The Climate Awareness Development framework provides city stakeholders with a process to develop climate awareness. The framework defines four sequential steps that stakeholders need to go through when developing climate awareness. The framework starts with the lower level of awareness, “Step 1: Passive”, and ends with the highest level, “Step 4: Synergies”. Each step describes a generic characterization of the process for developing climate awareness at a city scale based on the elements of the framework: 1) the attributes that define climate awareness, 2) the climate awareness development mechanisms, 3) the policies for developing climate awareness and 4) the progressive four-step process (see Fig. 2). Further explanation of how the process has been defined is in Iturriza et al. (2020).
Table 2 illustrates the complete framework, which includes the four steps, a short description of the step’s objectives, the attributes that define awareness, the mechanisms that explain the awareness process, and a set of policies to be implemented to move from one step to the next. The mechanisms, the four steps and the policies are explained in detail below.
4.1. Awareness attributes
The literature review identified the main attributes used to define climate awareness in the context of building city resilience (see Sect. 2). Based on the four attributes (experience, knowledge, attention and collaboration) identified in this research we define climate awareness as having experienced and knowing about CC as a hazard as well as increasing attention to CC by having the willingness to take action and participate in a collaborative way to adapt to and face the challenges of CC.
The attribute experience refers to the lived real-life practices related to a specific problem (Anguelovski et al. 2014). Having a high degree of experience means having gained experience by being involved in that problem. In this sense, experience can be lived first- or second-hand. In the case of CC, having first-hand experience means having gained experience by living through a consequence of CC, whereas second-hand experience would be to gain experience by hearing someone's lived experience of a CC-related event.
The attribute knowledge refers to the quantity and quality of information about a problem. In order to acquire knowledge and be considered as having a high level of knowledge about a topic, the available information needs to be collected and analysed. Developing climate awareness is largely dependent on the availability and quality of information concerning CC (Street et al. 2016).
Moreover, the attribute attention refers to being alert and having the willingness to act upon a problem in a committed way (Sollberger et al. 2017). Of the four attributes, this is the one that concerns behaviour. Having a high attention level implies that attention has been generated by being alert to what is happening in the immediate environment and committing to action. Several studies have shown that attention might differ depending on gender, age, political affiliation and past experiences (Paterson and Charles 2019).
Finally, the attribute collaboration refers to working across boundaries and in multi-stakeholder relationships (Oxley 2013). Hence, creating collaboration entails conducting a set of activities directed towards the achievement of common goals to initiate new collaboration networks. Maintaining climate awareness requires the collaboration and coordination of all stakeholders. Strategic alliances predicated on collaboration are what allow inter-agency dialogue to take place, resources to be pooled and duplication of efforts to be avoided (Evers et al. 2016).
4.2. Awareness-development mechanisms
Our next step is to define a detailed process that covers how to develop climate awareness when building city resilience efficiently and effectively. To that end, and following the literature, in this section we identify the mechanisms that determine how the attributes of climate awareness are activated during the resilience-building process. The identified mechanisms, which are closely related to the attributes, are: gaining experience, acquiring knowledge, generating attention and creating collaboration.
The names of the mechanisms seem to imply a direct relationship between the four attributes and the mechanisms, yet the mechanisms are interrelated to each other and are activated in different points of the climate awareness development process. The predominance of any given mechanism will vary during the awareness-development process. Figure 3 summarizes the dynamic relationships between the mechanisms and the attributes during the process through a causal loop diagram. The mechanisms are shown as loops, and the attributes are related by arrows. Figure 3 represents how this process is initiated: first, loop B1 is activated, and in turn R1 will be activated, followed by R2, and finally R3. Thus, to initiate the process, stakeholders must first experience a CC event (Rogers 1975). Experiencing an impact (the B1 loop) brings about a clear change in the city stakeholders’ climate awareness since they clearly see how badly they could be affected if nothing is done (Sheppard et al. 2011). In this sense, to initiate the climate awareness development process it is key that the impacts experienced be related to CC and not another hazard. As a consequence of the experience gained, stakeholders start to acquire more knowledge about the issue of CC and have more interest in learning about and understanding this challenge and how to deal with it (R1 loop). Also, attention towards CC is generated (R2 loop) and stakeholders start being more committed and take action to reduce CC impact and become a more sustainable city. In this context, it is important to ensure that the collaboration and thus the synergies among stakeholders are created (R3 loop), so that awareness reaches its maximum level and is maintained over time by sharing the experience, knowledge and attention developed among stakeholders.
4.3. Awareness policies
The development phase of the study resulted in a list of nine policies that should be implemented to develop climate awareness. The list of nine policies was defined at a strategic and aggregated level, and each policy specifies a particular stakeholder in charge of its implementation. Additionally, having the policies defined at an aggregated level increases the generalizability of the policies because stakeholders can particularize the policies to fit their characteristics and urban contexts. In this vein, and based on the literature, a set of sub-policies was defined for each policy to facilitate the characterization of the policies.
The policies shown in Table 2 and defined in Table 3 are the result of the co-creation process and determine what should be done to go from one step to the next in the awareness-development process. Table 2 shows some policies in more than one step because the experts concluded that some policies should be implemented and maintained over time to boost the awareness-development process.
Policy names have been given an acronym to specify the stakeholder type in charge of implementing them (PU: Public entities; PR: Private companies; CG: Community groups). For example, in the first step of the awareness-development process, the policy “CG3: demand a change” is led by community groups and increases attention of CC.
4.4. Awareness-development process steps
The Climate Awareness Development framework provides a process that helps city stakeholders to improve their climate awareness and better build city resilience. The process defined in the framework consists of four consecutive. Although not every city will be at the first step, the process aims to both assess and guide stakeholders in achieving the highest climate awareness level.
Each step encapsulates the elements of the framework by determining in a sequential and gradual way the climate awareness mechanisms that are activated, the climate awareness attributes that are achieved and the policies that need to be implemented to advance from one step to the next. Table 2 shows the steps, the dominant mechanisms in each step, the attributes achieved and the policies required to advance from one step to the next.
Step 1: Passive
In this first step, the city stakeholders still doubt the existence of the challenge of CC and have passive behaviour. In order to advance in the awareness-development process, the first requirement is to realize that there is a need (Rogers 1975). The question to answer is, “do we perceive the challenge of CC?” Experience regarding CC hazards are key in this aspect, since having experienced a CC event makes stakeholders realise what has been done is not enough to face CC, and they start perceiving the existence of the problem and the need to act (Sheppard et al. 2011). Therefore, in this first step, experience is the dominant mechanism. Indeed, suffering CC-related impacts is translated into a higher experience level, which increases awareness and as consequence resilience.
Step 2: Active
In the second step, awareness has started to develop. Stakeholders perceive and start to understand the vulnerabilities and hazards related to CC, yet they do not act accordingly. As a result, incentives that foster acquiring knowledge should be designed (Poponi et al. 2019). However, one of the three types of city stakeholder needs to lead the behaviour transformation process and incentives. The question in this second step would be, "do we want to make a change?" In this vein, the experience gained from the CC-related impact leads stakeholders to increase their interest in the topic, and therefore stakeholders start analysing the causes of the problem and obtain more information about the challenge of CC. Thus, stakeholders acquire knowledge of CC. Note that in this second step both awareness and resilience start increasing more rapidly because not only experience but also knowledge is developed.
Step 3: Proactive
In the third step, experience and knowledge lead to a higher attention level. Consequently, stakeholders behave proactively with regard to CC, but only at an individual level. Each stakeholder acts separately and does not consider possible synergies. As Ban Ki-Moon stated in 2009, leaders should be the example. Yet these leaders can be of any kind (public, private or communities), and the only must is to ensure having committed leaders, as commitment will make them lead and act in a proactive way (Poponi et al. 2019). The question in this step would be, “what can we do to improve this situation?” The stakeholders recognise the vulnerabilities and hazards around them and act accordingly. Even if incentives are applied, in this step actions are carried out altruistically because each stakeholder perceives personal benefits and good in doing so (Tàbara et al. 2009; Siriporananon and Visuthismajarn 2018). Consequently, stakeholders turn out to be a source of feedback and energy. Communication increases among stakeholders and leaders are obliged to continue acting and dealing with the problem of CC (Moser 2016).
