Advertisement

The SHAPE of Effective Climate Change Communication: Taking a RoundView

  • Joanne TippettEmail author
  • Fraser How
Chapter
Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)

Abstract

The challenges of developing new approaches for climate change adaptation and mitigation cannot be solved unilaterally. We need to work together strategically and communicate more effectively. This requires more than just sharing a simple message—it requires widespread learning and capacity building for change. Decades of action research have led to the development of two frameworks that support this. First, the ‘SHAPE’ framework gives an understanding of the characteristics of learning initiatives for capability building. Second, the ‘RoundView’ gives a systems-based framework for understanding environmental problems. It helps people understand the underlying causes of climate change, and offers a set of positive guidelines to help us actively navigate towards a desired future. Applying the SHAPE framework in climate change communication helps make fundamental environmental ideas accessible to a wide range of people, from primary school children to board room executives. This builds skills amongst participants to both explore and respond to the issues. The aim is to increase not just participants’ capability to act, but also their motivation and enthusiasm for change, together with their ability to communicate effectively with others towards this end. This paper presents the SHAPE framework, providing a guide to key concepts and approaches to consider in the design of climate change communication and learning initiatives. It reviews evidence gathered so far regarding the efficacy of SHAPE and the RoundView in terms of increasing understanding, capacity and motivation for change.

Keywords

Sustainability education Climate change Capacity building Systems thinking Change management 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Foundational research was funded by the ESRC (PTA-026-27-0068, S42200124048), Mersey Basin Campaign, the Sustainable Consumption Institute and Tesco. Thanks to the research team on the Sustainable Consumption Institute project: Ebenhaezer le Roux, Graeme Sherriff, Pete Mann and Valerie Farnsworth. The Ellen McArthur Foundation, UNLTD, HEFCE, UMI3 and CEEBL have supported development of the RoundView learning tools. The Heritage Lottery Fund funds the Carbon Landscape project. For more information, see www.roundview.org and www.carbonlandscape.org.uk.

References

  1. Antal M, Hukkinen JI (2010) The Art of the cognitive war to save the planet. Ecol Econ 69(5):937–943CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandura A (1977) Social learning theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleischwitz R (2003) Cognitive and institutional perspectives of eco-efficiency. Ecol Econ 46(3):453–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bushe GR, Coetzer G (1995) Appreciative inquiry as a team-development intervention: a controlled experiment. J Appl Behav Sci 31(1):13–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carbon Landscape Steering Group (2016) The carbon landscape: landscape conservation action plan. Part 1 Wigan, Great Manchester Wetlands Partnership, UK. http://www.lancswt.org.uk/carbon-landscape-project
  6. Carter JG, Cavan G, Connelly A, Guy S, Handley J, Kazmierczak A (2015) Climate change and the city: building capacity for urban adaptation. Prog Plan 95:1–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooperrider DL, Diana W (1999) A positive revolution in change: appreciative inquiry. In: Appreciative inquiry: rethinking human organization toward a positive theory of change, Stipes Publishing Co, Champaign, pp 3–29Google Scholar
  8. Covey SR (1994) First things first. Simon and Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Dewey John (1938) Experience and education. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Doran PT, Zimmerman MK (2009) Examining the scientific consensus on climate change. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 90(3):22–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ehrenfeld JR (2007) Would industrial ecology exist without sustainability in the background? J Ind Ecol 11(1):73–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellen MacArthur Foundation (2014) Towards the circular economy—accelerating the scale-up across global supply chains. World Economic Forum, McKinsey & Company, England. https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/assets/downloads/publications/Towards-the-circular-economy-volume-3.pdf
  13. Ewenstein B, Whyte J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: the role of visual representations as `epistemic objects’. Organ Stud 30(1):07–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fargione J, Hill J, Tilman D, Polasky S, Hawthorne P (2008) Land clearing and the biofuel carbon debt. Science 319(5867):1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fitzherbert EB, Struebig MA, Morel A, Danielsen F, Brühl CA, Donald PF, Phalan B (2008) How will oil palm expansion affect biodiversity? Trends Ecol Evol 23(10):538–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardner H (2000) Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Gilchrist A, Barker A, Handley JF (2015) Pathways through the landscape in a changing climate: the role of landscape structure in facilitating species range expansion through an urbanised region. Landsc Res 4(1):26–44Google Scholar
  18. Gough S, Scott W (eds) (2003) Key issues in sustainable development and learning: a critical review. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Greenwood DJ, Morton L (2000) Reconstructing the relationships between universities and society through action research In: Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, California, pp 85–106Google Scholar
  20. Gregory R, Failing L, Higgins P (2006) Adaptive management and environmental decision making: a case study application to water use planning. Ecol Econ 58(2):434–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holmberg J, Robèrt KH (2000) Backcasting from non-overlapping sustainability principles—a framework for strategic planning. Int J Sustain Dev World Ecol 7:291–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jarvis P, Holford J, Griffin C (2005) The theory and practice of learning. RoutledgeFalmer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Jonassen L, Rohrer-Murphy (1999) activity theory as a framework for designing constructivist learning environments. Educ Tech Res Dev 47(1):61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  25. Lakoff G, Johnson M (1999) Philosophy in the flesh, the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Martin S (2008) Sustainable development, systems thinking and professional practice. J Educ Sustain Dev 2(1):31–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McDonough W, Braungart M (2002) Cradle to cradle: remaking the way we make things. North Point Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. McDonough W, Braungart M, Anastas PT, Zimmerman JB (2003) Peer reviewed: applying the principles of green engineering to cradle-to-cradle design. Environ Sci Technol 37(23):434A–441ACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McWilliam E, Haukka S (2008) Educating the creative workforce: new directions for twenty-first century schooling. Br Edu Res J 34(5):651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Meadows D (1996) Envisioning a sustainable world. In: Costanza R, Segura O, Martinez-Alier O (eds) Getting down to earth, practical applications of ecological economics. Island Press, Washington DC, pp 117–128Google Scholar
  31. Pelling M, High C (2005) Understanding adaptation: what can social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity? Glob Environ Chang Part A 15(4):308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robèrt KH (2000) Tools and concepts for sustainable development, how do they relate to a general framework for sustainable development, and to each other? J Clean Prod 8(3):243–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith D (2003) Engaging in change management—transformation through sustainability strategy at Norm Thompson outfitters. In: Ants, Galileo, Gandhi (eds) Designing the future of business through nature, Genius and Compassion, Green Leaf Publishing Ltd, Sheffield, pp 93–108Google Scholar
  34. Stein A, Moser C (2014) Asset planning for climate change adaptation: lessons from cartagena, Colombia. Environ Urban 26(1):166–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tansey J (2006) Industrial ecology and planning: assessing and socially embedding green technological systems. Environ Plan 33(3):381–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tippett J, Valerie F, Fraser H, Ebenhaezer Le R, Pete M, and Graeme S. 2009. Improving sustainability skills and knowledge in the workplace- final project report. Sustainable Consumption Institute, Manchester. http://roundview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Skills_in_the_workplace_SCI_Project_Report_July20091.pdf
  37. Tippett J (2010) Scaling-up: learning to embed sustainability skills and knowledge in the workplace—final project report, Sustainable Consumption Institute, Manchester. http://roundview.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Skills_in_the_workplace_SCI_Project_Report_July20091.pdf
  38. Tippett J, Handley JF, Ravetz J (2007) Meeting the challenges of sustainable development—a conceptual appraisal of a new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Prog Plan 67(1):1–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Walters CJ, Holling CS (1990) Large-scale management experiments and learning by doing. Ecology 71(6):2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Planning and Environmental Management, School of Environment, Education and DevelopmentThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.How Creative, Independent ConsultantManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations