, S.J. Conserving Melanesia’s coral reef heritage in the face of climate
change. Histor. Environ. 18, 30–36 (2008).
77. Furgal, C. & Seguin, J. Climate change, health and vulnerability in
Canadian northern Aboriginal communities. Environ. Health Persp.
114, 1964–1970 (2006).
78. O’Brien, K. in Adapting to Climate Change: resholds, Values, Governance
(eds Adger, W. N., Lorenzoni, I. & O’Brien, K.) 164–180 (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2009).
79. Gorman-Murray, A. An Australian feeling for snow: Towards understanding
cultural and emotional dimensions of climate change. Cultur. Studies Rev.
16, 60–81 (2010).
80. Orlove, B. Glacier retreat: Reviewing the limits of human adaptation to climate
change. Environment 51, 24–34 (2009).
81. Brown, T., Budd, L., Bell, M. & Rendell, H. e local impact of global
climate change: Reporting on landscape transformation and threatened
identity in the English regional newspaper press. Public Understand. Sci.
20, 658–673 (2011).
82. Irish American Climate Project Changing Shades of Green: the Environmental
and Cultural Impacts of Climate Change in Ireland. (Irish American Climate
Project, 2008).
83. ompson, L.G., Brecher, H.H., Mosley-ompson, E., Hardy, D.R. &
Mark, B.G. Glacier loss on Kilimanjaro continues unabated.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 19770–19775 (2009).
84. De Groot, R & Ramakrishnan, P.S. in Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:
Current State and Trends Assessment (eds Reid, W. etal.) 457–476
(Island, 2005).
85. Huntington, H. & Fox, S. in Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ed. Correll, R.)
61–98 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).
86. Church, A., Burgess, J. Ravenscro, N. in UK National Ecosystem Assessment,
633–692 (DEFRA, 2011); available at uknea.unep-wcmc.org.
87. World Wide Fund for Nature. wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/
problems/people_at_risk/personal_stories/witness_stories/.
88. Ellemor, H. & Barnett, J. Niue aer Cyclone Heta. Aust. J. Emergency Manage.
22, 3–4 (2007).
89. Barnett, J. in Climate Change and Human Mobility: Global Challenges to the Social
Sciences (eds Hastrup, K. & Fog-Olwig, K.) 169–189 (Cambridge Univ.
Press, 2012).
90. Piguet, E., Pecoud, A. & De Guchteneire, P. (eds) Migration and Climate Change
(Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).
91. Black, R. et al. e eect of environmental change on human migration.
Glob. Environ. Change 21 (Supp) S3–S11 (2011).
92. de Sherbinin A, Castro M, Gemenne F, etal. Preparing for resettlement
associated with climate change. Science 334 456–457 (2011).
93. Mortreux, C. & Barnett, J. Climate change, migration and adaptation in
Funafuti, Tuvalu. Glob. Environ. Change 19, 105–112 (2009).
94. McLeman, R. Impacts of population change on vulnerability and the capacity
to adapt to climate change and variability: A typology based on lessons from ‘a
hard country’. Population Environ. 31, 286–316 (2010).
95. Faist, T. Transnationalization in international migration: Implications for
the study of citizenship and culture. Ethnic Racial Studies
23, 189–222 (2000).
96. Tompkins, E.L., Hurlston, L. & Poortinga, W. Foreignness as a constraint
on learning: e impact of migrants on disaster resilience in small islands.
Environ. Hazards 8, 263–277 (2009).
Acknowledgements
Collaboration for this research was supported by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research, UK. J.B. was supported by Australian Research Council project DP0556977
and K.B. was supported through a Professorial Fellowship from UK Economic and Social
Research Council (grantRES-051-27-0263).
Author contributions
W.N.A. and K.B. formulated and planned the paper. All authors undertook the analysis
and interpretation and wrote the paper.
Additional information
e authors declare no competing nancial interests. Correspondence and requests for
materials should be addressed to W.N.A.
REVIEW ARTICLE
NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE DOI: 10.1038/NCLIMATE1666
© 2013 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved