Transformational capacity and the influence of place and identity

This article has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text article.

2012 Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034022

(http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034022)

Download details:

IP Address: 140.253.202.47

The article was downloaded on 09/10/2012 at 07:53

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

IOP PUBLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 (9pp) doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034022

Transformational capacity and theinfluence of place and identity

N A Marshall1, S E Park2, W N Adger3, K Brown4 and S M Howden2

1 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Climate Adaptation Flagship, ATSIP Building at James CookUniversity, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia2 CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Climate Adaptation Flagship, GPO Box 1700, Clunies Ross Street,Acton, ACT 2601, Australia3 Geography, College of Life and Environmental Science, University of Exeter, Exeter EX4 4RJ, UK4 Environment and Sustainability Institute, University of Exeter, Penryn TR10 9EZ, UK

E-mail: nadine.marshall@csiro.au

Received 10 May 2012Accepted for publication 15 August 2012Published 5 September 2012Online at stacks.iop.org/ERL/7/034022

AbstractClimate change is altering the productivity of natural resources with far-reaching implicationsfor those who depend on them. Resource-dependent industries and communities need thecapacity to adapt to a range of climate risks if they are to remain viable. In some instances, thescale and nature of the likely impacts means that transformations of function or structure willbe required. Transformations represent a switch to a distinct new system where a differentsuite of factors become important in the design and implementation of response strategies.There is a critical gap in knowledge on understanding transformational capacity and itsinfluences. On the basis of current knowledge on adaptive capacity we propose fourfoundations for measuring transformational capacity: (1) how risks and uncertainty aremanaged, (2) the extent of skills in planning, learning and reorganizing, (3) the level offinancial and psychological flexibility to undertake change and (4) the willingness toundertake change. We test the influence of place attachment and occupational identity ontransformational capacity using the Australian peanut industry, which is presently assessingsignificant structural change in response to predicted climatic changes. Survey data from 88%of peanut farmers in Queensland show a strong negative correlation between transformationalcapacity and both place attachment and occupational attachment, suggesting that whilst thesefactors may be important positive influences on the capacity to adapt to incremental change,they act as barriers to transformational change.

Keywords: adaptive capacity, barriers to change, agriculture, natural resource management,social resilience, socio-ecological systems, resource dependence, climate change

1. Introduction

Past emissions of greenhouse gases have already committedthe planet to climate change [1]. Current estimates suggesta significant increase in global temperature in the coming

Content from this work may be used under the termsof the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-

ShareAlike 3.0 licence. Any further distribution of this work must maintainattribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.

decades with even the most drastic mitigation efforts unlikelyto prevent substantial climatic changes later this century.Changes in key climatic variables such as temperature andrainfall will act to push natural resource systems towards theirthresholds of change, in some cases threatening the futureof those industries and communities dependent on them [2,3]. Preparing and restructuring sensitive resource-dependentindustries for the changing climate is becoming urgent,especially given how long such social processes can take.

11748-9326/12/034022+09$33.00 c© 2012 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

Globally, economic sectors such as agriculture, forestryand fisheries are already investing heavily in research onwhether to take pre-emptive action to reduce the impactsof climate change or to respond reactively after impacts arerealized [4–6].

The specific challenge for primary resource industriesand the enterprises that comprise them is to build productivityand profitability without depleting the resources on whichthey depend. Increasingly, however, current observations ofclimate shifts suggest that implementing incremental changesmay be insufficient; primary industries and enterprises mayneed to undergo transformations that include changes infunction or structure if they are to remain viable [7–9].Farmers, fishers, foresters, graziers and the industries thatdefine them may need to consider innovative strategies forgenerating income or translocating to where conditions aremore amenable to making a living [10, 11]. There is also asignificant likelihood of demand for planned resettlement ofcommunities. We focus on these situations: when the social,economic or ecological conditions under which resourcesystems in particular are expected to adapt become untenableand transformations need to be planned [12, 13].

Transformation is a process that involves crossingecological or social thresholds [7]. It fundamentally changessome of the biophysical or socio-economic components ofa system from one form, function, nature or location toanother (but not necessarily irreversibly) [13]. Being ableto identify and distinguish a transformational change isdependent on being explicit about scale. For example, inlarger socio-economic or ecological systems, transformationis signified by change in core functions [14] and can involveinstitutional change and collective action, both coordinatedand un-coordinated, by constituent members [15]. At anindustry scale, radical changes in function and structuremay come about due to a myriad of small changes madeby individuals, resulting in an overall transformation. Atthe individual scale, transformation can be signified by amajor change in livelihood, location or identity, influencedalso by the process by which transformation takes place.Autonomy and choice, as well as coercion by circumstance orgovernment action, for example, are central to how individualsperceive and undergo transformation [16, 17].

