Climate Policy

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tcpo20

Meaning-making in a context of climate change:

supporting agency and political engagement

Christine Wamsler, Gustav Osberg, Anna Panagiotou, Beth Smith, Peter

Stanbridge, Walter Osika & Luis Mundaca

To cite this article: Christine Wamsler, Gustav Osberg, Anna Panagiotou, Beth Smith,
Peter Stanbridge, Walter Osika & Luis Mundaca (2022): Meaning-making in a context
of climate change: supporting agency and political engagement, Climate Policy, DOI:
10.1080/14693062.2022.2121254

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2121254

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

View supplementary material

Published online: 26 Sep 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1936

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tcpo20
CLIMATE POLICY
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2121254

Meaning-making in a context of climate change: supporting agency and

political engagement
Christine Wamsler a, Gustav Osberg a, Anna Panagiotoub, Beth Smithb, Peter Stanbridgeb,
Walter Osika c and Luis Mundaca d
a
Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Lund, Sweden; bCognitive Edge, Conwy, Wales, UK; cDepartment of
Neuroscience & Centre for Social Sustainability, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; dInternational Institute of Industrial
Environmental Economics (IIIEE), Lund, Sweden

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Responding effectively to climate change requires an understanding of what shapes Received 30 October 2021
people’s individual and collective sense of agency and responsibility towards the Accepted 22 August 2022
future. It also requires transforming this understanding into political engagement
KEYWORDS
to support systems change. Based on a national representative survey in Sweden Behaviour change; climate
(N = 1,237), this research uses the novel SenseMaker methodology to look into change mitigation; climate
these matters. More specifically, in order to understand the social and institutional change adaptation;
prerequisites that must be in place to develop inclusive climate responses, we transformation;
investigate how citizens perceive their everyday life and future, and the participation; climate policy
implications for their sense of responsibility, agency, and political engagement. Our integration
research findings show how citizens perceive and act on climate change
(individually, cooperatively, and by supporting others), their underlying values,
beliefs, emotions and paradigms, inter-group variations, and obstacles and
enablers for change. The findings reveal that, in general, individual and public
climate action is perceived as leading to improved (rather than reduced) wellbeing
and welfare. At the same time, climate anxiety and frustration about structural and
governance constraints limit agency, whilst positive emotions and inner qualities,
such as human–nature connections, support both political engagement and
wellbeing. Our results shed light on individual, collective, and structural capacities
that must be supported to address climate change. They draw attention to the
need to develop new forms of citizen involvement and of policy that can explicitly
address these human interactions, inner dimensions of thinking about and acting
on climate change, and the underlying social paradigms. We conclude with further
research needs and policy recommendations.

Key policy insights:

. In general, citizens perceive increased individual and public climate action as
leading to improved (rather than reduced) wellbeing and welfare.
. Effective responses to climate change require addressing underlying social
paradigms (to complement predominant external, technological, and
information-based approaches).
. Such responses include increasing policy support for:
o learning environments and practices that can help individuals to discover
internalized social patterns and increase their sense of agency and
interconnection (to self, others, nature);

CONTACT Christine Wamsler christine.wamsler@lucsus.lu.se Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Lund, Sweden
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2022.2121254.
© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and
is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

o institutional and political mechanisms that support citizen engagement and the
systematic consideration of human inner dimensions (values, beliefs, emotions
and associated inner qualities/capacities) across all sectors of work, by
systematically revising organizations’ vision statements, communication and
project management tools, working structures, policies, regulations, human
and financial resource allocation, and collaboration; and
o nature-based solutions and other approaches to support the human–nature
connection.

1. Introduction
Despite decades of negotiations and wide-ranging policies and measures at international, national, and local
levels, efforts to address climate change have not generated the results needed to avoid potentially cata-
strophic futures (IPCC, 2022a, 2022b; UNFCCC, 2020a, 2020b). Sweden is no exception. The country is con-
sidered a forerunner in climate mitigation and adaptation, with high levels of governmental and public
awareness (Blennow & Persson, 2009; SEPA, 2021). However, if the world’s population adopted the
Swedish lifestyle, the equivalent of 4.2 Earths would be needed to sustain everyone (SEPA, 2022; WWF,
2016, 2020).
Part of the policy challenge relates to the fact that climate change tends to be framed and addressed as an
external, technical challenge (Leichenko & O’Brien, 2020). While important, the current focus on external factors,
such as wider socio-economic structures and technology, has proven to be insufficient (IPCC, 2022a, 2022b). In
particular, it has narrowed the possibilities for deeper change that also tackles the root causes of climate
change: the inner (individual and collective) mental states that underlie social norms and paradigms and con-
tinually produce and reproduce the climate crisis (EEA, 2021; Filho & McCrea, 2018; Geels & Schot, 2007;
Hunecke, 2018; Köhler et al., 2019; Upham et al., 2019; Wamsler & Bristow, 2022; Wamsler et al., 2021). Accord-
ingly, scholars and practitioners are increasingly emphasizing the need to complement the dominant external
approaches of policy with an inner orientation to support transformation towards sustainability (Adger et al.,
2013; Grušovnik, 2012; Hulme, 2009; Ives et al., 2020; O’Brien, 2018; Rimanoczy, 2014; Waddock, 2015;
Wamsler et al., 2020, 2021; Woiwode et al., 2021). This claim is supported by systems theory, which views
inner dimensions (i.e. individual and collective mindsets, values, beliefs, paradigms, and associated inner qual-
ities/capacities) as a deep leverage point for sustainable transformation, as they tackle the abovementioned
root causes (Abson et al., 2017; Fischer & Riechers, 2019; Meadows, 1999; Wamsler, 2020).1
Whilst calls for considering inner dimensions in climate policy and practice are increasing, a comprehensive
understanding of integrative transformation processes that integrate both inner and outer dimensions is
lacking (Wamsler et al., 2021). Addressing this gap requires a better understanding of what shapes people’s
sense of agency and responsibility towards the future and how it can transform into practical and political
engagement across individual, collective, and system levels (Dobson, 2003; O’Brien, 2018; Wamsler et al.,
2021). This study addresses the identified gap in current policy and practice and investigates these aspects
by focusing on the voices of Swedish citizens.
More specifically, the study aims to investigate how people in Sweden perceive their everyday life, welfare,
and future in a changing climate, and the implications for their sense of agency, responsibility, and political
engagement, in order to understand the social and institutional prerequisites that must be in place to
develop comprehensive climate policy responses. We, therefore, explore the mindsets, values, beliefs, and para-
digms of different societal groups in Sweden, together with the contextual and cognitive-emotional conditions
and factors that shape citizens’ sense of responsibility, and their influence and political engagement (both
actual and potential). On this basis, we discuss the role of citizens in promoting transformational cultural
and systems change, as well as the potential consequences of marginalizing or excluding citizens’ voices.

The classification into inner and outer, which marks the boundary between what is ‘inside’ (a subject) and what is ‘outside’ (a subject), is
1

artificial and applied for simplicity. Inner dimensions are actually inter-subjective (e.g. socially defined) and qualities/capacities are
enacted (e.g. cultivated and expressed in relationship to other subjects and the world at large).
 CLIMATE POLICY 3

The exploration of citizens’ roles is, in this context, aligned with the concept of ecological citizenship, which is,
in turn, grounded in the principles of sustainability, responsibility, justice, and democratic participation
(Dobson, 2003; Karatekin & Uysal, 2018). This exploration also considers individual choices made to generate
relationships with others (close by and elsewhere), relationships with nature, and relationships with future gen-
erations (Wolf, 2007; Wolf et al., 2009). Such choices and relationships are key to integrative transformation pro-
cesses (Wamsler et al., 2021).
Ecological citizenship is a normative theory that envisages citizenship as related to both political agency and
climate action (Dobson, 2003). Citizens’ political agency has, so far, been limited to areas such as behavioural
change, consumption choices, and voting in general elections (O’Brien, 2015). In this study, we seek ways to
look beyond this thin repertoire of citizenship actions and aim to explore how people can become agents of
change and active participants in the transformation to a post-carbon society. The outcomes of the study
draw attention to the need to develop new forms of policy and citizen involvement in a changing climate,
and allow us to conclude with further research needs and policy recommendations.

2. Methodology
To explore our research aim, we conducted a national survey (N = 1,237). To conduct this survey, the research
team hired a market research firm (Norstat) to collect data from a web panel of people living in Sweden. The
sample was representative regarding gender, age, education, and income, but not regarding urban–rural differ-
ences. The following three, interrelated themes guided the survey design, data collection, and analysis:

1. Values, beliefs, and paradigms: How do citizens perceive and experience climate change and its impacts?
How do they perceive their own agency and responsibility, and what values, beliefs, and paradigms underlie
their actions?
2. Agency and political engagement: What do citizens think and feel about current and proposed actions for
transitioning to a fossil-free society? How do they perceive their ability to influence these actions? How and
through what channels/arenas are they making their voices heard, and what are the perceived outcomes?
3. Transition visions and pathways: What vision for the future do people have? What aspects do they think
should be given priority in future climate work? What are their attitudes towards the future, and what con-
textual and cognitive-emotional factors could encourage more active engagement and empower citizens to
support transformation across scales?

People’s perceptions regarding the three themes were collected and analysed using SenseMaker, a narra-
tive-based methodology that includes quantitative and qualitative data collection and analyses that are facili-
tated by software (Camlin et al., 2020; Campbell-Scherer et al., 2021). It captures and assesses micro-narratives
(i.e. personal stories) to ‘make sense’ of complex situations by identifying underlying patterns (Bruner, 2020;
Carr, 1986; Snowden et al., 2021; Steffen, 1997). Sense-making can be understood as the cognitive process
people use to structure the unknown, understand the world, and instruct action (Van der Merwe et al.,
2019). This interpretative process is influenced by culture, knowledge systems, and experiences, where
meaning is assigned to a phenomenon in order to inform individual and collective behaviour (Van der
Merwe et al., 2019). How people act, in turn, shapes their social realities and future sense-making in an
ongoing process (Van der Merwe et al., 2019). Accordingly, SenseMaker gives access to everyday forms of
social knowledge (thoughts and experiences) and helps reveal elements of a grounded discourse that
informs the decisions and actions that shape our realities, collectively painting a bigger picture of public
opinion on a given issue (Snowden et al., 2021). It enriches and nuances captured thoughts and experiences
(called stories), as respondents are invited to self-analyse and interpret them via triads, dyads, and mul-
tiple-choice questions (see Figures 1 and 2).
In SenseMaker, stories are elicited via an introductory open question (OQ) or prompt that captures a micro-
narrative. Triads (T) explore the higher-level meaning of the story that is told. The respondent is presented with
a statement and asked to consider how it corresponds to their story’s content with respect to three dimensions.
They are invited to click on the ball in the triangle and move it to the position that best reflects their
4 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

Figure 1. Overview of the questions and results of the triads (T1-7), dyads (D1-6), and multiple-choice questions (MCQ1-3).

perspectives. Dyads (D) test certain hypotheses or assumptions, such as what makes things better or worse, or
the relative strength of a single concept, quality, belief, or outcome. The respondent is presented with a state-
ment related to their story and asked to indicate where they sit on a sliding ‘virtue’ scale. Multiple-choice ques-
tions (MCQ) also test hypotheses or assumptions, but now the respondent is offered more options that can
help to explore a range of different aspects or nuances. Altogether, the SenseMaker methodology provides
 CLIMATE POLICY 5

Figure 2. Illustration of the SenseMaker methodology, which helps to capture, enrich, and nuance people’s thoughts and experiences (stories),
as respondents are invited to self-analyse and interpret their answers to open questions (OQ) via triads (T), dyads (D), and multiple-choice
questions (MCQ).

the researcher with emergent patterns from qualitative and quantitative data that elucidate collectively held
experiences, perceptions, beliefs, values, and paradigms.
In accordance with our research themes, our survey was divided into three parts and designed to explore
three interlinked levels: the individual-behavioural, systemic (here, changes at city level), and inner dimensions
(see Supplementary Material 1 for the full survey). In Part 1 of the survey, respondents were asked to share a
story about a recent decision or experience that was influenced by climate change (OQ1). This was followed by
three triads (T1–3) to expand their interpretation of influencing factors, notably their values, beliefs, and para-
digms. The next two dyads (D1-2) aimed to contextualize and generalize patterns and relate to the general
influence of climate change on choices and experiences, and their broader implications for society, social well-
being, and welfare. Results from the second and third parts of the survey helped elucidate other underlying
factors, emotions, and motivations (OQ3; D3-5-4; T5-7). Segueing to the larger systems context, in Part 2 of
the survey respondents were asked to describe an important initiative that addresses climate change in
their city (OQ2) and were then invited to reflect on its relevance and potential for positive change (T4), the
actors involved (MCQ1), and their feelings about their example (the lessons drawn from it) (MCQ2). To contex-
tualize identified patterns, the subsequent questions concerned the channels and general level of engagement
in influencing climate-related work and policies (MCQ3; D3). In addition, results from the first and third parts of
the survey helped elucidate underlying motivations, including perceived responsibilities (T5), capacities, values,
and certain conditions or measures (T7; OQ3). In Part 3 of the survey, respondents were asked about their vision
for the future, including their possibilities to engage and need to influence future actions (D4, D5); the personal
capacities that can support change (OQ3, T7); the issues that should be prioritized in future climate policy and
action (OQ4); and the basis for judging related work of local and national governments (T6). Results from the
other parts of the survey also elucidated underlying patterns (D1-2, T4-5).
6 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

After quality control, including checks for technical errors, such as duplicate data, the data underwent a com-
bination of qualitative and quantitative analyses. This involved visualizing and identifying emergent patterns,
then filtering based on demographics and questions of interest. Quantitative data from triads, dyads, and mul-
tiple-choice questions were visualized and statistically analysed (comparative, correlation, and goodness-of-fit
analyses). The non-parametric goodness-of-fit analyses used Pearson’s chi-square test (Agresti, 2013; Upton,
2016). Residuals were examined to test how filtered data compared to the population. Statistical analyses
were conducted to ascertain correlations between respondents’ level of engagement, values, and feelings.
Data from open questions were qualitatively analysed and used to identify patterns through systematic com-
parison and coding where, for example, stories from different corners of the triads were isolated and analysed
to identify emerging themes and relate them to each other (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Hodder, 1994; Strauss,
1987). Qualitative and quantitative results were then compared, and linkages were explored to identify and
make sense of individual and collective values, beliefs, emotions, paradigms, agency, political engagement,
and future visions. See the Supplementary Material for an overview of all data visualization and analyses,
and some illustrative stories and citations.

