ArticlePDF Available

Advancing values-based approaches to climate change adaptation: A case study from Australia

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Coastal flooding affects physical and social place attachments. Values-based approaches to climate change adaptation examine how risks to place attachments are distributed within and among communities, with a view to informing equitable adaptation policies. In this nascent body of research, divergent theoretical frameworks and empirical approaches to measuring social values are evolving. While some studies explore the things people value about their everyday lives generally—the lived values approach, others locate specific social and cultural values in geographic space—the landscape values mapping approach. This study aims to compare the explanatory value of these two approaches for understanding the social risks of sea-level rise, and appraise whether either or both approaches are likely to meet local adaptation planning needs. It does this by examining the potential social impacts of sea-level rise in Kingston Beach, Australia, informed by a mail-out survey of the community. The lived values approach identified that the natural environment, scenery, relaxed lifestyle and safety are highly important to local residents, while the landscape values mapping approach revealed that Kingston Main Beach is the most highly valued of eight coastal landscape units. Incorporating the landscape values mapping into the lived values cluster analysis revealed that while Kingston Main Beach is highly important for its recreational value to some members of the community, for others manmade features such as community halls or sports ovals may be of higher importance because they facilitate social interactions. There is potential to further integrate these two approaches to better inform adaptation policy about how lived and landscape values are distributed among communities, where they are located in space and whether they change over time. A deeper understanding of such assigned values can lead to improved engagement with coastal residents to inform adaptation policy now and into the future.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
1ARTICLE TITLE:
2 Advancing values-based approaches to climate change adaptation: a case study from Australia
3
4AUTHORS:
5 Timothy David Ramm a, b, Sonia Graham c, Christopher John White a, d, e, Christopher Stephen
6 Watson f
7
8AFFILIATIONS:
9a. School of Engineering and ICT, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
10 b. Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre, Melbourne, Australia
11 c. School of Social Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
12 d. Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, Australia
13 e. European Centre for Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter, Truro, UK
14 f. School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
15
16 CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
17 Name: Timothy Ramm
18 E-mail: timothy.ramm@utas.edu.au
19 Mail: School of Engineering and ICT, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 65, Hobart, Tasmania,
20 7001 (Australia)
21 Phone (day): +61 3 6226 7232
22
2
23 Abstract
24 Coastal flooding affects physical and social place attachments. Values-based approaches to
25 climate change adaptation examine how risks to place attachments are distributed within and
26 among communities, with a view to informing equitable adaptation policies. In this nascent body of
27 research, divergent theoretical frameworks and empirical approaches to measuring social values
28 are evolving. While some studies explore the things people value about their everyday lives
29 generally—the lived values approach, others locate specific social and cultural values in
30 geographic space—the landscape values mapping approach. This study aims to compare the
31 explanatory value of these two approaches for understanding the social risks of sea-level rise, and
32 appraise whether either or both approaches are likely to meet local adaptation planning needs. It
33 does this by examining the potential social impacts of sea-level rise in Kingston Beach, Australia,
34 informed by a mail-out survey of the community. The lived values approach identified that the
35 natural environment, scenery, relaxed lifestyle and safety are highly important to local residents,
36 while the landscape values mapping approach revealed that Kingston Main Beach is the most
37 highly valued of eight coastal landscape units. Incorporating the landscape values mapping into
38 the lived values cluster analysis revealed that while Kingston Main Beach is highly important for its
39 recreational value to some members of the community, for others manmade features such as
40 community halls or sports ovals may be of higher importance because they facilitate social
41 interactions. There is potential to further integrate these two approaches to better inform
42 adaptation policy about how lived and landscape values are distributed among communities and
43 located in space. A deeper understanding of such values can lead to improved engagement with
44 coastal residents to inform adaptation policy.
45
3
46 Highlights
47 Diverse lived values—recreation, scenery and safety—are at risk of sea-level rise
48 Only a subset of natural landscape units at risk are highly valued by residents
49 Distinct groups of residents have unique sets of lived and landscape values
50 Equitable adaptation policies require accommodating diverse lifestyles and values
51 A combination of lived and landscape approaches can better inform adaptation policy
52
53 Keywords
54 Coastal inundation, local communities, place values, policy, public participation GIS, vulnerability
55
56 Acknowledgements
57 The authors are grateful for the financial support of the Commonwealth of Australia through the
58 Bushfire and Natural Hazards Cooperative Research Centre program and the Australian
59 Government Research Training Program Scholarship. The authors also thank individuals that
60 participated in this research through survey and interviews.
4
61 1 Introduction
62 Planning for sea-level rise is well underway at local, regional and national scales worldwide, yet
63 planning focuses on ameliorating the physical rather than social impacts of sea-level rise (Karlsson
64 et al., 2015; O’Brien and Wolf, 2010). For example, government adaptation plans typically focus on
65 the need to protect communities, accommodate sea-level rise, or retreat manmade infrastructure,
66 and many local government adaptation policies in Australia require new developments be built
67 above predicted rises in mean sea-levels (e.g. McInnes et al., 2016). Beyond infrastructure, there
68 is an emphasis on understanding and minimising impacts on the natural environment, such as
69 ensuring that biodiversity and ecosystem resilience are maintained (Baker et al., 2012). A notable
70 absence from many plans is consideration of how to reduce the impacts of sea-level rise and
71 coastal flooding on non-material social values (Adger et al., 2009, 2013).
72 To address this gap, non-material ‘values-based’ approaches to climate adaptation have been
73 developed to explore what people value most about their everyday lives, and how these social
74 values are likely to be affected by environmental changes and the policies developed to respond to
75 such changes (Persson et al., 2015). Values-based approaches seek to redress the emphasis of
76 adaptation planning on physical impacts by putting the lifestyle and wellbeing attributes that matter
77 most to communities at the centre of adaptation analyses (O’Brien and Wolf, 2010). While values-
78 based approaches are receiving increased attention by scholars, it is unclear to what extent they
79 are being adopted by decision-makers. The aim of this study is to further evaluate the potential
80 utility of two values-based approaches for informing more socially-oriented adaptation policies.
81 Early values-based studies on climate adaptation involved qualitative research into the social and
82 cultural values and activities that determine ‘how’ people interpret and respond to environmental
83 changes and adaptation policies (e.g. Kuruppu, 2009; Nielsen and Reenberg, 2010; Wolf et al.,
84 2013). Kuruppu (2009) found that religion potentially impedes climate adaptation in Kiribati
85 because it shapes the goals that individuals pursue. Nielsen and Reenberg (2010) identified that
86 cultural values of the Fulbe ethnic group of Burkina Faso prevent them from embracing particular
87 adaptation strategies. Wolf et al. (2013) showed how diverse values within two Canadian
5
88 communities may act as barriers to adaptation. While such studies are useful for understanding
89 constraints to climate adaptation, they offer few practical suggestions for how decision-makers can
90 “address values explicitly” (Wolf et al., 2013: 560).
91 Graham et al. (2014) argues that values-based approaches to adaptation can explicitly address
92 values by focusing on ‘what’ people value about their everyday lives, rather than ‘how’. They
93 proposed that values-based approaches should investigate the diversity of ‘lived values’—
94 valuations that individuals make about what is important in their lives and the places they live
95 (Graham et al., 2013: 49, emphasis added)—that exist within communities and how these lived
96 values are impacted by environmental change. In collaboration with two local governments, they
97 developed a quantitative method for measuring lived values and evaluating differences that exist
98 within (Graham et al., 2014) and across (Barnett et al., 2014a) communities. This method was
99 published in A Guide for Local Government (Barnett et al., 2014b) to facilitate uptake of the lived
100 values approach by planners in Australia and internationally.
101 There have been two applications of the lived values approach in Australia that focus on the
102 impacts of sea-level rise and distributional effects of adaptation planning within communities
103 (Graham et al., 2014; Kreller, 2016). These studies concluded that the lived values approach is
104 useful in shifting the focus of adaptation towards non-material values and enables policies to be
105 tailored to meet the needs of diverse segments of the population. Although the values elicited
106 through the lived values approach can direct policy-makers towards the general impacts from sea-
107 level rise and groups of people at risk, there is scope to provide further definition on what
108 individual’s value about the coastal landscape and natural environment.
109 A third values-based approach to climate adaptation focuses on the social and cultural landscape
110 values that people ascribe to particular physical places, i.e. the ‘where’. The landscape values
111 mapping approach1 was originally developed to associate perceived social values with landscapes
1 There are a range of terms used in the literature to describe the process of mapping social and cultural
values. These include ‘participatory mapping’ (Plieninger et al., 2013), ‘mapping social values’ (Tyravainen et
al., 2007) and ‘landscape values methodology’ (Raymond and Brown, 2011). Here we use the term
landscape values mapping (Brown 2006) to encapsulate these overlapping methods.
6
112 and include local or marginalised populations in natural resource planning and decision processes.
113 For example, in NSW, Australia the method has been used to include indigenous attachments to
114 landscape in the management of National Parks (Brown, 2008).
115 More recently, Novaczek et al. (2011) sought to adapt the landscape values mapping approach to
116 a climate adaptation context. They explicitly sought to evaluate whether landscape values mapping
117 can be used as a decision-support tool for climate adaptation, working closely with a provincial
118 Canadian government department to create maps of the study area and adapted the typology of
119 values (following Brown, 2004) to be more specific to coastal environments and activities. They
120 concluded that landscape values mapping was a useful tool for enabling coastal communities to
121 explore and recognise their values and raise awareness of the non-material losses that are likely to
122 occur in a changing climate. They also argued that the approach is useful for policy-makers
123 because it is affordable, inclusive and collaborative and enables decisions to be made that take
124 into account diverse values and priorities. There is considerable scope for this approach to be
125 applied elsewhere, yet we know of no applications of this approach to sea-level rise adaptation in
126 Australia nor how it may compare with the lived values approach.
127 This paper evaluates the usefulness of the lived values and landscape values mapping
128 approaches for informing climate adaptation planning. A case study in the coastal suburb of
129 Kingston Beach in Tasmania, Australia, is used to elucidate the social values that exist within the
130 community and to understand risks from sea-level rise. Section 2 introduces the case study, the
131 methodology is outlined in section 3 and results presented in section 4. The discussion in section 5
132 compares the utility of both approaches and outlines more broadly how policy-makers can utilise
133 both methods in coastal adaptation planning. Conclusions are drawn in section 6.
134 2 Case study site: Kingston Beach
135 The suburb of Kingston Beach is located in southern Tasmania, Australia and is 13 km from
136 Hobart, Tasmania’s capital city (Fig 1). It has approximately 2000 residents with one-quarter of the
137 965 dwellings situated less than 3 m above mean sea-level. The local municipality, Kingborough
138 Council, has undertaken traditional coastal risk assessments to inform its adaptation planning (e.g.
7
139 Climate Planning, 2016), however to date little work has been undertaken to understand the social
140 values at risk.
141 The case study site is a useful location to examine values-based impact assessments as the
142 suburb is predominantly residential, with iconic landscapes (e.g. beaches) and low-lying
143 infrastructure. The study area is faced with a unique flood risk that could threaten social values
144 because of the interaction between Browns River (Photo C, Fig 1) and the Derwent Estuary (Photo
145 F, Fig 1). Historically, there have been riverine floods from Browns River that have caused damage
146 to adjacent houses and infrastructure (Climate Planning, 2016). Anecdotal evidence suggests that
147 storms throughout the mid 1900’s caused waves from the Derwent Estuary to break over Kingston
148 Main Beach onto the esplanade, dragging boats from their moorings and destroying jetty
149 infrastructure (Gardam, 1988: 65).