Like any response or adaptive action, transformationscan lead to ‘desirable’ or ‘undesirable’ outcomes where‘desirable’ transformations provide substantial and widelydistributed benefits [18]. Agricultural transformations haveoften incorporated new technologies into their planning andpractice, leading to higher productivity [19]. Other attemptsat major transformations have been less successful or haveeven turned out to be maladaptive [20]; examples includethe de-linking of community from government, or food crisesduring periods of political stagnation [21]. Whether resourcesystems will adapt, transform or collapse as the effects ofclimate change progress depends in part on balance between‘desirable’ to ‘undesirable’ states and the trajectory of thesystem [22, 23].

Despite an increasing awareness of the importance oftransformation as a response to climate change, knowledge

of whether whole industry sectors, particularly those thatare sensitive to climate risks, have the capacity to transformremains limited [9]. A key challenge for industries thatchoose to collectively transform in response to changingagro-climatic conditions, will be to ensure that sufficientcapacity exists across scales and that transformations resultin a ‘desirable’ outcome that benefits both society andecosystems [24–26]. Recognizing the multi-scalar nature ofdecision-making, we focus on the individual actors critical tothe process of climate adaptation [27] both to complementother research on governmental and organizational elementsof change [28, 29] and because individual adaptation hasspill-over effects to collective action and response [30]. Thecapacity of farmers, fishers, foresters and graziers to undergotransformation individually as a climate change response maybe vital to the success of their respective industries: in mostsituations a critical mass of individuals will need to transformfor industry-wide transformation to occur [31–33]. Yet, notall individuals will have the same capacity to transform;some individuals are likely to face considerable barriers thatmake embarking on their own too challenging, consequentlyreducing the capacity for industry-wide transformation.

How transformational capacity compares with adaptivecapacity is potentially important for planning responses topredicted climate change impacts; particularly pertinent iswhether strategies aimed at supporting incremental changewill be sufficient for supporting transformational adaptation.Moser and Ekstrom [34], suggest that the distinction betweenadaptive and transformational capacity is mostly one acrosstemporal, spatial and social scales, where transformationalchange occurs at the long-term end of the adaptation spectrumwhilst coping measures occur in the short term [34]. In theiranalysis, they found that transformations typically requiregreater time and effort than shorter-term coping or adaptationmeasures [34]. Correspondingly, we propose foundations formeasuring transformational capacity at the individual scalethat are based on extending established measures of adaptivecapacity.

Considerable research has provided techniques toassess adaptive capacity across scales [35]. Essentially,adaptive capacity is the potential to mobilize existingresources necessary for adapting to change [5, 32, 36].Characteristics that have been found to contribute to adaptivecapacity include: possessing creativity and innovation (foridentifying solutions or adaptation options) [37]; testing andexperimenting with options [38]; recognizing and respondingto effective feedback mechanisms [6]; employing adaptivemanagement approaches [7]; possessing flexibility [38]; beingable to reorganize given novel information [39]; managingrisk [16] and, having necessary resources at hand [13,40]. At the individual scale, adaptive capacity has beenmore comprehensively assessed according to four measurableattributes reflecting an individual’s skills, circumstances,perceptions and willingness to change [41–43]. Marshallet al’s dimensions for adaptive capacity were based onresponses to generic change where responses were clusteredinto four relatively independent components using a principalcomponents analysis. They included: (1) how risks and

2

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

uncertainty are managed, (2) the extent of skills in planning,learning and reorganizing, (3) the level of financial andpsychological flexibility to undertake change; and (4) theanticipation of the need and willingness to contemplateand undertake change. We suggest that the capacity toundertake transformational change reflects similar dimensionsbut addressing changes that are longer term, that affectmore fundamental system characteristics and in response tolarger-scale change. That is, we hypothesise that the natureand magnitude of the change event are likely to becomeimportant for determining the capacity to change. These fourdimensions can then be used as the basis from which webegin to examine the capacity to undertake change of atransformational nature.

The capacity to implement transformative adaptation islikely to be influenced by a range of factors. For example,other studies have shown that the extent to which individualsare socially and economically dependent on a natural resourceis an important influence [44, 45]. An aim of this paper is toexplore factors that might influence transformational capacityand be important in supporting or inhibiting transformationalchange within a primary resource industry in Australia. Onecritical factor likely to influence transformational capacity isthe attachment that resource users have with their place [31,44, 46]. ‘Attachment to place’ is a concept that describesthe level of connection that people have with their physicalcommunity or ‘place’, including the strong friendships andnetworks that exist within it [47]. In general, it representscontinuity and order, rootedness, self-identity, attachment,comfort, security and refuge [48]. Attachment to place mayenhance the capacity of resource users to adapt to a change inthe region where their attachment acts to motivate individualsto identify novel solutions and create a sustainable future [49].However, in cases where the change event may requirepeople to relocate, the level of attachment to place maynegatively influence the capacity of resource users to undergotransformations of place and adapt [50].

The level of attachment that individuals have to theiroccupation might also act to influence transformationalcapacity [44]. ‘Attachment to occupation’ (or ‘occupationalidentity’) is a related concept that describes the identity thatis created as a result of working in a particular occupation.Resource users such as farmers, fishers and graziers canbecome very attached to their occupation [51]. The morefirmly attached a person becomes to their occupation, themore traumatic and disorienting a change in their occupationbecomes [47]. Like place attachment, the attachment thatindividuals have to their occupation is thus likely to be animportant influence on transformational processes, especiallywhen the nature of the change event is likely to impact onpeople’s livelihoods or the identity that they have createdaround their occupation. These two concepts are significantlyunder-represented in climate-change decision-making [33,48], yet they are potentially important influences that need tobe considered before successful transformation strategies canbe planned. People with high levels of place or occupationalattachments may be less likely to be willing to contemplateor undertake change that involves moving or changingoccupation.

2. Measuring transformational capacity in theAustralian peanut industry

We examined the influence of place and occupationalattachments on the capacity of individuals to transform usingthe example of the peanut industry in Queensland, Australia(see figure 1). Peanuts are particularly sensitive to waterstress: too little water can cause a toxic fungus (Aspergillusflavus) to grow in the inner shell such that the peanut becomesunsuitable for human consumption [53]. Lower than averagerainfall over the past 25 years in south-east Queensland,the traditional home of growing peanuts, has significantlyaffected the quality and quantity of peanuts produced (byabout 30% in value) [54]. In response to the threat of reducedpeanut production, the largest company in the industrycollectively (represented by a board) decided to transformits structure by translocating to what was perceived as amore agro-climatically amenable region for growing peanutspresently, and into the future because of their great supply ofirrigation water. In 2007, company representatives purchaseda property of 11 700 ha near Katherine in the NorthernTerritory, some 3000 km from south-east Queensland, whereconditions for growing peanuts were projected to be moresuitable over the longer term due to climate changes (www.pca.com.au). One considered option for the company wasto encourage farmers from Queensland to translocate toKatherine as a planned collective response to anticipatedchange. However, for this strategy to be feasible, it wouldbe important to keep building and supporting the capacity ofpeanut farmers to relocate to Katherine and continue growingpeanuts. In this context, we explore the likelihood thatpeanut growers in Queensland would relocate to Katherine tocontinue growing peanuts, thus supporting a transformationacross scales. Through a structured survey, conducted Mayto July 2010, we quantitatively assessed the capacity ofgrowers to transform, and examined the relationship betweentransformational capacity and attachment to place andoccupation, respectively. As it turned out, in 2011 the strategyto relocate to Katherine was abandoned.

3. Method

3.1. Survey development

Survey questions were developed to quantify a peanutgrower’s level of attachment to place and occupationand capacity to transform. Questions were chosen asrepresentative of other similar studies in the literature andwere aggregated accordingly [42, 44, 45]. Most questionswere designed to elicit an attitude, opinion, or stance. Forexample, one statement was ‘I like being a peanut producer’.Respondents were asked to rate how strongly they agreedwith each statement using a 5-point rating scale (1 = stronglydisagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = unsure or neutral, 4 = agree,5 = strongly agree). Respondents were instructed to leave aresponse blank if they so wanted. An initial version of thesurvey was pilot-tested with five farmers in their homes toensure that the questions were readable and unambiguous. Acopy of the survey can be obtained by contacting the primaryauthor.

3

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

Figure 1. A map of northern Australia showing Kingaroy in south-east Queensland and Katherine in the Northern Territory (mapdeveloped from Google Earth).

3.2. Survey administration

An intensive media campaign was undertaken to introducethe research to the region. Names, addresses and telephonenumbers of peanut farmers were provided by the industryunder strict conditions of ethical conduct. All peanut growingfamilies received a personal letter informing them of theresearch and inviting them to participate. Of the 90 nameson the list, nine farmers were not interested in participatingin the research, ten were retired and two were unable tobe contacted (and assumed to have left the industry). Thesurvey was completed by 69 people giving a response rate of90% and a representation of 88% of the industry. We askedif we could speak to the main ‘decision-maker’ within thefamily business. Interviews were conducted between June andOctober 2010 and took between 45 and 90 min to complete.

3.3. Data analysis

Responses to structured questions or statements were anal-ysed using standard statistical techniques. Transformationalcapacity and resource dependency were quantified byobtaining the F-scores or weighted means for each setof relevant statements (e.g. there were several statementsdescribing attachment to occupation, etc). The relationshipbetween transformational capacity and resource dependencywas quantified using Pearson correlations.

