HUMAN TRANSILIENCE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITIES Embracing Global Challenges as Stepping Stones, rather than Stumbling Blocks Valentina Lozano Nasi
HUMAN TRANSILIENCE IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITIES Embracing Global Challenges as Stepping Stones, rather than Stumbling Blocks Valentina Lozano Nasi
Financial support for the printing of this dissertation was received from the University of Groningen and the Kurt Lewin Institute. Cover design by Santiago Lozano (santiagolozano.com) Thesis layout by Sara Terwisscha van Scheltinga (coneofcolor.nl), Persoonlijk Proefschrift (persoonlijkproefschrift.nl) Printing: Ridderprint, www.ridderprint.nl © 2023 Valentina Lozano Nasi All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior permission of the author
To each and every one of those who try to turn adversity into opportunity.
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 General Introduction 10 2 Individual Transilience in the Face of Climate Change 22 3 Individual Transilience in the Face of the COVID-19 Pandemic 66 4 Collective Transilience in the Face of Climate Change 96 5 General Discussion 126 & Nederlandse Samenvatting References Acknowledgements Kurt Lewin Institute Dissertation Series About the author 146 150 162 166 168
General Introduction
10 chapter 1 1.1. INTRODUCTION Our time is plagued by global crises. As humans living in the 21st century, we face a seemingly unending succession of challenges, which are not limited to a few isolated incidents: from natural disasters (e.g., Hurricane Katrina in 2005, earthquake in Haiti in 2010, earthquake in Turkey in 2023) and pandemics (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic), to financial crises (e.g., the real estate market collapse in 2008) and political upheavals (e.g., the Arab Spring in 2010). Some of these events are likely to become more frequent and severe in the years to come. For example, scientists predict that natural hazards will increase due to global warming (IPCC, 2014a; 2022), and, partially because of this, there is a high threat of more pandemics in the future (Kretzschmar et al., 2022). The fact that we are vulnerable to large-scale crises, and we will remain so in the future, highlights the urgency of understanding how humans can adapt to such crises, namely how they can protect themselves and their communities whilst maintaining good mental health and quality of life. While humanity has faced crises and risks throughout history, contemporary challenges are unprecedented in their scale, scope, and complexity (Lagadec, 2009; Lagadec & Topper, 2012). As an overarching feature, these large-scale crises are characterised by great uncertainty. First, the probability, magnitude, and geographic impact of natural disasters induced by climate change, as well as the timing and location of potential future pandemics, is highly uncertain. Second, many present-time crises are characterised by a lack of clear cause-and-effect relationships (e.g., the effect of global warming on specific weather patterns is ambiguous; Trenberth et al., 2015), and crises often are sudden and unexpected in nature, such as the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Third, contemporary crises have multiple environmental, social and economic causes and impacts, which makes them much harder to predict and manage. As such, the 21st century calls for a better understanding, not only of crisis and risk management (Lagadec & Topper, 2012), but also of how humans can adapt and maintain their well-being in the face of these unprecedented challenges. Importantly, large-scale crises may have another, less obvious, consequence: they may serve as catalysts for positive change and growth. Historically, there is some evidence for this claim. For example, studies have shown that people were able to not only persist, but also flexibly adapt, and even thrive in the face of climate change in the past (Degroot et al., 2021). For instance, during the Late Antique Little Ice Age (sixth century AD) and the Little Ice Age (thirteenth to nineteenth century AD), humans adapted to climate change by introducing novel agriculture activities and water management strategies which allowed for economic expansion (Izdebski et al., 2016). Also, people shifted to new sources of energy, developed new trading methods, and
11 general introduction invented new practices and languages by migrating to different areas (Degroot et al., 2021). As another example, during the Black Death in Europe in the 14th century, the surviving population experienced significant social and economic beneficial changes that ultimately led to the end of the feudal system and the rise of the middle class (Herlihy, 1997). Additionally, medical advances were made during this time, such as the development of quarantine measures and the use of herbal remedies (Benedictow, 2004); such developments provided better awareness about preventive measures, valuable knowledge regarding disease prevention and treatment and a reduction in health risks. Thus, it seems that individuals and communities have been capable of adapting to large-scale crises in the past by doing more than ‘bouncing back’, namely doing more than merely maintaining and recovering what they had (cf. Bonanno et al., 2011; cf. Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; cf. Galli & Vealey, 2008). Remarkably, they have been able to change for the better, by exploiting new opportunities and shifting to new, better ways of life. We propose that humans can adapt also to contemporary large-scale adversities through positive change. Adapting to climate change, for instance, may help people to develop new skills, deepen their relationships with one another, and work together to build a more sustainable future (see IPCC, 2014a; 2023). As an example, citizens who implement green infrastructure solutions, such as rain gardens and green roofs, not only reduce their vulnerability to climate change, but may also seize opportunities for community engagement and for education on the importance of sustainability and environmental stewardship (Kim & Song, 2019; Parker & de Baro, 2019). In a similar way, pandemics, such as COVID-19, may help people gain more awareness about health and prevention, as well as introduce better daily habits and develop innovative ways to carry on their normal activities. For instance, when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic, many people have started to prioritise their physical and mental health by incorporating healthy habits (e.g., regular exercise, meditation) into their daily routines (Ogueji, 2022). Additionally, people report several beneficial opportunities associated with working from home (which became much more common during the pandemic), such as reduced commuting time and its associated costs, increased flexibility, and even boosted productivity (Charalampous et al., 2018; Ipsen et al., 2021). As such, recognising the possibility for positive change is key to understand how humans can adapt to contemporary adversities. Interestingly, most research studies on adaptation to contemporary adversities, like climate change, do not seem to recognise the possibility of new opportunities and positive change resulting from dealing with such adversities. This is remarkable, considering that positive change and new opportunities deriving from the confrontation with an adversity have received wide recognition in the domains of trauma and chronic 1
