Advertisement

A Model to Integrate University Education Within Cultural Traditions for Climate Change Resilience

  • Keith MorrisonEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

A community-based learning-system model is outlined. The model has been constructed to frame university education and research as interacting with cultural traditions, so as to understand how to better use university education to enhance climate change adaptation within the South Pacific region. The model features the learning systems involved, including the functions and purpose of the components of the learning systems. The function and purpose of education and research in the context of climate change adaptation is shown to be the critical development of innovations, so as to enhance resilience through maintaining and gaining flexibility within social-ecological systems. The adaptations can be technological or institutional, including policy development, development of institutional arrangements, and development of cultural traditions. But because of the relevance of cultural traditions to the communities of the South Pacific region, the model focuses on adaptations that involve cultural traditions interacting with education that universities can provide. The role of cultural traditions of the South Pacific region for climate change adaptation is shown to be important, and even of global significance, because South Pacific nations are at the forefront of climate change adaptation. Living, and hence developing, cultural traditions provide high adaptive capacity through facilitating the questioning of the goals and assumptions of development processes. In particular they facilitate clarification of what is of highest importance and in needing of being maintained with the highest priority. This enables non-traumatic and hence civil adaptation to climate change to proceed, through maintaining what is most valuable, so as to avoid the arising of trauma; with adaptation only changing what is of lesser importance. Flexibility is maintained by having multiple non-traumatic options to choose from. The model explores how clarification of what is of highest importance enables the ‘letting-go’ of fixation on any particular views of development; views of development that may not actually be those of the communities. The model also clarifies how letting go of ideological fixations about development goals frees up greater sensitivity to what is essential for civil society, which is care and concern for the well-being of others and the natural environment. Simultaneously the model outlines how the South Pacific region’s cultural traditions provide a resilient self-reinforcing system of civil adaptation to climate change. Finally the model explores what is essential for a university pedagogy to contribute to the resilience of climate change adaptation by the South Pacific region’s communities.

Keywords

Pedagogy Climate change Resilience Cultural tradition University 

References

  1. Argyris C, Schon DA (1996) Organisational learning II: theory, method and practice. Addison-Wesle, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackstock C (2011) The emergence of the breath of life theory. J Soc Work Val Eth 8(1):1–16Google Scholar
  3. Bossel H (1998) Earth at a crossroad: paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  4. Butler J (2004) Precarious life: the powers of mourning and violence. Verso, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer AP, Paveglio T, Carroll M, Murphy D, Brenkert-Smith H (2013) Assessing social vulnerability to climate change in human communities near public forests and grasslands: a framework for resource managers and planners. J For 111(5):357–365Google Scholar
  6. Foxon T, Reed M, Stringer L (2009) Governing long-term socio-ecological change: What can resilience and transitions approaches learn from each other? Environ Policy Govern 19:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geels FW (2002) Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case study. Res Policy 31:1257–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Giddens A (1990) The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  9. Hone L (2017) Resilient grieving: how to live with loss that changes everything. Allen & Unwin, AucklandGoogle Scholar
  10. IPPC (2014) AR5 climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson T (2017) Prosperity without growth: foundations for the economy of tomorrow. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Lauer M, Albert S, Aswani S, Halpen BS, Campanella L, La Rose D (2013) Globalisation, pacific Islands, and the paradox of resilience. Glob Environ Chang 23(1):40–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maru YT, Smith MS, Sparrow A, Pinho PF, Dube OP (2014) A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for adaptation pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Glob Environ Chang 28:337–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Maslov A (1954) Motivation and personality. Harper & Brothers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Max-Neef MA, Elizalde A, Hopenhayn M (1991) Human scale development: conception, application and further reflections. The Apex Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Mercer J (2010) Disaster risk reduction or climate change adaptation: are we reinventing the wheel? J Int Dev 22(3):247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morrison KD (2012) The promise of orthodox christianity for sustainable community development. In: Williams L, Roberts R, McIntosh A (eds) Radical human ecology: intercultural and indigenous approaches, pp 179–203. Ashgate, Farnham, SurryGoogle Scholar
  18. Morrison KD (2016) The role of traditional knowledge to frame understanding of migration as adaptation to the “slow disaster” of sea level rise in the South Pacific. In: Sudmeier-Rieux K, Jaboyedoff M, Fernandez M, Penna IM, Gaillard JC (eds) Identifying emerging issues in disaster risk reduction, migration, climate change and sustainable development, pp 249–266. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  19. Morrison KD, Singh SJ (2009) Adaptation and indigenous knowledge as a bridge to sustainability. In: Lopes Priscila, Begossi Alpina (eds) Current trends in human ecology. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon Tyne, pp 125–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Piketty T (2014) Capital in the twenty-first century. The Belknap Press of Harvard University, Cambridge, MassachusettsCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rappaport RA (1979) Ecology, meaning and religion. North Atlantic Books, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Rappaport RA (1999) Ritual and religion in the making of humanity. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raworth K (2017) Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. Random House Business Books, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Shinko T, Mecher R, Hochrainer-Stigler S (2019) The risk and policy space for loss and damage: integrating notions of distributive and compensatory justice with comprehensive risk management. In: Mecher R, Bouwer LM, Shinko T, Surminski S, Linnerooth J (eds) Loss and damage from climate change: concepts, methods and policy options, pp 83–110. Springer Open. Accessed 20th Mar 2019. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72026-5Google Scholar
  25. Tosey P, Visser M, Saunders MNK (2011) The origins and conceptualizations of triple-loop learning: a critical review. Manag Learn 43(3):291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weil S (1952) The need for roots. Routledge Classics, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sustainable Community Development Research InstituteChristchurchNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations