Value-Driven Transformation

Our individual and collective values influence how we interact with one another and the world around us. Understanding dominant societal values, and those required to be resilient in the face of climate change, can help us conceptualize the process of transformation. The four pairs of contrasting values explored below lay out potential paths forward. These values are not presented as an either/or, but rather exist both on a spectrum and in conjunction with one another.

Growth & Sustainability

Growth and sustainability have become common buzz words in climate change adaptation and mitigation discourse. The hyper-focus on growth of fiscal and material resources in our profit-driven society has put our once-resilient ecosystems in peril. Rather than seeing growth and sustainability as concepts in opposition, it is important to instead emphasize the potential for their coordination. Climate innovation can then be succeeded by more sustainable growth – both of which are vital for transformation. As we move forward into considerable environmental hardship, particularly in vulnerable regions, it is important to consider how these values will contribute to their ability to transform and become more resilient.

Our practice of growth to date has been highly destructive to the environment. Since the Industrial Revolution, increasing greenhouse gas emissions have generally been a consequence of our economic growth.¹ In recent years, high-income nations have made steps to decouple GDP growth from these harmful environmental practices, with varying degrees of success. While greater efficiency of production facilitates the process of decoupling growth and environmental degradation, the rate of this decoupling cannot keep up with the substantial stress on our planet’s resources. Consequently, as our collective environmental footprint massively outweighs the capacity of our environmental resources, now we are faced with reversing the trend.²

It has been found that the use of fossil fuels and other finite natural resources is actually a considerable drain on the potential of our global GDP growth long-term. These nonrenewable resources often produce diminishing returns to scale, i.e. any increase in inputs towards production results in a less than proportional output. Non-renewables are far less influential on growth in the long-run than investments into innovation that might allow us to better make use of our precious resources.² For example, harmful global mining practices exploit finite reserves of energy and thus keep our growth constrained in a cyclical pattern of extraction and expenditure. Conversely, the innovative shift to the unconstrained infinite capacities of resources such as solar and wind power can lead to more sustainable GDP growth as these resources are non-depletable. There are, however, concerns that existing green innovations have not reached the point where they match current goals for exponential growth supported by investment in non-renewable resources. Consequently, a value-shift is required to place emphasis on building a sustainable system with long-term social, environmental, and economic profit.

The only way forward is sustainable growth. Sustainable growth is defined as the process by which the needs of the present are met without compromising the needs of future generations.³ This value adjustment can redefine our conception of growth to one that places emphasis on ideas and innovations rather than material consumption. This process is feasible as economic growth is measured by the value of outputs as determined by the participants in said market. Consequently, the less value placed on material goods and the environmentally harmful practices used to obtain them and a greater value placed on infinite resources beyond physical capacity, sustainable growth can emerge as a cornerstone to transformative resilience.

The concept of sustainability and its applicability in rural resilience to threats of climate change and ecosystem disruption is further explored in the subsequent chapter.

Individualism & Collectivism

As previously explored in Chapter 6, individuals from rural communities may share several core values and identities which allow them to embody a collectivist culture. Community collectivism emphasizes the needs and goals of a group over the needs of individuals. Members also tend to not live in isolation, but rather depend on one another in countless ways.⁴ Thus, when confronted with an issue like climate change, decisions are made by a group of people working together to achieve a common objective. Finding value in being part of a group can also increase the willingness to engage in pro-environmental activities.⁵ This behaviour can be attributed to a collectivist’s perception of the intractability of climate change. By looking at climate action as a collective mission, they consider each small contribution meaningful. This makes them less likely to recognize that climate change is intractable, and thus, are more likely to address environmental problems.⁵

Individualism, on the other hand, emphasizes personal freedom, accomplishments, and innovations.⁵ While this can make collective action more difficult as individuals are more likely to value their own well-being and pursue their own interests, it fosters a society of openness.⁶ A society based on freedom of expression and self-actualization encourages individuals to stand out and make decisions that are consistent with their own well-being and personal values. In the context of a changing climate, and thus a changing world, there is no greater force for progress than innovation and intellectual nonconformism.

Rural communities are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change and, consequently, both the values of collectivism and individualism should be cultivated as they each bring important and distinct strengths. Individualism for the benefit of the greater community is an approach that can highlight the values of each perspective in order to adapt more successfully to the effects of climate change. By individuals achieving self-actualization through innovation, ultimately contributing to a collective goal, transformation in response to changing conditions can occur.