12 chapter 1 illnesses (Bostock et al., 2009; Carver & Antoni, 2004; Meyerson et al., 2011; Tomich & Helgeson, 2004), and that a prominent definition of climate change adaptation refers to both minimizing harm and finding new opportunities (IPCC, 2014b). Instead, the academic literature on climate change adaptation predominantly focuses on the negative consequences that climate change has for people and on possible ways to minimise them (Fritze et al., 2008; Manning & Clayton, 2018; Doherty, 2018). Similarly, the literature on adaptation to the COVID-19 pandemic typically focuses on how people showed resilience by maintaining and recovering a certain psychological equilibrium (i.e., “bouncing back”; Bozdag & Ergun, 2021; Chen & Bonanno, 2020; Luceño-Moreno et al., 2020; Riehm et al., 2021). Although it is clear that contemporary adversities present a significant threat, and that resilience is an important component of adaptation, focusing exclusively on minimising harm and maintaining the status quo constitutes a limited perspective on human adaptation to these large-scale challenges. In this PhD dissertation, we introduce the novel construct of transilience, which we define as the perceived capacity to persist, adapt flexibly, and positively transform when confronted with an adversity. As such, transilience provides a broad perspective on human adaptation in the face of adversities that acknowledges the possibility for positive change, hence that is not merely about ‘bouncing back’ to what we had. In this dissertation, we aim to address two key overarching research questions. First, do people perceive they can be transilient, and thus perceive they can persist, adapt flexibly, and positively transform in the face of large-scale adversities, in particular climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic? Second, to what extent does higher transilience promote engagement in adaptation actions and mental health in the face of such adversities? Across the chapters presented in this dissertation, we address more specific questions related to these overarching research questions. Below we elaborate on our conceptualization of transilience and the specific research questions we aim to address. 1.2 PERCEIVING TRANSILIENCE IN THE FACE OF CONTEMPORARY ADVERSITIES We theorise that transilience comprises three components. Specifically, it reflects people’s perceived capacity to persist (persistence), adapt flexibly (adaptability), and positively transform (transformability) in the face of an adversity. The first component of transilience indicates the perceived capacity to persist in the face of an adversity, thus it reflects whether people perceive they have the resources to cope and carry on in the face of it. Persistence is at the core of resilience, commonly
13 general introduction understood as the capacity to ‘bounce back’ from stressful events (Bonanno, 2004; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Galli & Vealey, 2008; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Yet, as mentioned above, we highlight that adapting to contemporary adversities may be about, not only preserving the status quo, but also challenging it, for example by finding alternative and better ways to live. As such, we propose that the (perceived) capacity to adapt to contemporary adversities is about more than persistence alone. The second component of transilience indicates the perceived capacity to adapt flexibly to an adversity, hence it reflects the extent to which people perceive a broad range of options to adapt to an adversity. Adaptability allows people to revise and switch between adaptation strategies when needed. This flexible approach may favour long-term adaptation to contemporary large-scale adversities, which likely require a variety of responses (Adger et al., 2009; Berrang-Ford et al., 2021; Cinner et al., 2018; Coccia, 2021; Reser & Swim., 2011; Vij et al., 2017, Yan et al., 2020). Adaptability differs from people’s perception of their ability to engage in certain adaptive behaviours (i.e., self-efficacy; Bandura, 1998; Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1997; Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b), as it reflects whether people perceive they have multiple options to adapt, rather than whether they think they can adapt at all. The third component of transilience indicates the perceived capacity to positively transform by adapting to contemporary adversities, hence it reflects the extent to which people perceive they can positively evolve by dealing with such adversities, for instance by learning something new. To the best of our knowledge, transformability is typically not examined in studies aiming to understand adaptive responses to contemporary challenges. Yet, as mentioned above, historical evidence and studies in other domains suggest that experiencing adversity can have beneficial effects. For example, people indicate that their lives have positively changed by dealing with health problems and trauma (Carver & Antoni, 2004; Helgeson et al., 2006), and dealing with severe childhood adversity can enable the development of unique strengths (Ellis et al., 2017; Jay, 2018). Thus, it seems plausible that contemporary adversities may also have beneficial effects, such as an increase in innovation and creativity (Fritze et al., 2008; Doherty, 2018; Degroot et al., 2021; IPCC, 2023). Transformability differs from the extent to which people think adaptation actions are effective in reducing their vulnerability to the risks (i.e. outcome efficacy; Bandura, 1998; Rogers & Prentice-Dunn, 1997; van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b), as transformability reflects whether people perceive the possibility for positive and transformative outcomes deriving from dealing with contemporary adversities. In sum, higher transilience means that people more strongly perceive they can persist in the face of a certain adversity, can have a broad range of options to deal 1
14 chapter 1 with the adversity, and can change for the better by adapting to the adversity. This dissertation sets out, first, to develop and validate a reliable instrument to measure transilience (Chapter 2), which is needed to establish whether people perceive they can be transilient in the face of contemporary adversities (and to test whether higher transilience promotes adaptation actions and mental health). The transilience scale should capture well the three theorised components, yet it should also reflect that transilience is an overarching construct. We aim to test the validity of this transilience scale by examining whether transilience is positively related to existing constructs that are theoretically related (i.e., self-efficacy, outcome efficacy and resilience), while, at the same time, it does not overlap with these constructs. We also aim to establish that transilience does not imply that people deny or downplay the risks posed by contemporary adversities, as people would hardly see the need to adapt without acknowledging the adversity (see Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b). As elaborated upon below, in this dissertation we aim to examine whether people perceive transilience across different adversities and contexts, and whether they perceive they can be transilient as individuals as well as communities. Do People Perceive Transilience across Different Adversities and SocioPolitical Contexts? While contemporary adversities share some common features (e.g., uncertainty), they are remarkably different. Pandemics, like COVID-19, can represent an immediate and direct threat to individual survival, whereas climate change consequences tend to be more gradual and cumulative (Poortinga et al., 2022; IPCC, 2014a). Additionally, the effects of a pandemic on personal health can be visible within days or weeks, while the severity of climate change risks may take longer periods to manifest, especially in Western countries (IPCC, 2014c). Besides, the type, impact and severity of the threat associated with contemporary adversities likely varies between different areas and countries. For instance, risks associated with climate change vary considerably across regions: in the United States, North-Eastern regions face increased rainfall and sealevel rise, whereas regions located in the in coastal South-West face risks of droughts and wildfires (Clayton et al., 2016); similarly, the severity of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic varied greatly across countries and regions, depending on factors such as the capacity of the healthcare system, the level of preparedness, and the effectiveness of measures taken to contain the virus. In Italy and Spain, for instance, the pandemic caused high infection and mortality rates, overwhelming healthcare systems and leading to shortages of equipment and staff, which worsened public panic (Amaro, 2020; Horowitz, 2020). In contrast, countries like Germany and The Netherlands had lower infection and mortality rates due to a stronger healthcare systems and early containment measures (Hoekman et al., 2020; Spahn, 2020). Therefore, we aim to examine whether people perceive transilience across different adversities (i.e., climate
15 general introduction change risks in Chapters 2 & 4 and the COVID-19 pandemic in Chapter 3), as well as across different contexts and regions in which the types and severity of the specific threat posed by such large scale adversities varies. Do People Perceive they can be Transilient also at the Collective Level? Contemporary adversities, such as climate change, have significant and far-reaching impacts on communities, not just individuals. For instance, extreme weather events like floods and hurricanes can destroy entire neighbourhoods, displace residents, and disrupt local economies (IPCC, 2022). Adapting to present-day adversities may thus also require collective adaptation at the community level, in addition to individual adaptation efforts. For example, people may need to help others, share knowledge or join forces in order to address the threat posed by contemporary adversities, as individuals alone are likely unable to fully address such large-scale challenges (Chen, 2015; Van Zomeren & Iyer, 2009, 2010). Hence, the question is to what extent people perceive transilience, not only at the individual level, but also at the community level. In this dissertation, we therefore aim to develop and validate a collective transilience scale to capture whether people perceive they, as a community, can persist, adapt flexibly, and positively transform in the face of an adversity (and whether such higher collective transilience promotes adaptation actions). We will examine the relevance of collective transilience specifically in the context of climate change (Chapter 4). 1.3. TRANSILIENCE, ADAPTATION ACTIONS AND MENTAL HEALTH In this dissertation we next aim to study to what extent transilience is associated with different types of adaptation actions, and with better mental health. We therefore aim to examine the relationship between transilience and a broad spectrum of adaptation intentions and behaviours, as well as different indicators of mental health. To what extent does Transilience Predict Adaptation Actions? Transilience and Individual Adaptation Individual adaptation actions comprise a variety of actions that aim to protect the individual and their household from the risks posed by contemporary adversities, as well as showing support for policies aiming to foster adaptation (Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b; e.g. García de Jalón et al., 2013). Such adaptation actions can be incremental, which means they typically aim to preserve the status quo. For example, people can buy insurance or install wind shutters to adapt to climate change risks (Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a, 2019b). Similarly, people can keep 1.5m distance and wash their hands regularly to limit the spread of a virus during a pandemic (Perra, 2021). Individual adaptation actions can also be transformative, which means they 1
16 chapter 1 aim to challenge the status quo by doing things in a different way than before and by seeking new beneficial opportunities. For example, people can shift their diet to incorporate foods that are better suited for the changing climate in the local area, or set up a relocation plan to adapt to climate change risks. Similarly, people can decide to shift their lifestyle to establish different priorities (e.g., exercise, mental health, time spent with family) in response to a pandemic like COVID-19 (Ogueji, 2022). In this dissertation, we aim examine to what extent higher transilience increases the likelihood that people (intend to) engage in a wide range of individual adaptation actions. We test this proposition both in the context of climate change (Chapter 2) and in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chapter 3). Notably, in doing so we examine whether transilience can be a ‘general antecedent’ of adaptation actions (cf. van Valkengoed, 2022), namely a relevant predictor of different types of adaptation behaviours, in the face of different risks and across different contexts. Transilience and Community-Based Adaptation While the importance of studying climate change adaptation at the community level has been acknowledged (McNamara & Buggy, 2017), research has predominantly focused on behaviours at the level of individuals and their households (van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a, 