ArticlePDF Available


In this introduction, we situate the topic of this Special Issue on ‘narratives of change’ in the scholarly literature about how we inform climate risk governance, including through climate services. We argue that many places experience a persistent mismatch between predominantly science-based and technical framings of climatic risk, and the place-based understandings of climate extremes and responses of people living in these places. We introduce the case studies presented in this issue and highlight their common focus on ‘narratives of change’ as one missing link in climate governance. Narratives of change address the past, present and future of a specific place understood as a weather-world; adding a cultural dimension to climate change experienced as a succession of weather events and seasons. They focus on memories of weather events and how people coped with them, and they are tested for their potential to improve climate governance under future climatic change. Moreover, attention to local narratives expands the scope of issues covered by climate information and improves its integration into social and cultural life. We offer up seven lessons for why it is important to incorporate narratives in climate governance and suggest some creative methods for doing so. Post-normal science, art-science cooperation, and the inclusion of the humanities mark the difference that the individual contributions make to the literature about climate governance and democratic decision-making.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Climate Risk Management
journal homepage:
The role of place-based narratives of change in climate risk
Werner Krauß
, Scott Bremer
Artec Sustainability Research Center, University of Bremen, Germany
Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, Norway
Risk governance
Culturalization of climate change
In this introduction, we situate the topic of this Special Issue on ‘narratives of change’ in the
scholarly literature about how we inform climate risk governance, including through climate
services. We argue that many places experience a persistent mismatch between predominantly
science-based and technical framings of climatic risk on the one hand, and the place-based un-
derstandings of climate extremes and responses of people living in these places on the other. We
introduce the case studies presented in this issue and highlight their common focus on ‘narratives
of change’ as one missing link in climate governance. Narratives of change address the past,
present and future of a specific place understood as a weather-world, adding a cultural dimension
to climate change experienced as a succession of weather and seasons. We focus on memories of
extreme weather events and how people coped with them, in order to improve climate gov-
ernance under future climatic change. We argue that attention to local narratives expands the
scope of issues covered by climate information and improves its integration into social and
cultural life. We offer up seven lessons for why it is important to incorporate narratives in climate
governance and suggest some creative methods for doing so. Post-normal science, art-science
cooperation, and the inclusion of the humanities mark the difference that the individual con-
tributions make to the literature about climate governance and democratic decision-making.
1. Narratives and climate risk governance
“We tell ourselves stories in order to live”, the writer Joan Didion (2009, 11) famously stated. “We look for the sermon in the
suicide, for the social or moral lesson in the murder of five. We interpret what we see, select the most workable of the multiple
choices”. What kind of stories do we tell about a changing climate, about extreme weather, rising sea level or changes in the seasons?
Which story is the most workable to locally make sense of a global phenomenon and its effects?
In this special issue, we bring together place-based stories about climate change with scientific information. Climate change is
materializing locally in different ways, both as a change of weather and a change of politics. Climate change already plays a role in
shifting governance and decision-making regimes in all of the places discussed in this special issue, yet none could claim to have made
their endangered communities ‘climate proof’. The articles in this issue argue for the inclusion of local narratives of change, alongside
climate science, for a broader and critical understanding of climate risk governance. Local narratives serve to improve knowledge of
the impacts of climatic change (the problem framing), introduce local ways of relating to and coping with these changes, and root
Received 28 September 2019; Received in revised form 25 February 2020; Accepted 1 March 2020
Corresponding author at: Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, Parkveien 9, Postboks 7805, 5020
Bergen, Norway.
E-mail address: (S. Bremer).
Climate Risk Management 28 (2020) 100221
Available online 03 March 2020
2212-0963/ © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
climate governance in social life (Krauß, 2010a). Such narratives give meaning to abstract scientific information and are key to
understanding, making sense, of what it means to live in and with a changing climate. Thus, the articles in this issue contribute to a
cultural turn in climate risk governance and provide a basis for experimental and collaborative forms of place-based climate gov-
ernance; challenging dominant modes of technocratic risk governance. In doing so, we problematize the science-based notion of risk
as a legitimization for political action. The effects of climate change are highly complex, and science cannot replace neither social
representations nor determine politics. Quite the contrary, in this special issue we want to provide insights into the cultural con-
struction of risk in order to bring climate governance into democracy.
2. Narratives of climate change, and changes of climate narrative
Much has been written about the global origins of ‘climate risk governance’ and how its discourse is transforming the ways we
relate to the climate in the places we live (see e.g. Jasanoff, 2004). Projections of regional climates continue to improve through
downscaling global climate models, long term monitoring and empirical research, and there are important moves to tailor climate
science and services to be even more locally credible and legitimate (Bremer et al., 2019b). Global science and policy networks are
deploying powerful scientific narratives of climate change to take hold in our local communities; infiltrating institutions, invoked in
public decision-making and spatial planning, and influencing how we as individuals behave - how we eat, live or travel – and how we
know our climate (Bravo, 2009; Farbotko and Lazrus, 2012; Hulme, 2008; Miller, 2004).
But a (perceived) increasing vulnerability to climatic and other changes in many places clearly show the limits of these science-
based narratives and their top-down and technology-focused ‘risk management’ politics (Bremer et al., 2019b). Critically, these global
governance models enforce a strong normative imperative of averting ‘dangerous climate change’, but they fail to account for the
cultural specificity of places; the ways of living with the climate that make sense locally. Already in 2006, von Storch and Krauß
(2006) argued for an acknowledgment of the role of culture when it comes to deploying effective forms of climate risk governance. In
the past decade, there was a constant flow of studies that contributed to a long overdue cultural turn. The anthropologist Callison
(2014) marked this turning point with her monograph, “How climate change comes to matter: The communal life of facts”. At the
example of different societal groups – scientists, journalists, evangelicals, or indigenous leaders – she shows that a cultural turn means
more than adding culture to the existing body of scientific knowledge about climate change. It means acknowledging the cultural
basis of all information about climate change, and the way scientific information is taken on and used in different cultural practices.
The cultural turn with its focus on discourse and narratives shifts attention to the inherent and often hidden power strategies in
science-based climate risk governance. Indigenous climate change studies, about groups’ storied heritage, show the need for “in-
digenizing futures” (Whyte, 2017) and decolonizing the politics of adaptation and vulnerability (Cameron, 2012, Mahony and Hulme,
2016). The articles in this special issue build upon the work of these scholars and discuss the ways people are integrating climate
change into their daily lives and cultural practices, and how climate change “comes to matter” in municipal and regional politics,
including the incongruencies, misunderstandings and double-binds.
The literature on climate risk governance provides ample evidence of a mismatch between the management measures prescribed
by global experts and the actual actions taken by locals (Bremer et al., 2019a; Haque et al., 2017; Hooke and Pielke, 2000; Kirchhoff
et al., 2013; Lorenz et al., 2016; van der Sluijs and Wardekker, 2015). One way to make climate governance more effective, is for it to
be rooted in and inspired by local experience, knowledge and practices (Krauß, 2009, 2010a). Policy recommendations should have a
regard for the climatic micro-histories of specific regions, including the patterns of land use, of ownership or customary practices
(Olwig, 2019). Local narratives of change give an insight into the material-semiotic evolution of specific regions, their environmental
histories and, against this background, the effects of current climate changes. Furthermore, many regions already have a troubled
history of several decades of climate politics, related to the implementation of the energy transition, adaptation of infrastructures and
public information. In these cases, it is less the lack of scientific information which makes climate measures ineffective than the
neglect of the actual life world. Climate change happens everywhere, but it does so in specific ways in each case.
Arguably, the mismatch between climate risk information and local action can be partly explained by a failure to account for the
ways communities experience actual climatic change, make sense of this change, and deal with the resulting changes. There are
increasing empirical studies of how communities appropriate climate governance discourse to their local places, and re-make it
around their diverse concerns, towards their own diverse ends (Bremer et al., 2019a; Ryghaug, 2011). In these places, there is a
change of climate narrative (Vanderlinden et al., 2020), and climate discourse takes a unique and often surprising shape. Scientific
calculations and models turn into stories and projections turn into imaginaries of the future. Climate stops being a pure matter of fact
and becomes part of the connected matters of concern that worry a community; from anxiety about dead whales with their guts full of
plastic bags (Bremer et al., 2020), to care for the dykes (Marschütz et al., 2020) or debates about the good life (Krauß, 2020).
Seen as such, climate risk governance better resembles a patchwork of connected activities, some of which are only tenuously
linked to the scientific definition of climate, and many of which do not follow from the global scientific narrative of climate. For
example, Bremer et al. (2020) present the NGO ‘Baærekraftige liv’ in Norway, whose climate adaptation program entails building
strong neighborhood democracy with a cadre of social activities, from repair cafes to public food gardens. Or engaged citizens on the
North Sea coast who simultaneously engage in campaigns to employ municipal climate managers, while worrying about the ex-
tinction of bees and supporting refugees stranded in their region (Krauß, 2020). Risk governance is invariably shaped by the way
climate risks are defined, and it manifests itself in the ways we talk about climate. By focusing on technical, quantifiable definitions of
risk as the probability of defined losses, this privileges scientific and professional knowledge systems and excludes other citizens from
the discussion, reducing them to subjects to educate. But in daily life and actual practice, the physical climate and the social climate,
the material and the semiotic nature of climate are inseparably intertwined. In everyday talk, in official representations or historical
W. Krauß and S. Bremer Climate Risk Management 28 (2020) 100221
accounts, climate is already present. The task now is to link scientific information with these often hidden narratives in order to
enable participatory climate action (see Da Cunha et al., 2020; Wildschut and Zijp, 2020).
The various ethnographic case studies in this special issue discuss how climate change becomes a local matter of concern and
expands the scope of climate governance. They aim to better apprehend the interplay between global narratives of climate change and
local changes of climate narrative. The implication is that we are ‘curating’ climate information in places, and that more deliberate
attention to this ‘curation’ can explain why climate governance takes the form it does, and how it can be more effective and legit-
imate. A focus on narratives gives insights into the culturalization of climate change. In so doing, the contributions address questions
like: Who is included in climate risk governance, and who is excluded? How can the encounter of different forms of knowledge be
made productive? How do identities change when climate changes? How do new forms of co-development and collaborations be-
tween unlikely actors emerge, and what kinds of action are enabled? In this way, the articles in this special issue understand climate
‘culturally’ (Hulme, 2015; Rayner, 2016) and thus contribute to the current 'cultural turn’ in climate research
3. Narratives of change in time and place
All contributions to this special issue share a conceptual focus on narratives that voice communities’ concern for climatic and
other changes, such as historical stories about weather extremes, the role of weather for regional identity, seasonal weather ex-
pectations and related practices, regional adaptations of global climate discourse or new stories creatively made through colla-
boration between scientists and communities. Narratives are not a new subject in climate research (Bremer et al., 2017; Fløttum &
Gjerstad, 2017). Communication and media studies have discussed the narratives employed in framing climate change and how
better to communicate scientific studies to the public (Boykoff, 2007; Wardekker et al., 2009); science studies has shifted focus on
issues like the use of metaphors in the production of scientific knowledge (Jasanoff, 2010, Mayer, 2012), and anthropologists, human
geographers, linguists and others have studied the indigenous or local climate knowledge encapsulated in stories (Krupnik and Jolly
2002). Over time, these disciplines have established themselves in climate research, changing the research agenda and “giving rise to
a vibrant field of (sometimes conflicting) methods and frameworks for making sense of the stories that invest meaning in social life”
(Marschütz et al., 2020).
Narratives are an emerging field in interdisciplinary climate research, changing the ways we tell the story of climate change and
expanding the methodology of climate research. The rise of the Anthropocene as a new concept to frame global changes is one of the
prime examples. In science-based climate research, nature and culture, climate and society are still separated entities of research.
While the concept of the Anthropocene is still heavily disputed among geologists, in the humanities it is considered as challenging
“our intellectual dispositions” (Krauß 2015, 74), questioning the modern separation of nature and culture, and subsequently, of
science and society. In the Anthropocene, the focus is now on the entanglements of humans with the bio-, hydro-, atmo- and
geosphere, opening up a plethora of narrative elements to describe current changes in specific configurations of time and space. There
are different time scales involved which go far beyond industrialization as the marker for the beginning of human induced climate
change. There is the longue durée of geological processes, of human land use, of the rise of civilizations and colonialism, to name just a
few, which deeply influence micro-climates and the global climate. These processes have local and regional histories, which all
influence the way people relate to their environment, how they construct their identities, how they shape and administer the
landscapes they inhabit. Thus, the Anthropocene serves as a narrative frame for the disturbing changes in the relation of people to
their environment and especially the weather. The effects of climate change are entangled with the modes of industrial production, of
the ways of life and everyday experience. The calculation of the individual carbon footprint is an example of climate discourse in the
self-identification of the human being in the neoliberal world. Every single person has to carry their share of the climate problem,
which is presented not as a political problem, but as an individual responsibility which can be measured, controlled and calculated.
In narrative theory, Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) introduced the concept of the ‘chronotope’, which marks in literature specific con-
figurations of time and space in which events are situated and become tellable. Chronotopes generate “stories through which a society
can explain itself” (Pratt 2017: 169). In the words of Mikhail Bakhtin (1981, 84), in the chronotope “(t)ime, as it were, thickens, takes
on flesh, becomes artistically visible; likewise, space becomes charged and responsible to the movements of time, plot and history.” In
this issue, the articles of Krauß (2020), of Da Cunha et al. (2020) and of Baztan et al. (2020) make use of this concept in their case
studies at the North Sea, the Golfe du Morbihan or in Brest; using examples of historic monuments like flood markers, architectural
constructions or historic pieces of art, they illustrate the specific entanglements of the inhabitants of these regions with their changing
The inclusion of narrative theory into interdisciplinary climate research comes with a set of methodologies, which all deserve a
certain amount of ethnographic scrutiny. It is necessary to listen to the narratives of the people, to study the popular representations
of a specific landscape, to read the historical accounts. Narratives have to be mapped, the specific configurations of time and space
that characterize regional narratives have to be identified, the material and semiotic changes have to analyzed (Krauß et al., 2019a,
2019b, 2019c). Following this set of guidelines, the contributors have emphasized different features of narratives, and their relevance
for climate risk governance.
4. Lessons from narratives, for climate risk governance
One important feature of narratives is that they situate events in a certain place and a certain time, thus shifting attention from the
scientific abstraction of climate to the changes of weather and seasons as the materialization of climate change in discrete episodes.
Narratives give an insight into the weather worlds we are enmeshed in (Ingold, 2007), with Bauer and Bhan (2018, 21) arguing:
W. Krauß and S. Bremer Climate Risk Management 28 (2020) 100221
“Foregrounding weather makes human experience foundational to social research on climate change – a necessary step toward
understanding the politics, everyday practices, vulnerabilities, and discourses related to global warming and differentially imagined
futures.” Ryghaug (2011) similarly discuss weather experience as an important way people make sense of climate change, in order to
respond to climate risks. Horn (2007) shifts agency towards weather in her collection of Icelandic stories with the telling title
“Weather reports you”; Endfield (2011) analyzes the relation between weather and identity in England and argues for “reculturing
and particularizing climate discourses”. It is a common concern of the contributors to this special issue, that narratives connect
climate to peoples’ daily experience of weather, to the formation of their identities and to their everyday practices and routines.