4. Results

We propose that transformational capacity comprises fourdimensions. Descriptive statistics for each of the fourdimensions in this study are presented in table 1. In general,peanut farmers generally perceived the risks associated withtransformational change as manageable, although they did

not tend to agree that there were opportunities associatedwith climate change. They perceived that they had sufficientskills in planning, learning and reorganizing their enterprises.Peanut farmers appeared to have sufficient levels of financialand psychological flexibility. They were interested in newskills and learning about the effects of climate change, yetthey also thought that the effects of climate change wereunlikely to manifest in their region for some time.

Peanut farmers were highly attached to their place.Farmers responded to three survey questions about theirwillingness to move (table 2), and responded to aspecific question about their likelihood of moving elsewhere(figure 2). Their responses suggest that peanut farmers arehighly unlikely to move elsewhere such as Katherine tocontinue growing peanuts, even if favourable conditions couldbe found. Peanut farmers are also highly attached to theiroccupation as suggested in table 3, but many farmers wouldconsider an alternative occupation such as growing othercrops if conditions for growing peanuts became economicallyunviable (figure 3). Occupations that were far removed frombeing a peanut farmer were unattractive and unlikely to bepursued.

Given a situation in which environmental conditionsbecome too difficult to profitably grow peanuts, peanutfarmers were more likely to change their land use practices orcrop type, or even change to grazing cattle, rather than changelocation (table 4). Of the issues associated with changingoccupation or place, peanut farmers ranked ‘needing adviceon how to implement change’ as their most important issue,but they also suggested that, ‘there is no urgency . . . tochange’, as well as, ‘. . . the local climate will (not) changemuch’, as more important than, ‘it is too hard for me tochange’ and, ‘I am not convinced that changing will be moreprofitable’ (table 5).

Place attachment and occupational attachment weresignificant influences on one dimension of the capacity of

4

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

Table 1. Dimensions of transformational capacity of peanut farmers in SE Queensland (n = 69).

Mean (scale1–5a) S.E. Mode Range

A. Perceptions of the risks associated with transformational changeQ. If the climate changes, there is much I can do to respond to the opportunities 3.4 0.13 4 5Q. Climate change brings great opportunities 2.45 0.15 2 5Q. I have many options available to me other than being a farmer 3.17 0.15 4 5Q. The important thing for me is to minimize my losses during bad seasons 4.02 0.13 4 5

B. The level of skills in planning, learning and reorganizing livelihood activitiesQ. If there is a drought, I just hope for the bestb 2.42 0.16 1 5Q. Current approaches for dealing with present climate challenges will be sufficient for

dealing with future climate challengesb2.86 0.27 4 4

Q. I do not really believe in long-term planning—things are too uncertainb 2.72 0.17 2 5Q. I like to experiment with new ways to farm 4.01 0.141 4 5

C. The level of financial and emotional flexibilityQ. Regardless of what happens, we have made sure that we are financially secure 3.41 0.15 4 5Q. I am less likely to survive drought compared to other farmers I knowb 2.04 0.11 2 4Q. If needed, I am prepared to completely change the way I manage my property in order

to survive as a farmer3.73 0.14 4 5

D. The level of interest in undertaking transformational changeQ. Climate impacts are unlikely to manifest in this region for some timeb 2.91 0.15 4 5Q. I am interested in learning about climate change and its impacts on the peanut and

farming industry3.39 0.14 4 5

Q. I am interested in learning new skills 3.86 0.14 4 5

a 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.b Please note that responses to these negative questions were reversed prior to analysis.

Table 2. Survey responses on attachment to place of peanut farmers (n = 69).

Survey itemsMean (scale1–5a) S.E. Mode Range

We would be willing to move elsewhere if things became too tough hereb 2.55 0.15 2 5I would never want to move from this region 3.69 0.14 4 5I am unlikely to move elsewhere to farm if conditions become unsuitable here 3.20 0.75 4 5

a 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.b Please note that responses to this negative question was reversed prior to analysis.

Table 3. Survey responses on attachment to occupation of peanut farmers (n = 69).

Survey responsesMean (scale1–5a) S.E. Mode Range

Farming is what I know best 4.11 0.12 4 5Being a farmer is a lifestyle—it is not just my job 3.71 0.16 4 5I would happily consider another occupation if the need aroseb 2.84 0.15 4 5

a 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.b Please note that responses to this negative question was reversed prior to analysis.

Table 4. Ranking of occupational versus place attachment given an untenable situation.

Survey item in response to: faced with a situation in which conditions become too difficultto remain profitable, are you more likely to change your occupation, change your locationor change the way you manage your farming business?

Mean (scale1–5a) S.E. Mode Sumb

Continue growing peanuts by growing different varieties or using different approaches 1.57 0.13 1 107.00Change to another crop type 1.75 0.09 2 119.00Change to grazing cattle 2.59 0.18 3 176.00Change my location (and remain growing peanuts) 3.42 0.20 4 232.50Change my location and occupation 3.64 0.21 5 247.50

a 1 = most important, 2 = important, 3 = neutral, 4 = unlikely to be important, 5 = least important.b Lesser values were ranked as more likely.

5

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

Table 5. Ranking of the risks associated with changing either occupation or place.

Survey item in response to: when considering options for the future, could you please tellme how important each of the following factors might be (scale 1–4, where 1 = not at allimportant and 4 = very important)

Mean (scale1–5a) S.E. Mode Sumb

I need advice on how to implement change 2.25 0.18 3 153.50There is no urgency for me to change 2.18 0.18 3 148.00I do not think that the local climate will change much 2.16 0.18 3 147.00The relevant rules and regulations are incompatible with my aspirations 1.91 0.17 3 130.00There is too much risk in changing for better seasons 1.62 0.16 2 110.00My family would not be supportive of the change 1.56 0.14 2 104.50Any change would limit me in other areas 1.43 0.16 1 96.00It is too hard for me to change 1.36 0.14 1 93.00I am not convinced that changing will be more profitable 0.79 0.16 1 53.00

a 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.b Higher values were rated as more important.

Table 6. The influence of occupational attachment and place attachment on transformational capacity.

Dimension (1) Risk perception (2) Planning (3) Coping (4) Interest

Identity 0.057 −0.208 0.199 −0.270a

Place attachment −0.042 −0.190 0.226 −0.252a

a Indicates a significant influence where p < 0.05.

Figure 2. The likelihood of moving place: would you considermoving elsewhere—such as Katherine—so as to continue growingpeanuts if favourable conditions elsewhere could be found?

peanut farmers to transform: having an interest in adaptingto the future (‘interest’, dimension four). Place attachmentand occupational attachment did not appear to influencehow peanut farmers perceived the risks associated withtransforming, their strategic skills, or their capacity to copepsychologically or financially (table 6).

5. Discussion

Peanut farmers with higher levels of attachment to placeor occupation were assessed as having a lower capacity tochange on one dimension. Of the four important componentsof adaptive capacity, we find that only the willingnessto contemplate and undertake change was significantly

Figure 3. The likelihood of changing identity: what other optionsdo you have available or are you considering if you can no longergrow peanuts in the region (e.g. if conditions change too much)?

correlated with the levels of attachment to place andoccupation. We interpret these responses to mean that theseindividuals are especially interested in adapting because tofail would mean that their ability to remain within theiroccupation or place would be threatened. These observationshighlight the importance of the nature and magnitude of thechange event and its influence across and within scales. Atthe individual scale, for example, our results suggest thatsince transformation involves the crossing of social (or other)thresholds, a transformation for one individual (and possiblyfor a community or region) might not be a transformationfor another. Individuals that have higher levels of attachmentto place or occupation are likely to experience changes inplace or identity as transformational since they are crossing

6

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

individual thresholds. Other individuals with lesser levels ofattachment to place, however, are unlikely to experience suchadaptations as transformational. Cross-scale issues becomeimportant when we consider that transformations at theindividual, family, industry, community and regional levelsof interest may need to occur concurrently for a system-widetransformation to occur [7]. Individuals are embedded withina complex socio-institutional context, and whilst individualswill also be intrinsically affected by those scales above them,our results suggest that they will also fundamentally influencethe extent to which some climate adaptations at higher scaleswill be successful.

Some individuals are more attached to their place oroccupational identity than others. ‘Attachment to place’ is aconcept that describes the level of connection that individualshave with their physical place or community [46, 47]. It allowsus to understand comments such as, ‘this is a farming town’where an identity is created around the township, a sense ofpride is associated with belonging to the town and strongfriendships and networks exist within it [58]. The conceptprovides insight into social well-being and quality of life,and there is strong evidence to suggest that control overchanging places or changes to the place itself are importantfor psychological and emotional well-being [52]. The levelof attachment that a person has to their place or occupationmay be an indicator of their willingness and ability to searchfor employment elsewhere or to diversify locally [24]. Whilstother research has been unable to show that place attachmentis a significant influence on adaptive capacity [44], our resultssuggest that attachment to place is likely to be a barrier toadaptations that involve changing place. That is, for changeevents that do not involve moving locations, place attachmentis likely to be a positive influence on adaptation; placeattachment brings resources such as networks, social capital,local knowledge and a sense of well-being into a region [55].Individuals with particularly high levels of place attachmenttypically have reciprocal networks of community interactionsand increased social trust that are directed towards mutualbenefit [56]. These people are unlikely to be interested inadaptations involving relocations. Place attachment can thuscontribute to the success of some climate adaptations [57, 58],whilst acting to impair others [24].