2019b). In this regard, little is known about what motivates people to engage in community-based adaptation actions, namely actions that help their community as a whole adapt to climate change risks. Like individual adaptation behaviours, these behaviours can be incremental (e.g. buying sandbags together with others to protect the local area from floods) or transformative (e.g., joining a community initiative to reshape the local neighbourhood by replacing concrete with trees and bushes, to protect the community against heatwaves and floods). Therefore, in this dissertation we aim to test whether community-based adaptation, which implies that people act within and in the interest of their community, is more likely to happen when people perceive higher transilience. Importantly, we assume that perceiving transilience at the individual level may not be enough to increase the likelihood that people engage in behaviours to protect their community from climate change risks. Instead, we propose that particularly collective transilience is likely to promote community-based adaptation, as this last comprises more than the individual interests and efforts. Our proposal, besides building on existing literature on what motivates action at the community level (e.g., Thaker et al., 2016), is in line with the compatibility principle (Ajzen, 2020), which states that constructs are more strongly related when they are assessed at the same level of specificity. Again, we examine whether higher collective transilience is related to different types of community-based adaptation across different contexts, thus examining whether collective transilience can also be a ‘general antecedent’ of community-based adaptation (cf. van Valkengoed, 2022).
17 general introduction To what extent does Transilience Enhance Mental Health? Contemporary adversities, such as climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic, can undeniably have serious negative impacts on individuals’ mental and physical health (Fritze et al., 2008; Manning & Clayton, 2018; Pfefferbaum & North, 2020). However, transilience offers a positive perspective on human adaptation to these adversities, as it reflects individuals’ perception of their capacity to carry on, to find multiple options to adapt, and to change for the better by adapting to a certain adversity. Consequently, it seems plausible that transilience may help people to maintain good mental health, even in the face of large-scale contemporary adversities. Research has shown that psychological resilience is typically associated with higher levels of subjective well-being, and with better mental health in different domains (Hu et al., 2015), including the COVID-19 pandemic (Kavčič et al., 2021; Huffman et al., 2021). In this dissertation, we aim to expand upon these studies by examining whether transilience, which captures more than resilience alone, increases the likelihood that people show good mental health in the face of threats with varying levels of severity, including different adversities and contexts. Specifically, we test whether higher transilience is related to displaying higher levels of general subjective well-being and a higher degree of personal positive change (e.g., learning to better handle difficulties) due to the confrontation with an adversity. We study this both in the domain of climate change risks (Chapter 2) and in the domain of the COVID-19 pandemic (Chapter 3). 1.4 OVERVIEW OF CHAPTERS In sum, in this PhD dissertation we aim to empirically test whether people perceive they can be transilient in the face of contemporary large-scale adversities, both as individuals and as a community. Furthermore, we want to assess the extent to which higher transilience can promote a wide range of adaptive responses, including individual and community-based adaptation actions. Next, we want to test whether higher transilience is related to higher subjective well-being and positive personal change, as indicators of good mental health and quality of life. We test our rationale across three empirical chapters. In Chapter 2, we develop and validate a scale to measure individual transilience in the face of climate change. Across four empirical studies conducted in three different countries (US, The Netherlands, UK), we assess the content, concurrent, discriminant, incremental and predictive validity of the climate change transilience scale. In doing so, we aim to verify that transilience is positively related, yet does not overlap with existing related constructs, namely self-efficacy, outcome efficacy and resilience. We also aim to verify that transilience does not imply that people perceive the risks of climate change 1
18 chapter 1 to a lesser extent. We examine whether people, on average, perceive they can be transilient in the face of climate change risks, across different countries. Furthermore, we examine to what extent climate change transilience is positively associated with different types of adaptation actions, such as individual adaptation intentions and behaviours (both incremental and transformative), collective adaptation intentions and behaviours, support for adaptation policies (both incremental and transformative) and political collective action. Next, we examine the extent to which higher transilience is associated with higher subjective well-being and positive change derived from the confrontation with climate change risks. In Chapter 3, we aim to replicate the findings of Chapter 2 in the context of a different adversity, namely the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to examine whether individuals perceive transilience in the face of the pandemic, reflecting a more urgent and acute threat compared to climate change. Notably, we aim to investigate the extent to which transilience is perceived across contexts in which the severity of the pandemic differed substantially, and in which different measures were implemented by national governments in response to it. Thus, we test our rationale across two studies conducted in different countries (i.e., Italy and The Netherlands); we also employ a longitudinal design in the study in The Netherlands to examine perceived transilience across different time points, in which the severity of the local threat varied. We aim to investigate the relationship between transilience and various adaptive responses to the pandemic, namely individual and collective adaptation behaviours and positive coping, as well as subjective well-being and positive personal change. We hypothesise that higher transilience increases the likelihood of adaptive actions and enhances both well-being and positive personal change, regardless of differences in mean scores on transilience, adaptation behaviours, and well-being across countries and time points. Additionally, in the longitudinal study we test whether the relationship between transilience and relevant outcomes is similar across time points. Next, to gain insight into whether transilience is causally related to adaptation behaviours and well-being, we examine whether transilience at a given time can predict behaviours and well-being at a later stage in time. In Chapter 4, we examine whether transilience can be perceived also at the collective level, and whether higher collective transilience promotes community-based adaptation behaviours in the face of climate change risks. We test our rationale across two studies conducted in the US and also in the Netherlands, where we focus on a Dutch local community initiative for climate change adaptation. First, based on the individual transilience scale, we adapt and validate the collective transilience scale to capture whether people perceive that they can persist, adapt flexibly and positively transform in the face of climate change as a community. We hypothesise that people