Another feature of narratives is their structure, often framed as a beginning-middle-end around a complication or drama. Related
to this structural analysis are the roles played by actors in the narratives, as hero or villain for instance (Fløttum and Gjerstad, 2017).
Bremer et al. (2020), show how the weather has always been an important setting in the stories Bergen told about itself, with
Bergensers the heroes who ‘weather through’. The identity of Friesians at the North Sea coast is based on the heroic fight against the
murderous sea, the mythical ‘Blanke Hans’ (Krauß, 2020). But climate change is becoming the complication in these narratives, like
those about the deadly landslides in Bergen or rising sea level at the North Sea, opening up questions on who qualifies as climate
heroes or villains. Structure is thus important for framing climate risks, with old risks like landslides or storm flooding apparently
amplified by climate change (Bremer et al., 2019a). Narratives assign responsibility for risk governance; who is to be held ac-
countable and who is entitled for action.
A third feature of narratives is that they impart certain meanings or morals that motivate and legitimate local action. Stories
impose an interpretation of a situation, like climate change, which inspire a certain kind of response; be it practical or emotional
(Cronon, 1992). Narratives about extreme weather events and changes in seasons, about droughts, floods, or biodiversity loss give a
detailed insight into climate-related changes that are culturally meaningful. Von Storch and Krauß demonstrated at the example of
the Elbe river flood 2002 in Germany and hurricane Katrina 2005 in the USA, that “culture contributes to the perception of climate
change” (von Storch and Krauß, 2006) and, of course, deeply influences climate risk governance. Several contributors in this issue
note the ways narratives have translated climate ideas and information into action, whether it be the Hatlestad Terrace landslide
narrative that changed local government policy in Bergen (Bremer et al., 2020), or the founding narrative of the Cooperative Uni-
versity of Amersfoort motivating citizen action (Wildschut and Zijp, 2020), or the stories of forced migration that build shared
identity and community in Kerourien (Baztan et al., 2020). In this way, narratives help explain why different social groups respond
differently to climate risks in the same place.
Narratives can also be seen as material social and cultural artifacts (Bal, 1997). As a cultural mode of expressing and transmitting
our stories – in speech, artwork, theatre or text for instance – stories are framed by, and constitutive of, local cultural identity and
senses of place. Da Cunha et al. (2020), for instance, discuss the historical narratives tied to ancient artifacts like megaliths, as the
“building blocks of cultural identity” in Morbihan. Marschütz et al. (2020) show the prominence of historic narratives about the St
Elisabeth flood, told in texts and maps for example, noting that “historic [narratives], embedded in local memory and identity, have a
surprisingly strong impact on how climate change is perceived and acted upon today”. On the other hand, contributors like Baztan
et al. (2020) and Da Cunha et al. (2020) highlight creative methods for culturally expressing new stories about climatic change and
governance responses, stating that through “art form-centred process[es] we used to embed community members’ values in salient
science narratives” (Baztan et al., 2020). These art-science co-operations range from theatre performances, to installing a fictional
museum of the year 2100 in an old oyster farm.
A fifth feature of narratives is their role as cognitive scripts for understanding complexity, in the context of climatic and other
rapid change (Bruner, 1991; Herman, 2003). To the extent that we use stories to order our thoughts, we can elicit people’s thoughts
on climate risk governance from the stories they tell (Lejano et al., 2013). In this way, a number of contributors (Baztan et al., 2020;
Da Cunha et al., 2020; Marschütz et al., 2020) talk about how they used interviews and workshops to elicit people’s tacit under-
standings and values around climate, as a precondition to decision-making for climate risk governance.
A sixth reason for narrative research was as a means of empowering marginalised groups for contributing to a public decision-
making process; “sharing [peoples] knowledge in a way that adheres to local cultural conventions, while critically challenging
entrenched power structures of whose knowledge counts” (Bremer et al., 2017; 671). In Dordrecht, for example (Marschütz et al.,
2020), this was a central concern, especially since they saw both similarities but also important differences between the narratives
told by the city municipality, and those told by residents in a vulnerable neighborhood. Similarly, Baztan et al. (2020) wanted to give
the marginalized residents of Kerourien a platform, on the occasion of the suburb’s 50th birthday, for voicing their aspirations for
their place; a place many have made home as a result of being forced to migrate from elsewhere.
A seventh feature of narratives highlighted in the contributions is that they are politically contested. Climate politics already have
a great influence on land use and everyday life (Krauß, 2020), as does climate science as a social actor (Bremer et al., 2017; Bremer
et al., 2020). In including local actors and in shifting perspective on the process, we actually understand climate as a trope which
people use in order to stabilize their relationships to the weather (Hulme, 2015). Climate change is as much a discursive disruption as
it is a material one, as seen in Rudiak-Gould’s (2013) work in the Pacific region. In the encounter of local narratives and scientific
expertise, sometimes completely unexpected things happen that lead to a disruption of what we know about the adaptation of local
people to a changing climate (Vanderlinden et al., 2020). The contributions to this special issue have at least as much focus on the
divergences between local narratives (see e.g. Krauß, 2020; Marschütz et al., 2020), as on their similarities (Bremer et al., 2020):
divergences along spatial scales, where global meets local; divergences across institutions and social groups; divergences between the
past and future (Da Cunha et al., 2020) or divergences between social classes.
W. Krauß and S. Bremer Climate Risk Management 28 (2020) 100221
5. Different places, different narratives: the case studies
This special issue stems from research in or related to the ongoing ERA4CS research project CoCliServ – ‘Co-development of place-
based climate services of action’ (2017–2020). Six of the seven contributions result from research in this project. The goal of the
project is to experiment with new forms of collaboration between science and local communities to enable place-based actions in
response to climate change; to support adaptation with high quality knowledge. The locations are Dordrecht in the Netherlands, the
Wadden Sea in Germany, Bergen in Norway, Golfe du Morbihan and Brest in France, Amersfoort in the Netherlands, and, added for
the purpose of this special issue, several case studies in extreme landscapes in the Arctic and in Africa. The common thread is the
focus on the processes and procedures of the encounters between climate science and local perceptions. In most of the cases, there is
already a kind of climate governance. One of the triggers of climate governance are so-called climate services, which are mostly
organizations and research initiatives closely related to climate science. Climate services advise government administrations and
private enterprises, and they inform the public about the results of climate science. There are limits to a traditional one-way
knowledge transfer, which is mostly science-based and tends to ignore place-specific forms on knowledge.
In the Anthropocene, the boundaries between science and society are as blurred as those between nature and culture. People make
use of scientific projections which in turn shape their perceptions of climate and the weather, while scientists use narrative frames
from popular accounts like apocalyptical visions from the bible or Hollywood movies in making their own data meaningful (von
Storch and Krauß, 2013). Furthermore, science-based climate governance has to be brought into democracy. Change often comes
from unexpected sources, from indigenous groups of people and their place-based practices, from tinkerers or engaged citizens
(Krauß, 2010b). In the heat of the debate about climate change, science is easily used to end all other narratives, especially those of
skeptics, deniers or hesitant politicians. But as our case studies show, many people are concerned, and there is a myriad of local
initiatives going on. These voices have to be heard, the arguments included, and cooperation between science and communities to be
instilled, even at the risk of “contamination” (Tsing, 2015). Tsing understands contamination as the merging of discourses, between
disciplines or between science and public discourse, and she argues that it is important to take the risk of being contaminated. The
contributors to this issue talk about actively engaging and bringing these scientific and non-scientific narratives together in order to
co-develop place-based climate services for action.
In his article, Krauß (2020) slowly retraces how the term narrative gains meaning as a concept in an interdisciplinary project;
there is not a standard definition or methodology. This is also true for field work: there is not a standard approach to gain access to
local narratives. His case study at the German North Sea coast values insights into the process and procedure over results and
information. This openness is reflected also in the article of Vanderlinden et al. (2020), which subsumes various encounters between
science and local knowledge and practices in different places. The authors evoke a sense of wonder – which is a rarely used concept in
science – to describe the unexpected results from the encounters between these different forms of knowledge. The case studies from
the Arctic and from Africa exemplify that narratives are not dead butterflies pinned on needles, ready for examination (Krauß, 2020);
quite the contrary, following them opens up the concept of place-based climate adaptation as a process and performance.
The article of Baztan et al. (2020) about a theater project with migrants living in Kerourien, Brest, gives clear evidence of
adaptation as performance. The history of this place and its architecture serve as a chronotope which enables people to tell their own
stories; the common project with a theater group turns narratives into performances. Engaging climate research with art means
intervening into places, communicating actively with its diverse and unstable populace, and in doing so, linking climate change with
social change.
Narratives are also in the center of the article of Da Cunha et al. (2020) about participatory action research at the Golfe du
Morbihan. The researchers explore chronotopes and narratives of the past, present and future to link stakeholders, NGOs and the
municipality in the quest for effective forms of adaptation to changes in the coastal region. A special role is played by art and design
in appropriating climate science to the Golfe’s cultural frameworks; mediating science’s introduction to the on-going social, political
and cultural processes of adaptation planning.
Bremer et al. (2020) and Marschütz et al. (2020) trace in their respective case studies how cities actively engage with climate
change as a material challenge and exemplify how this engagement alters the process of self-identification and perception of the
environment. Bergen is arguably becoming a “climate city”, as a shift from its traditional image as the “rainy city”, or “city of
weather”; climate science is already actively present as a mushrooming institution in public life. Bremer et al. (2020) show how
climate pervades many aspects of life and incites activities which are not directly related to a normative science-based understanding
of climate. Marschütz et al. (2020) shift focus on the social aspects of making a city climate-proof. Science is a concept which is
closely related to and embedded in administration and politics, and not everybody has equal access to these institutions. The case of
Dordrecht gives evidence of the often-neglected fact that adapting infrastructures to the challenges imposed by climate change means
intervening into the social fabric of the city. Who is included in this process, and who is excluded? In both case studies, citizen
participation and citizen science play an important role.
Citizen science, as a social practice, stands in the center of the article of Wildschut and Zijp (2020). They tell the story of the
independent university of Amersfoort, which is a constantly developing local hub of citizen science. At the example of a climate
project – “measure your own city” – they show citizen science as an activity which resembles science, but which acts on their own and
sometimes unpredictable terms. Based on their experience with numerous citizen science projects, they tell a narrative of how their
practices of autonomous citizen science have developed, as distinct from traditional approaches where citizens are simply data
collectors, or “science’s little helpers”. Activities of NGOs or citizen-science, the inclusion of art or the ups-and-downs of encounters
between science and local actors are prime examples for the inherent power of narratives of change. The focus on narratives sets a
process in motion, leads to unexpected collaborations and marks a cultural turn in climate governance. In the conclusion, Silvio
W. Krauß and S. Bremer Climate Risk Management 28 (2020) 100221
Funtowicz (2020) embeds these individual projects into a broader perspective and highlights the role of narratives for climate
governance. He argues that the sole focus on the techno-scientific nexus does not fit the multidimensional nature of risk; the inclusion
of narratives opens up the governance-society nexus, new ways to link the local with the global and climate risk governance with
democratic procedures.
6. Conclusion
This special issue provides a multi-faceted discussion of how consideration of narratives of change is important for climate
-providing insights into the social construction of climate risk in different places: local narratives and representations of climatic, social
and natural changes form the social basis for determining climate risk;
-showing the importance of climate history to climate projections: understanding communities’ history of climate and it impacts in a
place is important for thinking about how climate change may impact on them in the future;
-highlighting the role of values, customary practices, social and economic changes, environmental justice, and gender-issues: climate risks
are multi-facetted and transcend the boundaries between nature and culture and science and society;
-critically reflecting on how climate science and -policy is changing social order: communities are not only exposed to natural impacts of
climatic change, but also to the social impacts of a bold new global climate governance regime;
-demonstrating how climate science can be made more useable: linking climate science to local narratives of change can make the
science more meaningful for communities and better able to be acted on;
-giving accounts of creative methods of extending climate science through art and citizen science initiatives: ways of rethinking and
legitimizing climate science and how it can be integrated with climate governance and action;
-expanding the scope of science-based climate information: place-based climate governance is dialogic and rooted in culture; it implies
the risk of communication, needs extended peer review and a novel conception of science-based information and cultural symbols.
Done properly, including narratives into climate research gives new incentives for democratic climate governance; tying together
diverse sources of evidence that converge in a triangulation fashion to indicate and infer the ways people experience and respond to
climate impacts. Thus, the narrative approach is not just another instrument to enable translation of scientific data and to add local
forms of knowledge to the scientific one. Quite the contrary, the narrative approach challenges the exclusivity of the scientific
definition of the climate problem and opens up new ways of dealing with a changing climate. The solutions of a problem depend very
much on how the problem is defined, as well as who is allowed to speak, to participate and to act.
Role of the funders
This research was financed by the EU ERA4CS CoCliServ project, and Bremer also had support from the ERC ‘CALENDARS’ project
(804150). The funders had no involvement in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of
the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the article for publication.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.
The authors, as co-editors of this special issue, want to thank all contributors for their honest, creative and interesting treatment of
narratives in climate research. This paper was written with the support of the ERA4CS research project CocliServ (Grant Agreement
274246) – ‘Co-development of place-based climate services of action’ (2017-2020). Scott Bremer would also like to acknowledge the
support of the ERC-funded ‘CALENDARS’ project (Grant Agreement 804150). Both authors want to thank the reviewers for their
insightful comments and suggestions.
Bakhtin, M.M., 1981. The dialogic imagination: four essays. Translated by Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Bal, M., 1997. Narratology: Introduction to the theory of narrative, 2nd ed. University of Toronto Press.
Bauer, A., Bhan, M., 2018. Climate without nature. A critical anthropology of the Anthropocene. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Baztan, J., Jaffrès, L., Vanderlinden, J.-P., Jorgensen, B., Zhu, Z., 2020. Facing climate change injustices: embedding community values in Arts and Sciences
Hybridization for neighborhood empowerment. Clim. Risk Manage (this issue).
Boykoff, M.T., 2007. From convergence to contention: united States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 32,
Bravo, M.T., 2009. Voices from the sea lice: the reception of climate impact narratives. J. Hist. Geogr. 35, 256–278.
Bremer, S., Blanchard, A., Mamnun, N., Stiller-Reeve, M., Haque, M.M., Tvinnereim, E., 2017. Narrative as a method for eliciting tacit knowledge of climate variability
W. Krauß and S. Bremer Climate Risk Management 28 (2020) 100221
in Bangladesh. Weather Clim. Soc. 9, 669–686.
Bremer, S., Schneider, P., Glavovic, B., 2019a. Climate change and amplified representations of natural hazards in institutional cultures. Oxford Res. Encycl. Nat.
Hazard Sci.
Bremer, S., Wardekker, A., Dessai, S., Sobolowski, S., Slaattelid, R., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2019b. Toward a multi-faceted conception of co-production of climate services.
Clim. Serv. 13, 42–50.
Bremer, S., Johnson, E., Fløttum, K., Kverndokk, K., Wardekker, A., Krauß, W., 2020. Portrait of a climate city: How climate change is emerging as a risk in Bergen,
Norway. Climate Risk Management (this issue).
Bruner, J., 1991. The narrative construction of reality. Crit. Inq. 18, 1–21.
Callison, C., 2014. How climate change comes to matter. The communal life of facts. Duke University Press, Durham and London.
Cameron, E.S., 2012. Securing Indigenous politics: A critique of the vulnerability and adaptation approach to the human dimensions of climate change in the Canadian
Arctic. Global Environ. Change 22, 103–114.
Cronon, W., 1992. A place for stories: nature, history, and narrative. J. Am. History 78 (4), 1347–1376.
Da Cunha, C., Rocha, A., Cardon, M., Breton, F., Laurent, L., Vanderlinden, J.-P., 2020. Adaptation planning in France: inputs from narratives of change in support of
an art and science co-construction process. Climate Risk Management (this issue).
Didion, J., 2009. The white album. Farrar, Strauß and Giroux, New York.
Endfield, G., 2011. Reculturing and reparticularizing climate discourses: weather, identity, and the work of Gordon Manley. Osiris 26, 142–162.
Farbotko, C., Lazrus, H., 2012. The first climate refugees? Contesting global narratives of climate change in Tuvalu. Global Environ. Change 22, 382–390.
Fløttum, K., Gjerstad, Ø., 2017. Narratives in climate change discourse. WIREs Clim. Change 8 (1), 429.
Funtowicz, S., 2020. From risk calculations to narratives of danger. Clim. Risk Manage. 27.
Haque, M.M., Bremer, S., Aziz, S.B., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2017. A critical assessment of knowledge quality for climate adaptation in Sylhet Division, Bangladesh. Clim.
Risk Manage. 16, 43–58.
Herman, D., 2003. Stories as a tool for thinking. In: Herman, D. (Ed.), Narrative Theory and the Cognitive Sciences. CSLI Publications, pp. 163–192.
Hooke, W.H., Pielke Jr., R.A., 2000. Short-term weather prediction: An orchestra in need of a conductor. In: Sarewitz, D., Pielke, R.A., Byerly, R. (Eds.), Prediction:
Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature. Island Press, Washington DC, pp. 61–83.
Horn, R., 2007. Weather reports you. Artangel / Steidl, London and Göttingen.
Hulme, M., 2008. The conquering of climate: discourses of fear and their dissolution. Geog. J. 174 (1), 5–16.
Hulme, M., 2015. Climate and its changes: a cultural appraisal. Geo.
Ingold, T., 2007. Bindings against boundaries: entanglements of life in an open world. Environ. Plann. A 40, 1769–1810.
Jasanoff, S., 2004. Earthly politics. Local and global in environmental governance. MIT Press, Cambridge, M. A.
Jasanoff, S., 2010. A new climate for society. Theory Culture and Soc. 27 (2–3), 233–253.
Kirchhoff, C.J., Lemos, M.C., Dessai, S., 2013. Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu. Rev.
Environ. Resour. 38, 393–414.
Krauß, W., 2009. Localizing climate change: a multi-sited approach. In: Falzon, M. (Ed.), Multi-sited ethnography. Ashgate Publishers, pp. 149–165.
Krauß, W., 2010a. Rooted in society. Nat. Geosc. 3, 513–514.
Krauß, W., 2010b. The ‘Dingpolitik’ of wind energy in Northern German landscapes: An ethnographic case study. In: Landscape Research (special edition: Emerging
Energy Landscapes) vol. 35 /2, 195–208.
Krauß, W., 2015. Anthropology in the Anthropocene: Sustainable development, climate change and interdisciplinary research. In: Greschke, Heide, Tischler, Julia
(Eds.), Grounding global climate. Contributions from the social and cultural sciences. Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York and London, pp. 59–76.
Krauß, W., 2020. Narratives of change and the co-development of climate services for action. Climate Risk Management (this issue).
Krauß, W., Bremer, S., Wardekker, A., Marschütz, B., Baztan, J., da Cunha, C., 2019a. Initial mapping of narratives of change. CoCliServ report D1, 1. http://cocliserv.
Krauß, W., Bremer, S., Wardekker, A., Marschütz, B., Baztan, J., da Cunha, C., 2019b. Chronology and in-depth analysis of weather-related and place-specific
narratives of climate change. CoCliServ report D1, 2.
Krauß, W., Bremer, S., Wardekker, A., Marschütz, B., Baztan, J., da Cunha, C., 2019c. Relevant excerpts from interviews and protocols. CoCliServ report D1, 3. http://
Krupnik, I., Jolly, D., 2002. The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic Environmental Change. Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S.
Lorenz, S., Dessai, S., Forster, P.M., Paavola, J., 2016. Adaptation planning and the use of climate change projections in local government in England and Germany.
Reg. Envt. Change 17 (2), 425–435.
Lejano, R.P., Tavares-Reager, J., Berkes, F., 2013. Climate and narrative: Environmental knowledge in everyday life. Environ. Sci. Policy 31, 61–70.
Mahony, M., Hulme, M., 2016. Epistemic geographies of climate change: Science, space and politics. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 42 (3), 395–424.
Marschütz, B., Bremer, S., Runhaar, H., Hegger, D., Mees, H., Vervoort, J., Wardekker, A., 2020. Local narratives of change as an entry point for building urban climate
resilience. Clim. Risk Manage (this issue).
Mayer, M., 2012. Chaotic climate change and security. Int. Political Sociol. 6, 165–185.
Miller, C.A., 2004. Climate science and the making of a global political order. In: Jasanoff, S. (Ed.), States of knowledge: the co-production of science and social order.
Routledge, New York, pp. 46–66.
Olwig, K.R., 2019. The meanings of landscape. Place, space and justice. Routledge, London and New York.
Pratt, M., 2017. Coda, concept and chronotope. In: Tsing, A., Swanson, H., Gan, E., Bubandt, In (Eds.), Arts of living on a damaged planet. Ghosts and Monsters of the
Anthropocene. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, London, pp. 169–176.
Rayner, S. (2016) What would have made Evans-Pritchard out of the two degrees?
Rudiak-Gould, P., 2013. Climate change and tradition in a small island state. Routledge, New York and London.
Ryghaug, M., 2011. Obstacles to sustainable development: the destabilization of climate change knowledge. Sustainable Development 19, 157–166.
Tsing, A., 2015. The mushroom at the end of the world. On the possibilities of life in capitalist ruins. Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford.
Vanderlinden, J.-P., Baztan, J., Chouinard, O., Cordier, M., Da Cunha, C., Huctin, J.-M., Kane, A., Kennedy, G., Nikulkina, I., Shadrin, V., Surette, C., Thiaw, D.,
Thomson, K.T., 2020. Meaning in the face of changing climate risks: connecting agency, sensemaking and narratives of change through transdisciplinary research.
Clim. Risk Manage (this issue).
van der Sluijs, J.P., Wardekker, J.A., 2015. Critical appraisal of assumptions in chains of model calculations used to project local climate impacts for adaptation
decision support – the case of Baakse Beek. Environ. Res. Lett. 10 (4), 1–13.
von Storch, H., Krauß, W., 2006. Culture contributes to perceptions of climate change. Nieman Reports 59 (4), 30–35.
von Storch, Hans, Krauß, Werner, 2013. Die Klimafalle. Die gefährliche Nähe von Klimaforschung und Politik. Hanser, München.
Wardekker, A.J., Persen, A.C., van der Sluijs, J.P., 2009. Ethics and public perception of climate change: Exploring the Christian voices in the US public debate. Global
Environ. Change 19 (4), 512–521.
Wildschut, D., Zijp, H., 2020. The discoveries of citizens running around. Clim. Risk Manage. (this issue).
Whyte, K.P., 2017. Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes 55, 154–162.