150 A modest sea-level rise in the order of 0.5 m by the end of the centurary (McInness et al., 2016)
151 has the potential to change and/or inundate parts of Kingston Main Beach (Photo E, Fig 1),
152 including Tyndall Beach, which is reserved for dog exercise and referred to as the ‘dog beach’
153 (Photo D, Fig 1). Both beaches have little ability to recede landward with sea-level rise; Kingston
154 Main Beach is backed by an aging concrete sea wall (Gardam, 1988: 66) and the dog beach is
155 backed by rising hard bedrock (Sharples and Donaldson, 2014). Sea-level rise would have other
156 consequences to natural landscapes in the area, potentially raising the local groundwater table,
157 which could impact flora and fauna in the saltmarsh (Photo B, Fig 1), saline grassland (Photo A,
158 Fig 1) and bordering forest (Knight, 2016). Additionally, sea-level rise could lead to increased
159 flooding impacts from Browns River, in particular through a combined storm tide and riverine
160 flooding event, damaging physical infrastructure. A modelled 1 in 100-year coincident flood event
161 with 1 m of sea-level rise was estimated to expose $217 million of assets (Climate Planning, 2016).
8
162
(B) SALTMARSH
KINGSTON BEACH
(Suburb boundary)
Derwent Estuary
Existing Sea Wall
(A) SALINE
GRASSLAND (INCL.
GOLF COURSE)
(C) BROWNS RIVER
(D) DOG BEACH
(TYNDALL BEACH)
(F) SEA (DERWENT
ESTUARY)
(G) ROCKY SHORE
(H) BORONIA BEACH
163 Fig 1. Geographic location of Kingston Beach (study area) with photographs of natural low-lying
164 coastal landscapes (i.e. landscape units). Contours at 10 m intervals highlight low-lying areas in
165 the suburb near the beaches and Browns River.
9
166 3 Methods
167 The lived values and landscape values mapping approaches primarily rely on surveys (e.g.
168 interviews, mail-outs or online) for data collection. Eight place-based observations (i.e. how coastal
169 land is used by residents) and ten semi-structured interviews were undertaken to finalise the
170 survey questions prior to distribution (as per Graham et al., 2014). Qualitative analysis of the
171 place-based observations revealed social values enacted by residents and the semi-structured
172 interviews captured lived and landscape values voiced by residents.
173 3.1 Survey of the suburb
174 3.1.1 Survey design
175 Landscape values mapping requires participants to interact with a spatial map of the region, hence
176 participants must receive a mail-out survey or undertake it online. Both options were made
177 available to participants in this study. The survey contained the following sections: 1) connection to
178 the area; 2) household characteristics; 3) lived values and frustrations; 4) everyday activities; 5)
179 social networks; and 6) landscape values mapping (see Appendix A for full survey). The questions
180 in sections 1 to 5 were developed from Barnett et al. (2014b) and adapted to the context of this
181 study location. The 16 most frequently mentioned lived values during the semi-structured
182 interviews were included in the mail-out survey, ensuring that lived values from each of the five
183 categories identified in Graham et al. (2013) were included. Given young families were under
184 represented in the interviews, ‘a unique place for children to grow up’ was added as a lived value.
185 The landscape values mapping was guided by Brown (2006), Tyrvainen et al. (2007) and
186 Plieninger et al (2013). A shortlisted typology of nine social values was identified through semi-
187 structured interviews (Appendix B). An aerial map of the study area was provided with the survey
188 showing photographs of eight predefined coastal areas (landscape units). Respondents were
189 asked to rank up to three of the coastal landscapes in order of importance for each of the nine
190 values. This forced respondents to prioritise landscapes and allowed a weighted score to be
191 determined, reflecting overall community preference (rank 1 = 3 points; rank 2 = 2 points; rank 3 =
192 1 point).
10
193 3.1.2 Survey response
194 During October 2016, 961 surveys were hand-delivered to dwellings in the suburb. Follow-up
195 postcards (recommended by Dillman, 2007) were hand delivered 10 days after the survey. It was
196 specified that surveys were to be completed by decision-makers in the dwelling.
197 In total, 322 survey responses were received (284 hard copy; 38 online) which represented a 34%
198 response rate. The response rate was comparable to other values-based surveys (e.g. 47% in
199 Brown 2006; 28% in Graham et al., 2014; 29% in Novaczek et al., 2011). The socio-economic
200 characteristics of the sample was consistent with the census data for gender, household
201 composition and median income (Table 1).
202
203 Table 1. Socio-economic characteristics for the survey sample, compared to the suburb, State and
204 nation.
Characteristic
Australia
(2011)
Tasmania
(2011)
Suburb of Kingston
Beach (2011)
Survey
(Nov 2016)
Private dwellings
9.1 million
232,380
965
322
Median age*
45
50
53
55-64
Female:Male Ratio*
51:49
52:48
53:47
59:41
Average people/house
2.6
2.4
2.3
2.3
Median weekly household income
$1,234
$948
$1,097
$1000-$1999
Full time employment
58%
54.5%
55%
25%
University of higher
14.3%
11.8%
17.7%
58%
205 * Median ages and gender ratios have been calculated for the adult (18 years and older) population of Australia,
206 Tasmania and the suburb of Kingston Beach to directly compare with survey respondents.
207
208 3.2 Analysis methods
209 3.2.1 Landscape values analysis and social landscape metrics
210 To assess the degree of association between values and those landscapes identified as being
211 most important for each value (i.e. rank =1), a chi-squared test for independence was used. The
212 level of significance in the association was observed using standardised residuals as done in
213 Strickland-Munro et al. (2016).
11
214 The landscape values mapping data was then converted into metrics (Brown and Reed, 2011) to
215 further investigate the type and distribution of values assigned to landscapes. Whilst other metrics
216 are available to quantify the dominance and diversity of values assigned to landscapes, we focus
217 on the value sum (P0) and value sum precent (P1) metrics which indicate landscape units that
218 have the highest number of values assigned to them.
219 3.2.2 Lived values cluster analysis
220 Following the method used by Graham et al. (2014), cluster analysis was used to segment the
221 community into groups based upon life characteristics. The variables selected for inclusion were:
222 gender, employment status, community group membership, social network and previous location
223 of residence. All variables were categorical and were standardised prior to analysis. Correlations
224 were run to ensure that there were no redundant variables. The correlation coefficient for all
225 variables was below 0.62. The study used hierarchical followed by k-means clustering with
226 pairwise deletion of variables.
227 Once the final cluster solution was found, chi-square tests of independence (p < 0.05) were used
228 to evaluate whether there were significant differences between the groups with respect to their
229 lived and landscape values. This provided one mechanism for comparing the explanatory value of
230 the lived and landscape values mapping approaches.
231 4 Results
232 4.1 Community lived values
233 Respondents identified 45 distinct values that were important to them about living in the suburb of
234 Kingston Beach (Appendix C). The top five values, mentioned in response to open-ended
235 questions, included the beach (n=118, n is the number of survey respondents), ease to get to
236 places (n=112), the scenery and views (n=83), the natural environment (n=46) and relaxed beach
237 lifestyle (n=45). The top five values that respondents rated as being very important from a
238 predetermined list in the survey were the scenery and views (n=248), a safe place to live (n=230),
239 relaxed lifestyle (n=230), peacefulness (n=228) and natural environment (n=222). Easy access to
240 the beach and easy to get to places were on the predetermined list, and were the seventh and
12
241 tenth most highly rated lived values. Recreational activities that respondents most frequently
242 undertook each day in the area were walking (n=182), accessing the beach (n=105) and dog
243 walking (n=80). The emphasis on the beach, scenery and environment in these articulated and
244 enacted valuations demonstrate the importance of natural landscapes to the everyday lives of
245 residents. Temporal (relaxed and convenience) and safety aspects were also important.
246 4.2 Values mapped to coastal landscapes
247 A summary of values and their association to landscapes are provided in Table 2. A significant
248 statistical correlation was observed between landscape units and respondent values (X2 = 846.15;
249 d.f. = 56; p < 0.01; Table 2). This suggests that coastal landscapes are valued for specific
250 purposes by residents – for example the saltmarsh is highly valued as having minimal intrusion on
251 the natural environment (i.e. natural value) and for the variety and abundance of flora and fauna
252 (i.e. biodiversity value), while the Derwent Estuary is highly valued for providing enjoyable scenery,
253 sights, sounds and smells (i.e. aesthetic value) and for enabling future generations to experience
254 healthy, productive and sustainable ecosystems (i.e. future value).
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
13
265 Table 2. Association of values with landscapes. Score refers to the number of times respondents
266 ranked the landscape value as most important (rank = 1) along with the percentage of times the
267 landscape was ranked most important overall. Standardised residuals greater than +2.0 (bold) and
268 -2.0 (underline) reflect significantly greater or fewer observed frequencies respectively.
Coastal landscape unit
Value
A
Saltmarsh
B
Grass / golf
course
C
Browns
River
D
Dog
Beach
E
Kingston
Beach
F
Sea /
Derwent
G
Rocky
shore
H
Boronia
Beach
Total
Access
Score
2
7
7
41
172
31
3
23
286
%
2%
7%
3%
24%
16%
9%
3%
8%
Residuals
-2.84
-1.22
-4.46
4.59
3.94
-1.35
-2.44
-1.64
Aesthetic
Score
0
6
17
14
138
63
15
30
283
%
0%
6%
6%
8%
13%
19%
16%
11%
Residuals
-3.41
-1.49
-2.66
-1.36
1.05
3.83
1.19
-0.35
Biodiversity
Score
24
29
72
3
39
44
11
49
271
%
24%
31%
26%
2%
4%
13%
12%
18%
Residuals
3.86
5.73
7.45
-3.70
-7.45
1.08
0.13
3.32
Future
Score
17
7
34
9
110
66
2
25
270
%
17%
7%
12%
5%
10%
20%
2%
9%
Residuals
1.78
-1.06
0.61
-2.32
-0.95
4.71
-2.63
-0.99
Historic
Score
10
12
66
3
93
20
13
22
239
%
10%
13%
24%
2%
9%
6%
14%
8%
Residuals
0.06
0.91
7.48
-3.39
-1.32
-2.26
1.20
-0.96
Identity
Score
0
5
13
30
187
15
2
9
261
%
0%
5%
5%
17%
17%
4%
2%
3%
Residuals
-3.27
-1.60
-3.05
2.66
6.54
-3.50
-2.56
-3.77
Recreation
Score
2
14
23
35
167
24
4
8
277
%
2%
15%
8%
20%
15%
7%
4%
3%
Residuals
-2.78
1.01
-1.50
3.45
3.91
-2.30
-2.07
-4.16
Therapeutic
Score
1
7
16
29
126
44
16
38
277
%
1%
7%
6%
17%
12%
13%
17%
14%
Residuals
-3.08
-1.13
-2.75
2.10
0.22
0.93
1.58
1.20
Natural
Score
44
7
28
9
54
29
29
71
271
%
44%
7%
10%
5%
5%
9%
31%
26%
Residuals
9.85
-1.07
-0.49
-2.34
-6.08
-1.37
5.67
7.30
Total
Score
100
94
276
173
1086
336
95
275
%
269
270 Seven of the nine values were most frequently mapped to Kingston Main Beach and thus it had the
271 highest overall weighted score (Table 3). This was followed by the sea and Browns River. Kingston
272 Main Beach was the most frequent landscape unit used daily for recreational purposes (n=96),
273 followed by the Dog Beach (n=48) and Browns River (n=29), supporting the strong access and
274 recreational values associated with the beach.
14
275 Table 3. Selected social landscape metrics for coastal landscape units. Highest (bold) and lowest
276 (underline) metric values are indicated.
Coastal landscape unit (Fig 1)
Index name
(see table footnotes)
A
Saltmarsh
B
Grass / golf
course
C
Browns
River
D
Dog
Beach
E
Kingston
Beach
F
Sea /
Derwent
G
Rocky
shore
H
Boronia
Beach
(P0) Value Sum
Absolute
320
377
1205
659
1884
1146
810
865
(P1) Value Sum
Percent
4.4%
5.2%
16.6%
9.1%
25.9%
15.8%
11.1%
11.9%
Weighted Score
reflecting
preferences
614
(4.2%)
714
(4.9%)
2187
(14.9%)
1296
(8.8%)
4633
(31.5%)
2288
(15.6%)
1278
(8.7%)
1685
(11.5%)
Rank
8
7
3
5
1
2
6
4
277 P0 = counts the number of times the landscape unit was ranked 1st, 2nd or 3rd
278 P1 = percentage of P0 relative to total number of values mapped
279
280 4.3 Lived and landscape values
281 Cluster analysis revealed that there are six clearly distinguishable groups of residents who had
282 unique sets of lived and landscape values. Table 4 presents variables included in the cluster
283 analysis and Table 5 shows the lived and landscape values that were statistically significantly
284 different across the clusters (p < 0.05). The following descriptions of the six groups are drawn from
285 the results in these two tables.
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
15
293 Table 4. Variables included in the cluster analysis and resulting cluster characteristics. The
294 clusters with the highest (bold) and lowest (underline) percentage of each variable are indicated.
Selected variables
Cluster 1:
Work-life
balancing
families
Cluster 2:
Physically-
active, full-
time
workers
Cluster 3:
Team-
sports
oriented
residents
Cluster 4:
Community
minded
retirees
Cluster 5:
Independe
nt retirees
Cluster 6:
Reclusive
retirees
N
48
59
43
76
46
50
Cluster %
14.9
18.3
13.4
23.6
14.3
15.5
Children (%)
79.2
48.3
30.2
2.7
2.2
4.0
Female (%)
93.8
54.2
18.6
60.0
73.3
44.9
Full-time work (%)
2.1
98.3
48.8
0.0
2.2
0.0
Part-time work (%)
87.5
0.0
4.7
8.0
8.7
6.1
Retired or semi-retired (%)
0.0
0.0
39.5
92.0
78.3
87.8
None or one close friend (%)
45.8
57.6
33.3
24.3
36.4
42.0
Member of no community organisations (%)
33.3
59.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
Member of one community organisation (%)
27.1
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
Member of two or more community
organisations (%)
39.6
40.7
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
Moved from Hobart (%)
71.1
53.6
92.1
42.1
31.1
67.4
Moved from Tasmania but not Hobart (%)
17.8
21.4
5.3
25.0
26.7
21.7
Moved from outside Tasmania (%)
11.1
25.0
2.6
32.9
42.2
10.9
295
296
16
297 Table 5. Variables that are statistically significantly different (p<0.05) across the clusters. The clusters with the highest (bold) and lowest (underline)
298 percentage of each variable are indicated.
Variables
Cluster 1:
Work-life
balancing,
families
Cluster 2:
Physically-
active, full-time
workers
Cluster 3:
Team-sports
oriented
residents
Cluster 4:
Community
minded retirees
Cluster 5:
Independent
retirees
Cluster 6:
Reclusive
retirees
Age (over 65)
2.1
8.6
34.9
83.6
62.2
74
Age (35-64)
58.3
62.1
37.2
15.1
31.1
24
Age (18-34)
39.6
29.3
27.9
1.4
6.7
2
Education (university qualification)
75
67.2
48.8
64
52.3
42.9
Home ownership (owned outright)
52.1
35.6
51.2
91.9
82.2
77.6
Household (one/two person)
31.3
43.1
71.4
95.9
97.8
94
Demographics
Income (less than $1000/week)
18.8
5.1
23.3
45.9
40
40.8
Recreational opportunities (very important)
54.2
40.4
44.2
32.4
35.6
15.2
Safety (very important)
87.5
84.7
81.4
67.6
64.4
50
Unique for children (very important)
59.6
47.4
48.8
24.7
33.3
20
Lived values
Flat landscape (very important)
2.1
18.6
20
28.6
22
20
Volunteer (daily or weekly)
16.7
6.8
16.7
39.2
18.2
6.4
Go for a jog (daily or weekly)
20.8
27.6
23.3
1.3
0
4.2
Go for a bike ride (daily or weekly)
14.6
27.1
14
9.3
4.5
14.6
Go to the gym (daily or weekly)
18.8
29.3
16.3
17.1
9.1
4.2
Visit to parks (daily or weekly)
43.8
28.8
23.3
16
20
10.6
Activities
Access the beach (daily or weekly)
85.4
83.1
76.2
74.7
67.4
60.4
Family (daily or weekly)
93.8
83.1
86
71.6
69
72.9
Friends (daily or weekly)
87.5
70.7
90.7
92
83.7
59.6
Neighbours (daily or weekly)
34
30.5
51.2
54.7
45.2
36.7
Interactions and
networks
Community group members (daily or weekly)
48.9
36.2
55.8
79.2
56.8
13.3
Kingston Main Beach - recreation (most important)
48.9
73.2
57.1
45.2
71.4
42.9
Kingston Main Beach – therapeutic (most important)
40.4
55.4
54.4
39.7
33.3
26.5
Sea/Derwent – therapeutic (most important)
14.9
10.7
7.1
13.7
14.3
30.6
Landscape values
Browns River – historic (most important)
27.7
16.1
9.5
31.9
24.4
14.3
299
17
300 4.3.1 Cluster 1: Work-life balancing families
301 This group largely comprised highly-educated women with children who work part-time and are
302 members of least one community organisation. The importance of family and providing a particular
303 lifestyle for children is reflected in the diverse lived and landscape values that members of this
304 group ranked as being very important to them. This group was the most likely to rate ‘recreational
305 opportunities’, Kingston Beach being ‘a safe place to live’ and ‘unique for children’ as being very
306 important. They were also the most likely to spend time with family, visit parks and the beach on at
307 least a weekly basis.
308 4.3.2 Cluster 2: Physically-active, full-time workers
309 Almost all of the members of this group worked full-time and almost half had children. Although this
310 group had the highest incomes (94.9% had incomes greater than $1000 per week), only one-third
311 owned their home outright. The importance of individual physical activity to this group is reflected
312 in their values. Members of this group were the most likely to go to the gym, go for a bike ride or a
313 jog on at least a weekly basis and the most likely to rate the recreational and therapeutic value of
314 Kingston Main Beach as being most important. Almost all members of this group had moved to
315 Kingston Beach from Hobart.
316 4.3.3 Cluster 3: Team sport oriented residents
317 Most of the members of this group comprised men spanning a range of ages, with and without
318 children, including full-time workers and retirees. All group members are only members of one
319 community organisation, of which half are involved in sports and recreational organisations (the
320 most of all of the groups). Members of this group were the second most likely to see their family,
321 friends and neighbours on a daily or weekly basis and rate recreational opportunities as being very
322 important. This group was the least likely to identify the therapeutic value of the sea and the
323 historic value of the Browns River as being very important to them.
324 4.3.4 Cluster 4: Community-minded retirees
325 Almost all members of this group are retired or semi-retired, highly active members of the
326 community. All members of the group belonged to at least two community organisations and they
327 were the most likely to be engaged in educational, religious, cultural and local community action
18
328 groups. The importance of being active in the community is reflected in this group’s values. They
329 were the most likely to volunteer at least weekly and the majority of the group spend time with
330 other members of their community groups at least weekly as well as their friends and neighbours.
331 This group was most likely to rank the historic value of Browns River as being most important to
332 them.
333 4.3.5 Cluster 5: Independent retirees
334 The majority of this group were retired or semi-retired. This group is considered to be independent
335 because it had the highest number of members who lived alone and were the least likely to spend
336 time with family. Members of this group were most likely to have moved to Kingston Beach from
337 other parts of Tasmania or beyond. All members only belonged to one community organisation.
338 While this group was not as active in the community as the community-minded retirees, they were
339 the second most likely to volunteer and see community group members on at least a weekly basis.
340 This group was the least likely to engage in a range of physical activities, such as jogging, bike
341 riding, and going to the gym. However, they were the second most likely to rate the recreational
342 value of Kingston Beach as being very important to them.
343 4.3.6 Cluster 6: Reclusive retirees
344 This group mostly comprised retirees. This group is considered reclusive because they were not
345 involved in any community organisations and they were the least likely to volunteer, spend time
346 with members of community groups or see friends on a daily or weekly basis. The landscape
347 values of this group indicate that they do not value the beach and they were least likely to rate the
348 recreational or therapeutic value of Kingston Main Beach as being most important. However, they
349 were the most likely to value the therapeutic value of the Derwent River. The group also did not
350 place as much value on recreational opportunities, Kingston Beach being a safe place to live and
351 being unique for children as the other groups.
352
19
353 5 Discussion
354 The natural environment and relaxed lifestyle are important lived values to Kingston Beach
355 residents, whilst the landscape values mapping reveals that the Kingston Main Beach is of primary
356 importance. The cluster analysis shows the lived and landscape values are more salient to
357 particular groups within the community. It reveals that community engagement and social
358 interactions are highly valued by some members of the community, yet little is generally known
359 about where such interactions take place. The discussion that follows considers: 1) the extent to
360 which the lived and landscape values considered important in Kingston Beach are consistent with
361 past studies; 2) how integrating both values-based approaches may overcome limitations of each
362 method, but further work is required; and 3) the implications of these results for future adaptation
363 planning in comparable coastal communities that are threatened by sea-level rise.
364 5.1 Lived and landscape values in Kingston Beach
365 The lived values approach shows that residents of Kingston Beach place high importance on
366 values such as the natural environment, lifestyle and scenery – reflecting the unique combination
367 of water bodies, cliffs, bushland and wildlife. Comparing the lived values of Kingston Beach with
368 other studies in Australia reveals a number of similarities. Four of the five lived values rated as
369 most important in Kingston Beach — scenery, natural environment, relaxed lifestyle and feeling
370 safe — were ranked most important in Lakes Entrance, Victoria (Graham et al., 2014) and two of
371 the values—scenery and natural environment—were ranked most important in Botany Bay, New
372 South Wales, with safety ranked sixth (Kreller, 2016). Thus, across south-eastern Australia coastal
373 residents consistently value the physical landscape, relaxed lifestyle and a perceived sense of
374 safety. However, there are also clear place-based differences, with access to services being more
375 important in regional coastal areas (Graham et al., 2014) and access to transport and the city
376 being more important in larger urban localities (Kreller, 2016).
377 Landscape values mapping revealed that Kingston Main Beach is the most highly valued coastal
378 landscape, being most highly valued for recreational use, free of access restrictions and providing
379 a sense of identity. The landscape values mapping also revealed that the sea was important for its
20
380 aesthetic value, suggesting the importance of the sea to the ‘scenery’ lived value. Although the
381 importance of the coastline to recreation and aesthetics has been found in previous empirical
382 research, Novaczek et al. (2011) and Havas et al. (2016) found water itself to be as important, if
383 not more important, than the shoreline for recreation and aesthetic values. This difference between
384 Kingston Beach and other coastal landscapes internationally may reflect place-based differences
385 in the way residents interact with, and thus value, their coastal environment.
386 The cluster analysis helped to understand differences in lived and landscape values across the
387 Kingston Beach community. Of particular note is that for some residents such as the community-
388 minded retirees and reclusive retirees, recreational opportunity was a lived value of lessor
389 importance, also reflected in the lower landscape value they attributed to Kingston Main Beach
390 (Table 5). For the community-minded retirees, social interactions were important lived values and
391 they also appreciated the historic value of the Browns River. For reclusive retirees, there were few
392 lived values of importance to them but they did attach therapeutic value to the sea. Thus, the
393 cluster analysis showed that it is important to not only identify the lived and landscape values that
394 are rated as most important across the whole community, but also those that are specific to
395 particular groups. As per Graham et al. (2014) and Kreller (2016), the lived values that differ most
396 across the community are those that relate to being physically active, family-focused, engaged in
397 community organisations and maintaining social interactions. The landscape mapping approach
398 also revealed that groups of residents hold significantly different landscape values.
399 Overall, the survey results reveal that there is utility in asking residents to identify their lived and
400 landscape values. Together these two approaches provide a more comprehensive picture of what
401 residents’ value and how those values are enacted in space. The cluster analysis showed the
402 value of seeking to understand within-community differences in lived and landscape values, i.e.
