Abstract
Climate change is globally defined as a “reality”. This does not mean however that the way in which it is understood is the same all over the world. Rather, perceptions may differ at different places and times, even if physical and geographical conditions are similar. For the time being, this phenomenon has not been dealt with on a theoretical-conceptual level. The article will address this desiderate. Based on the approaches of social constructivism as well as actor-network theory, a theoretical concept will be suggested as a heuristic model for empirical analysis. By the examples of Lübeck and Rostock, two cities on Germany’s Baltic coast, it will be shown that climate change related perceptions of vulnerability and resilience may build on physical-material aspects but that they are above all considerably interwoven with specific cultural and social patterns of interpretation. In the framework of the local discourse in Lübeck, it is the strong Hanseatic tradition which consumes the climate change issue, whereas in Rostock it is the problems and historical breaks of a transformation society which shape the way of viewing climate change.
Highlights
IntroductionClimate change cannot be observed in everyday life. What can be observed is a spatially and temporally limited clustering of (extreme) weather events
Climate Change as a Social ConstructionClimate change cannot be observed in everyday life
Even if climate change is globally conceived of being a reality and even if societies are aware that they might be vulnerable and that they should develop measures to build resilience, this does not mean that the way in which climate change and related vulnerabilities or resiliencies are understood is the same all over the world
Summary
Climate change cannot be observed in everyday life. What can be observed is a spatially and temporally limited clustering of (extreme) weather events. In the first two sections, we will reflect on the weaknesses in detail, which we see in previous concepts of vulnerability and resilience (Section 2), to by way of an approach by Christmann and Ibert [24] suggest an extended concept (Section 3) This concept results from proposals by social constructivism, the actor-network theory (in order to integrate physical-material and perceptual-immaterial factors) as well as a relational understanding of space. A system is in a specific way vulnerable or resilient due to specific, objectively measurable external and internal factors [36] This understanding is widespread among the natural sciences and among social-scientific approaches. This means for example that ideas about resilience and concrete measures for resilience building, such as against floods, may change during or after floods
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