W. Krauß and S. Bremer Climate Risk Management 28 (2020) 100221
... In order to fill this gap and facilitate the widespread adoption and application of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses in climate-risk models, this paper introduces and showcases a new feature of the probabilistic climate-risk assessment and modelling platform CLIMADA (CLIMate ADAptation) (Aznar-Siguan and Bresch, 2019;Bresch and Aznar-Siguan, 2021;Kropf et al., 2022a), which seamlessly integrates the SALib -Sensitivity Analysis Library in Python package (Herman and Usher, 2017) into the overall CLIMADA modelling framework, and thus supports all sampling and sensitivity index algorithms implemented therein. The new feature allows conducting uncertainty and sensitivity analyses for any CLI-MADA climate-risk assessment and appraisal of adaptation options with little additional effort, and in a user-friendly manner. ...
... To our knowledge, CLIMADA is the first global platform for probabilistic multi-hazard risk modelling and options appraisal to seamlessly include uncertainty and sensitivity analyses in its workflow, as described in this section. CLIMADA is written in Python 3 (Van Rossum and Drake, 2009); it is fully open source and open access (Kropf et al., 2022a). It implements a probabilistic global multi-hazard natural-disaster impact model based on the three sub-modules, i.e. hazard, exposure, and vulnerability. ...
Full-text available
Modelling the risk of natural hazards for society, ecosystems, and the economy is subject to strong uncertainties, even more so in the context of a changing climate, evolving societies, growing economies, and declining ecosystems. Here, we present a new feature of the climate-risk modelling platform CLIMADA (CLIMate ADAptation), which allows us to carry out global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. CLIMADA underpins the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) methodology which provides decision-makers with a fact base to understand the impact of weather and climate on their economies, communities, and ecosystems, including the appraisal of bespoke adaptation options today and in future. We apply the new feature to an ECA analysis of risk from tropical cyclone storm surge to people in Vietnam to showcase the comprehensive treatment of uncertainty and sensitivity of the model outputs, such as the spatial distribution of risk exceedance probabilities or the benefits of different adaptation options. We argue that broader application of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis will enhance transparency and intercomparison of studies among climate-risk modellers and help focus future research. For decision-makers and other users of climate-risk modelling, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis has the potential to lead to better-informed decisions on climate adaptation. Beyond provision of uncertainty quantification, the presented approach does contextualize risk assessment and options appraisal, and might be used to inform the development of storylines and climate adaptation narratives.
... Three papers directly linked with the sites' efforts were published in the past year (Baztan et al., 2020;da Cunha et al., 2020;Krauß & Bremer, 2020). These papers are the first arts and sciences papers published in the dedicated journal, "Climate Risk Management." ...
Climate change is affecting the availability, distribution, and quality of water around the world. The impacts of climate change are not happening in a vacuum, but rather, are layered onto and exacerbate pre-existing inequalities and injustices. In this chapter, we argue that water justice and climate change are intertwined in three critical ways. First, we argue that water injustice creates climate change vulnerability and climate change entrenches water injustices. Therefore addressing water injustices will also reduce climate change vulnerability. Second, we argue that the proposed solutions to climate change can and will have implications for water justice. In some cases, mitigation and adaptation solutions will create or deepen existing water injustices while other solutions may represent a space for positive action. We examine six examples of how responses to climate change are poised to affect water justice: lithium mining, REDD+/Payment of Ecosystem Services, hydropower dams, rural to urban water transfers, desalination, and adaptive management. Third, water justice and climate justice struggles can and should build greater unity. By building unity (not uniformity) between water justice and climate justice struggles, movements could gain better insight into the local-global connections that exist between water injustice and climate injustice. Importantly, we also caution scholars against viewing climate change as the driver of water injustice. Climate change, as a discourse, can naturalize water scarcity and obscure the power and politics that drive water injustice. By exploring these important intersections between climate change and water justice, we argue that water justice and climate justice struggles and scholarship would benefit considerably from one another.
... Three papers directly linked with the sites' efforts were published in the past year (Krauß and Bremer 2020;da Cunha et al., 2020;Baztan et al., 2020). These papers are the first Arts-and-Sciences papers published in the dedicated journal, "Climate Risk Management". ...
Full-text available
Through the efforts shared in this chapter, we embrace the hypothesis that local representations of our changing climate offer a key angle for facing climate change. We describe the coconstruction processes of climate services in five sites across Europe: Bergen (Norway), Brest, Kerourien (France), Dordrecht (the Netherlands), Gulf of Morbihan (France), and Jade Bay (Germany), to share novel ways of transforming state-of-the-art climate science into action-oriented place-based climate services that can be integrated with social understandings and practices of coping with change in Europe. The formal context for “modes of representation” enabled us to recognize the importance of explicitly linking social transformation intentions with local challenges and values, and to connect from there with national and European Framework Directives related to climate services. We reiterate the importance of having local stakeholders engage in the climate services coproduction process in order to forge common commitments and incorporate value perspectives, even those that may be polarized, throughout society as a whole.
... Narratives integrate particular events and trends in the worldviews of people who experience them [16]. Therefore, they are rooted in a socio-cultural context and act as a social structure [18,19]. The different interpretations of climate change storylines and contrasting reported climate change science evidence make us think that climate change is a "tower of Babel" realm [1,20]. ...
Full-text available
The way people perceive climate change scientific evidence becomes relevant in motivating or demotivating their climate actions. Climate change is one of the most publicized topics globally, and media has become an important “validator” of science. Therefore, science has become more exposed to criticism. Even when most scientists, decision makers, and laypeople agree on the robust evidence of climate science, there is still room for disagreement. The main aim of this paper is to reveal how climate change knowledge generated by science is perceived by the laypeople and to observe a possible gap between them. The study answered two questions “What are the main contrasting climate change topics in the scientific literature?” and “What are Romanian and Belgian participants’ perceptions of these topics?”. A qualitative approach was chosen for data analysis, using Quirkos software. The present cross-country study showed commonalities and differences of views between the two groups of participants regarding six climate change topics. Divergent perceptions among Belgians and Romanians came out, for example, within the theme “The heroes, villains, and victims of climate change.” Thus, whereas Belgians considered all people, including themselves, responsible for climate change, Romanians blamed mostly others, such as big companies, governments, and consumers. Additionally, both groups stated that climate change existed, but contrary to Belgians, Romanians voiced that climate change was often used as an exaggerated and politicized topic. The analysis revealed that perceptions about climate change, its causes, and its impacts are social constructs with a high degree of variability between and within the two national groups. The study argued that the cleavages between scientific literature and people’s views were blind spots on which a participatory approach was needed to better cope with climate change challenges.
... This expansion of the CLIMADA platform allows for risk assessment and options appraisal including quantification of uncertainties in a modular form and occasionally bespoke fashion (Hinkel and Bisaro, 2016), yet with the high re-usability of common functionalities to foster usage in interdisciplinary studies (Souvignet et al., 2016) and international collaboration. Further, the presented approach can be used to inform the development of story-lines (Shepherd et al., 2018;Ciullo et al., 2021) and climate adaptation 420 narratives (Krauß and Bremer, 2020). ...
Modelling the risk of natural hazards for society, ecosystems, and the economy is subject to strong uncertainties, even more so in the context of a changing climate, evolving societies, growing economies, and declining ecosystems. Here we present a new feature of the climate risk modelling platform CLIMADA which allows to carry out global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. CLIMADA underpins the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) methodology which provides decision makers with a fact-base to understand the impact of weather and climate on their economies, communities, and ecosystems, including appraisal of bespoke adaptation options today and in future. We apply the new feature to an ECA analysis of risk from tropical cyclone storm surge to people in Vietnam to showcase the comprehensive treatment of uncertainty and sensitivity of the model outputs, such as the spatial distribution of risk exceedance probabilities or the benefits of different adaptation options. We argue that broader application of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses will enhance transparency and inter-comparison of studies among climate risk modellers and help focus future research. For decision-makers and other users of climate risk modelling, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis has the potential to lead to better-informed decisions on climate adaptation. Beyond provision of uncertainty quantification, the presented approach does contextualise risk assessment and options appraisal, and might be used to inform the development of story-lines and climate adaptation narratives.