3. Results
The results are grouped under the study’s three research themes (see Section 2.1). Abbreviations indicate
whether a described finding relates to a certain open question (OQ), a triad (T), a dyad (D), or a multiple-
choice question (MCQ) (see Figure 1).

3.1. Values, beliefs, and paradigms

Our results reveal ways that climate change, its implications, and incentives (societal/structural) for change are
perceived, internalized and, ultimately, acted upon. They illustrate people’s everyday-life experience and prac-
tices, and what values, beliefs, and paradigms influence them. Four key patterns emerged and are explained in
this subsection:

. Most citizens describe how climate change issues are to some extent embedded into their everyday
decisions, activities, and routines.
. Their actions often reflect dominant social paradigms and associated structures (thus reproducing rather
than transforming them).
. Actions are guided by people’s values, emotions, and what they perceive that they, as individuals, can do and
control.
. There is overwhelming consensus that more measures to address climate change improve, rather than
reduce, wellbeing and societal welfare.

Environmental issues, and climate change in particular, influence most people’s day-to-day experience and
decisions to some extent (OQ1, D1). Analysing the 1,237 collected stories revealed that nearly all respondents
consciously engage in activities that contribute to mitigating or adapting to climate change, with varying levels
of impact, motivation, and commitment (OQ1). The qualitative analysis shows that even though participants
were asked about decisions or experiences and not specifically about actions, the latter featured in almost
all responses. Most activities relate to mitigation, particularly issues of mobility, waste management, and
food (OQ1).
The described behaviours and changes are embedded in daily routines, such as sorting garbage, consuming
more sustainably (e.g. switching to a more plant-based diet or choosing renewable energy), or commuting via
bike or public transport instead of driving (OQ1). Many of these activities reproduce dominant social paradigms.
In other words, they do not necessarily challenge broader systems and structures and associated paradigms
(such as consumption, materialism, economic growth). Instead, they maintain them, by greening commonplace
choices. Examples are continuing to generate the same amount of trash (but now sorting it) or maintaining the
consumption and growth paradigm (whilst buying organic food and/or not using plastic bags).
 CLIMATE POLICY 7

Some people, however, make more drastic shifts. They actively prepare for a world altered by climate
change, or consciously break with dominant social paradigms and associated systems (Figure 2). Examples
range from moving to places and contexts that support more sustainable lifestyles, becoming self-sufficient,
or changing careers (e.g. leaving higher education or a job to work in the domain of climate action or
pursue climate activism) (OQ1). The results also show that political and collective engagement and events at
global, national, and local levels can cause respondents to question paradigms. Several reflections related to
current events (such as Joe Biden winning the United States’ election, and developments in the COVID-19 pan-
demic), and associated changes regarding people’s sense of interconnectedness, agency, and action-taking.
The results show that although day-to-day experience and decisions are often based on the simultaneous
consideration of individual, societal, and environmental aspects, most weight is given to the environment
(T1, T2); 82% of respondents stated that they are to some extent affected by considerations of environmental
wellbeing (T1), either alone or in combination with other aspects (individual and societal). This tallies with
answers about what respondents value (T2). Nature and intergenerational equity are valued most highly
(either as individual factors or in combination), whereas more individualistic short-term perspectives accounted
for only 7% of answers (T2). The coherence between responses is particularly striking in the case of more indi-
vidualistic perspectives; respondents who value individual wellbeing highly (T2) also consider wellbeing more
in their decision-making (T1, accounting for 62% of answers, compared to 9% in the overall sample; see
Supplementary Material 9.1).2
Respondents whose stories reflect a more individualistic orientation (T2) also show lesser propensity to
attempt to influence public (e.g. municipal) climate-change initiatives (D3) and to express a view that
influence is less possible (D4) and less important (D5). Conversely, those that value intergenerational equity
(T2) also display increased political engagement (D3). In addition, the results show that the values the respon-
dents ascribe to their stories (OQ1, T2) are associated with the importance they give to influencing future
actions (D5). Respondents expressing the belief that influencing future action feels absolutely crucial (D5)
also highly value the natural environment and the lives of future generations (T2) (see Supplementary
Material 9.5).3
Our results also demonstrate that in the context of climate change, many citizens feel they, and others like
them, can personally exert influence and take action (T3; 42%), which seems to relate to a wish to control what
is possible and to some extent counteract a lack of engagement with or trust in others (people and organiz-
ations (T3-4, OQ1)). This was confirmed in the other two parts of the survey (MCQ2, OQ2-4), where, for instance,
only 3.1% of respondents felt ‘protected/safe’ in relation to climate change measures at city level (MCQ2).
Stories reflecting the belief that ‘things are out of control’ (T3) either refer to the scale of environmental
impacts, or express anger about the greed and pursuit of profit that trumps any serious attempt to mitigate
climate change, and hence results in people not believing in individual and collective agency. In contrast,
respondents who indicated that they (or individuals in general) do have influence (T3), provide more descrip-
tions of tangible actions that are often linked to the bigger picture regarding people’s mindsets. Examples
include resisting dominant social paradigms by acquiring new knowledge (e.g. of organic farming) or nourish-
ing inner qualities/capacities that support change, such as resisting compulsive thoughts about consumption,
and increasing connectedness to nature. The importance of these individual stories and interpretations
becomes even more apparent given that the great majority (79.5%) of respondents state that climate
change influences their lives regularly, whereas only 2.4% state that it has no influence (D1).
Further important findings are that most respondents (64.8%) believe that the general influence of climate
change on personal choices and experiences will improve (rather than reduce) societal wellbeing and welfare
(D2). Whilst the specific interpretation of what improvement consists of might be very individual, the finding
suggests an overall positive and even optimistic orientation, to which different meanings might be ascribed.
Finally, the results also highlight significant correlations between this belief and the understanding that

2
The squared residual of the Pearson’s Chi-Squared test for this association is 274.35 (p = 0.0000), with a count above 4 indicating a value
significantly different from random chance.
3
The squared residual of the Pearson’s Chi-Squared test for this association is 17.37 (p = 0.0000), with a count above 4 indicating a value sig-
nificantly different from random chance.
8 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

influencing future climate action is both important (D5) and possible (D4).4 Interestingly, this correlation is
especially strong for those who expressed positive feelings in MCQ2 about the climate initiative at city level
that they shared. Moreover, these respondents’ level of engagement (D3) correlates strongly with the under-
standing that personal influence is important (D5) (see Supplementary Material 8.1).

