Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 157, Issue 1, pp 115–131 | Cite as

Ensuring climate services serve society: examining tribes’ collaborations with climate scientists using a capability approach

  • Scott E. KalafatisEmail author
  • Kyle Powys Whyte
  • Julie C. Libarkin
  • Chris Caldwell
Article

Abstract

Interest in climate service efforts continues to grow. However, more critical analysis could enhance how well climate services align with the needs of society. Collaborations between Native American Tribes (Tribes) and Climate Science Organizations (CSOs) providing decision-support for climate change planning accentuate the potential for climate services to have social justice implications through either deepening or softening existing inequities. This paper compares 30 Tribe-affiliated and 36 CSO-affiliated individuals’ perceptions about potential harms and benefits associated with their collaborations with one another. The importance of the potential benefits of collaborations listed outweighed the potential harms listed for both groups, but while climate science organizations rated the potential benefits listed slightly higher than Tribes did, the potential harms listed were much more salient for Tribes. This finding highlights concerns that, without proper training and management, these collaborations may reinforce unequal relationships between settler and Indigenous populations. While CSOs appeared cognizant of their Tribe-affiliated colleagues’ concerns, transitioning from a focus on building trust to establishing and sustaining shared systems of responsibilities might help these collaborations meet the needs of both groups more effectively.

Notes

Acknowledgments

It would not have been possible without the insights generously provided by our interviewees and Caitlin Kirby’s, Citralina Haruo’s, Brandon Boyd’s, and Yun-Jia Lo’s contributions. We would also like to extend a special thanks to the project participants who in person or remotely attended a 2-day workshop at the College of Menominee Nation in which the results were discussed and actions were outlined for moving forward with improving collaboration in climate science. Finally, we would like to thank our anonymous reviewers for helping enhance this paper.

Funding information

NSF Grant #1540314 supported this project.

Supplementary material

10584_2019_2429_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 31 kb)

