Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T16:41:00.785Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

32 - Toward the social tipping point: creating a climate for change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 August 2009

Susanne C. Moser
Affiliation:
National Center for Atmospheric Research
Lisa Dilling
Affiliation:
University of Colorado–Boulder
Susanne C. Moser
Affiliation:
National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder
Lisa Dilling
Affiliation:
University of Colorado, Boulder
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Over the course of the project that culminated in this book, the landscape of climate change science, communication, and related societal responses has changed remarkably – both in the United States and elsewhere. Considering the entirety of what political scientists call the global warming “issue domain” (Jenkins-Smith and Sabatier 1999; Clark et al., 2006), we have witnessed considerable movement, including the growing number of actors involved, and shifts in their “goals, interests, beliefs, strategies, and resources; the institutions that enable and constrain interactions among those actors; the framings, discourse, and agenda related to the issue; and the existing policies and behaviors of relevant actors” (Clark et al., 2006).

In this concluding chapter, we have five goals. First, we reflect on where we are in the evolution of the climate change issue domain, and then develop a simple conceptual framework to integrate the many perspectives offered in preceding chapters on the role communication can play – in principle – in facilitating social change. Next we dispel a number of myths still prevalent among communicators and social change agents that we believe hinder change. Fourth, we extract larger lessons from the chapters that could improve climate change communication and advance the evolution of this issue domain. Finally, we suggest questions for future research and action steps. The collective experience represented in this volume suggests that these research directions and action steps can further support effective communication and responses to climate change in ways that help move all levels of society toward an environmentally, economically, and socially more sustainable future.

Type
Chapter
Information
Creating a Climate for Change
Communicating Climate Change and Facilitating Social Change
, pp. 491 - 516
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79, 4, 387–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagozzi, R. P. and Lee, K.-H. (2002). Multiple routes for social influence: The role of compliance, internalization, and social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65, 3, 226–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bak, H.-J. (2001). Education and public attitudes toward science: Implications for the “deficit model” of education and support for science and technology. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 4, 779–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bamberg, S. (2003). How does environmental concern influence specific environmentally related behaviors? A new answer to an old question. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the “value–action gap” in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4, 3, 257–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, W. C., Mitchell, R. B., and Cash, D. W. (2006). Evaluating the influence of global environmental assessments. In Global Environmental Assessments: Information and Influence, eds. Mitchell, R. B., Clark, W. C., Cash, D. W., and Dickson, N.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1–28.Google Scholar
Daniel, B., Schwier, R. A., and McCalla, G. (2003). Social capital in virtual learning communities and distributed communities of practice. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 29, 3. Available at: http://www.cjlt.ca/content/vol29.3/cjlt29-3_art7.html; accessed February 15, 2006.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Field, C. B., Raupach, M. R., and Victoria, R. (2004). The global carbon cycle: Integrating humans, climate and the natural world. In The Global Carbon Cycle: Integrating Humans, Climate and the Natural World, eds. Field, C. B. and Raupach, M. R., SCOPE Report #62. Washington, DC: Island Press, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
French Jr., J. R. P. and Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In Studies in Social Power, ed. Cartwright, D.Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 150–67.Google Scholar
Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. Boston and New York: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Gunderson, L. H. and Holling, C. S. (eds.) (2001). Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Systems of Humans and Nature. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
Gunderson, L. H., Holling, C. S., and Light, S. S. (eds.) (1995). Barriers and Bridges to the Renewal of Ecosystems and Institutions. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Harremoës, P., Gee, D., MacGarvin, M., Stirling, A., Keys, J., Wynne, B., and Guedes Vaz, S. (eds.) (2002). The Precautionary Principle in the 20th Century: Late Lessons from Early Warnings. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
Jenkins-Smith, H. C. and Sabatier, P. A. (1999). The advocacy coalition framework: An assessment. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Sabatier, P. A.Boulder, CO: Westview, pp. 117–66.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. The American Economic Review, 93, 5, 1449–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kates, R. W., Clark, W. C., Corell, R., et al. (2001). Sustainability science. Science, 292, 641–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kemp, R. and Loorbach, D. (2003). Governance for sustainability through transition management. Paper presented at the Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research Community, Montreal, October 16–18.
Kemp, R. and Rotmans, J. (2004). Transitions Toward Sustainability. London, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Lehtonen, M. (2004). The environmental–social interface of sustainable development: Capabilities, social capital, institutions. Ecological Economics, 49, 2, 199–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovelock, J. (2006). The Revenge of Gaia: Why the Earth Is Fighting Back – and How We Can Still Save Humanity. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Michaelis, L. (2003). Sustainable consumption and greenhouse gas mitigation. Climate Policy, 3, S135–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, S. C. (2005). Impacts assessments and policy responses to sea-level rise in three U.S. states: An exploration of human dimension uncertainties. Global Environmental Change, 15, 353–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moser, S. C. (2007). In the long shadows of inaction: The quiet building of a climate protection movement in the United States. Global Environmental Politics, accepted for publication.CrossRef
Moyer, B. with McAllister, J., Finley, M. L., and Soifer, S. (2001). Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
National Research Council (NRC). (1999). Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward Sustainability. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelling, M. and High, C. (2005). Understanding adaptation: What can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity?Global Environmental Change, 15, 4, 308–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raskin, P., Banuri, T., Gallopin, G. C., et al. (2002). Great Transition: The Promise and Lure of Times Ahead. A Report of the Global Scenario Group. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
Raven, B. H. (1993). The bases of power: Origins and recent developments. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 4, 227–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., and Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schellnhuber, H. J., Cramer, W., Nakicenovic, N., Wigley, T., and Yohe, G. (2006). Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/internat/pdf/avoid-dangercc.pdf.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. W. (2002). Knowledge, information, and household recycling: Examining the knowledge-deficit model of behavior change. In New Tools for Environmental Protection: Education, Information, and Voluntary Measures, eds. Dietz, T. and Stern, P. C.Washington, DC: National Academy Press, pp. 67–82.Google Scholar
Schultz, P. W. and Zelezny, L. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with American values. Research in Human Ecology, 10, 2, 126–36.Google Scholar
Smit, B., et al. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, ed. IPCC Working Group II. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 877–912.
Speth, J. G. (1992). The transition to a sustainable society. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 89, 870–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Sturgis, P. and Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13, 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tainter, J. A. (1988). The Collapse of Complex Societies. New Studies in Archeology, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toth, F. L., et al. (2001). Decision-making frameworks. In Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, ed. IPCC Working Group III, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 601–88.
Yohe, G. (2001). Mitigative capacity – the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change, 49, 247–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×