403 that consideration of who is also important. While the results are largely consistent with other
404 coastal values-based research, the differences that exist reveal the importance of understanding
405 local place attachments in adaptation planning.
21
406 5.2 Advancing the lived and landscape values mapping approaches
407 Both values-based approaches provide complementary information about the overarching social
408 values at risk from sea-level rise. The lived values approach provides broader information about
409 the values people associated with a place, whilst the landscape values mapping provides tangible
410 associations with specific places. Yet, there are likely considerable benefits that could accrue from
411 further integration of both approaches.
412 At a general level, the results of the landscape values mapping add detail to our understanding of
413 the lived values of Kingston Beach, particularly with respect to the way in which the natural
414 environment is valued. Graham et al. (2013) proposed that the natural environment can be
415 considered to represent human “health” value, yet the landscape values mapping reveals that the
416 natural environment is primarily valued for its recreation, access and identity values, which
417 Graham et al. (2013) classify as “belonging” and “self-actualisation” values. While there may be
418 some health and wellbeing benefits of recreating on the beach or being close to the water, this is
419 not what is explicitly valued by residents and suggests that the lived values typology requires
420 further theorisation. Thus, at a minimum, the lived values approach could be more specific in
421 seeking to understand why particular lived values are important.
422 On the other hand, the lived values approach highlights missing values in the landscape values
423 mapping approach. One of the key lived values of Kingston Beach residents, as well as residents
424 in other Australian coastal communities, was feeling that it was a ‘safe place to live’ yet none of the
425 nine values included in the typology here, nor the longer list of sixteen landscape values covered in
426 other studies (Cole et al., 2015) consider safety as a social value. The other lived value that is
427 often missing from landscape values mapping approaches is ‘social interactions’. While lived
428 values pertaining to social interactions were not ranked highly by residents in Kingston Beach in
429 open or closed-questions, they were instrumental to understanding within-community differences in
430 Kingston Beach and Lakes Entrance (Graham et al., 2014). Membership in community groups as
431 well as interacting with family, friends and neighbours were defining features of clusters in both
432 studies. Although ‘social interactions and memories’ were identified as important by Strickland-
433 Munro et al. (2016) and included in their study of the landscape value of coastal waters in the
22
434 Kimberley, social interactions were not explicitly included as a landscape value covered in other
435 studies (Cole et al., 2015). While Strickland-Munro et al. (2015) acknowledge the importance of
436 family and friends, they do not explicitly consider the value of community groups. Thus the
437 landscape values mapping approach could be expanded to include social interactions and
438 concerns about safety to improve our understanding of how these social values are located in
439 geographic space and how they may be affected by climate change.
440 Beyond simply expanding the landscape values typology or being more specific in identification of
441 how particular physical landscape features are valued in the lived values approach, we argue that
442 there is potential to further integrate the two approaches to maximise their utility. At present, the
443 lived values approach begins through the use of place-based observations and interviews to
444 identify the most important place-specific health, safety, belonging, esteem and self-actualisation
445 lived values. There is no explicit consideration in this phase of the approach on identifying
446 important landscape features. The results of this study indicate that it is not only natural landscape
447 features that need to be identified, but also man-made infrastructure that may be where important
448 social interactions take place, such as community halls, churches and sports fields. Thus the first
449 stage of an integrated approach would be to identify the most important lived values for the whole
450 community, groups within the community who are more family-focused, physically active, socially
451 active, and reclusive, as well as important natural landscapes and man-made infrastructure.
452 The second phase of an integrated approach would involve a survey with a more specific list of
453 lived values and a more comprehensive list of ‘landscape’ values. The survey also needs to go
454 beyond targeting residents to include other people, such as tourists, who value the area. The
455 results of such a survey would be analysed using a form of cluster analysis, like the one used here,
456 to understand differences in lived and landscape values within and beyond the community. This
457 would provide policy makers with a much more comprehensive understanding of what aspects of
458 people’s everyday lives would be affected by climate change (as per Graham et al., 2014), where
459 those values are located and who is most at risk.
460
23
461 5.3 People and places at risk of sea-level rise: informing adaptation policy
462 To illustrate how lived and landscape values data might be used to identify what lifestyle aspects
463 could be impacted, where those values are located and who is most at risk, we consider a sea-
464 level rise scenario in the study region that amongst other things has the potential to inundate
465 Kingston Main Beach. Overall impacts to the community would include loss of scenic amenity, loss
466 of natural environment and beach access for recreational amenity. Across community groups the
467 impacts of sea-level rise differs disproportionately depending on lived and landscape values (Table
468 6).
469
470 Table 6 Impact of sea-level rise on the six clusters. Clusters with a higher percentage of the
471 variable impacted will be affected most (most affected cluster = -6; least affected cluster = -1).
Variables impacted by
sea-level rise
Cluster 1:
Work-life
balancing,
families
Cluster 2:
Physically-
active, full-
time
workers
Cluster 3:
Team-
sports
oriented
residents
Cluster 4:
Community
minded
retirees
Cluster 5:
Independent
retirees
Cluster 6:
Reclusive
retirees
Lived values
Recreational
opportunities
-6
-4
-5
-2
-3
-1
Safe place to live
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Unique place to raise
children
-6
-4
-5
-2
-3
-1
Activities
Jogging opportunities
-4
-6
-5
-2
-1
-3
Access the beach
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Landscape
Beach – recreation
-3
-6
-4
-2
-5
-1
values
Beach – therapeutic
-4
-6
-5
-3
-2
-1
Total
-35
-36
-32
-17
-18
-9
472
473 The illustration in Table 6 suggests that clusters made up of younger residents (e.g. clusters 1
474 through to 3) may have higher impacts to their lived values from rising sea-levels than retiree
475 clusters. We believe that the illustration presented in Table 6 provides a reasonable starting point
476 from which the council can begin incorporating social impacts from sea-level rise into adaptation
477 planning. Yet given the potential to further develop an integrated lived and landscape values
478 approach, we would recommend that further engagement occurs with the three groups of retirees
479 to understand if there are other lived and landscape values that may be at risk for these groups
480 and not identified through the survey (such as manmade infrastructure supporting social
24
481 interactions). Understanding what people within the community value about their everyday lives
482 and landscapes can help policy-makers engage with residents on coastal risks and steer policy-
483 makers towards designing fairer adaptation policies.
484 6 Conclusions
485 The methodology applied in this paper broadens the conceptualisation of coastal risk beyond
486 simply the physical impacts of inundation. The values-based impact assessment aligns to the ‘risk
487 identification’ step in risk management practice (ISO31000:2009) and can support deliberation with
488 stakeholders on climate risks and sensitive adaptation decisions (National Research Council,
489 2009:79).
490 Assisted by a detailed case study of a small coastal suburb in Tasmania, Australia, we find that the
491 information provided in the lived values and landscape values mapping approaches are
492 complementary in supporting climate change risk assessment and adaptation planning in coastal
493 areas. While the lived values approach is able to elicit a much larger set of values relating broadly
494 to the everyday lives of residents, the landscape values mapping provided a greater level of
495 precision on the type and significance of values associated with coastal areas. The high
496 importance placed on values relating to natural landscapes (i.e. scenery, natural environment),
497 which is becoming increasingly apparent in other studies around Australia, makes a strong case
498 for considering landscape values mapping information in adaptation planning.
499 The integration of lived values and landscape values mapping can advance values-based
500 approaches to climate change adaptation and highlight how groups of residents may be impacted
501 differently. Bringing these two approaches together means that policy-makers are equipped with
502 detailed information about what communities value about their everyday coastal lives, where
503 values are attributed to natural landscapes and man-made infrastructure, and for whom sea level
504 rise and other climate change impacts is likely to cause the greatest disruption – which can better
505 inform community risk assessments and adaptation responses in complex coastal environments.
506
25
507 References
508 Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O., Wolf,
509 J., Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim. Chang. 93,
510 335-354. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z
511 Adger, N., Brown, K., Barnett, J., Marshall, N., O’Brien, K.L., 2013. Cultural dimensions of climate
512 change impacts and adaptation. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 112-117. DOI
513 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1666
514 Barnett, J., Fincher, B.R., Hurlimann, A., Graham, S., Mortreux, C., 2014a. Equitable local
515 outcomes in adaptation to sea-level rise: final project report. University of Melbourne, Victoria.
516 Barnett, J., Fincher, B.R., Hurlimann, A., Graham, S., Mortreux, C., 2014b. Incorporating
517 community values into climate change planning: a guide for government. University of Melbourne,
518 Victoria.
519 Baker, I., Peterson, A., Brown, G., McAlpine, C., 2012. Local government response to the impacts
520 of climate change: An evaluation of local climate adaptation plans. Landscape Urban Plan. 107,
521 127-136.
522 Brown, G., 2004. Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management:
523 methods and applications. Soc. Nat. Resour. 18, 1-23. DOI
524 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920590881853
525 Brown, G., 2006. Mapping landscape values and development preferences: a method for tourism
526 and residential development planning. Int. J. Tour. Res. 8, 101-113. DOI
527 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.562
528 Brown, G.G., Reed, P., 2012. Social Landscape Metrics: Measures for Understanding Place
529 Values from Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS). Landsc. Res. 37, 73-
530 90. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2011.591487
26
531 Brown, S., 2008. Telling stories: managing cultural values at Yuraygir National Park, Australia. In
532 Josep-Maria Mallarach (ed) Protected Landscapes and Cultural and Spiritual Values. IUCN, GTZ
533 and Obra Social de Caixa Catalunya, Kasparek Verlag, Heidelberg, 38-50.
534 Climate Planning, 2016. Kingston Beach Integrated Climate Change and Natural Hazards Project.
535 Climate Planning, Australia.
536 Cole, Z., Holland, S., Donohoe, H., 2015. A Social Values Typology for Comprehensive
537 Assessment of Coastal Zone Ecosystem Services. Soc. Nat. Resour. 28, 1290-1307. DOI
538 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2015.1020580
539 Dillman, D.A., 2007. Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons,
540 New York.
541 Gardam, J., 1988. Brown’s River. A History of Kingston and Blackmans Bay. Rotary Club of
542 Kingston, Tasmania.
543 Graham, S., Barnett, J., Fincher, R., Hurlimann, A., Mortreux, C., Waters, E., 2013. The social
544 values at risk from sea-level rise. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 41, 45-52. DOI
545 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2013.02.002
546 Graham, S., Barnett, J., Fincher, R., Hurlimann, A., Mortreux, C., 2014. Local values for fairer
547 adaptation to sea-level rise: A typology of residents and their lived values in Lakes Entrance,
548 Australia. Glob. Environ. Chang. 29, 41-52. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.07.013
549 Havas, J., Saito, O., Hanaki, K., Tanaka, T., 2016. Perceived landscape values in the Ogasawara
550 Islands. Ecosyst. Serv. 18, 130-140. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.02.036
551 Karlsson, M., van Oort, B., Romstad, B., 2015. What we have lost and cannot become: societal
552 outcomes of coastal erosion in southern Belize. Ecol. Soc. 20, 4. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-
553 07050-200104
554 Knight, R.I., 2016. Potential impacts of climate change on natural values of the Kingston Beach
555 area, Tasmania. Report to Kingsborough Council. Natural Resource Planning, Hobart.