... It is based on the assumption that people understand their lives in storied forms, connecting events in the manner of a plot that has beginning, middle, and end points (Sarbin, 1986;Josselson, 2011). Narratives are dynamic, dialogical, often contested, and reveal values and meanings (Krauß, 2020;Krauß and Bremer, 2020). Narratives grant us access to lay ethics, the value system of narrators that are not professional ethicists (see Nordmann and Macnaghten, 2010). ...
Full-text available
Knowledge quality assessment (KQA) has been developed in order to analyze the role of knowledge in situations of high stakes and urgency when characterized by deep uncertainty and ignorance. Governing coastal flood risk in the face of climate change is typical of such situations. These are situations which limit the ability to establish objective, reliable, and valid facts. This paper aims to identify the moral frameworks that stakeholders use to judge flood risk situations under climate change, and infer from these knowledge legitimacy criteria. Knowledge legitimacy, defined as being respectful of stakeholders' divergent values and beliefs, is one of the three broad quality criteria that have been proposed in order to assess knowledge quality in such situations; credibility (as scientific adequacy) and salience (relevance to the needs of decision makers) being the two others. Knowledge legitimacy is essentially the subject of a literature analyzing, ex-post (once knowledge has been deployed), how stakeholders' participation is a factor contributing to knowledge legitimacy. Very little is known about ex-ante characteristics (i.e.: that can be observed, determined, before knowledge is deployed) that would make some types of knowledge more legitimate (i.e., respectful of stakeholders' divergent values and beliefs) than others. We see this as a significant blind spot in the analysis of knowledge and its role under deep uncertainty. In this paper we posit that this blind spot may be addressed, in part. In order to achieve this we first identify the ethical frameworks that stakeholders use to judge a situation of risk under rapidly changing conditions. We then associate these ethical frameworks to characteristics of knowledge. We tested this conceptualization through a case study approach centered on flood risk on the French Atlantic coast. We have adopted a narrative approach to the analysis of two diachronic corpora consisting of interviews conducted in 2010–2012 (33 interviews) and 2020 (15 interviews). These were approached as narratives of a risk situation. We thematically coded these along themes considered as metanarratives. These metanarratives are associated with predefined (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) and emerging (discourse ethics, connection ethics, and a naturalistic ethic) ethical theories. Our results show that, when faced with flood risks, stakeholders tell stories that mobilizes several metaethical frameworks as guiding principles in the form of both procedural and substantive injunctions. In order to respect what we interpret as manifestations of the moral stances of stakeholders, our results indicate that knowledge legitimacy may be assessed against the following criteria: lability, debatability and adaptability; degree of co-production invested; place-based approach; ability to include lessons that would be given by nature. The operationalization of these criteria is promising in a time when the knowledge that is used for decision making under certainty is increasingly contested on the ground of its legitimacy.
This study discusses the role of the socio-cognitive setting of the village in the development of effective DRR on the Island of Simeulue, Aceh, Indonesia. Simeulue was the first place struck by the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, but suffered less than 10 casualties. A wider program of qualitative research focusing on narrative interviews examined the cultural drivers of the island's DRR found that a traditional story related in and about local villages provided local people with intimate spatial knowledge and self-efficacy to take appropriate action at the sign of onset of a tsunami. A diverse literature relating to the influence of local places on individual and community identity indicates that the integration of social and place orientation can contribute to effective DRR. A review of the alignment of investment in integrating place, community empowerment and resilience is discussed. It is proposed that investment in ‘villaging’ is not only warranted, it has the potential to generate transformative change in resilience and DRR.
The objective of this article is to propose a novel method that uses hierarchical control to efficiently manage power resources in an isolated Direct Current (DC) microgrid. The scope of this paper is limited to a numerical study of the components of the micro-generation system using accurate mathematical models in a commercial simulation tool. The control methodology is based on power sharing by means of a hierarchical topology including several control layers. In particular, the internal control loops that regulate the electrical variables in individual generators are at the bottom of the hierarchy. In addition, the power-sharing technique distributes power at an intermediate level, and it is complemented by a Newton-Raphson optimization algorithm at the top, which aims to minimize the cost function. The cost of the microgrid is defined in terms of investment and maintenance indices. This study analyzes the case of a low-power isolated DC microgrid that combines an array of photovoltaic panels and a battery bank. The most relevant result was the optimization of its generation cost, which was verified using simulations of the control and power circuits. In conclusion, although simple, the proposed technique achieves efficient performance in managing the power resources of this microgrid under environmental disturbances.
Extreme heat does not affect all urban residents equally. While vulnerability is often defined as a combination of exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, many scholars have argued that the quantitative representation of adaptive capacity is particularly difficult. How people who live in vulnerable situations change their behavior to cope with and manage extreme urban temperatures, and the resources necessary to prevent adverse health effects, highlight different adaptive capacity within a city. Our understanding and depiction of how and why the impacts of urban heat vary between individuals and groups is constrained by contemporary approaches to quantify vulnerability using aggregate-scale data drawn from censuses, surveys, and administrative records. Thus, adaptive capacity is likely poorly represented in modern heat vulnerability analyses and their applications. This article explores how different city residents understand and adapt to increasing extreme urban heat, the tradeoffs different populations must make between generic and specific adaptive capacity, and the coping strategies that influence heat adaptive capacity at various scales. Using metropolitan Phoenix as a test site, open-ended interviews were conducted in which residents told their stories about past and present extreme heat adaptive capacity and adaptive behaviors. Three narratives emerged: heat is an inconvenience, heat is a manageable problem, and heat is a catastrophe. Framing heat vulnerability using these differing narratives can help evaluate if standard recommendations for coping with heat adequately represent solutions for the lived experiences of different vulnerable groups. Learning how and under what circumstances vulnerable people are motivated to make necessary changes to increase thermal comfort and safeguard public health will ensure that targeted heat mitigation and adaptation policies are widely adopted. Heat adaptation and mitigation policy makers need to be cognizant of the gap in heat risk perception across different segments of the population and reflect on whether those decisions reflect their experience (of likely belonging to the inconvenience group) or incorporate differing scales of heat adaptive capacity.
Full-text available
There is more at stake in the Anthropocene than a simple addition of natural sciences and those concerned with the anthropos. It is not sufficient to identify planetary boundaries, tipping points and limits of growth from a scientific perspective in order to successfully implement sustainable development or effective climate politics. We have to take into account the double challenge of global change, which affects our environment as well as our intellectual dispositions.
Full-text available
Climate change is dramatically shifting the way cities interpret and live with their local climate. This paper analyses how climate change is emerging as a matter of concern in the public spheres of Bergen, and interprets how this concern is effecting Bergen’s identity, with implications for the city’s climate risk governance. Historically, Bergen has a strong identity as Europe’s rainiest city, manifested in its cultural and social life. In the past 15 years, Bergen’s identity has been shifting from a ‘weather city’ to a ‘climate city’. This paper draws on ethnographic research, interviews and document analysis to map this shift as co-produced by certain social and natural events and processes; told as narratives of change. This identity shift is creating surprising hybrid representations of climate that are locally meaningful, shaped as much by Bergen’s cultural weatherworld as by incoming ideas of climate change. These representations influence Bergen’s attitudes towards climate risk governance, and may extend influence to global scales via climate city networks. This identity shift also moves the timeframe of risk governance. As a weather city, risks were implicit to the city’s heritage and peoples’ lived experience. But as a climate city, risks are predicted to foresee and prevent impacts. Critically employing co-production as an analytical lens can help us understand the multiple facets to cities’ climate risk governance, including the role of culture and identity.