3.2. Agency and political engagement

The results reveal how citizens see and engage in climate actions beyond the level of individuals, and how they
are making their voices heard. In addition, they highlight the issues that can encourage or hinder agency and
political engagement. Again, four key patterns emerged and are elaborated on in this subsection:

. Public climate actions are not very visible to the ordinary citizen and are not perceived to provide much
room for their involvement and collaboration.
. Citizens generally consider that most potential for positive change relates to technical capacities and how
the city is regulated and structured, reflecting dominant social paradigms and associated approaches to
climate change.
. Consequently, there is little political engagement. This is also linked to reliance on and frustration with
current democratic governance structures and mechanisms that are perceived as discouraging greater or
more meaningful involvement.
. Aspects that can accelerate political engagement relate to certain inner qualities/capacities (linked to
aspects listed under 3.3, fourth bullet point), along with social norms in the form of shared social beliefs.

Whilst most respondents could provide examples of how climate change has impacted their day-to-day life,
many had difficulty identifying relevant initiatives in their city (OQ2); around 20% could not mention any.
Examples given mainly concern issues such as mobility, waste management, and food, and are in line with
their previous answers about individual engagement (OQ1). Mobility dominates, where physical and techno-
logical measures are cited most frequently, such as the construction of bike lanes, the expansion of bus
lines, or facilities for electric cars (OQ2). Public actors are represented most often (MCQ1; 58%). Only 27% of
answers to OQ2 relate to efforts of citizens/citizen groups and local or national governments (MCQ1) to collab-
orate, which suggests that such efforts are somewhat rare and that actors tend to work in isolation. In addition,
the descriptions of citizen group initiatives show that these efforts tend to be isolated responses to government
and private sector inaction, rather than coordinated and collaborative.
There is a slight tendency for most potential for transformation to be seen in structural or regulatory sol-
utions (T4; 18%), rather than in how actors work together (9%) or their personal norms, values, and beliefs
(8%). Interestingly, the dominant emotions (MCQ2) relate to where people see potential for transformation.
In stories where respondents express anger, patterns shift towards personal and relational potential (the
bottom of T4); a similar trend can be seen for despair. Apparently, initiatives focusing on individual and collec-
tive change are partly an expression of frustration with governmental inaction. Conversely, stories where
respondents felt protected or safe relate mainly to changes in how the city is structured and regulated (i.e. gov-
ernmental interventions), and personal potential for transformation is here seen as almost non-existent (T4; see
Supplementary Material 10.2).
Consistent with the emphasis on structural or regulatory solutions (T4), technical capacities (T7) were given
priority in addressing climate change. While the results indicate citizens’ expectation of the need to combine
technical, cognitive, and emotional capacities (49%), technical capacities are assigned greater importance (20%)
than cognitive and emotional capacities (4% and 3%, respectively), especially for certain demographic groups,
namely the elderly and men; the percentage increases to 44% for elderly men (see Supplementary Material 8.2.7
and 8.2.4). These results reflect current social paradigms, where climate change is seen as an external, technical
challenge (see Section 1) while, concomitantly, the results indicate a generational shift in understanding. In line

4
The correlation between D4 and D5 is positive. It is especially prominent for stories associated with positive feelings (r2 = 25.9%) and highly
significant: p value <0.001; see Supplementary Material Table 8.1.
 CLIMATE POLICY 9

with the importance given to regulatory solutions and capacities, respondents tend to believe that the govern-
ment should be mainly responsible for addressing climate change (T5; 24%), rather than citizens (3%) or private
businesses (3%). Yet many (48%) recognize that it is a responsibility shared between public, private, and civil
society actors (T5). The emphasis on governmental responsibility is linked to decision-making based on
environmental considerations (T1), indicating that what underlies the assignation of responsibility to govern-
ment is the understanding of democracy (see Supplementary Material 9.6).
The results also show that, in contrast to high engagement at the individual level (see Section 3.1),
there were few examples of people getting engaged at the city level (OQ2, D3). Around a fifth of respondents
indicate that they generally do not engage at all, and most others only selected a few of the options provided in
the survey (MCQ3), with the most frequently cited being voting for environmentally oriented parties and
signing petitions. On one hand, this level of passivity indicates a certain reliance on democratic structures
and is related to dominant social paradigms (see above). On the other hand, it is related to a frustration
with democratic structures, which are perceived as limiting further or more meaningful involvement, as can,
for instance, be seen in the visions of the future (OQ3; see also Section 3.3) and emotional reactions to initiatives
at the city level (MCQ2). Many respondents feel anger, despair, and frustration instead of feeling protected
(MCQ2).
Aspects perceived to increase engagement relate to individual inner qualities/capacities (see Section 3.3)
and collective conditions, such as social norms and paradigms. Some seem to feel they are expected to
engage with current systems and structures, and they describe their own related actions (OQ1) even though
they perceive personal engagement as irrelevant (D5) and/or that things are uncontrollable (T3). At the
same time, climate anxiety and frustration about structural and governance constraints limit people’s
agency to make more meaningful change (OQ3, OQ4). This is confirmed by the correlation analysis, which
shows that respondents with positive emotions have a greater level of engagement and human–nature con-
nectedness (see Supplementary Material 8).

3.3. Transition visions and pathways

The results provide insights for opening new pathways toward sustainability. They identify internal and external
factors and conditions that can empower citizens, increasing agency and political engagement. Respondents’
perspectives and visions indicate that:

. Sustainable future pathways require more space for people’s individual and collective engagement. Hence,
mechanisms and structures that currently hamper personal agency and collaboration must be addressed.
. Greater consideration should be given to nature, in a multi-faceted approach.
. National and local authorities should give more importance to wellbeing, rather than to current (mechanis-
tic, growth, and consumption-based) paradigms and approaches.
. Personal engagement and system change can be supported by nourishing certain inner qualities/ capacities:
i) self-awareness and reflexivity; ii) compassion; iii) a sense of togetherness; iv) connectedness with nature; v)
hope; and vi) awareness of individual agency.

The vast majority of respondents (87%) see their agency and contribution in acting against climate change
as vitally important. They believe that influencing future climate action is crucial, many seeing it as ‘absolutely
crucial’ (D5), even though most only use a few of the available democratic actions (MCQ3). The results indicate
that this value–action gap is related to uncertainty about individual agency and opportunities for engagement.
In this context, answers to D5 show that respondents perceive that making a personal contribution is impor-
tant; scores for this question are slightly higher than for D4, which investigated respondents’ perceptions of
their ability to influence. This indicates that there are obstacles to engagement and supports the results pre-
sented in Section 3.2. Responses from 25% of respondents are closer to the statement that influencing
future climate policy and action is ‘completely impossible’ rather than ‘definitely possible’ (D4). Related
stories (OQ3-4) tend to express discontent (a belief that current initiatives, decisions, and structures are
inadequate, given the global dimension of the issue); fatalism (a belief that it is impossible, or too late, to
10 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