27
556 Kreller, A., 2016. Pulling our heads out of the sand: understanding the value of fair sea-level rise
557 adaptation in Botany Bay. Bachelor of Social Research and Policy (Honours) thesis, University of
558 New South Wales, Sydney.
559 Kuruppu N., 2009. Adapting water resources to climate change in Kiribati: the importance of
560 cultural values and meanings. Environ. Sci. Pol. 12, 799-809. DOI
561 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2009.07.005
562 McInnes, K. L., Monselesan, D., O ’Grady, J., Church, J., Zhang , X., 2016. Sea-Level Rise and
563 Allowances for Tasmania based on the IPCC AR5. Report for the Tasmanian Department of
564 Premier and Cabinet. CSIRO, Australia.
565 National Research Council, 2009. Informing decisions in a changing climate. Panel on Strategies
566 and Methods for Climate-Related Decision Support. The National Academies Press, Washington
567 D.C.
568 Nielsen J., Reenberg A., 2010. Cultural barriers to climate change adaptation: a case study from
569 Northern Burkina Faso. Glob. Environ. Chang. 20, 142-52. DOI
570 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.10.002
571 Novaczek, I., MacFadyen, J., Bardati, D., MacEachern, K., 2011. Social and Cultural Values
572 Mapping as a Decision-Support Tool for Climate Change Adaptation. The Institute of Island
573 Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Charlottetown, Canada.
574 O'Brien, K.L., Wolf, J., 2010. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate
575 change. Wiley Interdiscip. Re. Clim. Change, 1, 232-242. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/wcc.30
576 Persson, J., Sahlin, N., Wallin, A., 2015. Climate change, values, and the cultural cognition thesis.
577 Environ. Sci. Pol. 52, 1-5. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.05.001
578 Plieninger, T., Dijks, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Bieling, C., 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying
579 cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy. 33, 118-129.
28
580 Raymond, C.M., Brown, G., 2011. Assessing spatial associations between perceptions of
581 landscape value and climate change risk for use in climate change planning. Clim. Chang. 104,
582 653-678. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9806-9
583 Sharples, C., Donaldson, P., 2014. A first pass coastal hazard assessment for Kingborough Local
584 Government Area, Tasmania. Report to Kingborough Council. Blue Wren Group and University of
585 Tasmania, Tasmania.
586 Strickland-Munro, J., Kobryn, H., Brown, G., Moore, S.A., 2016. Marine spatial planning for the
587 future: Using Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) to inform the human dimension for large marine
588 parks. Mar. Policy. 73, 15-26. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2016.07.011
589 Tyrväinen, L., Mäkinen, K., Schipperijn, J., 2007. Tools for mapping social values of urban
590 woodlands and other green areas. Landscape Urban Plan. 79, 5-19. DOI
591 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.03.003
592 Wolf, J., Allice, I., Bell, T., 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation: Evidence
593 from two communities in Labrador, Canada. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 548-562. DOI
594 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007
595
29
596 Vitae
597 Tim Ramm is completing his PhD in Engineering at the University of Tasmania. His research
598 examines the development of coastal adaptation pathways in communities to manage changing
599 social and physical risk. Tim is a chartered professional engineer with Engineers Australia and
600 previously worked as a project manager on civil infrastructure projects in Melbourne, Australia.
601 Dr Sonia Graham is a Lecturer in social research and policy in the School of Social Sciences at
602 University of New South Wales. Her research seeks to understand the ways in which
603 environmental policies affect people, focusing on concepts such as collective action, trust, power,
604 fairness, legitimacy and values.
605 Dr Chris White is a Senior Lecturer in Environmental Engineering at the University of Tasmania.
606 His research spans the environmental, engineering and earth systems sciences, focusing primarily
607 on the climatic natural hazards of flooding, coastal inundation and heat extremes, from both the
608 physical processes and risk management perspectives.
609 Dr Christopher Watson is a Senior Lecturer in Geodesy and Spatial Sciences the School of Land
610 and Food at the University of Tasmania. His research is focused on understanding and quantifying
611 the response of sea-level to a warming climate using satellite based and in situ sensors.
30
612 Appendix A – Survey materials
613 The appendix contains the following information relating to the survey:
614 1. Place-based observations form
615 2. Semi-structured interview questions
616 3. Survey questions
617
31
618 Place-based observations form
Date
Start time
End time
Observed by
_________________
_________________
_________________
_________________
619
Weather
Hobart
(Stn ID 094029)
Dennes Point
(Stn ID 094255)
Temperature
______________
______________
Wind Speed
______________
______________
Wind
Direction
______________
______________
Weather (on site)
Wind (on site)
Sunny
Partly cloudy
Clam
Light winds
Moderate
Gale
Overcast
Rainy
Fresh winds
Strong winds
Near gale
Approx swell/wave height _____________________
620
Location (as marked on map – attached)
Esplanade
Dog Beach
Browns River
Other _____________________
Kingston Beach
Boat Ramp
Boronia Beach
621
622 [Note: Place the number of people observed in the sections below]
623 Kingston Beach Esplanade (behind sea wall)
Activity
Adults
Children
Activity
Adults
Children
BBQ
__________
__________
Picnic
__________
__________
Bike riding
__________
__________
Sitting (car or bench)
__________
__________
Café / Dining
__________
__________
Walking
__________
__________
Dog walking
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
Jogging
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
624
625 Notes
626
627
628
32
629 Kingston Beach (sand; excludes dog beach)
Activity
Adults
Children
Activity
Adults
Children
BBQ
__________
__________
Playing (sand)
__________
__________
Beach volleyball
__________
__________
Sitting
__________
__________
Paddle / body board
__________
__________
Surf lifesaving
__________
__________
Fishing
__________
__________
Swimming / Wading
__________
__________
Jogging
__________
__________
Walking
__________
__________
Kayaking / canoe
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
Picnic
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
Play equipment
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
630 Notes
631
632
633
634 Dog Beach – Tyndall / Kingston Beach (sand; south of Browns River foot bridge)
Activity
Adults
Children
Activity
Adults
Children
Dog walking
__________
__________
Playing (sand)
__________
__________
Fishing
__________
__________
Sitting
__________
__________
Jogging
__________
__________
Swimming / Wading
__________
__________
Kayaking / canoe
__________
__________
Walking
__________
__________
Picnic
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
635 Notes
636
637
638
639 Boat Ramp / Breakwater
Activity
Adults
Children
Activity
Adults
Children
Boating
__________
__________
Sitting
__________
__________
Café
__________
__________
Walking
__________
__________
Fishing
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
Sailing
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
640 Notes
641
642
33
643 Browns River (riverbank and flood plain)
Activity
Adults
Children
Activity
Adults
Children
BBQ
__________
__________
Kayaking / canoe
__________
__________
Bike riding
__________
__________
Picnic
__________
__________
Dog walking
__________
__________
Play equipment
__________
__________
Duck feeding
__________
__________
Sitting
__________
__________
Golf
__________
__________
Walking
__________
__________
Fitness equipment
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
Jogging
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
644 Notes
645
646
647
648 Boronia Beach (and walking track)
Activity
Adults
Children
Activity
Adults
Children
Dog walking
__________
__________
Swimming / Wading
__________
__________
Jogging
__________
__________
Walking
__________
__________
Sitting
__________
__________
_______________
__________
__________
649 Notes
650
651
652
653
34
654 Map of Kingston Beach area – observations and sketches
655
656
657
658
Dog Beach
(Kingston /
Tyndall Beach)
Boat
Ramp
Esplanad
e
Browns
River
Kingston
Beach
Boronia Beach
and walking track
35
659 Semi-structured interview questions
660 Introductory
661 1. How long have you lived in Kingston Beach?
662 a. [x years] Why did you choose to live here?
663 b. [All my life/since childhood] How long was your family here for? What brought them
664 here originally?
665 c. What makes you stay here?
666 d. Do you intend to continue living here?
667
668 Everyday life (lived values)
669 The next two questions are designed to get an understanding of people’s everyday lives. What
670 they do, who they interact with and the places they spend time. With that in mind:
671 2. Please describe the main activities you can recall undertaking yesterday/last Friday (if
672 interview is conducted Tuesday-Friday/Monday) including where each activity occurred,
673 with whom and the amount of time you spent performing each one. The order in which you
674 undertook these activities is not important.
675 a. Contracted time: What paid work or study did you engage in?
676 b. Committed time: What household tasks, shopping, food preparation or care
677 (children or others) did you engage in?
678 c. Leisure: What leisure and social activities did you engage in?
679
680 3. Weekends: Please describe the main activities you can recall undertaking last Saturday
681 including where each activity occurred, with whom and the amount of time you spent
682 performing each one. The order in which you undertook these activities is not important.
683 a. Contracted time: What paid work or study did you engage in?
684 b. Committed time: What household tasks, shopping, food preparation or care
685 (children or others) did you engage in?
686 c. Leisure: What leisure and social activities did you engage in?
687
688 Place attachment (place-based values)
689 For the next set of questions, please think specifically about the Kingston Beach area.
690 4. In addition to (any) places you mentioned previously, are there any other places that you
691 spend time in in Kingston Beach?
692
693 5. Are any of the places you have mentioned in some way special to you?
694 a. For what reasons?
36
695 6. How would you compare Kingston Beach with other places you have lived in/travelled
696 through?
697 a. Health: Are there things that you need that you can’t get here?
698 b. Safety: Do you feel safe and secure?
699 c. Belongingness: Do you feel like you belong here?
700 d. Esteem: Do you feel like you are a respected member of the community?
701 e. Self-actualisation: Does living here make you feel good about yourself?
702 7. Does anything frustrate you about living here? (or need improving)
703
704 8. If you could wave a magic wand what changes would you like to make to Kingston Beach?
705 a. What if money was no issue?
706
707 9. Overall, what would you say you value most about living here?
708 a. What are the most important aspects to your daily life?
709
710 Values assigned to natural coastal areas
711 For the next set of questions, please think specifically about natural coastal areas:
712
713 10. [Show a map of coast/explain where map is] Please identify what natural coastal areas you
714 value on this map (for any reason)? (talk about these areas)
715
716 11. [Show list of values assigned to coastal resources] From the list of values, which ones are
717 most important to you or resonate with you about the coastal natural areas mentioned? (up
718 to 10 values)
719 a. What ones do you associate with the areas mentioned above?
720
721 12. [Show map to be used in survey] Are there any places shown on this map that are essential
722 to your decision to stay in Kingston Beach, without which you would consider relocating?
723
724
725 Changing natural hazards
726 For the next set of questions, consider a possible scenario of sea level rise and/or increase
727 flooding of Browns River:
728
729 13. Do you think that increased coastal flooding (more frequent) would affect your ability to
730 enjoy the places you spend time in?
731 a. What would be your concerns (or disruptions) to your way of life?
732
733 14. Have you ever experienced flooding (coastal or riverine) in Kingston Beach?
734 a. [Yes] Were there any impacts to your way of life?
735 i. If a similar event became more frequent, at what point would you consider
736 taking action to protect your home or other areas?
737 b. [No] Consider a scenario that floods parts of Beach Road and Osborne Esplanade
738 for 12 hours (show on map).
739 i. What do you think the impacts might be to your lifestyle?
740 ii. What frequency of this type of flood would prompt you consider taking action
741 to protect your home or other natural coastal areas?
742
743
744
745
746
747
37
748 15. Consider Kingston Beach and the Dog Beach. Please consider whether the following
749 scenarios might impact on your lifestyle:
750 a. More frequent erosion events on the beach (temporary loss of area)?
751 b. The beach only being accessible at low tide?
752 c. Complete loss of the beach?
753 d. [If important] At what point would you consider action to protect the beach?
754
755 16. Where do you get information about flood risk in the area?
756
757 17. Who do you think is responsible for managing flood risk in the area, to protect built and
758 natural areas from loss and damage?
759
760
761 Wrap up
762 18. For the purposes of making sure we have a broad representation of the community:
763 a. Are you a member of any social groups? [Prompts: religious, sporting, local
764 associations?]
765 b. How old are you?
766 c. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved?
767 d. How many people usually live in your household?
768 e. [Gender by observation]
769
770 19. Would you prefer a questionnaire in hardcopy form or as a web-based survey?
771
772 20. Do you have any further comments?
773
774
775
38
776 Values List for Natural Coastal Areas
777
Value
Definition
Access
I value these places because they are common property, free from access
restrictions of exclusive ownership/control.
Aesthetic
I value these places for the enjoyable scenery, sights, sounds and smells.
