Advertisement

Climate change as catastrophe or opportunity? Climate change framing and implications for water and climate governance in a drought-prone region

  • Abigail SullivanEmail author
  • Dave D. White
Original Article

Abstract

Given recent events in US climate policy, such as the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, understanding local (e.g., city and state) efforts to address climate change is increasingly imperative. Climate change–framing research has shown that people are motivated or deterred by different framing of issues in policy documents and other discourse. Considering this, there is a dearth of understanding of framing decisions in climate change–related policy documents that often inform how different levels of government communicate about and act to address climate change. We contribute a content analysis of framing in climate change–related policy documents tied to three western US cities/states (Phoenix, AZ; Denver, CO; Las Vegas, NV) that are particularly vulnerable to climate change. We discover that climate change is most frequently framed in terms of negatives/losses, both in water-related and climate change documents. Other common frames differed between the water-related and climate change–specific documents. The practical implications of climate change framing decisions are discussed in the context of recent political events in the United States. We emphasize the significance of understanding how local level actors frame climate change, as researchers and government officials have acknowledged the burden of responding to climate change progressively falls to local actors. We call for increased research on framing decisions and their connections to the perceived solution space, or suite of possible actions, to strengthen efforts by local actors to contribute to addressing climate change generally and to sustainably govern water resources specifically.

Keywords

Environmental governance Cities Urban Discourse Content analysis Climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This material is based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant SES-1462086, Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Decision Center for a Desert City III: Transformational Solutions for Urban Water Sustainability Transitions in the Colorado River Basin and the Environmental Resilience Institute, funded by Indiana University’s Prepared for Environmental Change grand challenge initiative.