do something about the situation); and a lack of information and awareness (respondents who could not think
of any relevant public decisions or initiatives, especially collaborative ones).
These results are in line with the correlation analyses, which show a clear link between the feeling that
influencing future climate action is crucial (D5) and people’s actual engagement at the policy level (D3), but
only for respondents who express positive emotions (MCQ2).5 This is an important insight for better commu-
nicating climate change-related issues and bridging the value–action gap to support political engagement.
Our results also show that nature is considered vital in supporting more sustainable pathways. Many respon-
dents note that nature conservation and nature-based approaches (e.g. environmental protection and resource
use) should be prioritized in the future (OQ4). Experiencing and relating to nature was one of five key factors
thought to boost personal engagement (OQ3). Importantly, 91.5% of respondents also perceive that spending
time in nature is vital for their wellbeing (D6). Of these, 35% place their answer at the top end of the spectrum,
indicating that they consider it a key factor. The importance of nature for wellbeing is also confirmed by the
statistical analysis, which shows that it correlates with the influence of climate change on people’s everyday
life choices and experience (D1).
For those who expressed positive emotions (MCQ2), the importance of nature for wellbeing also correlated
with the importance given to individual engagement (D5), feelings of agency (D4), and actual engagement (D3)
(see Supplementary Material 8). In accordance with the importance they give to nature to enhance their well-
being, people judge future local and national governments’ efforts to address climate change in terms of how
much these improve wellbeing (28%), rather than in terms of their impact on economic growth (5%) and giving
people freedom to do what they want (2%). Whilst 37% consider all three aspects as important, there was clear
emphasis on wellbeing and welfare (T6). Moreover, responses emphasizing wellbeing are associated with envir-
onmentally informed decision-making (T1) and highlight a potential link between planetary and individual
wellbeing.
Other aspects that respondents would like to see given more priority are: i) social and individual consump-
tion (improved access to more environmentally-friendly options and a reduction in overall consumption); ii)
more government action, even if this reduces personal comfort (lifestyle change); together with iii) greater
responsibility given to non-governmental (private) actors; and iv) cooperation across scales and links
between local and international democratic systems to support equitable climate policy and action (OQ4).
Importantly, whilst many people express both climate anxiety and frustration over structural constraints that
limit the agency required to make more meaningful change, others appear capable of translating the urgency
of climate change into positive, concrete action (OQ1, OQ2). Finding ways that support personal and political
engagement is, thus, a crucial element for improving climate policy and action.
Regarding factors perceived to boost personal engagement (OQ3), the analysis shows that they include the
following positive emotions: i) nature-connectedness; ii) compassion; iii) a sense of togetherness; iv) hope; and
v) awareness of one’s individual agency (OQ3). This is in line with the results reported above and with the
factors, values, and beliefs that were shown to influence everyday choices to take environmentally-friendly
actions within current mechanisms and systems, or to make more drastic changes (OQ1, T1–3; see also Section 3.1).
Moreover, the analysis of stories that link engagement at individual and systems/policy level (OQ1) shows a
high degree of self-awareness and reflexivity regarding oneself and one’s role in the world (i.e. one’s circle of
identity); the link to others and nature (i.e. one’s circle of care); personal responsibility for addressing climate
change (i.e. one’s circle of responsibility); and underlying emotions. Examples include reflections on personal
turning points; consciously seeking engagement in different types of measures or initiatives; and a more
balanced perspective on the need for change. The latter places less emphasis on technical solutions (T7).
The importance of positive emotions is also supported by analyses of people’s reflections on relevant
climate initiatives (OQ2; see also Section 3.1). Those who could provide examples reported positive emotions,
such as hope, togetherness, empowerment, and benevolence (MCQ2). Here, positive emotions (66.4%) out-
weigh negative ones (26%).
Respondents who are aware of relevant collaborative initiatives (OQ2) also seem to be slightly more
engaged on a personal level and vice versa (D1, D2), and are more positive about their influence at the city

The correlation between D3 and D5 is positive and highly significant: p value <0.001; see Suppl. Material Table 8.1.
5
 CLIMATE POLICY 11

level (D4), which also translates into actual engagement (D3). Fewer respondents in this group say they have
‘never’ tried to influence climate change work (10% vs. 17% of the full sample). Engagement itself may thus be
an important step in increasing individual agency and political engagement (actual and perceived). This obser-
vation is supported by the statistical analyses presented in the Supplementary Material (Table 8.1); the influence
of climate change on personal decisions and actions (D1) correlates positively with engagement at the city level
and is highly significant, with p < 0.001 (D3).
Finally, to inspire and attract the widest possible group of society, future transition pathways might need to
consider certain socio-demographic differences. Younger people (and women more than men) seem to be
more dispersed and less polarized in their answers, for example, with regard to how to address climate
change (T7, T4). Younger people also seem to see climate change as more important in their daily activities
and choices (D1) and are more convinced that their influence is absolutely crucial (D5). They also tend to be
more engaged (OQ1; D3). The latter finding might be related to the fact that younger people also express
slightly more optimistic feelings regarding current initiatives and the future impact of climate policies and
actions on societal wellbeing and welfare (D2, MCQ2) but believe they have less possibility to influence (D4),
which supports the need for improved mechanisms and structures for meaningful involvement (D4).

4. Discussion
Practitioners and researchers increasingly recognize that the approaches that are needed to address climate
change and develop sustainable pathways go beyond external factors such as behavioural nudges and tech-
nological fixes (Adger et al., 2013; Clayton et al., 2015; Ives et al., 2020; Leichenko & O’Brien, 2020; O’Brien,
2018; Wamsler et al., 2021; Woiwode et al., 2021). Such approaches must also transform the social, cultural,
economic, and political structures that maintain the systems associated with increasing climate change, risk,
and vulnerability. Our findings show that these structures are, in turn, engrained in the dominant social
beliefs and paradigms of all kinds of actors: individual and collective, governmental, and non-governmental.
Current climate policy approaches, however, often focus on the proximate (technical) causes of undesirable
outcomes, rather than the underlying root causes that are embedded in values, beliefs, and paradigms (O’Brien
& Sygna, 2013; Pelling, 2010). From within the system, these causes appear naturalized, or ‘part of the way the
world is’ (Pelling, 2010, p. 86). When climate change, risk, and vulnerability are seen as localized issues (e.g.
inadequate buildings or land use), climate policy and action will be seen as a technical challenge that can
be addressed, for instance by improved housing standards, by land use change, and by other managerial strat-
egies (O’Brien & Sygna, 2013; Pelling, 2010). However, if climate change is understood as an outcome of wider
social processes that shape issues such as how people see themselves and others, their relationship with others
and the environment, and their role in political processes, then related policy and action become a different
challenge. With this understanding, policy and related actions instead require the active consideration of citi-
zens and a recognition of their individual and collective beliefs, values, and paradigms. It is here that transform-
ation can take place. Our research provides important insights to support policy decision-making and actions
that takes these issues into account.
The over 1,200 stories we collected show not only how citizens perceive and act on climate change (indivi-
dually, cooperatively, and by supporting others), but also the underlying internal obstacles and enablers for
change. These insights, in turn, are crucial in guiding the social and institutional prerequisites and structures
for developing effective, integrative responses and for moving away from the binary framing of individual
action versus systems change (cf. Lucas, 2018; Mann, 2021).
Four cross-cutting patterns emerged from our analyses:
First, nearly all citizens consciously engage in daily practices that contribute to mitigating or adapting to
climate change and are guided and constrained by prevailing social norms and paradigms. The practices
tend to reproduce rather than transform current systems, i.e. instead of challenging unsustainable paradigms
of consumption, materialism, and economic growth, they ‘green’ the choices already made (cf. Hart, 1997;
Spaargaren & Mol, 2008). Nonetheless, some citizens do engage in more radical measures. As described in
Section 3, multiple motives drive the decision to take routine action or to move towards more transformative
change.
12 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