Full-text available
This paper contributes to the body of knowledge associated with the analysis of transdisciplinary research. We use a narrative centered approach, focusing on hybridity, sensemaking and the potential for transdisciplinary research to foster agency. When confronted with changes, people – as individuals – and local communities – as groups – make sense of them in the light of their own knowledge, beliefs and experiences. The process by which communities make sense of changing institutional and natural environments can be defined as the interaction between their own frame of reference and the perception of the situational demands inherent to changes, together with their interpretation of these changes. Such a dynamic process of sensemaking constantly redefines the boundaries of the narratives that community members can call on to give meaning to their past, present and future. In this paper we use five case studies to analyze how this sensemaking plays out in situations of changing climate risk and changing frames of reference associated with the presence of trans-disciplinary scientists. We identify the central challenge of ambiguity. We define ambiguity as situations where narratives of change assign different meanings to the changes observed. In such situations, we observe three potential outcomes in our case studies: (1) communities appear to be forced into inaction – as a consequence of agency-depriving senselessness; (2) communities appear to be cornered into maladaptation – as a consequence of a misguided sense of agency; and (3) communities try to resolve ambiguity and effectively move forward – as knowledge-based agency-fostering exercise. In light of these results, we argue that by contributing to the clarification of such ambiguities, climate science may contribute to increases in local agency, thus enhancing adaptive capacities. We conclude by proposing that climate science be place-based and community–centered. The purpose of such a shift would be aimed at building the agency-enhancing sensemaking of local communities.
Full-text available
Three years ago, the autonomous citizen science project Meet je Stad (Measure your City) formed a community in Amersfoort that developed its own instruments to measure climatic change locally. Like many citizen science projects, this initiative faces challenges to being considered a legitimate and credible way of extending climate research, or as a source of robust information for local climate risk governance. In this article, we will provide a social history of this project, of its activities, motivations and forms of organizations. We will focus on their practices, their connection to academic science, and their guiding narratives of change. These narratives are concerned with both changes to the climate and social changes to what is considered a legitimate way of scientifically studying the climate. In this article we argue that autonomous citizen science avoids some of the pitfalls that caused the legitimation crisis of climate science and is a useful expansion of risk governance in the context of societal change.
Full-text available
Cities face increasing risks due to climate change, and many cities are actively working towards increasing their climate resilience. Climate change-induced risks and interventions to reduce these risks do not only impact urban risk management systems and infrastructures, but also people’s daily lives. In order to build public support for climate adaptation and resilience-building and stimulate collaboration between authorities and citizens, it is necessary that adaptation and resilience-building are locally meaningful. Thus, interventions should be rooted in citizens’ concerns and aspirations for their city. Urban policymakers and researchers have started the search for better citizen participation in adaptation. However, tools to connect the relatively strategic and long-term notions of adaptation to a gradually changing climate held by planners and scientists with how citizens experience today’s climate and weather remain elusive. This paper investigates the use of ‘narratives of change’ as an approach to elicit perceptions of past, present and future weather, water, and climate, and how these relate to citizens’ desired futures. We tested this by eliciting and comparing narratives of change from authorities and from citizens in the Dutch city of Dordrecht. Our analysis of the process showed that historical events, embedded in local memory and identity, have a surprisingly strong impact on how climate change is perceived and acted upon today. This contributes to an awareness and sense of urgency of some climate risks (e.g. flood risks). However, it also shifts attention away from other risks (e.g. intensified heat stress). The analysis highlighted commonalities, like shared concerns about climate change and desires to collaborate, but also differences in how climate change, impacts, and action are conceptualized. There are possibilities for collaboration and mutual learning, as well as areas of potential disagreement and conflict. We conclude that narratives are a useful tool to better connect the governance of climate adaptation with peoples’ daily experience of climate risks and climate resilience, thereby potentially increasing public support for and participation in resilience-building.
Full-text available
After the Paris Agreement, the transition towards a carbon free society necessitates new forms of collaboration between climate science and society. In my article, I argue that the increasing participation of disciplines from the humanities represent a cultural turn in climate risk governance. At the example of my anthropological case study at the Northern German coastline, I show that the co-development of place-based climate services for action means a challenge to the science-based definition of climate change and the resulting problem-solving strategies. Climate change materializes in form of extreme weather events, changes in the seasons and sea level rise. Local narratives represent these changes, expand the problem definition of climate change and express the multiple entanglements of weather, climate and society. Past flood disasters and interactions with the sea are presented in different configurations of time and space that put emerging forms of climate services into context. Narratives of change serve as a localization device and as starting point for the co-development of climate services for action. Collaborations between science and humanities on the one hand, and between researchers and local actors on the other are an open-ended process. In form of a field report, I identify diverse narratives of change and first steps towards the co-development of new forms of climate services. At the example of a scenario workshop, I describe local visions of climate risk governance, with climate researchers as facilitators and moderators of public forums motivated for action. This essay provides an anthropological insight into this process and details the procedures of emerging collaborations, making use of field notes, anthropological self-reflection and narrative theory.
Full-text available
The purpose of this perspective article is to provide a broader viewpoint on the contents of this special issue on ‘narratives of change’ and the role of narratives not only for climate risk governance, but also for the science-society nexus at the global and local scales. Narratives of change are ambiguous; they can be narratives of risk (the technoscientific version of danger) or they can be narratives of adaptation (contributing to increase agency enhancing capacities). One common insight across the special issue relates to the multiple dimensions of change, danger and risk, implying that reductive definitions alone are often insufficient to describe and explain current political and governance processes. Complex accounts of change must help understand the many-faceted phenomenon of climate change, which will be crucial in thinking about how to meet and limit future impacts, how to envisage a future sustainable society, and how to deploy inclusive, diverse and democratic trans-disciplinary science.
Technical Report
Full-text available
How can scientific climate knowledge be transformed into locally meaningful knowledge? CoCliServ explores new ways in climate communication and shifts the focus on narratives in order to co-develop new forms of climate services for action. Narratives of change provide local knowledge, they facilitate decision-making, and they help identifying information needs and addressing local communities’ concerns, aspirations and goals. Narratives add value and meaning to scientific data about climate change and turn ‘matters of fact’ into ‘matters of concern’. Based on the mapping, analysis and interpretation of narratives of change, CoCliServ develops vision-based scenarios, deploying an incremental and community-led strategy. Exemplary collaborative relationships between climate science and local communities will be established in five representative case-studies: in Bergen / Norway; in the Jade Bay area in Lower Saxony / Germany; in Dordrecht / Netherlands; in St. Pierre / Kerourien and in the Golf du Morbihan in France. In this report, we present the results of D1.3. After the mapping of narratives in D1.1. (Krauß et al., 2018 a) and the chronology and in-depth analysis of weather-related local narratives in D1.2 (Krauß et al. 2018 b),in this deliverable we document and analyse place-specific excerpts of interviews and protocols. These excerpts serve to outline a corpus of narratives for the co-development of climate services for action. This choice of narratives serves to frame and to provide content for scenario building (WP2) and climate services (WP3), and is in some cases in alignment with (prospective or already active) citizen scientists and artists. The goal is to present selected narratives of change based on interview and protocol excerpts in order to • characterise place-specific conflict or problem constellations • identify the issues at stake and the relevant actors involved • outline desired futures on this basis In doing so, D 1.3 seeks to provide the link between the work packages 1 and 2 as abasis for the co-development of climate services for action.