Long-term & Short-term

It’s easy to write-off climate change as a problem for future generations or to justify inaction by prioritizing short-run concerns. This thinking has persisted and dictated approaches to climate change on global, national, and regional levels for decades. The conundrum of long-term mitigation and adaptation to a sometimes illusive threat such as climate change and the seemingly more immediate problems facing us on a daily basis is a challenging one to grapple with. It is, however, vital that we re-think these perceptions of risk in order to transform our systems to confront climate change. The most recent 2022 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lays out some stark statistics, reporting that 40% of the world’s population is “highly vulnerable” to the effects of climate change.⁷ If this is the current status of our world, what will these statistics look like 30 years from now? Society’s dominant values are not currently aligned with those necessary to enact climate change mitigation and adaptation.

The Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC focuses on the implications of climate change for sustainable economic development including the challenges to creating targeted policies to mitigate and adapt to climate change. One of these obstacles is finding a way to deal with our current economic short-term targets while still considering what is necessary to reduce the impact of climate change on our collective future. Daniel Kahneman’s book ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ is included in the IPCC report as a framework for linking intuitive thinking with deliberate thinking. Intuitive thinking is a common practice in short-term rationale as it is based on past experiences and emotions. Conversely, deliberate thinking employs a more systematic analysis with an emphasis on cost-benefit analysis and long-term priorities.⁸ This view of interconnectedness and forward-looking strategy building is conducive to climate change mitigation and preparedness.

In order to develop long-term priorities, based on deliberate thinking, past experiences, and emotions characteristic of intuitive thinking need to be directed toward climate change preparedness. In particular, our perceptions of risk associated with the impending climate impacts. People tend to assess risk based on available information, more specifically their lived experience. Once someone experiences a low-probability risk they are more likely to make preparations to limit the chances of it happening again.⁹ Because extreme climate events may not have directly impacted an individual, hence deemed low-probability, there is less likelihood that long-term plans will be devised to prepare and limit potential effects.⁸ Employing these tactics of restructuring our intuitive thinking, coupled with the practice of deliberate thinking that is more commonplace with climate change policy, more effective change is possible.

This approach to short- versus long-term thinking is also applicable on a smaller scale, for example values driving priorities in rural geographies. Because rural communities experience the brunt of climate change impacts at a greater speed and ferocity than more urban centres, prioritization of climate change strategy is on a shortened time frame.¹⁰ There remains, however, a lack of clear direction on short-term support for adaptation, considerations of vulnerability to the effects of climate change and long-term resilience planning.

It is important to emphasize the value of youth perspectives as their future is impacted by our present, short-term, and destructive decision-making. Leveraging the power of young voices to advocate for long-term thinking for their own futures is vital. Chapter 9 will further explore the role of youth, particularly in rural communities, in the future of resilience action. Appreciation of the importance of Indigenous Ways of Knowing is also a tool to reorient our thinking on climate change.

Top-down & Bottom-up

Top-down and bottom-up approaches to system level change are often viewed as mutually exclusive. Top-down strategies employ policy to encourage behaviour change, while a bottom-up approach aims to impact policy through behaviour change. Bottom-up action is appealing because the barriers to entry are low and there is potential for significant impact if a large number of people buy in. Conversely, while top-down strategies may have greater barriers to entry and take much longer to enact, they may be taken more seriously or have a farther reach. When it comes to the capacity for transformative resilience and system level change in relation to climate change preparation and adaptation, effective strategies will couple top-down and bottom-up approaches in order to enact change on multiple levels.

The current international climate change policy is transitioning to adapt to a ‘hybrid’ decentralized approach that combines country level mitigation and adaptation efforts with common principles for accountability and measurement.¹¹ Our current dependence on policy to change how we deal with our collective concerns has largely failed when it comes to climate change. The slow moving processes of top-down strategy are often insufficient to make lasting impacts on such a large issue. The emerging appreciation of bottom-up action to change policy has potential to be influential when adopted on a large scale. But what about action on a smaller scale? How could these approaches be combined to prepare rural communities for possible ecosystem disruptions?

It should be acknowledged that there is an inherent hierarchy in the process of decision-making, those with the most power, greatest influence, and loudest voices often benefit from top-down approaches. However, rural systems provide an opportunity to leverage the power of small systems to make a big change. Generally, top-down approaches to environmental concerns tend to focus on quantitative risk assessments for long term climate models, for example the impact a flood may have on the economy of a certain region. These strategies have been criticized for a lack of critical engagement with the socioeconomic or sociocultural considerations that underpin factors such as the political process or unequal impacts on various social groups.¹²

Bottom-up approaches more often exist on smaller scales and focus on physical, social, or ecological processes that impact climate. With this understanding, resilient structures can be conceptualized as those that are nimble and adaptable to shocks to the system and are built on a foundation of local influence and expertise. The lower level barriers of entry characteristic of bottom-up strategies are more conducive to these efforts. Smaller-scale systems change, like in rural communities, through engagement strategies that are more commonplace, such as volunteerism, has the capacity to spur policy-makers to adopt a more traditionalist top-down approach to leverage these existing bottom-up initiatives.