Similarly, occupational identity appeared to be importantfor change events that affect identity. Resource users canbecome especially attached to their occupation. People thatbuild their lives around their work, have friends that arefrom the same occupation and have leisure interests andactivities that are work-oriented are likely to develop a strongattachment to their occupation [51]. People form occupationalcommunities if they are members of the same occupation,have some sort of common life together and are, to someextent, separate from the rest of society [48]. The identitythat is created and reinforced around a person’s occupationis based on a set of attitudes, beliefs and opinions held aboutthemselves and they depend on the support, encouragement,recognition and acceptance of others (usually from the sameoccupation) for their psychological stability [51]. When aperson with a strong occupational attachment is faced with

the prospect that they are no longer able to continue intheir current occupation, they not only lose a means ofearning an income, they may lose an important part of theirself-identity [42]. Our results suggest that peanut farmers inQueensland that have created a strong sense of occupationalidentity around their peanut producing occupation are unlikelyto adopt a new occupation outside of farming, regardlessof the tenability of their situation. Innovative solutions thatmatch or support current identities will need to be identifiedand supported if farmers are to adapt. These might includelivelihoods centring on other cropping products (such aswheat, corn, sorghum, etc).

Transformational adaptations represent a fundamentalsystem change where a different set of factors, processes andtriggers influence it [13]. The capacity to respond to a broadrange of climate risks is likely to be reflected in the extentto which each of the four dimensions listed here exist withinindividuals. This capacity might be able to be influenced,depending on the nature of the change event. Planningfor transformations in which all system elements crosstheir respective thresholds concurrently, however, will bechallenging. Cross-scale surprises may occur when variablesthat operate at different scales and at different speedsinteract [5]. Attachments to occupational identity and placeare examples of slow changing variables that may influencethe pace at which planned transformations progress. They arealso descriptors of the thresholds that exist at the individualscale; our results suggest that these thresholds will be differentfor different individuals. Identifying thresholds and measuringthe proximity of social systems to them is important for thesuccessful design and implementation of climate adaptationstrategies.

Successful climate adaptations within the peanut industryin Australia are unlikely to include those that involvefarmers changing locations or identity. Conditions for growingpeanuts in Queensland are historically variable and maybecome more tenuous. Creative incentives would have beennecessary to encourage peanut farmers to support the move toKatherine. Factors such as place attachment and occupationalidentity, which are effectively unaccounted for in climatepolicy to date [8, 59], and are important potential barriersto climate adaptations which involve changing place oridentity, are important considerations. Given that it willbe difficult to change the levels of place attachment andoccupational identities of individuals that have high levelsof each, and that approaches for dealing with currentclimate challenges will be insufficient for dealing with futureclimate challenges, targeting investments to improve farmers’capacity to manage a broad range of climate risks, planand develop an interest in a climate changed future mightenhance the industry’s capacity to transform [60]. Creatingsupportive policy environments that enable lower-risk changepathways and provide well-matched incentives for effectivetransformation are also likely to be important [61–63].

6. Conclusions

While planned transformation in advance of climate changecan bring many benefits to an industry sector, there are

7

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

significant challenges that need to be confronted if suchprocesses are to bring net benefits that are equitablydistributed and effectively address probable climate changeimpacts. These challenges will be different to those requiringincremental adjustments. We find a strong negative correlationbetween transformational capacity and both place attachmentand occupational attachment, suggesting that whilst thesefactors may be important positive influences on the capacityto adapt to incremental change, they may act as barriers totransformational change.

This research explores the importance of four dimensionsof how individuals respond to change as a basis from which tounderstand constraints and opportunities for transformationalchange. Given the impetus for transformation in the faceof future climate change, there is a significant likelihoodof demand for planned resettlements and migration. Futureresearch is needed to identify the thresholds describing whenin situ adaptation becomes ineffective, and the social andecological limits to adaptation are reached. The researchpresented here emphasizes the social and psychologicalelements of the capacity to undertake such change so asto minimize the social costs and maximize the autonomyand legitimacy of such processes. Regional planners couldconsider the social dimensions of transformation and providethe appropriate incentives and phasing of the transformationprocess to maintain fundamental human security if suchtransformation becomes necessary for the chosen adaptationpathway.

Acknowledgments

The authors are sincerely grateful to the 69 farmers whoagreed to participate in the study and to Rebecca Valliswho interviewed them. We would like to acknowledge thesupport of the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship and theDepartment of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries. Supportfor writing the manuscript was also generously providedfrom sabbatical funds within CSIRO’s Ecosystem Sciences.K Brown was funded by ESRC Professorial Fellowship.

References

[1] Solomon S et al (ed) 2007 Climate Change 2007: ThePhysical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I tothe Fourth Assessment Report of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press)

[2] Lenton T M 2011 Early warning of climate tipping pointsNature Clim. Change 1 201–9

[3] Wilbanks T J and Kates R W 2010 Beyond adapting to climatechange: embedding adaptation in responses to multiplethreats and stresses Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 100 719–28

[4] Stokes C J and Howden S M 2010 Adapting Agriculture toClimate Change: Preparing Australian Agriculture,Forestry and Fisheries for the Future (Canberra: CSIROPublishing)

[5] Nelson D R, Adger W N and Brown K 2007 Adaptation toenvironmental change: contributions of a resilienceframework Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32 395–419

[6] Dessai S and Hulme M 2007 Assessing the robustness ofadaptation decisions to climate change uncertainties: a case

study on water resources management in the east ofEngland Glob. Environ. Change 17 59–72

[7] Gunderson L and Holling C S 2002 Panarchy: UnderstandingTransformations in Human and Natural Systems(Washington, DC: Island Press)

[8] Rickards L and Howden S M 2012 Transformationaladaptation: agriculture and climate change Crop PastureSci. 63 240–50

[9] Park S E, Marshall N A, Jakku E, Dowd A M andHowden S M 2012 Informing adaptation responses toclimate change through theories of transformation Glob.Environ. Change 22 115–26

[10] Folke C et al 2002 Resilience and sustainable development:building adaptive capacity in a world of transformationsAmbio 31 437–40

[11] Olsson P, Folke C and Hahn T 2004 Social-ecologicaltransformation for ecosystem management: thedevelopment of adaptive co-management of a wetland insouthern Sweden Ecol. Soc. 9 2 (available at www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2)

[12] Walker B, Holling C S, Carpenter S and Kinzig A 2004Resilience, adaptability and transformability insocio-ecological systems Ecol. Soc. 9 5 (available at www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9.iss2/art5)

[13] Allison E H and Ellis F 2001 The livelihoods approach andmanagement of small-scale fisheries Mar. Policy 25 377–88

[14] Gallopin G 2002 Planning for resilience: scenarios, suprises,and branch points Panarchy: UnderstandingTransformations in Human and Natural Systemsed L Gunderson and C S Holling (Washington, DC: IslandPress) pp 361–92

[15] Olsson P et al 2006 Shooting the rapids: navigating transitionsto adaptive governance of social-ecological systems Ecol.Soc. 11 18

[16] Marshall N A 2007 Can policy perception influence socialresilience to policy change? Fish. Res. 86 216–27

[17] Tompkins E L et al 2010 Observed adaptation to climatechange: UK evidence of transition to a well-adaptingsociety Glob. Environ. Change 20 627–35

[18] Walker B and Meyers J A 2004 Thresholds in ecological andsocial-ecological systems: a developing database Ecol. Soc.9 3 (available at www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art3)

[19] Lobao L and Meyer K 2001 The great agricultural transition:crisis, change, and social consequences of twentieth centuryUS farming Ann. Rev. Soc. 27 103–24

[20] Niemeyer S, Petts J and Hobson K 2005 Rapid climate changeand society: assessing responses and thresholds Risk Anal.25 1443–56

[21] Gimenez E H and Shattuck A 2011 Food crises, food regimesand food movements: rumblings of reform or tides oftransformation? J. Peasant Stud. 38 109–44

[22] Scheffer M, Carpenter S, Foley J A, Folke C andWalker B 2001 Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems Nature413 591–6

[23] Berkes F and Jolly D 2001 Adapting to climate change:social-ecological resilience in a Canadian western Arcticcommunity Conserv. Ecol. 5 18 (available at www.consecol.org/vol5/iss2/art18)

[24] Adger W N, Kelly P M, Winkels A, Huy L Q andLocke C 2002 Migration, remittances, livelihoodtrajectories, and social resilience Ambio 31 358–66

[25] Gelcich S et al 2010 Navigating transformations ingovernance of Chilean marine coastal resources Proc. NatlAcad. Sci. USA 107 16794–9

[26] Olsson P, Folke C and Hughes T P 2008 Navigating thetransition to ecosystem-based management of the Great

8

Environ. Res. Lett. 7 (2012) 034022 N A Marshall et al

Barrier Reef, Australia Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA105 9489–94

[27] Frank E, Eakin H and Lopez-Carr D 2011 Social identity,perception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas, Mexico Glob. Environ.Change 21 66–76

[28] Pelling M, High C, Dearing J and Smith D 2008 Shadowspaces for social learning: a relational understanding ofadaptive capacity to climate change within organisationsEnviron. Plan. A 40 867–84

[29] Eakin H and Lemos M C 2010 Institutions and change: thechallenge of building adaptive capacity in Latin AmericaGlob. Environ. Change 20 1–3

[30] Tompkins E L and Eakin H 2012 Managing private and publicadaptation to climate change Glob. Environ. Change22 3–11

[31] Adger W N et al 2009 Are there social limits to adaptation toclimate change? Clim. Change 93 335–54

[32] Adger W N 1999 Social vulnerability to climate change andextremes in coastal Vietnam World Dev. 27 249–69

[33] Adger W N, Brown K and Conway D 2010 Progress in globalenvironmental change Glob. Environ. Change 20 547–9

[34] Moser S C and Ekstrom J A 2010 A framework to diagnosebarriers to climate change adaptation Proc. Natl Acad. Sci.USA 107 22026–31

[35] Cinner J E, McClanahan T R, Graham N A J, Daw T M,Maina J, Stead S M, Wamukota A, Brown K andBodin O 2012 Vulnerability of coastal communities to keyimpacts of climate change on coral reef fisheries Glob.Environ. Change 22 12–20

[36] Smit B and Wandel J 2006 Adaptation, adaptive capacity andvulnerability Glob. Environ. Change 16 282–92

[37] Carpenter S, Walker B, Anderies J M and Abel N 2001 Frommetaphor to measurement: resilience of what to what?Ecosystems 4 765–81

[38] Olsson P, Folke C and Berkes F 2004 Adaptive comanagementfor building resilience in social-ecological systems Environ.Manag. 34 75–90

[39] Nelson R, Kokic P, Crimp S, Meinke H and Howden S M 2010The vulnerability of Australian rural communities toclimate variability and change: part I—conceptualising andmeasuring vulnerability Environ. Sci. Policy 13 8–17

[40] Nelson R, Kokic P, Crimp S, Martin P, Meinke H,Howden S M, de Voil P and Nidumolu U 2010 Thevulnerability of Australian rural communities to climatevariability and change: part II—integrating impacts withadaptive capacity Environ. Sci. Policy 13 18–27

[41] Marshall N A and Marshall P A 2007 Conceptualising andoperationalising social resilience within commercialfisheries in northern Australia Ecol. Soc. 12 11 (available atwww.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss11/art11/)

[42] Marshall N A 2010 Understanding social resilience to climatevariability in primary enterprises and industries Glob.Environ. Change 20 36–43

[43] Marshall N A, Gordon I J and Ash A J 2011 The reluctance ofresource-users to adopt seasonal climate forecasts that canenhance their resilience to climate variability Clim. Change107 511–29

[44] Marshall N A, Fenton D M, Marshall P A and Sutton S 2007How resource-dependency can influence social resiliencewithin a primary resource industry Rural Sociol. 72 359–90

[45] Marshall N A 2011 Assessing resource dependency on therangelands as a measure of climate sensitivity Soc. Nat.Resour. 24 1105–15

[46] Adger W N, Barnett J, Chapin F S and Ellemor H 2011 Thismust be the place: underrepresentation of identity andmeaning in climate change decision-making Glob. Environ.Polit. 11 (2) 1–25

[47] Twigger-Ross C L and Uzzell D L 1996 Place and identityprocesses J. Environ. Psychol. 16 205–20

[48] Devine-Wright P and Clayton S 2010 Introduction to thespecial issue: place, identity and environmental behaviourJ. Environ. Psychol. 30 267–70

[49] Pelling M and High C 2005 Understanding adaptation: whatcan social capital offer assessments of adaptive capacity?Glob. Environ. Change 15 308–19

[50] Field D R and Burch W R J 1988 Rural Sociology and theEnvironment (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press)

[51] Becker H S and Carper J W 1956 Elements of identificationwith an occupation Am. Sociol. Rev. 21 341–8

[52] Devine-Wright P and Howes Y 2011 Disruption to placeattachment and the protection of restorative environments: awind energy case study J. Environ. Psychol. 30 271–80

[53] Wotton H and Strange R 1987 Increased susceptibility andreduced phytoalexin accumulation in drought-stressedpeanut kernels challenged with aspergillus flavus Appl.Environ. Microbiol. 53 270–3

[54] Challinor A J and Wheeler T R 2008 Crop yield reduction inthe tropics under climate change: processes anduncertainties Agric. Forest Meteorol. 148 343–56

[55] Theodori G L 2001 Examining the effects of communitysatisfaction and attachment on individual well-being RuralSociol. 66 618–28

[56] Hofferth S L and Iceland J 1998 Social capital in rural andurban communitities Rural Sociol. 63 574–98

[57] Korpi T 2001 Good friends in bad times? Social networks andjob search among the unemployed in Sweden Acta Sociol.44 157–70

[58] Flora J L 1998 Social capital and communities of place RuralSociol. 63 481–506

[59] Moser S C 2010 Now more than ever: the need for moresocietally relevant research on vulnerability and adaptationto climate change Appl. Geogr. 30 464

[60] Howden S M et al 2007 Adapting agriculture to climatechange Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 104 19691–6

[61] Adger W N, Paavola J, Huq S and Mace M C (ed) 2006Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change (Cambridge,MA: MIT Press)

[62] Paavola J and Adger W N 2006 Fair adaptation to climatechange Ecol. Econ. 56 594–609

[63] O’Neill S J and Handmer J 2012 Responding to bushfire risk:the need for transformative adaptation Environ. Res. Lett.7 014018

9