Compliance with ethical standards

Disclaimer

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M et al (2008) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Chang 93:335–354.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altinay Z, Williams N (2019) Visuals as a method of coastal environmental communication. Ocean Coast Manag 178:104809.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.05.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alvarez L (2017) Mayors, sidestepping Trump, vow to fill void on climate change. New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  4. Amberg SM, Hall TE (2008) Communicating risks and benefits of aquaculture: a content analysis of US newsprint representations of farmed salmon. J World Aquacult SocGoogle Scholar
  5. Arizona Climate Change Advisory Group (2006) Climate change action planGoogle Scholar
  6. Bair LS, Yackulic CB, Schmidt JC, Perry DM, Kirchhoff CJ, Chief K, Colombi BJ (2019) Incorporating social-ecological considerations into basin-wide responses to climate change in the Colorado River Basin. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 37:14–19.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.04.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bakir V (2006) Policy agenda setting and risk communication: greenpeace, shell, and issues of trust. Harvard Int J Press/Polit 11:67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bausch JC, Eakin H, Smith-Heisters S et al (2015) Development pathways at the agriculture–urban interface: the case of Central Arizona. Agric Hum Values 32:743–759CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Benford RD, Snow DA (2000) Framing processes and social movements: an overview and assessment. Annu Rev Sociol 26:611–639CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bernard HR (2012) Social research methods: qualitative and quantitative approaches. SageGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nat Clim Chang 6:680–683.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cachelin A, Ruddell E (2013) Framing for sustainability: the impact of language choice on educational outcomes. J Environ Stud Sci 3:306–315.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0131-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cass LR (2016) Measuring the domestic salience of international environmental norms: climate change norms in American, German and British climate policy debates. In: Pettenger M (ed) The social construction of climate change: power, knowledge, norms, discourses. Routledge, pp 47–74Google Scholar
  14. DeGolia AH, Hiroyasu EHT, Anderson SE (2019) Economic losses or environmental gains? Framing effects on public support for environmental management. Plos One 14(7):e0220320.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Detenber BH, Ho SS, Ong AH, Lim NWB (2018) Complementary versus competitive framing effects in the context of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Sci Commun 40:173–198.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018758075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewulf A (2013) Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 4(4):321–330.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.227 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eriksen SH, Nightingale AJ, Eakin H (2015) Reframing adaptation: the political nature of climate change adaptation. Glob Environ Chang 35:523–533.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fairclough N (2013) Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Feinberg M, Willer R (2011) Apocalypse soon? Dire messages reduce belief in global warming by contradicting just-world beliefs. Psychol Sci 22:34–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischer F (2003) Reframing public policy: discursive politics and deliberative practices. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Fischhoff B (2007) Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: climate change. Environ Sci Technol 41:7204–7208.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es0726411 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fletcher AL (2009) Clearing the air: the contribution of frame analysis to understanding climate policy in the United States. Environ Polit 18:800–816.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903157123 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gifford R, Comeau LA (2011) Message framing influences perceived climate change competence, engagement, and behavioral intentions. Glob Environ Chang 21:1301–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gober P, Kirkwood CW (2010) Vulnerability assessment of climate-induced water shortage in Phoenix. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:21295–21299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goodrick, D. (2014). Comparative case studies: methodological briefs-impact evaluation No. 9. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucf/metbri/innpub754.html. Accessed 17 Mar 2018
  26. Hall TE, White DD (2008) Representing recovery: science and local control in the framing of U.S. Pacific Northwest salmon policy. Hum Ecol Rev 15:32–45Google Scholar
  27. Horstmann B (2008) Framing adaptation to climate change – a challenge for building institutions. DIE - Deutsches Institut für EntwicklungspolitikGoogle Scholar
  28. Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ (2012) Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. PNAS 109:7156–7161.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kowarsch M, Garard J, Riousset P, Lenzi D, Dorsch MJ, Knopf B et al (2016) Scientific assessments to facilitate deliberative policy learning. Palgrave Commun 2:16092.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.92 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krause RM (2011) Symbolic or substantive policy? measuring the extent of local commitment to climate protection. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 29:46–62.  https://doi.org/10.1068/c09185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kunreuther H, Gupta S, Bosetti V, et al (2014) Integrated risk and uncertainty assessment of climate change response policies.Google Scholar
  32. Larson KL, White DD, Gober P, Wutich A (2015) Decision-making under uncertainty for water sustainability and urban climate change adaptation. Sustainability 7:14761–14784.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su71114761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Leach M, Scoones I, Stirling A (2010) Governing epidemics in an age of complexity: narratives, politics and pathways to sustainability. Glob Environ Chang 20:369–377.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindseth G (2004) The Cities for Climate Protection Campaign (CCPC) and the framing of local climate policy. Local Environ 9:325–336.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983042000246252 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. MacDonald GM (2010) Water, climate change, and sustainability in the southwest. PNAS 107:21256–21262.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0909651107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McHugh ML (2012) Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med 22:276–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K et al (2017) Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim ChangGoogle Scholar
  38. Morton TA, Rabinovich A, Marshall D, Bretschneider P (2011) The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Glob Environ Chang 21:103–109.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nabi RL, Gustafson A, Jensen R (2018) Framing climate change: exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Sci Commun 40:442–468.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018776019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating climate change: why frames matter for public engagement. Environ Sci Policy Sustain Dev 51:12–23.  https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nisbet MC (2015) Framing, the media, and environmental communication. In: Cho H, Reimer T, McComas KA (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Risk Communication. SAGE PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  42. Nisbet EC, Hart PS, Myers T, Ellithorpe M (2013) Attitude change in competitive framing environments? open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate Change. J Commun 63:766–785.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ofori-Parku SS (2016) “Whale deaths” are unnatural: a local NGO’s framing of offshore oil production risks in Ghana. Sci Commun 38:746–775.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016677832 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Opp SM, Saunders KL (2013) Pillar talk: local sustainability initiatives and policies in the United States—finding evidence of the “three e’s”: economic development, environmental protection, and social equity. Urban Aff Rev 49:678–717.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087412469344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Patt A, Dessai S (2005) Communicating uncertainty: lessons learned and suggestions for climate change assessment. Compt Rendus Geosci 337:425–441.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crte.2004.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Patt AG, Weber EU (2014) Perceptions and communication strategies for the many uncertainties relevant for climate policy. WIREs Clim Change 5:219–232.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.259 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Plec E, Pettenger M (2012) Greenwashing consumption: the didactic framing of exxonmobil’s energy solutions. Environ Commun 6:459–476.  https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2012.720270 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Romsdahl RJ, Atkinson L, Schultz J (2013) Planning for climate change across the US Great Plains: concerns and insights from government decision-makers. J Environ Stud Sci 3:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-012-0078-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scannell L, Gifford R (2013) Personally relevant climate change: the role of place attachment and local versus global message framing in engagement. Environ Behav 45:60–85.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916511421196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scheufele DA (2000) Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Commun Soc 3:297–316.  https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0323_07 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shear MD (2017) Trump will withdraw U.S. from Paris climate agreement. New York TimesGoogle Scholar
  52. Spence A, Pidgeon N (2010) Framing and communicating climate change: the effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob Environ Chang 20:656–667.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sullivan A, White DD, Larson KL, Wutich A (2017) Towards water sensitive cities in the Colorado River basin: a comparative historical analysis to inform future urban water sustainability transitions. Sustainability 9:761.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su9050761 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tankard JW (2001) The empirical approach to the study of media framing. Framing Public Life:95–106Google Scholar
  55. Tollefson J (2017) How Trump plans to wipe out Obama-era climate rules. Nat News.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2017.21726
  56. Udall B, Overpeck J (2017) The twenty-first century Colorado River hot drought and implications for the future. Water Resour Res 53:2404–2418.  https://doi.org/10.1002/2016WR019638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. US Conference of Mayors (2017) 85th Annual Meeting Resolutions. http://legacy.usmayors.org/resolutions/85th_Conference/proposedcommittee.asp?committee=Environment. Accessed 21 Jul 2017
  58. Vanhala L, Hestbaek C (2016) Framing climate change loss and damage in UNFCCC negotiations. Glob Environ Polit 16:111–129.  https://doi.org/10.1162/GLEP_a_00379 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Walker BJA, Kurz T, Russel D (2018) Towards an understanding of when non-climate frames can generate public support for climate change policy. Environ Behav 50:781–806.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916517713299 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Watts RA, Kaza S (2013) Planning for power: frame production in an environmental conflict over the siting of a high-voltage transmission line. J Environ Stud Sci 3:247–258.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-013-0134-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. White DD (2013) Framing water sustainability in an environmental decision support system. Soc Nat Resour 26:1365–1373.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2013.788401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. White DD, Keeler LW, Wiek A, Larson KL (2015) Envisioning the future of water governance: a survey of central Arizona water decision makers. Environ Pract 17:25–35.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1466046614000489 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wiek A, Larson KL (2012) Water, people, and sustainability—a systems framework for analyzing and assessing water governance regimes. Water Resour Manag 26:3153–3171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wiest SL, Raymond L, Clawson RA (2015) Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob Environ Chang 31:187–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wise RM, Fazey I, Stafford Smith M et al (2014) Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Glob Environ Chang 28:325–336.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wutich A, York AM, Brewis A, Stotts R, Roberts CM (2012) Shared cultural norms for justice in water institutions: results from Fiji, Ecuador, Paraguay, New Zealand, and the U.S. J Environ Manag 113:370–376.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wutich A, Cardenas J-C, Lele S, Pahl-Wostl C, Rauschmayer F, Schleyer C et al (2019) Opportunities and challenges for inclusively framing water research. Rethinking Environmentalism 23:251Google Scholar
  68. Yin RK (2017) Case study research and applications: design and methods. Sage publicationsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Center for a Desert CityArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Resilience InstituteIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.School of Community Resources and DevelopmentArizona State UniversityPhoenixUSA

Personalised recommendations