References

  1. Baines TS, Lightfoot HW, Benedettini O, Kay JM (2009) The servitization of manufacturing; a review of literature. J Manuf Technol Manag 20:547–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartunek JM, Moch MK (1987) First-order, second-order, and third-order change and organization development interventions: a cognitive approach. J Appl Behav Sci 23:483–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck U (2010) Climate for change, or how to create a green modernity? Theory Cult Soc 27:254–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck U (2015) Emancipatory catastrophism: what does it mean to climate change and risk society? Curr Sociol 63:75–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bockstael E, Watene K (2016) Indigenous peoples and the capability approach: taking stock. Oxf Dev Stud 44:265–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bremer S, Meisch S (2017) Co-production in climate change research: reviewing different perspectives. WIREs Clim Chang 8:e482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Briley L, Brown D, Kalafatis SE (2015) Overcoming barriers during the co-production of climate information for decision-making. Climate Risk Manag 9:41–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colombi BJ (2012) Salmon and the adaptive capacity of Nimiipuu (Nez Perce) culture to cope with change. Am Indian Q 36:75–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. CTKW (Climate and Traditional Knowledges Workgroup) (2014) Guidelines for considering traditional knowledges in climate change initiativesGoogle Scholar
  10. De Winter JCF, Dodou D (2010) Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon. Pract Assess Res Eval 15Google Scholar
  11. Dilling L, Lemos MC (2011) Creating usable science: opportunities and constraints for climate knowledge use and their implications for science policy. Glob Environ Chang 21:680–689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerlak AK, Guido Z, Vaughan C et al (2017) Building a framework for process-oriented evaluation of regional climate outlook forums. Weather Clim Soc 10:225–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gigler B-S (2005) Indigenous peoples, human development and the capability approach. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Capability Approach. UNESCO, Paris, p 2005Google Scholar
  14. Grijalva JM (2008) Closing the circle: environmental justice in Indian country. Carolina Academic Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  15. Guston DH (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: an introduction. Sci Technol Hum Values 26:399–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harding A, Harper B, Stone D, O’Neill C, Berger P, Harris S, Donatuto J (2011) Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues. Environ Health Perspect 120:6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harjanne A (2017) Servitizing climate science—institutional analysis of climate services discourse and its implications. Glob Environ Chang 46:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hodge FS (2012) No meaningful apology for American Indian unethical research abuses. Ethics Behav 22:431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Houser S, Teller V, MacCracken M, Gough R, Spears P (2001) Potential consequences of climate variability and change for native peoples and homelands. In: Climate change impacts on the United States: the potential consequences of climate variability and change: foundation, pp 351–377Google Scholar
  20. Huambachano MA (2015) Food security and indigenous peoples knowledge: El Buen Vivir-Sumaq Kawsay in Peru and Tē Atānoho, New Zealand, Māori-New Zealand. Food Stud Interdisciplinary J 5:33–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kalafatis SE, Lemos MC, Lo Y-J, Frank KA (2015) Increasing information usability for climate adaptation: the role of knowledge networks and communities of practice. Glob Environ Chang 32:30–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalafatis SE, Libarkin JC, Whyte KP, Caldwell C (2019) Utilizing the dynamic role of objects to enhance cross-cultural climate change collaborations. Weather Clim Soc 11(1):113–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kalafatis SE, Neosh J, Whyte KP, Libarkin J, Caldwell C (Under Review) Experiential learning processes informing climate change decision supportGoogle Scholar
  24. Kirby C, Haruo C, Whyte KP, Libarkin JC, Caldwell C, Edler R (2019) Training is needed to collaborate ethically: partnerships between native American tribes and climate science organizations. Gateways: International Journal of Community Engagement (January 2019)Google Scholar
  25. Kirchhoff CJ, Lemos MC, Dessai S (2013) Actionable knowledge for environmental decision making: broadening the usability of climate science. Annu Rev Environ Resour 38:393–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. LaDuke W (2016) Indigenous environmental perspectives: a North American primer. In: Lobo S, Talbot S, Morris TL (eds) Native American voices: a reader, 3rd edn. Routledge, New York, pp 370–380Google Scholar
  27. Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Ramprasad V (2012) Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat Clim Chang 2:789–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemos MC, Kirchhoff CJ, Kalafatis SE, Scavia D, Rood RB (2014) Moving climate information off the shelf: boundary chains and the role of RISAs as adaptive organizations. Weather Clim Soc 6(2):273–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maldonado JK, Lazrus H, Bennett S et al (2016) The story of rising voices: facilitating collaboration between indigenous and Western ways of knowing. In: Companion M, Chaiken MS (eds) Responses to disasters and climate change: understanding vulnerability and fostering resilience. CRC Press, New York, pp 15–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maynard NG (ed) (1998) Native peoples-native homelands climate change workshop, final report, October 28–November 1, 1998. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Albuquerque, NMGoogle Scholar
  31. McNeeley SM (2017) Sustainable climate change adaptation in Indian country. Weather Clim Soc 9:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Norton-Smith K, Lynn K, Chief K et al (2016) Climate change and indigenous peoples: a synthesis of current impacts and experiences. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-944. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  33. Nussbaum M (2003) Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Fem Econ 9:33–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Porter JJ, Dessai S (2017) Mini-me: why do climate scientists’ misunderstand users and their needs? Environ Sci Policy 77:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ransom JW, Ettenger KT (2001) ‘Polishing the Kaswentha’: a Haudenosaunee view of environmental cooperation. Environ Sci Pol 4:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reo NJ, Whyte KP, McGregor D, Smith MA, Jenkins JF (2017) Factors that support Indigenous involvement in multi-actor environmental stewardship. AlterNative 13:58–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Robeyns I (2005) The capability approach: a theoretical survey. J Hum Dev 6:93–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Robeyns I (2006) The capability approach in practice. J Polit Philos 14:351–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rousseau DM, Sitkin SB, Burt RS, Camerer C (1998) Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Acad Manag Rev 23:393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Schlosberg D, Carruthers D (2010) Indigenous struggles, environmental justice, and community capabilities. Glob Environ Politics 10:12–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schuck-Zöller S, Cortekar J, Jacob D (2017) Evaluating co-creation of knowledge: from quality criteria and indicators to methods. Adv Sci Res 14:305–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sen A (1989) Development as capability expansion. J Dev Plan 19:41–58Google Scholar
  43. Sen A (2009) The idea of justice. Harvard University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Simpson CF, Dilling L, Dow K, Lackstrom KJ, Lemos MC, Riley RE (2016) Assessing needs and decision contexts: RISA approaches to engagement research. In: Parris AS, Garfin GM, Dow K, Meyer R, Close SL (eds) Climate in context: science and society partnering for adaptation. Wiley, West Sussex, pp 3–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith LT (2013) Decolonizing methodologies: research and indigenous peoples, 2nd edn. Zed Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  46. TallBear K (2013) Native American DNA: tribal belonging and the false promise of genetic science. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tosey P, Visser M, Saunders MNK (2011) The origins and conceptualizations of ‘triple-loop’ learning: a critical review. Manag Learn 43:291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Trosper RL (2002) Northwest coast indigenous institutions that supported resilience and sustainability. Ecol Econ 41:329–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tsosie R (2013) Climate change and indigenous peoples: comparative models of sovereignty. Tulane Environ Law J 26:239–257Google Scholar
  50. Vaughan C, Dessai S (2014) Climate services for society: origins, institutional arrangements, and design elements for an evaluation framework. WIREs Clim Chang 5:587–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vogel J, Letson D, Herrick C (2017) A framework for climate services evaluation and its application to the Caribbean agrometeorological initiative. Climate Services 6:65–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker M, Unterhalter E (2007) The capability approach: its potential for work in education. In: Walker M, Unterhalter E (eds) Amartya Sen’s capability approach and social justice in education. Palgrave Macmillan, United States, pp 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Watene KPM (2011) Strengthening the capability approach: the foundations of the capability approach, with insights from two challenges. Ph.D. Thesis. University of St. AndrewsGoogle Scholar
  54. Weaver J (1996) Defending mother earth: Native American perspectives on environmental justice. Orbis Books, MaryknollGoogle Scholar
  55. Webber S, Donner SD (2017) Climate service warnings: cautions about commercializing climate science for adaptation in the developing world. WIREs Clim Chang 8:e424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Whyte KP (2013) Justice forward: tribes, climate adaptation and responsibility. Clim Chang 120:517–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Whyte KP (2017) The Dakota access pipeline, environmental injustice and U.S. colonialism. Red Ink- An International Journal of Indigenous Literature, Arts and Humanities 19(1):154–169Google Scholar
  58. Whyte KP (2018) Critical investigations of resilience: a brief introduction to indigenous environmental studies & sciences. Daedalus 147(2)Google Scholar
  59. Williams T, Hardison P (2013) Culture, law, risk and governance: contexts of traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation. Clim Chang 120(3):531–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Falk School of SustainabilityChatham UniversityGibsoniaUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Earth and Environmental SciencesMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.College of Menominee Nation Sustainable Development InstituteKeshenaUSA

Personalised recommendations