19 general introduction perceive that they can be transilient as a community, and that collective transilience can be empirically distinguished from individual transilience. We also aim to examine to what extent people engage in community-based adaptation behaviours. Next, we test whether higher collective transilience increases the likelihood of different examples of community-based adaptation actions. We also test whether collective transilience is more strongly related to community-based adaptation intentions, whereas individual transilience is more strongly related to individual adaptation intentions. Further, we examine whether collective transilience is uniquely related to community-based adaptation actions when individual transilience is controlled for. 1
Individual Transilience in the face of Climate Change
22 chapter 2 ABSTRACT Climate change is negatively affecting people’s health, safety, and well-being. Therefore, it is crucial to understand whether people perceive they have the capacity to adapt to climate change. Most studies on whether people can adapt to climate change focus on preventing negative outcomes and the ability to ‘bounce back’. We propose that adaptation may have positive consequences too. We introduce the construct of transilience to capture people’s perceived capacity to persist, adapt flexibly, and positively transform in the face of climate change risks. We developed a scale to assess transilience in the context of climate change risks and conducted four empirical studies to validate it. Overall, the findings support the content, concurrent, discriminant and predictive validity of the transilience scale. People generally perceive they can be transilient in the face of climate change risks, and higher transilience is, as expected, positively related to climate change adaptation actions and general wellbeing. Our findings indicate that people perceive adapting to climate change can not only minimize harm, but also provide beneficial opportunities. Theoretical implications and future directions are discussed. Chapter 2 is based on: Lozano Nasi, V., Jans, L., & Steg, L. (2023). Can we do more than “bounce back”? Transilience in the face of climate change risks. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2022.101947
23 individual transilience in the face of climate change 2.1. INTRODUCTION Climate change is causing various risks, including extreme weather events (e.g., flooding, bush fires) and increasing temperatures, that have detrimental material, physical, and psychological consequences (IPCC, 2018; Sauerborn & Ebi, 2012; Schneider et al., 2007; Solomon et al., 2008), and affect people’s health, safety, and well-being (Clayton et al., 2015; Doherty, 2018; Fritze et al., 2008; Manning & Clayton, 2018). It is essential that people adapt to climate change, which is defined as ‘moderate or avoid harm or exploit beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC 2014b). Climate adaptation is not only a responsibility of governments, as people themselves can and need to take action to protect themselves from climate change risks too (van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a). It is, thus, key to understand whether people perceive they can adapt to climate change. In the past, humans have been able to successfully adapt to climate change. Studies have shown that people were able to not only persist, but also flexibly adapt and thrive in the face of past climate change (Degroot et al., 2021). For example, during the Late Antique Little Ice Age (sixth century AD) and the Little Ice Age (thirteenth to nineteenth century AD), humans adapted to climate change by introducing novel agriculture activities and water management strategies which allowed for economic expansion (Izdebski et al., 2016); they also shifted to new sources of energy, developed new trading methods, and developed new practices and languages by migrating to different areas (Degroot et al., 2021). These findings suggest that humans have not only been able to ‘bounce back’ in the face of climate change by recovering and maintaining what they had, which is commonly referred to as resilience (Bonanno, 2004). Instead, they have been able to change for the better, by exploiting new opportunities and shifting to new, beneficial ways of life. The question remains whether positive change is also possible in the face of contemporary climate change, and whether people perceive they have the capacity to adapt to climate change, not only by preventing harm, but also by changing for the better. The next question is whether such perceived adaptive capacity promotes adaptation behaviours, support for adaptation policies, and general well-being. We address these questions in the present paper by introducing a novel construct: transilience. Transilience The construct of transilience captures people’s perceived capacity to adapt to climate change risks. Drawing on historical analyses (Degroot et al., 2021) and the resilience literature (Davoudi et al., 2013, Folke et al., 2010), we theorise that transilience comprises three components: people’s perceived capacity to persist (persistence), 2