The second pattern shows that a range of human inner dimensions can support or hamper meaningful engage-
ment. Negative emotions such as climate anxiety and frustration about structural and governance constraints limit
people’s agency to support transformation, whereas belief in one’s own agency and positive emotions – such as
hope and feelings of interconnection (e.g. compassion, community, and human–nature connection) – foster well-
being and engagement. Moreover, engagement and transformation across individual, societal, and policy levels
are supported by a high degree of awareness and reflexivity about oneself and one’s role (circle of identity);
the link to others and nature (circle of care); and individual responsibility for addressing climate change (circle
of responsibility). These outcomes support recent research on inner transformation, nature-based solutions,
emotions, and relationality in sustainability (Hendersson & Wamsler, 2020; Ives et al., 2017, 2018; Ojala, 2012;
Walsh et al., 2021; Wamsler et al., 2020, 2021), along with expanded views of political agency that recognize
each individual’s potential and capacity to contribute to transformative change (O’Brien, 2015, 2021).
The third pattern is that actual engagement can, in turn, help reduce climate anxiety and increase agency
and political engagement, thus creating a virtuous cycle of transformational change and wellbeing. This is sup-
ported by a recent study which concludes that one way to overcome a feeling of being overwhelmed by the
scale of the problem is the agency we feel when we actually start acting (Mann, 2021). It creates a snowball
effect that increases engagement, which needs to be supported and channelled towards systemic change.
These findings underline the importance of addressing inner human dimensions and creating better enabling
environments and structures for engagement. In this context, sacrificing the comforts and predictability of
more conventional lifestyles, practices, and approaches tends to be seen as temporary.
This links to the fourth key pattern or finding, that increased individual and public climate action is mostly
perceived as leading to improved (rather than reduced) wellbeing and welfare. However, political engagement
is lacking, as revealed by a general lack of trust in democratic governance and structures, plus the associated
constraints arising from the fact that public measures offer little scope for engagement and fail to prioritize
initiatives that might support people in developing the capacity necessary to address root causes and
support transformation. This is both a symptom and consequence of a widespread paradigm and tendency
for climate measures to marginalize citizens and exclude their voices (O’Brien, 2021).

5. Conclusions
Our study shows how individual and collective values, beliefs, and paradigms are expressed through narratives
and everyday social practices that, in turn, inform individual and collective agency and action to support trans-
formation. They shape the realm of perceived possibilities and alternatives, and thus have material conse-
quences. They influence our understanding of climate change and its impacts, which, in turn, shapes our
priorities and responses (see also Bentz et al., 2022; Clayton et al., 2015; Lorenzoni & Hulme, 2009; Schuman
et al., 2018; Scoville-Simonds, 2018; Veland et al., 2018).
Hence, our results shed light on the individual, collective, and structural capacities that must be supported to
sustainably address climate change, thus highlighting the need for new forms of policy and citizen involvement
in climate action. Based on our results, we have identified six policy recommendations and associated further
research needs.

1. Supporting more integrative approaches through targeted governmental support. More explicit con-
sideration must be given to human inner dimensions of climate change and underlying social paradigms,
rather than to the predominant external, technological, and information-based approaches. Extending and
expanding current policy approaches and structures is not enough. Targeted policy support, investment,
and measures are required.
2. Public and private policies and structures. Targeted support and investment are required in order to sys-
tematically mainstream/integrate the consideration of inner human dimensions across all sector work.
Such policy integration entails revising organizations’ vision statements, communications6 and project

6
This involves better communication to nurture human potential and inform about i) the political agency individuals have for supporting trans-
formation across scales, ii) their legal responsibility, and iii) what governmental and non-governmental agencies do to support
transformation.
 CLIMATE POLICY 13

management tools, working structures, regulations, human and financial resource allocation, and collab-
oration. The latter includes creating communities of practice and platforms that can strengthen links
between individual, collective, and public climate efforts. In this context, future research should explore
the role of trust between different actors in climate policy integration and governance (see also Marion
Suiseeya et al., 2021; Mayer et al., 1995; Vogler, 2010; Whyte & Crease, 2010).
3. Education and training. Increased policy attention and measures are also needed to support learning
environments and methods that nourish inner qualities/capacities to help people discover internalized cul-
tural patterns and increase their sense of interconnection and the power of their agency. Related climate
leadership training, public and higher education, and school curricula must ensure that citizens of all ages
can cope with the emotional toll of climate change and engage adequately.
4. International policy frameworks. In light of point 3, investment and research are needed for monitoring
and evaluation, to assess how the identified human inner qualities/capacities and leverage points
described in Section 3 relate to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, and how to best
direct limited international, national, and local resources to consider these in organizations, professional
groups, and society at large.
5. Nature-based solutions and planning. In addition, support for nature-based solutions and the human–
nature connection need to be given greater weight by policymakers and planners. Nature-based solutions
address both climate change mitigation and adaptation and have the potential to increase human–nature
connection, subjective wellbeing, and personal and political engagement. Further research is needed to
analyse these relationships and link the issue of human inner dimensions to the growing literature, dis-
course, and policies related to nature-based solutions (BMU, 2021; EEA, 2021; Woroniecki et al., 2020).
6. Polarization and climate anxiety. Given our findings and the limitations of our study, further investment is
needed to explore the identified key aspects of agency and engagement in different contexts and the
factors that might influence them. This also includes issues of political orientation and polarization,
urban–rural differences, and the complex interlinkages of emotions, particularly climate anxiety, worry,
and grief, along with their associated social impacts (see also Driscoll, 2019; Mayer & Smith, 2019; Ojala
et al., 2021; Poortinga et al., 2019). Regarding the latter, our findings indicate that it is crucial to
improve policy and communication to support human potential, positive engagement (individual and col-
lective), and universal values rather than polarization, climate anxiety, or denial.

We conclude by calling for more attention to be given to individual and collective values, beliefs, and associ-
ated inner qualities/capacities as expressed through narratives, everyday routines, and their social and material
consequences. Such issues must be taken seriously in climate policy, research, and practice if we are to support
transformation and connect climate action to a broader conversation about fundamental issues such as justice,
consumption, materialism, and economic growth.