Biodiversity
I value these places for the variety and abundance of fish, birds, wildlife and
plant life.
Cultural
I value these places for passing down wisdom, knowledge and traditions.
Economic
I value these places for tourism, fisheries (commercial/recreational) and other
business.
Future
I value these places because future generations can know and experience
healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems.
Historic
I value these places for the natural and human history that matter to
individuals, communities, societies and nations.
Identify/
symbolic
I value these places because they engender a sense of place, community and
belonging.
Intrinsic
I value these places because they exist, no matter what others think about
them or how we use them.
Learning
I value these places for the educational value.
Life sustaining
I value these places because they help produce, support and preserve human
and natural life.
Recreation
I value these places because they provide outdoor recreation activities.
Spiritual /
novel
experience
I value these places as sacred, religious, unique, and/or profound experiences
where respect for nature is felt.
Subsistence
I value these places because they provide basic human needs.
Therapeutic
I value these places because they enhance feelings of wellbeing (an escape,
stress relief, comfort and calm).
Natural
I value these places because of minimal human impact and/or intrusion on the
natural environment.
778
779
39
780 Survey questions
781 SECTION 1: Thinking about when you moved to Kingston Beach
782
783 1. How many years have you been living in the Kingston Beach suburb? ________ (years)
784
785 2. Have you lived in Kingston Beach all of your life? (Please tick one)
786 Yes go to question 5
787 No
788
789 3. Did your family have any connection to the area before you moved to Kingston Beach?
790 (Please tick one)
791 Yes
792 No
793
794 4. Where did you live immediately before moving to Kingston Beach? (Please tick one)
795 Another suburb in Hobart
796 Another suburb/town in Tasmania (not in Hobart)
797 Another suburb/town outside Tasmania
798
40
800 SECTION 2: Thinking about your decision to live in Kingston Beach
801
802
803 5. What is most important to you about living in Kingston Beach?
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812 6. How important are the following aspects to your daily life in Kingston Beach? (Place a tick
813 in the appropriate box for each item listed)
814
Very
Important
Important
Not
important
Natural environment
Relaxed lifestyle
Peacefulness
The bird life
A flat landscape
Easy to get to places
A unique place for children to grow up
A safe place to live
Financially secure / affordability
Friendly people / community feel
Being close to family
Being close to friends
Location (close to the water)
The scenery (and views)
Easy access to the beach
Ambience / atmosphere
Recreational opportunities
815
816
817 7. Please describe anything else not mentioned in the previous question that is very
818 important for choosing to live in Kingston Beach?
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
41
829 8. Do any of the following things frustrate you about living in Kingston Beach? (Place a tick
830 in the appropriate box for each item listed)
831
Yes
No
Local council decision-making
Limited entertainment options
Limited activities for youth
Limited park areas
Limited number of footpaths
Limited number of shops
Poor quality of roads
Vehicle traffic along the esplanade
Flood management of Browns River
Limited public transport services
Peak hour congestion on the Southern Outlet
Other (please specify):
______________________________________
832
833
834
835 SECTION 3: Thinking about how you spend your time
836
837 9. How often do you do each of the following activities in the suburb? (Place a tick in the
838 appropriate box for each item listed)
839
Every
day
Every
week
Every
month
Rarely
Never
Go for a walk
Walk the dog
Visit the cafes / restaurants
Visit local shops
Access the beach
Use picnic areas and benches
Visit nearby parks / play equipment
Go kayaking / paddle boarding
Ride a bike
Go for a jog
Go swimming
Go to the gym
Play golf
Go fishing
Go boating
Go sailing
Do volunteer work
Other (please specify):
________________
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
42
847 SECTION 4: Thinking about how you value coastal areas
848
849 10. How important are the following values to you when thinking about the beach in the
850 suburb? (Place a tick in the appropriate box for each item listed)
851
Value / Definition
Very
Important
Important
Not
Important
Access: Common property, free from access restrictions
or exclusive ownership
Aesthetic: Enjoyable scenery, sights, sounds and smells
Biodiversity: Variety and abundance of fish, birds,
animals and plant life
Future: Future generations can experience healthy,
productive, and sustainable ecosystems
Historic: Natural and human history that matters to
individuals and communities
Identify/ symbolic: Sense of place, community and
belonging
Recreation: Providing enjoyable outdoor recreation
activities
Therapeutic: Enhanced feelings of wellbeing (e.g. stress
relief, comfort and calm)
Natural: Minimal human impact or intrusion on the natural
environment
852
853
854 11. Please list any other values not shown in the question above that are important to you
855 when thinking about the beach.
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
43
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889 The page has been intentionally left blank
44
890 The map below shows coastal areas in Kingston Beach, identified with letters A through to H.
891 Please use this map for questions 12 and 13.
892
893
894
895
896
897
45
898 12. For each ‘value’ shown in the table below, please choose up to 3 coastal areas that are
899 important to you because of that value. The coastal areas should be numbered in order
900 of importance (i.e. 1 = most important, 2 = second, 3 = third). If the value is not important
901 to you, leave that row empty.
902
903 EXAMPLE
904
If you value the Sea most of all for ‘access’, then Kingston main Beach, then Browns
River, you would do the following:
905
906 (For each row in the table, number up to 3 coastal areas in order of importance)
907
908
Coastal Area (refer to map)
Value
(A)
Saltmarsh
(B)
Saline
grassland
/ golf
course
(C)
Browns
River
(D)
Dog
Beach
(E)
Kingston
main
Beach
(F)
Sea
(Derwent
River)
(G)
Rocky
Shore
(H)
Boronia
Beach
Access: Common property, free from
access restrictions or exclusive
ownership
Aesthetic: Enjoyable scenery, sights,
sounds and smells
Biodiversity: Variety and abundance
of fish, birds, animals and plant life
Future: Future generations can
experience healthy, productive, and
sustainable ecosystems
Historic: Natural and human history
that matters to individuals and
communities
Identify/ symbolic: Sense of place,
community and belonging
Recreation: Providing enjoyable
outdoor recreation activities
Therapeutic: Enhanced feelings of
wellbeing (e.g. stress relief, comfort
and calm)
Natural: Minimal human impact or
intrusion on the natural environment
909
910
911
912
913
914
46
915 13. Referring again to the map, how often do you use the following areas for recreational
916 activities? (Place a tick in the appropriate box for each item listed)
917
Letter
Coastal Area
Every
day
Every
week
Every
month
Rarely
Never
A
Saltmarsh
B
Saline grassland (incl. golf
course)
C
Browns River
D
Dog Beach
E
Kingston Main Beach
F
Sea (Derwent River)
G
Rocky shore
H
Boronia Beach
918
919
920 SECTION 5: Thinking about flooding events
921
922 14. Where do you get information about flooding risk in Kingston Beach? (Please tick as many
923 that apply)
924 Council reports and displays Printed media (newspaper, magazine)
925 Radio Word of mouth / experience in the area
926 Online (social media, internet) I don’t know
927 Scientific journals or magazines Other: ___________________________
928 Television
929
930 15. Who do you think is responsible for minimising flood risk in Kingston Beach? (Please tick
931 as many that apply)
932 Local government (Council) Individual residents
933 State government I don’t know
934 Federal government (Commonwealth) Other: _______________________
935
936 16. Have you ever experienced a major flooding event which has caused parts of your
937 property to be under water? (Please tick one)
938 Yes
939 No
940
941 17. To what extent do you think that increased flooding risk could affect the following
942 things in Kingston Beach? (Place a tick in the appropriate box for each item listed)
943
Definite
Impact
Possible
Impact
No
Impact
Don’t
know
My everyday lifestyle
The beach
The value of my house
Feeling safe in my house
Getting insurance for my house
My annual rate and insurance premium costs
Emergency access via Beach Road
The natural environment
944
47
945 18. Consider a hypothetical scenario where the beach was lost to sea level rise. Would you
946 consider moving to another suburb? (Please tick one)
947 Yes
948 No
949 I don’t know
950
951 19. What are your council rates each year (estimated)? If you rent, please estimate this
952 amount.
953
954 ______________ (dollars per year)
955
956
957 20. Council rates are spent on important services such as waste management and
958 infrastructure. If the risk of flooding from Browns River to your house or public
959 infrastructure increased, would you like to see money spent on activities to reduce flood
960 risk? Currently about 3% of rates is currently spent on natural resource management across
961 the municipality. (Please tick as many that apply)
962 Yes – using a separate rate / extra rent
963 Yes – using a larger proportion of my existing rate (go to question 23)
964 No (go to question 25)
965
966
967 21. If the risk of flooding from Browns River increased, what extra rate on top of your
968 existing rate would you consider paying to manage flood risk? If you rent, please state an
969 additional rental amount.
970
971 ______________________ (dollars per year)
972
973
974 22. If the beach was hypothetically lost to sea level rise, would you change your answer to
975 the above question (i.e. the amount you would pay to reduce flood risk)?
976 No
977 Yes (please specify the new amount): ________________________ (dollars per year)
978
979 If you would not want to use a larger proportion of your existing rate to manage flood risk (in
980 addition to a separate rate), go to question 25.
981
982
983 23. If the risk of flooding from Browns River increased, what percentage of your annual
984 rates would you like to see allocated to managing flood risk? Remember that this amount
985 will no longer be available for other services which would have to be cut.
986 ______________________ (% of annual rates)
987
988
989 24. If the beach was hypothetically lost to sea level rise, would you change your answer to
990 the above question (i.e. the allocation of rates to manage flood risk)?
991 No
992 Yes (please specify the new amount): ________________________ (% of annual rates)
993
994
995
996
997
998
48
999 SECTION 6: Thinking about your personal connections
1000
1001
1002 25. How often do you spend time with the following people? (Place a tick in the appropriate box
1003 for each item listed)
Every
day
Every
week
Every
month
Rarely
Never
Immediate family
Friends
Neighbours (not counted as friends above)
Work colleagues outside work
Members of groups or organisations that you
belong to
Other members of the community
1004
1005 26. Close friends are people you feel at ease with, can talk to about private matters or call
1006 on for help. How many of your close friends live in Kingston Beach? (Please tick one)
1007 None
1008 One
1009 A few
1010 A lot
1011
1012 27. Are you involved in any of the following organisations in your suburb? (Place a tick in the
1013 appropriate box for each item listed)
Yes
No
Service organisation (e.g. Rotary, Emergency Services)
Religious or church organisations
Education organisations
Arts, music or cultural organisations
Youth organisations (e.g. Scouts)
Local community action groups
Conservation or environmental groups
Sports or recreation groups (e.g. sailing, dog walking)
Other (please specify): _______________________________
1014
1015
1016 SECTION 7: Thinking about you and your household
1017
1018 28. Are you male or female? (Please tick one)
1019 Female
1020 Male
1021 Other
1022
1023 29. Does anyone in your household identify as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander?
1024 (Please tick one)
1025 Yes
1026 No
1027
49
1028 30. What age group do you fall into? (Please tick one)
1029 18-24 55-64
1030 25-34 65-74
1031 35-44 75-84
1032 45-54 85 and older
1033
1034 31. How many people usually live in your house including you? _________ (people)
1035
1036 32. Is anyone in your house dependent on the care of someone else? (Please tick one)
1037 Yes
1038 No
1039
1040 33. Which of the following best describes your household? (Please tick one)
1041 Single person household Extended family
1042 Single with child/children Share house
1043 Couple Other
1044 Couple with child/children
1045
1046 34. Do you own at least one dog? (Please tick one)
1047 Yes
1048 No
1049
1050 35. What is your gross (before tax) weekly household income? (Please tick one)
1051 Nil
1052 $1 – $399 per week ($1 - $20,749 annually)
1053 $400 – $999 per week ($20,800- $51,949 annually)
1054 $1,000 – $1,999 per week ($52,000 - $103,950 annually)
1055 $2,000 or more per week ($104,000 or more annually)
1056 Rather not say
1057 Don’t know
1058
1059 36. Is your home in Kingston Beach your main residence or second home (i.e. holiday
1060 house)? (Please tick one)
1061 Main residence
1062 Second home or holiday house
1063
1064 37. Which of the following best describes you? (Please tick one)
1065 Renting my house
1066 Own my house without a mortgage (go to question 39)
1067 Own my house with a mortgage
1068
1069 38. Do you have greater than 30% of your gross weekly household income going to
1070 mortgage repayments or rent for your main residence? (Please tick one)
1071 Yes
1072 No
1073 Rather not say
1074 I don’t know
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
50
1083
1084 39. What type of insurance cover do you have for your main residence? (Please tick one)
1085 Home and contents
1086 Contents only
1087 None (go to question 41)
1088 Rather not say
1089 I don’t know
1090
1091 40. Does the insurance policy for your main residence cover flooding from Browns River?
1092 (Please tick one)
1093 Yes
1094 No
1095 Rather not say
1096 I don’t know
1097
1098 41. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? (Please tick one)
1099 University degree or higher Year 11, or equivalent
1100 TAFE or other vocational certificate Year 10 or below
1101 Year 12, TCE or equivalent Did not go to school
1102
1103 42. Which would best describe your situation with regard to work, study or caring
1104 responsibilities? (Please tick as many that apply)
1105 Working full-time Caring for others
1106 Working part-time Retired
1107 Looking for work Semi-retired
1108 Studying full-time Not working and not looking for work
1109 Studying part-time Not working due to an injury/illness/disability
1110 Caring for children Other
1111
1112 43. Do you own your own business? (Please tick one)
1113 Yes
1114 No
1115
1116
51
1117 Appendix B – Definition of social values used in landscape mapping
1118 A definition of the typology of nine values, in the survey, based upon Cole et al., (2015), are shown
1119 in Table B.1.
1120
1121 Table B.1: Typology of social values used for landscape mapping and their operational definition
Value
Operational Definition
Access
Common property, free from access restrictions or exclusive ownership
Aesthetic
Enjoyable scenery, sights, sounds and smells
Biodiversity
Variety and abundance of fish, birds, animals and plant life
Future
Future generations can experience healthy, productive, and sustainable ecosystems
Historic
Natural and human history that matters to individuals and communities
Identify/
symbolic
Sense of place, community and belonging
Recreation
Providing enjoyable outdoor recreation activities
Therapeutic
Enhanced feelings of wellbeing (e.g. stress relief, comfort and calm)
Natural
Minimal human impact or intrusion on the natural environment
1122
1123 Other landscape values from Cole et al. (2015) not included in the survey were:
1124 1. Cultural – passing down wisdom, knowledge and traditions
1125 2. Economic – tourism, fisheries and other business
1126 3. Intrinsic – place just exists
1127 4. Learning – educational value
1128 5. Life sustaining – produce, support and preserve human and natural life
1129 6. Spiritual / novel experience – sacred, religious, unique and/or profound experiences where
1130 respect for nature is felt
1131 7. Subsistence – provide basic human needs
1132
1133
52
1134 Appendix C – Lived values identified in open ended questions
1135 Detailed information about the open-ended survey questions are provided in Table C.1. The values
1136 have been categorised by health, safety, belongingness, esteem and self-actualisation to be
1137 consistent with Graham et al. (2013; based on Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs) and rank in each
1138 category from highest to lowest.
1139 Table C.1. Lived values identified by survey respondents in the suburb of Kingston Beach in
1140 response to open-ended questions (Q5 and Q7) about what they value most about where they live.
1141 Numbers in bold are the top five lived values mentioned and values marked with an asterisk (*)
1142 were shortlisted in the closed survey question (Q6). Values identified in the semi-structured
1143 interview and also in the Lakes Entrance case study (Graham et al., 2015)2 are shown.
Lived Value
Category
Lived values
Semi-
structured
interview
Lakes
Entrance
(Australia)
Kingston
Beach
(suburb)
Health
Easy to get to places (proximity to
city, shops and other valued places) *
112 (34.8%)
A flat landscape *
18 (5.6%)
Public transport
10 (3.1%)
Close to work
9 (2.8%)
Convenience
9 (2.8%)
Clean environment and air
8 (2.5%)
Good cafes / restaurants
7 (2.2%)
Weather / climate
6 (1.9%)
Good parking options
2 (0.6%)
Good cycle options
2 (0.6%)
Smaller house or land (downsizing) *
1 (0.3%)
Safety
Peacefulness (and quiet) *
31 (9.6)
A safe place to live (feeling of) *
12 (3.7%)
Financially secure / affordability *
7 (2.2%)
Employment opportunities
2 (0.6%)
Privacy
1 (0.3%)
2 Graham, S., Barnett, J., Fincher, R., Mortreux, C., Hurlimann, A., 2015. Towards fair local outcomes in
adaptation to sea-level rise. Clim. Change, 130, 411-424.
53
Lived Value
Category
Lived values
Semi-
structured
interview
Lakes
Entrance
(Australia)
Kingston
Beach
(suburb)
Medical facilities / services
1 (0.4%)
Belongingness
The beach (and proximity) / Easy
access to the beach *
118 (36.6%)
The scenery (and views) (outlook) *
83 (25.8%)
Natural environment *
46 (14.3%)
Friendly people / community feel *
37 (11.5%)
Location (close to water) *
33 (10.2%)
Being close to family *
14 (4.3%)
Pet friendly community / dog exercise
areas
13 (4.0%)
Close to the bush
10 (3.1%)
Individual heritage / family history
6 (1.9%)
The sounds (sea)
4 (1.2%)
Local church community
3 (0.9%)
The wildlife
3 (0.9%)
Being close to friends *
2 (0.6%)
Local golf club (Kingston Beach Golf
Club)
2 (0.6%)
Green places (open spaces)
1 (0.3%)
Close to mountain (Mt Wellington)
1 (0.3%)
Friend visits
1 (0.3%)
Esteem
House / land attributes
17 (5.3%)
Sense of space
4 (1.2%)
Beachfront streetscape
1 (0.3%)
Pride
1 (0.3%)
Self-
actualisation
Relaxed lifestyle (beach lifestyle) *
45 (14.0%)
Ambience / atmosphere (character) *
32 (9.9%)
Recreation opportunities *
30 (9.3%)
Low housing density / not congested
or developed
11 (3.4%)
A unique place for children to grow up
(great place to raise a family) *
5 (1.6%)
Away from the city
3 (0.9%)
Quality of life
1 (0.3%)
Total
45
54
1144
... However, very few papers have investigated how values, and especially lived values, vary across demographics and different locations within a single region (Graham et al., 2014). Studies on lived values have so far only focused on coastal communities (e.g., Graham et al., 2018;Kreller, 2020;Ramm et al., 2017). There is only limited research on the differences in place attachment between both urban and rural areas (Belanche et al., 2021), even though it is easy to envision that they would necessitate different approaches to planning. ...
... Having established that there were indeed differences between urban and rural communities with respect to lived values, closer attention to environment-related lived values is warranted (H1a). The relatively high importance placed on 'Beauty of the natural environment' mirrored findings from other studies in Australia, including the highly prioritised values of the environment and scenery in Lakes Entrance (Graham et al., 2014), and Kingston Beach (Ramm et al., 2017), both coastal communities deliberately relocated to by many residents. Similarly, participants in our study appeared more likely to choose to live in areas with desirable environmental or landscape characteristics, if they could afford it. ...
... Finally, with respect to our second line of inquiry (H2)-whether the types of lived values prioritised differ between communities with higher and lower socio-economic levels -our findings for the urban communities were clear and in alignment with the existent albeit still small literature on lived values (e.g. Graham et al., 2014;Ramm et al., 2017). The prioritised lived values across the four urban communities broadly reflected Maslow's (1943) hierarchy of needs with lived values: the safety and health values were prioritised in the communities with lower socio-economic status (H2a) while lived values associated with self-actualisation and belongingness were ranked higher in communities with higher socio-economic status (H2b). ...
Article
Full-text available
Substantial research exists on attachments people have to places and the phenomena and objects they value. However, insights on how values vary between different locations and across demographics and how place attachment differs between rural and urban areas are more limited. These understandings are needed to design meaningful adaptation strategies for people and communities at risk from climate change. This study examines attachment to place and things people value in eight communities in Western Australia, using a survey with 403 participants. Results showed that residents across the rural communities shared similar values, but that the values of urban communities were differentiated socioeconomically. Contrary to our hypothesis, place attachment was not stronger among the rural compared to the urban sites. The findings point to the importance of incorporating place-based, lived values and needs, particularly from less affluent residents, into inclusive adaptation planning.
... The assessment of relationships between landscape values and risk perception broadly falls into two categories: spatial approaches (e.g., Fagerholm et al., 2021;Ramm et al., 2017) and perceptual approaches (e.g., García-Martín et al., 2018;Montero & Batista, 2020). The most common spatial approach is public participation GIS (PPGIS), a participatory mapping technique that elicits assigned values and identifies correlations between landscape characteristics and those values (Grenni et al., 2020). ...
... Policy makers could benefit from socio-spatial research that better identifies who is expressing specific values, which values are being overlooked, and how value tradeoffs might occur. Rather than seeking consensus about diverse and often conflicting values, planners, environmental managers and policy makers might better work with stakeholders through an open and transparent discussion of the relative merits of different management approaches that are attuned to values tradeoffs (Ramm et al., 2017). ...
... The comparison of landscape classification systems with PPGIS data demonstrated an effective alternative to traditional landscape assessments, including vegetation-or land-use-based planning (Fagerholm et al., 2021). For example, in values-based management approaches, where place-based values guide decision-making (Colvin et al., 2020;Ramm et al., 2017), there are often difficulties in identifying whose M.S. Johnson et al. Landscape and Urban Planning 252 (2024) 105197 values are guiding the planning and where those values are most relevant. ...
Article
Full-text available
Effective climate change adaptation planning requires evaluating the interplay of physical landscape characteristics and community perceptions of places. Geographic information system (GIS)-based approaches to measuring environmental values can identify locations for planning prioritization. But they seldom are used to consider spatial differences in socio-ecological worldview. This study aims to identify how place-based risk perceptions and landscape values can inform climate change adaptation using a Q+PPGIS method. We integrated mapped landscape values and climate risks (from 39 PPGIS participants) with elicited discourses (for 28 Q-method participants) to develop a novel land classification approach (reflexive Q+PPGIS). The results demonstrate significant differences between wilderness as a discourse and perceived, and the physical features associated with mapped wild areas. Similar differences in discourse and spatial patterns are observed for climate risks. For example, participants’ mapped areas of bushfire risk do not align with agencies’ identified risk areas, their jurisdictions, and capacities to take action. This disconnect presents a challenge to adaptation. Local governments can use this new method to show constituents multiple and often competing community demands for action, enabling honest conversations about feasible actions, responsibilities, and resource allocation.
... It has been validated that an appropriate and profound understanding of CES and their on-site mapping fosters local community trust and involves local people more effectively and representatively in spatial planning processes [95][96][97]. This is because their protection and development become the highest priority of indigenous communities [98]. ...
... This is because their protection and development become the highest priority of indigenous communities [98]. The participation of local people is essential in planning and decision-making processes on issues related to the use and protection of the marine environment [88,90,96,99]. The exclusion of the local population from these processes jeopardizes the local community's trust, which is a prerequisite for an efficient implementation [97]. ...