24 chapter 2 adapt flexibly (adaptability), and positively transform (transformability) in the face of climate change risks. The first component of transilience indicates the perceived capacity to persist in the face of climate change risks, that is, whether people perceive they have the resources to cope and carry on in the face of climate change risks. Persistence is at the core of resilience, commonly understood as the capacity to ‘bounce back’ from stressful events (Bonanno, 2004; Fletcher & Sarkar, 2013; Galli & Vealey, 2008; Tugade & Fredrickson, 2004). Yet, climate change adaptation may not only require preserving the status quo, but also challenging it, e.g., finding alternative ways and exploiting new opportunities (Adams, 2021; cf. Davoudi et al., 2013; Pelling, 2011). As such, we propose that the capacity to adapt to climate change is about more than persistence alone. The second component of transilience reflects the perceived capacity to adapt flexibly to climate change risks, that is, the extent to which people perceive a broad range of options to adapt to climate change risks. Adaptability allows people to respond flexibly to climate change by revising and switching between adaptation strategies when needed. Such a flexible approach may be important for long-term adaptation to climate change, which likely requires a variety of responses (Barnes et al., 2020; Cinner et al. 2018; Linquiti & Vonortas, 2012). Adaptability differs from people’s perception of their own ability to engage in protective adaptive behaviours (i.e., self-efficacy; van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b), as it specifically reflects whether people perceive they have multiple options to adapt, rather than whether they think they can adapt at all. The third component of transilience is the perceived capacity to positively transform by adapting to climate change risks, that is, whether people perceive they can positively evolve by dealing with climate change, for instance by learning something new. Although transformability is reflected in prominent definitions of climate change adaptation, which refer to ‘finding beneficial opportunities’ (IPCC, 2014b), to the best of our knowledge, this aspect is not examined in studies aiming to understand individual adaptive responses to contemporary climate change (see Reser & Swim, 2011). However, other domains do suggest that experiencing stress and adversity can have beneficial effects. For example, people indicate that their lives have positively changed by dealing with health problems and trauma (Carver & Antoni, 2004; Helgeson et al., 2006), and dealing with severe childhood adversity can enable the development of unique strengths (Ellis et al., 2017; Jay, 2018). Climate-related hazards could also have beneficial effects, such as an increase in innovation and creativity (Fritze et al., 2008; Doherty, 2018; Degroot et al., 2021). Indeed, there is initial evidence that indigenous communities have developed better technologies and practices in response to environmental changes (Ford et al., 2020). Transformability differs from
25 individual transilience in the face of climate change outcome efficacy (i.e., the extent to which people think adaptation actions are effective in reducing climate change risks; van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019b), as transformability reflects whether people perceive the possibility for positive and transformative outcomes deriving from dealing with climate change. In sum, in the context of climate change, higher transilience means that people more strongly perceive they can persist in the face of climate change risks, can have a broad range of options to deal with these risks, and can positively change by adapting to these risks. The Present Research We aim to study to what extent people perceive transilience in the face of climate change risks, and whether higher transilience indeed predicts adaptation behaviours, support for adaptation policies, and general well-being. To understand the value of the construct of transilience in the context of climate change adaptation, we need to measure it. Hence, we aim to develop and validate a scale to assess transilience in the context of climate change, based on our theoretical framework. First, we generated a pool of items that reflect persistence, adaptability, and transformability. Next, these items were evaluated by experts in terms of relevance and clarity, and adapted accordingly, when needed. Thereafter, we conducted four online studies to assess the content, concurrent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the transilience scale. All studies were approved by the Ethical Committee of the University of Groningen. We tested content validity by examining whether the items capture the three components of transilience. In addition, we tested whether the transilience scale indeed assesses a single construct, as we propose transilience comprises all three components. We tested concurrent and discriminant validity by examining the correlation between transilience and theoretically related constructs (Boateng et al., 2018). First, as indicated above, we expect higher transilience to be positively related to self- and outcome efficacy for climate change adaptation. Furthermore, we expect that transilience is positively related to general psychological resilience (i.e., the general capacity to bounce back in life in general; Smith et al., 2008, 2010), as we draw on it for the persistence component. Yet, as we propose that transilience is different from self-efficacy, outcome efficacy, and general resilience, we expect that the relationship with these constructs is not too strong (i.e., correlations should be below the cut-off for construct overlap of around r = .85; Kenny, 2016). Moreover, we expect higher transilience to be related to more positive affect about climate change (e.g., optimism), as people acknowledge many ways to adapt, as well as potential beneficial 2
26 chapter 2 opportunities. At the same time, we do not assume higher transilience implies that people perceive less the risks posed by climate change or are less worried about climate change, as perceiving climate change as an adversity is key for engaging in adaptive action (Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a). We tested predictive validity by examining whether transilience is positively related to relevant outcome variables in the context of climate change adaptation (Boateng et al., 2018), namely more adaptation behaviours (van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a, 2019b) and stronger support for adaptation policies (Dietz et al., 2009; García de Jalón et al., 2013). Furthermore, we assessed whether higher transilience is associated with higher general well-being. Finally, we explore incremental validity by examining whether transilience still relates to relevant outcome variables when controlling for other indicators of adaptive capacity, i.e., self-efficacy, outcome efficacy, and resilience, respectively. Items Generation and Selection Based on our definitions, we compiled items to measure persistence, adaptability and transformability, by selecting and adapting items from existing measures (Carver et al., 1989; Connor & Davidson, 2003; Martin & Rubin, 1995; Watson & Homewood, 2008). We also developed new items to ensure sufficient items for each component. The initial pool consisted of 24 items (8 items per component; see Appendix A). We invited 18 experts in climate change adaptation and/or resilience to evaluate our items. Those who agreed (n = 11) were provided with our definitions of transilience and the three components. Experts rated each item in terms of relevance for the component and general quality (e.g., clarity) on a scale from 1 = terrible to 5 = excellent. They could also comment on each item. Based on the experts’ judgement we improved some phrasings and selected six items per component for the initial transilience scale (Table 2.1).