Acknowledgements
This research was supported by two projects funded by the Swedish Research Council Formas: i) Mind4Change (grant number 2019-
00390; full title: Agents of Change: Mind, Cognitive Bias and Decision-Making in a Context of Social and Climate Change), and ii)
TransVision (grant number 2019-01969; full title: Transition Visions: Coupling Society, Well-being and Energy Systems for Transition-
ing to a Fossil-free Society). We thank the projects’ advisory board members and colleagues who provided insights and expertise
that supported our administrative, managerial and scientific work with the SenseMaker research methodology and online tool.
We are particularly grateful to Anne Caspari (EZC Partners) and Prof. Karen O’Brien (University of Oslo).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by Swedish Research Council: [grant no 2019-00390,2019-01969].
14 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

ORCID
Christine Wamsler http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4511-1532
Gustav Osberg http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4981-8113
Walter Osika http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1583-7319
Luis Mundaca http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1090-7744

References
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., &
Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-
0800-y
Adger, W. N., Barnett, J., Brown, K., Marshall, N., & O’Brien, K. (2013). Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation.
Nature Climate Change, 3(2), 112–117. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1666
Agresti, A. (2013). Categorical data analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Bentz, J., O’Brien, K., & Scoville-Simonds, M. (2022). Beyond “blah blah blah”: exploring the “how” of transformation. Sustainability
Science, 17(2), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-022-01123-0
Blennow, K., & Persson, J. (2009). Climate change: Motivation for taking measure to adapt. Global Environmental Change, 19(1), 100–
104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.003
BMU (Bundesumweltministerium). (2021). Jugend-Naturbewusstsein 2020: Bevölkerungsumfrage zu Natur und biologischer Vielfalt.
bmu.de. https://www.bmu.de/publikation/jugend-naturbewusstsein-2020/.
Bruner, J. (2020). Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674029019.
Camlin, D. A., Daffern, H., & Zeserson, K. (2020). Group singing as a resource for the development of a healthy public: A study of adult
group singing. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 7(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00549-0
Campbell-Scherer, D., Chiu, Y., Ofosu, N. N., Luig, T., Hunter, K. H., Jabbour, B., Farooq, S., Mahdi, A., Gayawira, A., Awasis, F., Olokude,
F., Goa, H., Syed, H., Sillito, J., Yip, L., Belle, L., Akot, M., Nutter, M., Farhat, N., … Hama, Z. (2021). Illuminating and mitigating the
evolving impacts of COVID-19 on ethnocultural communities: A participatory action mixed-methods study. Canadian Medical
Association Journal, 193(31), E1203–E1212. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.210131
Carr, D. (1986). Narrative and the real world: An argument for continuity. History and Theory, 25(2), 117–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/
2505301
Clayton, S., Devine-Wright, P., Stern, P. C., Whitmarsh, L., Carrico, A., Steg, L., Swim, J., & Bonnes, M. (2015). Psychological research and
global climate change. Nature Climate Change, 5(7), 640–646. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2622
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1),
3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593
Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the environment. OUP Oxford.
Driscoll, D. (2019). Assessing sociodemographic predictors of climate change concern, 1994–2016. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5),
1699–1708. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12683
EEA (European Environment Agency). (2021). Nature-based solutions should play increased role in tackling climate change. https://
www.eea.europa.eu/highlights/nature-based-solutions-should-play.
Filho, W. L., & McCrea, A. C. (eds.). (2018). Sustainability and the humanities. Springer.
Fischer, J., & Riechers, M. (2019). A leverage points perspective on sustainability. People and Nature, 1(1), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.
1002/pan3.13
Geels, F. W., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399–417. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.respol.2007.01.003
Grušovnik, T. (2012). Environmental denial: Why we fail to change our environmentally damaging practices. Synthesis Philosophica, 27
(1), 91–106.
Hart, S. L. (1997). Beyond greening: Strategies for a sustainable world. Harvard Business Review, 75(1), 66–77.
Hendersson, H., & Wamsler, C. (2020). New stories for a more conscious, sustainable society: Claiming authorship of the climate story.
Climatic Change, 158(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02599-z
Hodder, I. (1994). The interpretation of documents and material culture. In J. Goodwin (Ed.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp.
393–402). Sage Publications, Inc.
Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge University
Press.
Hunecke, M. (2018). Psychology of sustainability: Psychological resources for sustainable lifestyles. In Personal sustainability. Routledge.
IPCC. (2022a). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S.
Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.). Cambridge
University Press. In Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf.
IPCC. (2022b). Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. [J. Skea, P. Shukla, A. Reisinger, R. Slade, M. Pathak, A. Khourdajie, R. van
 CLIMATE POLICY 15

Diemen, A. Abdulla, K. Akimoto, M. Babiker, Q. Bai, I. Bashmakov, C. Bataille, G. Berndes, G. Blanco, K. Blok, M. Bustamante, E. Byers,
L. Cabeza, K. Calvin, C. Carraro, L. Clarke, A. Cowie, F. Creutzig, D. Korecha Dadi, D. Dasgupta, H. de Coninck, F. Denton, S. Dhakal,
N. Dubash, O. Geden, M. Grubb, C. Guivarch, S. Gupta, A. Hahmann, K. Halsnaes, P. Jaramillo, K. Jiang, F. Jotzo, T. Yong Jung,
S. Ribeiro, S. Khennas, Ş. Kılkış, S. Kreibiehl, V. Krey, E. Kriegler, W. Lamb, F. Lecocq, S. Lwasa, N. Mahmoud, C. Mbow,
D. McCollum, J. Minx, C. Mitchell, R. Mrabet, Y. Mulugetta, G. Nabuurs, G. Nemet, P. Newman, L. Niamir, L. Nilsson, S. Nugroho,
C. Okereke, S. Pachauri, A. Patt, R. Pichs-Madruga, J. Pereira, L. Rajamani, K. Riahi, J. Roy, Y. Saheb, R. Schaeffer, K. Seto,
S. Some, L. Steg, F. Toth, D. Ürge-Vorsatz, D. van Vuuren, E. Verdolini, P. Vyas, Y. Wei, M. Williams, H. Winkler (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press. In Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg3/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGIII_FinalDraft_FullReport.pdf.
Ives, C. D., Abson, D. J., von Wehrden, H., Dorninger, C., Klaniecki, K., & Fischer, J. (2018). Reconnecting with nature for sustainability.
Sustainability Science, 13(5), 1389–1397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0542-9
Ives, C. D., Freeth, R., & Fischer, J. (2020). Inside-out sustainability: The neglect of inner worlds. Ambio, 49(1), 208–217. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s13280-019-01187-w
Ives, C. D., Giusti, M., Fischer, J., Abson, D. J., Klaniecki, K., Dorninger, C., Laudan, J., Barthel, S., Abernethy, P., Martín-López, B.,
Raymond, C. M., Kendal, D., & von Wehrden, H. (2017). Human–nature connection: A multidisciplinary review. Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability, 26-27, 106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005
Karatekin, K., & Uysal, C. (2018). Ecological citizenship scale development study. International Electronic Journal of Environmental
Education, 8(2), 82–104. ISSN: 2146-0329.
Köhler, J., Geels, F. W., Kern, K., Jochen, M., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F., Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschillingh, L.,
Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S., Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, ... Wells, P. (2019). An agenda for
sustainability transitions research: State of the art and future directions. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 31, 1–
32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004
Leichenko, R., & O’Brien, K. (2020). Climate and society: Transforming the future. John Wiley & Sons.
Lorenzoni, I., & Hulme, M. (2009). Believing is seeing: Laypeople’s views of future socio-economic and climate change in England and
in Italy. Public Understanding of Science, 18(4), 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508089540
Lucas, C. H. (2018). Concerning values: What underlies public polarisation about climate change? Geographical Research, 56(3), 298–
310. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-5871.12284
Mann, M. E. (2021). The new climate war: The fight to take back our planet. Hachette.
Marion Suiseeya, K. R., Elhard, D. K., & Paul, C. J. (2021). Toward a relational approach in global climate governance: Exploring the role
of trust. WIRES Climate Change, 12(4), e712. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.712
Mayer, A., & Smith, E. K. (2019). Unstoppable climate change? The influence of fatalistic beliefs about climate change on behavioural
change and willingness to pay cross-nationally. Climate Policy, 19(4), 511–523. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1532872
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model Of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review,
20(3), 709–734. doi:10.2307/258792
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: Places to intervene in a system. The Sustainability Institute.
O’Brien, K. (2015). Political agency: The key to tackling climate change. Science, 350(6265), 1170–1171. https://doi.org/10.1126/
science.aad0267
O’Brien, K. (2018). Is the 1.5°C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, 31, 153–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010
O’Brien, K. (2021). You matter more than you think: Quantum social change for a thriving world. Change Press.
O’Brien, K., & Sygna, L. (2013). Responding to climate change: The three spheres of transformation. Proceedings of the Conference
Transformation in a Changing Climate, 16–23.
Ojala, M. (2012). Hope and climate change: The importance of hope for environmental engagement among young people.
Environmental Education Research, 18(5), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2011.637157
Ojala, M., Cunsolo, A., Ogunbode, C. A., & Middleton, J. (2021). Anxiety, worry, and grief in a time of environmental and climate crisis:
A narrative review. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 46(1), 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-
022716
Pelling, M. (2010). Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/
Adaptation-to-Climate-Change-From-Resilience-to-Transformation/Pelling/p/book/9780415477512.
Poortinga, W., Whitmarsh, L., Steg, L., Böhm, G., & Fisher, S. (2019). Climate change perceptions and their individual-level determi-
nants: A cross-European analysis. Global Environmental Change, 55, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.01.007
Rimanoczy, I. (2014). A matter of being: Developing sustainability-minded leaders. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 2
(1), 95–122. doi:10.13185/JM2014.02105
Schuman, S., Dokken, J.-V., Van, N. D., & Loubser, R. A. (2018). Religious beliefs and climate change adaptation: A study of three rural
South African communities. Jàmbá: Journal of Disaster Risk Studies, 10(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4102/jamba.v10i1.509
Scoville-Simonds, M. (2018). Climate, the earth, and God – entangled narratives of cultural and climatic change in the Peruvian
Andes. World Development, 110, 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.012
SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). (2021). Allmänheten om klimatet 2021: En kvantitativ undersökning om den
svenska allmänhetens syn på lösningar för klimatet. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency.
SEPA (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency). (2022). Konsumtionsbaserade växthusgasutsläpp per person och år. https://www.
naturvardsverket.se/data-och-statistik/konsumtion/vaxthusgaser-konsumtionsbaserade-utslapp-per-person.
Snowden, D., Greenberg, R., & Bertsch, B. (2021). Cynefin: Weaving sense-making into the fabric of our world.
16 C. WAMSLER ET AL.