Step 4: Synergies
In the fourth and last step, the experience, knowledge and attention attained lead to collaboration networks such that proactive behaviour towards CC emerges in a multilevel way. Stakeholders not only perceive and understand what is around them, but they are also alert to acting in a committed and collective way to mitigate long-term effects. Stakeholders seek personal convenience as well as universal good that might not directly result in personal benefit. The behaviour in this last step means being in a process of constant change and improvement as existing barriers disappear, silo-thinking is eliminated and stakeholders start to face problems in a collaborative way (Pescaroli 2018). The question in this fourth step would be, “who else can be part of the group?” In this sense, creating collaboration is the dominant mechanism in this last step. This step is key in order to maintain the awareness gained and the resulting resilience level because stakeholders are committed and acting jointly (Toubin et al. 2014). The newly created collaboration networks facilitate communication not only inside the city but also among other cities, and this, in turn, makes it easier to introduce plans and make them more effective.
Table 3
|
POLICY
|
REFERENCE
|
DEFINITION
|
PUBLIC ENTITIES
|
PU1: DEVELOPMENT OF NORMS AND SUSTAINABLE PROCUREMENTS
|
(Poponi et al. 2019)
|
This policy determines the adoption of existing norms, standards and sustainable procurements but also the development of new norms and sustainable procurements in order to develop awareness and increase city resilience toward CC.
|
PU2: PROVIDE TOOLKIT TO DEVELOP PLANS AGAINST CC
|
(Keenan 2018)
|
This policy involves developing tools such as an online best practice repository or a handbook of strategic procedures to facilitate the process of building and implementing a resilience plan to face CC.
|
PU3: SENSITIZATION ACTIONS
|
(Luís et al. 2018)
|
This policy consists of carrying out sensitization actions such as incentives to recycle, studies about CC, workshops concerning sustainability habits or creative participatory sessions with any of the three city stakeholder types.
|
PRIVATE COMPANIES
|
PR1: CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY ACTIONS
|
(Siriporananon and Visuthismajarn 2018)
|
This policy consists of carrying out transparency actions such as publishing companies’ emissions, sharing consumption data, communicating information about sustainable actions taken, financial movements or sharing problems and barriers encountered in the process of developing sustainable habits.
|
PR2: ADOPTION OF NEW VALUES FOR NEW BUSINESS MODELS
|
(Poponi et al. 2019; Siriporananon and Visuthismajarn 2018)
|
This policy is related to the adoption of new business values such as the adoption of an inclusive and sustainable economy, low carbon emission practices or sustainable habits like recycling, in order to pursue sustainable production and resource consumption.
|
PR3: DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR NEW BUSINESS MODELS
|
(Poponi et al. 2019)
|
This policy consists of developing technologies to transform private companies into new business models that seek profit while also generating social benefit, such as social vulnerability reduction. For example, investing in sustainable technology makes companies reduce their emissions, which reduces pollution and increases social welfare.
|
COMMUNITY GROUPS
|
CG1: ORGANIZE EVENTS AND WORKSHOPS
|
(Poponi et al. 2019)
|
This policy consists of organizing events and workshops to discuss the main concerns and problems derived from CC such as decreased societal welfare due to the effects of CC, vulnerabilities due to new climate scenarios or the lack of knowledge concerning what to do or how to act in a sustainable way.
|
CG2: ORGANIZE CAMPAIGNS
|
(Poponi et al. 2019)
|
This policy consists of organizing campaigns through social networks, media or physical events with the objective of creating a positive impact on the awareness of the three stakeholder types, but with greater emphasis on community groups.
|
CG3: DEMAND A CHANGE
|
(Bakaki and Bernauer, 2017)
|
This policy consists of demanding that public entities and private companies change the way they face the challenge of CC. To that end, demanding action and transparency concerning their decisions and emissions is posed in this policy in order to ensure good sustainable practices are adopted and enabled.
|