Preprint
Full-text available
Abstract: Understanding aspects of maritime/underwater cultural heritage (MUCH) and the associated cultural values and integrating them into maritime spatial planning (MSP) endeavors, is a new global challenge, alongside the rapid increase of human activities at sea and climate change impacts on the seas and the oceans. The article highlights the significance of cultural values in shaping human interactions with the marine environments, and how MSP can address the cultural dimensions of marine resources management. To this end, a systematic literature review was carried out to address the research question on how maritime/underwater cultural heritage is incorporated into MSP and map relevant academic literature. Following, a methodology that entailed an academic database search and the application of exclusion criteria, 346 articles resulted from Scopus. These articles were classified using science mapping techniques (i.e the VOSviewer Software ) and several categories (clusters) were created. The research showed a diversity of literature addressing the relationship between MUCH and MSP with a strong focus on sustainability, the significance of cultural ecosystem services (CES) and cultural values, the role of indigenous and local communities, but also of local stakeholders, the transfer of traditional knowledge to MSP and the participatory approaches and tools. The article concludes that for MSPlans to be innovative and acceptable by local communities, the “missing layer”of socio-cultural values and data is indispensable. In the MSP process, MUCH should be understood within this broader framework of socio-cultural considerations and values. Keywords: Maritime Spatial Planning; Coastal management; Socio-cultural values; Cultural Ecosystem Services; participatory approach; local communities
... These practices are linked to certain mechanisms, such as flexible user rights and land tenure, adaptations for the generation, accumulation, and transmission of ecological knowledge, institutional dynamics, mechanisms for cultural internalization of traditional practices and associated worldviews and cultural values that contribute to both increased community solidarity, community engagement, and voluntary compliance, thus providing proper "rules" for marine and coastal ecosystem management [99,100]. According to [101], indigenous women are substantially contributing to preserving cultural values, and a cross-generational transfer of traditional knowledge and practices is linked with the exploitation of natural resources. ...
Article
Full-text available
Understanding aspects of maritime/underwater cultural heritage (MUCH) and the associated cultural values and integrating them into maritime spatial planning (MSP) processes is a new global challenge alongside the rapid increase in human activities at sea and climate change impacts on the seas and the oceans. This article highlights the significance of cultural values in shaping human interactions with marine environments and how MSP can address the cultural dimensions of marine resources management. The key research question addresses the prerequisites and methods for a better incorporation of MUCH in the MSP processes. This review revealed a diversity of literature addressing the inclusion of MUCH in (a) coastal and marine management but also in (b) marine/maritime spatial planning (346 articles from the Scopus database). In the first case, there is a strong focus on cultural ecosystem services (CES) and cultural values, the role of indigenous and local communities, the transfer of traditional ecological knowledge, and participatory approaches and tools. As for the latter, this review demonstrated quite a lot of relatively recent MSP endeavors that seem to be influenced by the above approaches identified in the coastal and marine management literature. This article concludes that for MSPlans to be innovative and mainly acceptable by local communities, the “missing layer” of socio-cultural values and data is indispensable. Furthermore, a collaborative MSP between governments and regional/provincial authorities may boost sustainable blue activities while preserving ecological and cultural values.
... Ramm et al., 2017;Moglia et al., 2018;Pearce et al., 2018;Tonmoy and El-Zein, 2018) Statutory tools For planning direction For planning and design of adaptation(DoC NZ, 2010;DoC NZ, 2017a;DoC NZ, 2017b; NSW Government, and Gates, 2013;McAdam, 2015;Iorns Magallanes and Watts, 2019; Peel et al., 2020) Guidance For adaptation and use of uncertainty tools(CSIRO and BOM, 2015;MfE, 2017a;Lawrence et al., 2018b;Palutikof et al., 2019b) ...
Chapter
Full-text available
The Working Group II contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) provides a comprehensive assessment of the scientific literature relevant to climate change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. The report recognizes the interactions of climate, ecosystems and biodiversity, and human societies, and integrates across the natural, ecological, social and economic sciences. It emphasizes how efforts in adaptation and in reducing greenhouse gas emissions can come together in a process called climate resilient development, which enables a liveable future for biodiversity and humankind. The IPCC is the leading body for assessing climate change science. IPCC reports are produced in comprehensive, objective and transparent ways, ensuring they reflect the full range of views in the scientific literature. Novel elements include focused topical assessments, and an atlas presenting observed climate change impacts and future risks from global to regional scales. Available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
... In contrast, the perceived abundance in modern industrialized societies fosters 'post-materialistic' values that emphasize aspects such as self-expression (Inglehart, 2007). Such value shifts, in turn, shape how societies perceive environmental changes and adapt to them (Neef et al., 2018;Ramm et al., 2017). Thus, these shifts imply a profound change in the context of societal vulnerability and adaptation to environmental stress. ...
Article
In light of the challenges posed by contemporary environmental changes, interest in past environmental impacts and societies’ responses to them is burgeoning. The main strength of such research lies in its ability to analyze completed society-environment interactions. Scholars have argued that such analyses can improve our understanding of present challenges and offer useful lessons to guide adaptation responses. Yet despite considerable differences between past and present societies, our inherently limited knowledge of the past and our changing understanding of it, much of this research uses historical antecedents uncritically, assuming that past societal impacts and responses are directly analogous to contemporary ones. We argue that this approach is unsound both methodologically and theoretically, thus drawing insights that might offer an erroneous course of action. To illustrate the challenges in drawing historical analogies, we outline several fundamental differences between past and present societies as well as broader limitations of historical research. Based on these points, we argue that scholars who apply historical inference in their work should do so critically, while reflecting on the objectives of learning from the past and the limitations of this process. We suggest a number of ways to improve past-present analogies, such as defining more explicitly what we can learn from the past, clarifying the rationale for using the analogy, and reducing the number of variables compared between past and present.
Article
Full-text available
Recently the importance of addressing values in discussions of risk perception and adaptation to climate change has become manifest. Values-based approaches to climate change adaptation and the cultural cognition thesis both illustrate this trend. We argue that in the wake of this development it is necessary to take the dynamic relationship between values and beliefs seriously, to acknowledge the possibility of bi-directional relationships between values and beliefs, and to address the variety of values involved (e.g. personal, epistemic and cultural values). The dynamic relationship between values and beliefs, we claim, highlights the need to bring ethical considerations to bear on climate change communication. In particular, we must ask whether it is acceptable to tailor information about the risks of climate change in an effort to maximize communicative effectiveness given the values of the target group.
Book
Full-text available
Planning, adaptive action and emergency preparedness can help reduce the damage done by rising sea levels, storms, coastal erosion and other impacts of climate change. The damage caused by climate changes affects more than geographical features and infrastructure; it also affects all of the values that people attach to the physical environment. However, adaptation plans and strategies are typically developed using scientific and economic data that capture only physical value while ignoring the associated social and cultural values. To make comprehensive plans that can help people and societies cope with climate changes, we need a method to document and display human values attached to the physical landscape so that these can be taken into account. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) can be used to display and analyze these social and cultural values that are attached to geographic space. GIS can also be used to bring various knowledge fields together, displaying the social knowledge and values of residents together with scientific data on the predicted impacts of climate change. Maps that show both kinds of knowledge are tools that can assist local governments in planning and prioritizing effective adaptation strategies. In addition, the process of collective map building reassures people that their knowledge and values are respected. This helps develop trust and collaboration in governance, which are essential for effective community-level climate change adaptation. Governments and community groups on small islands such as Prince Edward Island are the vanguard of climate change adaptation because small islands are among the most vulnerable places on the planet to the effects of climate change. These jurisdictions will need tools that help them to improve their resilience, develop adaptation mechanisms, and communicate their needs to national and international governing bodies. In this paper we report on a pilot study of social and cultural values mapping performed on Prince Edward Island in January - March 2010. We conclude that this methodology has potential as a tool to support decision-making for climate change adaptation, and it can be implemented and modified as required by a variety of stakeholders.
Article
Full-text available
Since the social values of urban woodlands are not always sufficiently taken into account in decision-making on urban land-use and green space planning, new means of collecting the experienced values of urban green areas and integrating this information into the planning processes are needed. The main aim of this study was to develop a simple method to describe the experienced qualities of green areas for strategic green area planning purposes. In a postal survey conducted in Helsinki, Finland, general attitudes towards and benefits felt to be derived from green areas as well as site specific information about the experience values were gathered. Local residents were asked to identify, those areas on a map of the study area that had particular positive qualities, such as beautiful scenery, peace and quiet and the feeling of being in a forest as well as those areas with negative features. These results were compiled in map form using GIS software. The results highlight the most valued sites as well as problem areas within the study area. The most important features associated with favourite places were: tranquillity, the feeling of being in a forest, and naturalness. The results suggest that the method is communicative and relatively easy to use in both collaborative green area planning and land-use planning.
Article
Coastal areas provide a wealth of resources and represent the most developed spaces worldwide. As pressures on these resources increase, managers and policymakers require understanding that facilitates comprehensive valuation of ecosystem services, including social-ecological dynamics and the coupling of social and natural systems. Adoption of ecosystem management approaches has created a need for increased knowledge of social systems commensurate to baseline ecological understanding; that is, managers benefit from integrating stakeholder values into decision-making processes. This study, using the Delphi technique, elicited knowledge and opinions from international coastal experts regarding relevant social values of ecosystem services, facilitating integration of multiple perspectives into an informed consensus typology of 16 social values. Agencies across the board see inclusive evaluation of ecosystem services, including social values, as critical to robust decision making regarding relevant resources. The next step for research findings is application of the typology in resource assessment initiatives within research and practice-based efforts.
Article
Understanding the values and socio-economic characteristics of people at risk from climate change will inform how people feel about the likely distribution of impacts, as well as adaptation responses. This knowledge is necessary if adaptation is to achieve distributive fairness now and into the future. This study advances methods and analyses used in values-based adaptation research by using segmentation to explain the diversity of values that exist within a community, and on this basis identify particular groups at risk. A telephone survey was conducted with residents of Lakes Entrance, Australia—a coastal community already adapting to projected sea-level rise. The purpose was to determine the priorities residents place on a range of lived values—valuations that individuals make about what is important in their lives and the places they live. The telephone survey data was then analysed using cluster analysis to develop a lived values typology of residents. The analysis revealed that there are at least eight types of residents living in Lakes Entrance and that each group of residents has a unique set of lived values that will be differentially affected by sea-level rise and adaptation. The findings indicate that if sea-level rise adaptation policy is to be distributively fair it needs to develop a suite of adaptation responses that ensure that the lived values of each group of residents, and thus a diversity of values, are maintained or enhanced.
Article
Local material and symbolic values have to date remained underrepresented in climate change research and policy and this gap is particularly salient in places that have been identified as at significant risk from climate change. In such places, the dominant approach to understanding the effects of climate change has been centred on vulnerability; it has highlighted the social determinants of vulnerability and the differential and uneven distribution of effects. This approach cannot, however, illuminate the diverse and nuanced meanings people attach to specific aspects of their way of life, how the changing climate might affect these, and what this implies for adaptation. To address this gap, this empirical study uses the concept of values, defined as trans-situational conceptions of the desirable that give meaning to behaviour and events, and influence perception and interpretation of situations and events. We develop a set of values from 53 qualitative interviews in two remote communities in subarctic easternmost Canada. It draws on these values to frame how effects of climate change, specifically intangible and subjective effects, are felt, and how responses to them are imagined by those affected. The article argues that values are crucial in shaping perception of climate impacts and adaptation to them. Distinct values, such as tradition, freedom, harmony, safety, and unity shape different interpretations and meaning of impacts, and lead to distinct views on how to adapt to these. Conflicting and competing values can act as barriers to adaptation. The findings imply that adaptation research and policy need to address values explicitly if efforts for planned adaptation are to be perceived as legitimate and effective by those affected by the changing climate.
Article
Internationally, there is increasing responsibility on local governments to prepare and adapt to global climate change through climate adaptation planning. This study evaluated seven local climate adaptation plans in Southeast Queensland, Australia by developing and applying a quantitative, multi-criteria analysis framework. The results indicated that local governments were not effectively planning for climate impacts. While they were aware of expected climate change impacts, their capacity to use this information to develop geographically specific action plans was limited. We discuss the wider relevance of the evaluation framework, its potential uses outside the study area and how it may be adjusted to suit different local and regional needs and context. We also discuss key structural, procedural and contextual limitations that emerged from our evaluation of Southeast local governments, and provide recommendations to improve the development of the next generation of local climate adaptation plans.