How Stakeholders Handle Uncertainty
in a Local Climate Adaptation Governance Network
Supplementary material
, June 2014
Introduction
In my analysis I used the Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD) (Keller 2011). This discourse analysis approach shouldnot be confused with qualitative content analysis (QCA) approaches (see e.g. Mayring 2000). While QCA approaches focus on content whichis explicitly mentioned in the analysed material (in the interview transcripts or documents), the SKAD takes an interpretative perspective. For this interpretation, no single quotations of single interviewees are used but rathera cluster of quotes of from diverse interviewees framed by the research question (and by the analysis framework) which is embedded in the specific interview situation and case study context. The following excerpts serve as illustrative examples for the analysis. I hope for readers whoare familiar with interpretative approaches and similar case studies it is interesting to read the quotations from my interview material.
Selected interview quotations for illustration
Knowledge about climate change- the drivers, the impacts and related uncertainties- is basically known. Some interviewees have a sound understanding of this issue:
‘Development in China and other countries will be decisive; how it looks and the climate change ..eh, will be stabilised a little bit .. or .. whether it will continue like this without any limits’ (I15-72).[1]
‘Climate change is not a steady story, rather it oscillates around a fixed middle point, then somewhat depicts a trend’ (I20-18).
The available climate change knowledge is sound and uncertainties are not problematic (I32-31, I3-72, I15-9). With regard to the actors in this region, one said:
‘I estimate the knowledge to be good in so far as actors know at least roughly what is potentially incumbent on us. So to know the rough scenarios’ (I14-50).
Only a few interviewees give the impression that they do not know enough about climate change and its potential impacts. They do not know enough to worry about it and to expound the problemsof uncertainty. Even if they are asked directly, the whole issue does not seem to be a problem (I16-33). This is a known challenge of awareness raising. If an individual does not know enough to be interested then the available information will not reach them:
‘[Those] who want to obtain information know quite a bit already I would say, but.…[those]who are now a little bit immune against new information or do not have any thoughts about that also know nothing. So you have to endeavour on your own to get information’ (I13-63).
Quite a few interviewees already implemented no-regret adaptation measures independent of whether they believe in climate change, if they are sceptical or if they tend to be ignorant of climate change. Yet even with scepticism about climate change and emphasising the huge uncertainty of climate change impact projections, some do not disclaim the whole issue (I26-29,74). Some interviewees compare recent years with historical analogies (what older generations say) and rather react with long-term no-regret adaptation measures (such as plough less, soil cultivation or pig fattening) (I16-27,29; I17-37).
‘Well, I think the knowledge we have has been promoted in a good way, many have contemplated that, so one does not know if that will really happen ... that’s why we have developed no-regret adaptation measures.’ (I23-67).
‘I believe one can know more today. But I believe one also doesn’t have to know that much incredibly more, (…). Also the certainty of the prognosis has to increase. Surely you will need basic research now especially in reference to particular protection of species or so, if you now have very specific questions but now in general I believe I would say at first ‘No research for another 15 years’ but preferably: counteractive measures…’ (I10-45).
Adaptation to climate change is not seen as qualitatively new compared to adaptation to the dynamics of structural change, markets, policies and seasonal weather conditions or typical innovation processes.
‘Adaptation processes are actually nothing special […] agriculture and the rural area have an amount of adaptation behind them.’ (I4-51)
‘(…) you must not see it statically in any case. Conducting agriculture does not mean to continue in a classic manner as it has happened until now. (…). You have to be open to all thoughts!` (I18-59).
One interviewee formulated an interesting broad scepticism for climate models and science. In the next example you see that after disclaiming the climate change argument with probability, the first context quotation shows a strong avoidance ofhaving to change one’s own behaviour. This is unique in this stakeholder group as others have some reasonable suggestions on how they should adapt to climate change. The second context quotation shows that this scepticismis not limited to climate research but to scientific results in general. The interviewee’s reference to ‘common sense’ should be understood as ‘my common sense’. In interpreting this interview in comparison with the entire data sample, the ‘blissful’ suspicion is substantiated. It seems to be an effective strategy for avoiding any outside interference.
The question was: ‘Do we/you know enough about climate change?’ The answer was:
‘It’s all speculation, the computer models are known […] the impacts are on the table […] I don’t believe that will happen this way […] I do doubt the probability.’ (I24-31).
1st context: Q: Is there a need to change? A: Not for us! The farmers have to adapt to climate change. (I24-17).
2nd context: A: The bondage to computer simulation is dangerous [...] we cannot simulate the complexity of nature, only an abstract variation [...] what we need is common sense. (I24-97).
More generally, when asked about the knowledge deficits of the stakeholder, the answer relates to uncomfortable knowledge with an uneasy reaction once the knowledge is realised. Formulated with a touch of black humour, this conflict is framed from the environmental side:
‘There are perhaps shortfalls at the lower water agency. Or shortfalls in so far as you do not want to see some things perhaps. Or it is too complicated (laughing) (…) Yes, then you would also have to ..prohibit the farmers for example even to institute further water extraction points for irrigation. And that will cause difficulties (I41-53).
The next quotation demonstrate the uncomfortable feeling:
Q: Does one know enough? Do the people know enough? A: (sighs) That’s what I think. Because ..well that, that .. yes but. That the knowledge is existing, but whether one really accepts it and by this I say I am also concerned (I20-45).
In a subsequent statement the interviewee indicates the uncomfortable conflict between knowledge and behaviour. The climate change knowledge would force the authorities to protect the environment by banning the use of groundwater. This would cause economic losses for farmers that could threaten their livelihood. This is demonstrated by a person of the authority
‘As said, it is very difficult generally, when it is time [knowledge proves that the environment is harmed by irrigation], to go there and stop the sprinkler irrigation fountains’ (I7-149).
References
Keller R (2011) The Sociology of Knowledge Approach to Discourse (SKAD). Human Studies 34 (1):43-65. doi:10.1007/s10746-011-9175-z
Mayring P (2000) Qualitative Content Analysis [28 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Social Research [Online Journal] 1 (2),
[1]Quotes are labelled with an interview and paragraph number. For reasons of anonymity, they are not linked to the stakeholder group.