27 individual transilience in the face of climate change Table 2.1. Items Included in Study 1 Based on Expert’s Evaluation Persistence 1. I can handle unpleasant feelings caused by climate change risks. 2. I can persist when faced with climate change risks. 3. I can be brave in the face of climate change risks. 4. I will not give up when faced with climate change risks. 5. Climate change risks discourage me. (R) 6. I feel paralyzed in the face of climate change risks. (R) Adaptability 1. I think I can take different actions to deal with climate change risks. 2. I think I have several options to deal with climate change risks. 3. I believe I can find multiple means to deal with climate change risks. 4. There are different ways in which I can cope with climate change risks. 5. I think there are no effective ways to deal with climate change risks. (R) 6. I think I have very limited options to deal with climate change risks. (R) Transformability 1. Coping with the stress caused by climate change risks can strengthen me. 2. There can be additional advantages for me in dealing with climate change risks. 3. I can find new opportunities by adjusting to climate change risks. 4. Dealing with climate change risks can make me grow as a person. 5. I can learn something good from dealing with climate change risks. 6. Dealing with climate change risks can only make my life worse. (R) Note. (R) = reverse coded item. 2.2. STUDY 1 In Study 1, we aimed to test the validity of the transilience scale in a sample from the United States population. This study was part of a larger study on climate change adaptation which also aimed to validate a climate change perceptions scale (see van Valkengoed et al., 2021).1 To test concurrent and discriminant validity, we assessed how transilience relates to climate change risk perception, negative affect about climate change, self-efficacy, and outcome efficacy. Predictive validity was tested by examining relationships between transilience and adaptation behaviours, as well as support for adaptation policies. Incremental validity was examined by running the same analyses while controlling for self- and outcome efficacy, respectively. 1 Apart from the transilience scale, self- and outcome efficacy, the other measures reported here were also used in van Valkengoed et al. (2021). Full list of items can be found in Appendix B. 2
28 chapter 2 Method Participants and Procedure We aimed for around 10 participants per scale item (i.e., around 180 participants; Boateng et al., 2018). A random sample of 194 participants was recruited via Amazon MTurk.2 After data inspection and cleaning,3 178 responses (46% male; M age = 39; SDage = 12.5) were retained (see more demographics in Supplementary Material). After agreeing to participate, participants were directed to the survey in Qualtrics, where they could fill in the questionnaire and be compensated $1.20 for participation. Measures All measures were assessed on a seven-point Likert-scale, from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree, unless otherwise specified (see all items in Appendix B). In the case of reverse-coded items, scores were recoded so that a higher score reflected stronger endorsement of the construct. For all scales, we computed mean scores. The questionnaire started with the climate change reality items and ended with the climate change transilience scale (the transilience items were presented in randomized order). The other measures were presented in a randomized order. See Table 2.4 for descriptives and reliability indicators. Climate Change Reality. Three items assessed the extent to which people believe in climate change (e.g., ‘I believe climate change is real’; van Valkengoed et al., 2021). We excluded responses from participants who do not believe in climate change. We believe the transilience scale does not make sense when people do not believe climate change is real. Climate deniers would likely not agree with the transilience items. Furthermore, for climate change deniers variations in responses on transilience items (e.g. scoring a 1 = strongly disagree vs a 4 = neither agree nor disagree) likely do not reflect variations in perceived adaptive capacity, as responses are rooted in a disbelief in climate change. Thus, we used the reality items only for data cleaning purposes. Negative Affect about Climate Change. Participants indicated the extent to which they feel negative affect about climate change (three items, e.g., ‘I worry about climate change’). 2 Participants were randomly allocated to the present study or another study assessing whether people perceive they can adapt to climate change collectively, that is, as a community. As the second study did not include any item on individual transilience, we do not discuss it here. 3 From the initial sample we removed 16 participants (8.2%) based on the following criteria. First, duplicated IP addresses were removed (n = 2). Second, participants who consistently scored above or below the midpoint of the scale for the reality of climate change items (i.e., only ‘5’, ‘6’ or ‘7’ or only ‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’) were removed (n = 11), as these items were mutually exclusive (Meade & Craig, 2012; e.g. ‘I believe that climate change is real’ and ‘I do NOT believe that climate change is real’). Third, one participant was removed because they did not believe in the reality of climate change. Finally, we removed participants who completed the survey within 3 minutes (n = 2), as it seems unrealistic to accurately fill in the questionnaire this time (median completion time = 9.1 minutes).