Spaargaren, G., & Mol, A. P. J. (2008). Greening global consumption: Redefining politics and authority. Global Environmental Change,
18(3), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.04.010
Steffen, V. (1997). Life stories and shared experience. Social Science & Medicine, 45(1), 99–111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536
(96)00319-X
Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
UNFCCC. (2020a). Conference of the Parties (COP) (2020). https://unfccc.int/process/bodies/supreme-bodies/conference-of-the-
parties-cop.
UNFCCC. (2020b). Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): The Paris Agreement and NDCs. https://unfccc.int/nationally-
determined-contributions-ndcs.
Upham, P., Bögel, P., & Johansen, K. (2019). Energy transitions and social psychology: A sociotechnical perspective. Routledge. https://
doi.org/10.4324/9780429458651.
Upton, G. (2016). Categorical data analysis by example. John Wiley & Sons.
Van der Merwe, S. E., Biggs, R., Preiser, R., Cunningham, C., Snowden, D. J., O’Brien, K., Jenal, M., Vosloo, M., Blignaut, S., & Goh, Z.
(2019). Making sense of complexity: Using SenseMaker as a research tool. Systems, 7(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/
systems7020025
Veland, S., Scoville-Simonds, M., Gram-Hanssen, I., Schorre, A., El Khoury, A., Nordbø, M., Lynch, A., Hochachka, G., & Bjørkan, M.
(2018). Narrative matters for sustainability: The transformative role of storytelling in realizing 1.5°C futures. Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability, 31, 41–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.12.005
Vogler, J. (2010). The institutionalisation of trust in the international climate regime. Energy Policy, 38(6), 2681–2687. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2009.05.043
Waddock, S. (2015). Reflections: Intellectual shamans, sensemaking, and memes in large system change. Journal of Change
Management, 15(4), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2015.1031954
Walsh, Z., Böhme, J., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Towards a relational paradigm in sustainability research, practice, andeducation. Ambio, 50
(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01322-y
Wamsler, C. (2020). Education for sustainability: Fostering a more conscious society and transformation towards sustainability.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 21(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-04-2019-0152
Wamsler, C., & Bristow, J. (2022). At the intersection of mind and climate change: Integrating inner dimensions of climate change into
policymaking and practice. Climatic Change, 173(7). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-022-03398-9
Wamsler, C., Osberg, G., Osika, W., Hendersson, H., & Mundaca, L. (2021). Linking internal and external transformation for sustainabil-
ity and climate action: Towards a new research and policy agenda. Global Environmental Change, 71, 102373. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102373
Wamsler, C., Schäpke, N., Fraude, C., Stasiak, D., Bruhn, T., Lawrence, M., Schroeder, H., & Mundaca, L. (2020). Enabling new mindsets
and transformative skills for negotiating and activating climate action: Lessons from UNFCCC conferences of the parties.
Environmental Science & Policy, 112, 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.06.005
Whyte, K. P., & Crease, R. P. (2010). Trust, expertise, and the philosophy of science. Synthese, 177(3), 411–425. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11229-010-9786-3
Woiwode, C., Schäpke, N., Bina, O., Veciana, S., Kunze, I., Parodi, O., Schweizer-Ries, P., & Wamsler, C. (2021). Inner transformation to
sustainability as a deep leverage point: Fostering new avenues for change through dialogue and reflection. Sustainability Science,
16(3), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00882-y
Wolf, J. (2007). The ecological citizen and climate change. Democracy on the Day after Tomorrow. ECPR (European Consortium for
Political Research) Joint Sessions, Helsinki.
Wolf, J., Brown, K., & Conway, D. (2009). Ecological citizenship and climate change: Perceptions and practice. Environmental Politics,
18(4), 503–521. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644010903007377
Woroniecki, S., Wendo, H., Brink, E., Islar, M., Krause, T., Vargas, A.-M., & Mahmoud, Y. (2020). Nature unsettled: How knowledge and
power shape ‘nature-based’ approaches to societal challenges. Global Environmental Change, 65, 102132. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.gloenvcha.2020.102132
WWF. (2016). Living planet report 2016—risk and resilience in a new era. WWF International. https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/
publications/964/files/original/lpr_living_planet_report_2016.pdf?1477582118&_ga=1.148678772.2122160181.1464121326.
WWF. (2020). Living planet report 2020—bending the curve of biodiversity loss. WWF International. https://f.hubspotusercontent20.
net/hubfs/4783129/LPR/PDFs/ENGLISH-FULL.pdf.