Abstract
In a recent article on climate change and recognition of the need for adaptation, Dannevig and Hovelsrud (Clim Chang 135:261–275, 2016) conclude that climate change is not salient in fisheries on the Lofoten Islands in Northern Norway. This commentary scrutinizes this conclusion. Empirical findings rather indicate that the Lofoten fishers do indeed frame climate change as a problem and acknowledge the need for adaptive response; however, mental barriers are likely to mask existing climate change salience. Based on the authors’ line of argument and insights from psychology, this contribution aims to extend their debate and stimulate discussion by drawing attention to the impacts of mental barriers. A particular focus is thereby laid on the role of cognitive dissonance and hard-wired emotions.
Highlights
I read with great interest the recent important article by Dannevig and Hovelsrud (Climate Change 135:261–275, 2016) on understanding the need for climate change adaptation in natural resource-dependent communities on the Lofoten Islands in Northern Norway
By drawing on the cultural theory of risks (CTR) and the concept of issue salience, the authors explore the relationship between different occupational groups, climate change concern, and willingness to adapt to climate change
I believe that, sharing a similar research focus, drawing on a qualitative research approach and exploring the Lofoten Islands as the same case study site, the notable discrepancy between Dannevig and Hovelsrud’s and my research findings can be explained by our different conceptual approaches, emphasis on intrapsychic processes, and depth of narratives
Summary
I read with great interest the recent important article by Dannevig and Hovelsrud (Climate Change 135:261–275, 2016) on understanding the need for climate change adaptation in natural resource-dependent communities on the Lofoten Islands in Northern Norway. In-depth analysis and insights from psychology and neuroscience are required to uncover the cognitive and emotional processes and underlying reasons that hold the fishers back from facing the challenges head on and translating problem-recognition into more offensive and observable behavior This commentary aims to stimulate further thoughts and interdisciplinary research by contrasting my own results with those of Dannevig and Hovelsrud and exemplifying how mental barriers are likely to mask existing climate change salience. I do claim—in line with recent scientific reviews and reports (e.g., Gifford 2011; Norgaard 2009; van Putten et al 2015)—that research on climate change salience that, for instance, solely adopts an anthropological lens and disregards the psychological role of mental barriers falls too short to adequately approach the (often hidden) complexity of people’s meaning making It bears the risk of overlooking contradictory beliefs as subtle signs of climate salience, misinterpreting interview statements, and drawing misleading and onesided conclusions. 43 problem-centered interviews with narrative sequences (including probing questions to elicit deeper levels of thinking and feeling) were carried out; 31 of these with small-scale fishers (mostly lasting between 2 and 5 h), the rest with fish buyers, other local residents, environmental charities and organizations, representatives from the municipalities, and fisheries officials
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.