29 individual transilience in the face of climate change Climate Change Risk Perception. Participants indicated the extent to which they perceive climate change poses risks to various relevant entities (four items, e.g., themselves and their family). Self-efficacy to Engage in Adaptation Actions. Participants indicated their perceived ability to engage in actions aimed to protect themselves from climate-change risks (two items, e.g., ‘I feel capable of taking actions aimed to protect myself and close others against the negative impacts of climate change’). Outcome Efficacy of Adaptation Actions. Participants indicated to what extent they think their actions can be effective in protecting themselves from climate change risks (two items, e.g., ‘My personal actions can be effective in protecting myself and close others from the negative impacts of climate change’). Climate Change Adaptation Intentions and Behaviours. Participants were asked whether they have engaged or intend to engage in nine adaptive behaviours that can help to protect them from climate-related risks (e.g., ‘Looking up information about whether my house is at risk of natural hazards’), on a 3-point ordinal scale (0 = No, 1 = No, but I am planning to do this and 2 = Yes). We calculated scores on adaptation behaviour by counting, for each participant, the number of behaviours for which ‘2’ was selected. Next, we calculated a score on intention (to engage in those behaviours that were not implemented already) by averaging the 9 items into one scale, after converting the value ‘2’ to missing. Support for Climate Change Adaptation Policies. Participants indicated to what extent they support five adaptation policies, e.g., ‘Investing public money to make vital infrastructure (for example, energy utilities, power lines, cell towers) more resistant to climate change risks’. Items were rated on a scale from 1 = strongly oppose to 7 = strongly support. Results Content Validity We ran the same analyses in all the studies reported in this paper. First, we tested content validity by verifying that the items developed for the transilience scale adequately capture the three components of transilience via the oblique multiple group method (MGM, performed with a designated macro for SPSS - version 25; Stuive et al., 2008). The MGM is an established type of confirmatory factor analysis that investigates whether items correlate highest with their expected component (controlling for selfcorrelation). Most items correlated more strongly and positively with their expected component (see Table 2.2), indicating that the transilience scale captured the three 2
30 chapter 2 theory-based components of transilience reasonably well. However, for each component, a reverse-coded item correlated more strongly with a component they were not assigned to (see Table 2.2). Therefore, we removed these three items from the scale before calculating mean scores. Furthermore, correlations were relatively lower for the persistence component, compared to the other two components, suggesting that the persistence items had lower quality. Next, we tested whether a three-factor model fits the data better than a unidimensional model, using the package lavaan in R for SEM. As expected, the three-factor model fitted the data significantly better than a unidimensional model, χ2 (3) = 29.3, p < .001 (see model fit indices in Supplementary Material), indicating that transilience consists of three distinct components. We further examined content validity by testing whether the transilience scale, though comprising of three components, indeed assesses a single construct. For this, we used two indicators: the Haberman method (Haberman, 2008; Reise et al., 2013), and omega hierarchical (ωh; Revelle, n.d.). The Haberman method is considered a minimal test to establish whether sub-scores in a multidimensional scale have any psychometric justification (Reise et al., 2013). In multidimensional scales with intercorrelated components (as we assume is the case for transilience), the aggregated total score (i.e., transilience) is often a better estimate of the true score on a component (e.g., persistence) than the observed score on the component; in this case, the latter provides no added value to the total score and is therefore recommended neither to report nor interpret it (see Reise et al., 2013 for elaboration). The Haberman method compares the proportional reduction in mean squared error based on total scores (PRMSET) and subscale scores (PRMSES). When PRMSET > PRMSES, the score on a component adds little value to the aggregated total score (Reise et al., 2013). Using the package subscore in R (version 4.0.2), we found that PRMSET > PRMSES for all transilience components (see Table 2.3), suggesting that the total transilience score is what should be reported and interpreted. Omega hierarchical reflects the proportion of variance in a multidimensional instrument that can be attributed to a common factor (Revelle, n.d.). Using the psych package in R (Revelle, 2022), we found ωh = .67, thus 67% of the variance in the transilience scale can be attributed to a common factor.4 The reliability of the resulting overall transilience scale (15 items) was good (see Table 2.4). The mean score on the transilience scale was well above the mid-point scale (see Table 2.4), indicating that, on average, people perceive they can be transilient in the face of climate change risks. 4 Although there are no official guidelines on the interpretation of omega hierarchical, according to Revelle (n.d., p. 228-230) a value of ωh =.48 indicates a large general factor and small group factors. Hence, ωh =.67 indicates that the scale mostly reflects a single, general factor.
www.ridderprint.nlRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw