Integrating local perspectives into climate change decision making in rural areas of the Canadian prairies Open Access

Governmental institutions have been identified as key actors regarding societal adaptation to climate change (Handmer et al., 1999; Rotman and van Asselt, 2001). The development of consciously planned policies and strategies to cope with the impacts of climate change might potentially facilitate the process of adaptation (Smit and Pilifosova, 2003). Nonetheless, the development of sound adaptation policies and strategies represent a great challenge in terms of integrating the complex and dynamic nature of the climate change issue. One of these challenges relates to the development of perspectives considering the multi‐dimensional character of the climate change issue at different scales (e.g. social, economic, political, and biophysical) (Kelly and Adger, 2000; Oliver‐Smith, 2004; Smit and Wandel, 2006). Thus, the integration of the information reflecting the multiple simultaneously interacting factors (i.e. juxtaposition of factors) represents one of the greatest challenges in the climate change adaptation science.

In addition, adaptation policies and strategies are also challenged by the co‐existence of multiple institutional (e.g. local communities and households, and regional government organizations) understandings of the climate change issue at different scales (Downing, 2003; Adger et al., 2005; Patiño and Gauthier, 2009; Hurlbert and Diaz, 2008). In general, in Canada, public policies and strategies are designated by governmental organizations at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels, respectively. For example, in the case of Canada, provincial jurisdictions have the mandate for managing and regulating water resources. Some exceptions relate to water resources existing on federal lands and cross‐boundary water issues, addressed under federal jurisdiction. At the municipal level, authority over water is derived from delegated authorities provided by provincial governments to local governments. Hence, water management in Canada is achieved by shared‐jurisdiction among orders of government. Traditionally, the process of decision‐making regarding water resources has been pursued with limited citizen input (Hurlbert et al., 2009).

Recently, provincial and Federal Government water agencies in Canada have begun incorporating local civil society groups on water use and management, by engaging their involvement using participatory processes. However, there are a number of limitations for their full participation to influence decisions, such as stakeholders' lack of adequate technical knowledge on water issues, lack of time and financial resources, and lack of empowerment (or delegated authorities). Hence, the potential impacts on policy and development decisions of these newly established local organizations is not yet known (Hurlbert et al., 2009).

Adaptation initiatives need to be customized and responsive to local needs in order to address local vulnerabilities (Klein and Smith, 2003; Smit and Pilifosova, 2003). Therefore, public policies and strategies, aiming at assisting local communities to adapt to the future impacts of climate change, might potentially increase their effectiveness by incorporating local perspectives. Adaptation strategies and policies, built upon approaches aiming at integrating the information related to the multiple dimensions and the multiple realities involved in the climate change matter, may enhance the possibilities of reaching successful outcomes (Patiño and Gauthier, 2009). Such an integrated approach seeks the development of flexible climate change adaptation strategies and policies by including local knowledge, values and conditions, and information derived from both qualitative and quantitative modes of inquiry (Patiño and Gauthier, 2009).

This study builds upon an integrated model of the multiple realities of water resource management using participatory mapping technique developed by Patiño and Gauthier (2009). The purpose of the methodological approach is to assist members of rural communities in integrating the results of participatory vulnerability assessments (as developed by Smit and Wandel, 2006) and information from climate change scenarios. The methodology is also intended to support knowledge transfer and assist in a progressive learning process. By integrating ethnographic research findings and climate change scenarios results, this methodological approach supports the integration of local knowledge and scientific knowledge in an effort to enhance mutual understanding of the climate change issue. The final outcome of this approach is a set of rural community recommendations relevant to policy makers that are intended to ameliorate the potential future impacts of climate change at the local level.

The integrated methodological approach developed in this research has been applied in three Canadian prairie rural communities, within the South Saskatchewan River Basin. The rural communities are Taber, in the province of Alberta, and Cabri‐Stewart Valley and Outlook in the province of Saskatchewan. The Canadian prairies have been identified as potentially vulnerable to impacts of climate change, and particularly on water resources (Environment Canada, 2004). While Canadian prairie rural communities are already facing substantial economic and social stresses (Gauthier and McPhee, 2002), they also rely on agricultural activities, such as crop production and livestock production on rangeland and pasture (Canadian Council on Ecological Areas, 2005), both highly dependent on the availability of water resources (freshwater and rain‐fed water). Hence, rural communities in the Canadian prairies have an increased vulnerability to the impacts of climate change due in part to their reliance on scarce water resources.

This paper depicts an integrated methodological approach applied in three rural communities of the Canadian prairies. Hence, the findings reveled in this document may only apply to particular rural communities in the prairies of Canada, and they may or may not apply elsewhere.

The methodological integrated approach developed in this study is based on the understanding of five main components:

• 1.

  focus on the concept of vulnerability to climate change;

• 2.

  focus on institutions as enhancing or hindering the adaptive capacity of the local level (i.e. rural communities);

• 3.

  community perspectives on their vulnerability to climate change and related patterns and trends;

• 4.

  climate change scenarios developed by scientists as a complementary understanding of the community perspectives on vulnerability to climate change; and

• 5.

  participatory mapping as the means to support the integration of knowledge of (3) and (4).

Following is a brief explanation of each component.

The following discussion refers to the concept of vulnerability to climate change in Section 2.1, and institutions as enhancing or hindering the adaptive capacity of local communities in Section 2.2. For an in‐depth discussion regarding rural community perspectives on vulnerability to climate change refer to Matlock (2007), Prado (2007), and Pittman (2008). In terms of climate change scientific understanding and scenarios regarding the South Saskatchewan River Basin, refer to Lapp et al. (2009). Section 3 develops an understanding of a participatory mapping approach as one mean to support the integration of knowledge of community perspectives and scientific climate change scenarios.

In order to understand the adaptive capacity of rural communities to the future impacts of climate change, this study focuses on the issue of adaptation and adaptive capacity based on the concept of vulnerability. The concept of vulnerability and the vulnerability approach have been widely used and recognized as effective avenues to address the potential manifestations of climate change (Handmer et al., 1999; Kelly and Adger, 2000; Smit and Pilifosova, 2003). Although there are numerous definitions of the concept of vulnerability in the climate change literature, this research understands vulnerability based on the idea of the “wounded soldier” or prior damage developed by Kelly and Adger (2000). Once wounded, the current capacity of the soldier, to respond to, or to cope with further attacks has already been hindered by his existing wounded condition. Such an understanding of vulnerability incorporates the notion of pre‐existing constraints on the capacity of individuals and social groups to respond to a wide variety of socio‐economic, political, and biophysical factors or stressors (Kelly and Adger, 2000).

The above understanding of vulnerability to climate is built upon the notion of susceptibility to be harmed. The vulnerability of a rural community to climate impacts is referred as a function of its exposure and its adaptive capacity (Smit and Pilifosova, 2003). Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram of the concept of vulnerability to climate change impacts on community livelihoods. The exposure component of vulnerability is reflected by the dynamic interaction and juxtaposition of multiple and diverse stressors/forces acting upon and within a rural community (i.e. institution of interest in this research), such as unemployment levels, drug abuse levels, and earthquake events. These include local (e.g. community kinship) and global (e.g. international market) forces, as well as intermediate forces, that do not act in isolation. These forces are interconnected, and generate processes that produce differential vulnerability patterns (Downing and Ludeke, 2002; Smit and Skinner, 2002).

The adaptive capacity component of vulnerability is a property of a particular system which involves “[…] the ability to design and implement effective adaptation strategies, or to react to evolving hazards and stresses” (Burton et al., 2005). The latter is quite dependant on the availability and/or accessibility to capitals/assets/resources (e.g. natural resources, kinship and social networks, education and skills, existing industry, institutional arrangements), and the way in which the community relates and uses those capitals. In general, two rural communities exposed to the same climatic event, drought for example, might present different degrees of vulnerability, depending on each community's adaptive capacity, thereby having a direct impact on the livelihoods of those living in the communities.

Regarding the complexity of the multiplicity of dimensions involved in vulnerability to climate change impacts, Ziervogel and Calder (2003) and Downing (2003) consider the examination of the existing food security models as venues to increase understanding of the vulnerability to climate change. By integrating the conceptual understanding of vulnerability to climate change described by Smit and Pilifosova (2003), Figure 2 shows an example of the vulnerability of a particular system (i.e. institution of interest, such as a rural community) to climate change impacts on water, based on the CARE's household livelihood security model. Figure 2 further develops the example shown in Figure 1 by graphically integrating the 3D of sustainability (i.e. social and human, economic, and biophysical), in terms of the vulnerability to climate change impacts on water of a particular system or institution of interest.

Figure 1 depicts three main interrelated components affecting the livelihoods of those living in a community in terms of current climate vulnerability, i.e. current and past vulnerability, current and past exposures, and current and past adaptive strategies. The current vulnerability of a community to climatic stress reflects past and current adaptive strategies adopted by the community to deal with past and current exposures. Hence, the future vulnerability of a community to future climate change impacts depends on the current vulnerability of a community to current climate stress.

Figure 2 integrates the vulnerability to climate change concept developed by Smit and Pilifosova (2003) into the CARE's household livelihood security model. It denotes vulnerability to water, in conjunction to other vulnerabilities, as a function of exposures and adaptive capacity. Exposures are presented as a juxtaposition of multiple stressors (e.g. social, economic, biophysical) acting upon an institution of interest (e.g. rural community), and adaptive capacity represents adaptive strategies that incorporates multiple capital (e.g. social, economic, biophysical, technological) in an effort to cope with multiple exposures.

The relevance of governance institutions to climate change adaptation and vulnerability resides in their role as “the rules, organizations, and social norms that facilitate coordination of human action” (World Bank, 2002, p. 38), as well as the “means that hold society together by creating and maintaining an ordered system of social behaviors and relationships” (Diaz and Rojas, 2006, p. 1). In this regard, institutional change, including adaptation, requires the “development of comprehensive support mechanisms that improve the capacity of different sectors to adapt to climate” (Hurlbert and Diaz, 2008, p. 21). Hence, institutions can potentially contribute to, or hinder the adaptive capacity of rural communities to adapt to potential future climate change impacts (Hurlbert et al., 2009).

In addition, a comprehensive understanding of institutions recognizes institutions ranging “from highly formalized settings to informal arrangements” (Diaz and Rojas, 2006, p. 2). Therefore, institutions comprise formal institutions, such as official policies and strategies, government organizations, scientific institutions, financial organizations, and insurance, as well as informal institutions such as rural communities, households, and families. In terms of climate change vulnerability and adaptation policies and strategies, both appropriate informal and formal institutions need to be considered if successful adaptation to climate change is to be accomplished.

Formal institutions, e.g. government institutions and scientific institutions, have been identified as some of the key actors regarding societal adaptation to climate change (Handmer et al., 1999). Official policies and strategies reflect established laws that set out rules of behaviour (Henningham, 1995 in Handmer et al., 1999). Official policies and strategies need to be flexible (Rotman and van Asselt, 2001) within the context of climate change adaptation. People and the ecosystems in which they are embedded are vulnerable to climate change, and formal institutions play a major role in ameliorating or enhancing that vulnerability, and thus their adaptive capacity (Hurlbert et al., 2009).

While governmental institutions have the responsibility for designing approaches representing policies and strategies for adaptation to address the impacts of climate change, adaptation to climate change impacts occurs mainly at the local level, e.g. on rural communities (Klein and Smith, 2003; Smit and Pilifosova, 2003). The integration of synchronous top‐down and bottom‐up approaches seems to be a reasonable endeavour under such circumstances. Particularly when considering top‐down approaches tend to be based on theoretical basis, while bottom‐up approaches are usually more connected to local situations and data (Downing, 2003). “Adaptation requires matching effective action across relevant scales” (Downing, 2003, p. 98) based on an understanding of vulnerability and adaptation that requires “considerations not only of different scales of human actions, but also of the social construction of appropriate scales by institutions to further their own aims” (Adger et al., 2005, p. 80). Consequently, adaptation strategies and policies require to be customized and responsive to local needs in order to tackle real local vulnerabilities (Klein and Smith, 2003; Smit and Pilifosova, 2003).

In this regard, rural communities and their members also play a major role in reducing or augmenting their own vulnerabilities to climate change. Thus, adaptation efforts should address the way in which informal institutions (i.e. rural communities) build their knowledge regarding vulnerabilities to climate change, and how formal institutions (i.e. government institution and scientific organizations) construct their knowledge regarding the vulnerabilities and adaptive capacity to climate change of the informal institutions they serve. While Figure 2 shows an example of the vulnerability to climate change impacts on water of an institution of interest and its components, different institutions (including formal and informal) identify, connect, construct their particular knowledge of the vulnerability of that particular institution of interest.

In circumstances where different institutions build their own knowledge independently, and under their own and individual frames of references (e.g. time and spatial scales, and information), it is quite likely that exposure and sensitivity and adaptive mechanism identified vary. Hence, the formulation and implementation of adaptation policies and strategies to climate change may not necessarily adequately support the adaptation process of the local institutions they serve (Patiño and Gauthier, 2009).

The methodological approach developed in this study combines mapping presentations and small group discussions directed towards rural community member participants. It uses participatory mapping in an attempt to integrate in people's minds, particularly in rural community members minds:

• their perspectives on past and current vulnerability to climate change on water; and

• scientifically constructed climate change scenarios.

It aims at developing a set of community recommendations valuable to policy makers regarding climate change adaptation at the local level. This methodological approach was applied in three rural communities of the Canadian prairies embedded within the South Saskatchewan River Basin. They are Taber, in the province of Alberta, Cabri‐Stewart Valley and Outlook, in the province of Saskatchewan.

Under the umbrella of public participation geographic information systems, the visual capabilities of maps potentially provide the means for enhancing participation, while fostering dialogue as well as conveying different perspectives. By spatially visualizing information and combining mapping presentations and small group discussions, this methodological approach can potentially support and stimulate a reflective dialogue capable of promoting knowledge exchange as well as a progressive learning process.

The mapping component of this methodological approach aims at integrating in participants minds the information of the multiple dimensions and the multiple interpretations attributed to that information, by drawing upon:

• rural community members' understanding of vulnerability to climate within an area, such as a watershed; and

• scientifically constructed climate change scenarios.

Scenarios provide a plausible range (e.g. temperature, moisture, etc.) within which humans, and other systems such as ecosystems, might have to adapt sometime in the future for that particular area.

Figure 3 shows the integrated methodological approach developed in this study. It combines a sequence of mapping presentations and small group discussions, directed towards:

• Stimulating a collaborative reflective understanding of rural community members' perspectives on past and present climate issues, particularly on water.

• Supporting the integration of climate change scenarios, in order to allow rural community members to reflect in terms of their perspectives on past and present climate vulnerabilities, and extend such knowledge into future plausible climate scenarios.

• Providing rural community members with the means of an integrated knowledge to create a set of community recommendations, important to policy makers, in terms of supporting climate change adaptation at the rural community level.

The development of the mapping presentations and small group discussions involved the review and analysis of participatory vulnerability assessment reports available for each rural community (Matlock, 2007; Prado, 2007; Pittman, 2008). Each report constitutes the culmination of ethnographic work pursued in each rural community, hence based on grounded theory. In this regard, theory emerges from the data itself, while data has been systematically obtained in an iterative and reflexive mode (Steinberg and Steinberg, 2006). The value of the ethnographic work resides in that it provides the perspectives of rural community members in terms of exposures and sensitivities and adaptive strategies, instead of the expert‐outsider understanding of the rural community vulnerability to climate change impacts.

Figure 3 supports the integration of local knowledge and expert knowledge by using a participatory mapping approach. The combination of mapping presentations and small group discussions help participants in the development of community recommendations relevant to policy makers.

The participatory vulnerability assessment reports allowed for the identification of main patterns, trends, and processes, as well as particularities of each rural community in terms of past and current climate exposures and sensitivities, and adaptive strategies, as recognized by rural community members. Maps are used as an alternative and/or complementary approach to reveal the perspectives of community members on their vulnerability to climate change through an interconnected series of maps. The latter provides context while allowing participants to visually depict meaningful exposures and sensitivities and adaptive strategies patterns, providing a place to the rural community in question within the particular area, the South Saskatchewan River Basin for this study. Simultaneously, current and future climate change scenarios were provided with a visual representation, in map format (climate change scenarios data were provided by Lapp (2007)). Climate change scenarios provide rural community members with a range of plausible future scenarios within which they have the possibility to adapt. Hence, rural community members are provided with the possibility of reflect on past and present exposures and strategies as well as adaptive capacities, and re‐think and reflect on present and past experiences and lessons in the context of future scenarios.

In addition, small group discussions were assisted by a set of carefully designed complementary working diagrams, schemes and evaluation sheets. These instruments were built in order to facilitate a common understanding of the concept of vulnerability and its components (i.e. exposures and sensitivity and adaptive capacity), as well as providing rural community members with tools that support the process of knowledge constructing of their vulnerability to climate change. These instruments include:

• the schematic construction of the past and current rural community vulnerability (i.e. exposures and sensitivities, and adaptive strategies and constraints) to climate;

• the implications of potential impacts of future climate change on past and current exposures and sensitivities and adaptive strategies;

• the role of government institutions under potential impacts of future climate change on water; and

• the participatory mapping session evaluation.

In summary, the participatory mapping approach developed in this study ran for approximately 5.5 hours and comprised three main mapping‐discussion sections. The first mapping‐discussion section constitutes a series of maps representing and/or reflecting the main patterns and trends derived from the examination of the results of the participatory community vulnerability assessment reports. A subsequent consecutive mapping‐discussion section builds upon the latter by providing a visual representation, in map format, of future climate change scenarios constructed by climate change scientists.

Originally, each participatory mapping session was designed to include between 15 and 20 rural community members. Owing to the lack of interest of community members, only 11 community members participated in the Taber session. Seven community members participated in the Cabri‐Stewart Valley session, and six in the Outlook session. Notwithstanding this limitation, the following recommendations were built upon vulnerabilities, exposures, and adaptive strategies, identified by a larger number of community members derived from the rural community vulnerability assessment reports. Matlock (2007) rural community assessment report was based on 41 semi‐structured interviews in Cabri‐Stewart Valley. About 31 semi‐structured interviews were pursued and analysed by Prado (2007) in the Taber rural community vulnerability assessment report. Finally, the Outlook rural community assessment report was based on 34 semi‐structured interviews (Pittman, 2008).

This study was intended to generate community recommendations of interest to policy makers regarding climate change adaptation at the rural community level. The procedure of achieving that goal, however, required a reflective building process using the participatory mapping approach developed in this study. This process resulted in a large amount of important contextual information regarding climate vulnerability and water issues that are summarized below.

Participants in the Taber, Cabri‐Stewart Valley, and Outlook sessions identified a number of stressors (i.e. exposures) that either mirrored and/or complemented those identified in the participatory community vulnerability assessment reports (Matlock, 2007; Prado, 2007; Pittman, 2008). In particular, the juxtaposition of multiple stressors (i.e. exposures and sensitivities) was highlighted through the participatory mapping sessions, such as the international market, the global climate (e.g. drought and intense rain episodes) and the governmental arrangements.

In terms of rural community recommendations to policy makers to support the development of adaptation strategies and policies to climate change impacts in the SSRB, participants in the three sessions (i.e. Taber, Cabri‐Stewart Valley, and Outlook) identified the following general recommendations:

• Long‐term planning was essential on climate change, water, and all initiatives.

• Improved communication was necessary between different levels of government (i.e. federal, provincial, and local).

• Increased funding for agricultural research and technology was required.

• Funding and promotion of conservation programs (including water and climate change) were necessary.

• Funding of communities and people to allow change (i.e. fund adaptation) was essential.

In addition, rural community member participants, in at least two of the three communities (i.e. Taber, and/or Cabri‐Stewart Valley, and/or Outlook), identified recommendations specifically directed towards each level of government. Table I shows recommendations identified by at least two of the three rural communities for each level of government. Particular recommendations identified by each rural community participants are shown in Table II.

Rural community member participants indicated that they found the methodological approach used in this study to be useful. Participants expressed satisfaction with the overall mapping‐discussion session process, considered the sessions informative and well done, as well as recognized the sessions as venues for discussion. The evaluations also revealed this type of combined approach based on contextual mapping and discussion groups, helped participants to better understand the potential impacts of future climate change on water in their respective rural communities.

Remarks and comments made by participants in the evaluations of the sessions revealed maps and images enhanced participants understanding of vulnerability to climate change, by providing context to participants' relevant issues, such as drought, water and water storage, and population patterns. In addition, participants suggested maps and images allowed them to identify and recognize spatial and temporal trends and patterns in terms of exposures and sensitivities, adaptation strategies and climate change issues. These provided participants with a better understanding of the context, trends, and patterns in order to pursue a meaningful discussion in terms of community climate change issues and government roles.

The results of the integrated methodological approach have provided a wealth of information, improving both rural community participants' and researchers' understanding of the adaptive capacity and vulnerability to climate change impacts on water of the farming communities of Taber, Cabri‐Stewart Valley, and Outlook. Participants have identified a number of exposures/sensitivities that either mirror and/or complement those identified in the participatory community vulnerability assessment reports. In particular, the juxtaposition of multiple stressors has been dramatically highlighted through the sessions. In addition, a number of constraints hindering the ability to cope with those exposures/sensitivities were also identified during the sessions.

While the concepts of “double exposure” (O'Brien and Leichenko, 2000 in Leichenko and O'Brien, 2002) and “double losers” (Olmos, 2001) are generally used to refer to the negative impacts of the compound effects of economic globalization and global climate change on developing countries, they also apply to the prairie rural communities of Taber, Cabri‐Stewart Valley, and Outlook, in Canada. These prairie farming communities face two main external stressors, i.e. the international market and global climate (e.g. drought). These external stressors interplay with particular regional and local conditions, generating a number of derived issues resulting from that interaction.

In terms of the capacity of the three farming communities to cope with lack of water availability and drought, past and current adaptation strategies suggest they are relatively successful. Progressively, farmers have adopted techniques and practices, as well as developed social mechanisms that have enhanced their capacity to reasonably deal with water stress and drought. For example, farmers have been increasingly adopting moisture and soil conservation practices, such as minimum or no tillage and continuous cropping. In terms of technological advances, irrigation farmers have invested in more water efficient technological solutions, such as the installation of pipelines and adoption of low‐pressure irrigation pivots. In rural towns, some water conservation and rationing practices are already in place (e.g. watering schedules, water recycling, and storage). In addition, rural community members have developed a networking system that allows farmers to interchange experiences and knowledge by learning from mistakes and successes of one another. The latter mechanism is geared towards reduce risks, while enhancing and developing an already existing social capital and social networks. Notwithstanding these accomplishments, farmers feel the threats of the potential impacts of future climate change in terms of more intensive, frequent and longer drought events. They recognize the potentially serious challenges more extreme climatic events might bring to an already stressed water situation.

While these farming communities have demonstrated an impressive development of their ingenuity to cope with water stress and drought, the impacts of the international market have proven to impose quite a challenge on their livelihoods. The uncontrollable nature of the global market fluctuations, in terms of commodity prices and input costs, has seriously impacted the agricultural landscape of the South Saskatchewan River Basin. The adaptive capacity of the farming communities of Taber, Cabri‐Stewart Valley, and Outlook have been tested during periods of simultaneously occurring droughts and increasing input costs and low‐commodity prices, such as in 2001 and 2002 (Wittrock et al., 2006).

While the compound effect of the above global stressors impose serious challenges to the livelihoods of the three farming communities, governmental institutions, and particularly the federal and provincial levels of governmental institutions, have been identified as constraining the ability of these communities to adapt to climate stress and water issues. This third external stressor or force, i.e. governmental arrangements, is seen by the participatory mapping session participants as not responsive to community needs, and reflects “entrenching bureaucracy,” governmental failure to listen and mistrust.

The sustainability of these rural communities relies in part on the capacity of government institution to identify and address current and future community vulnerabilities in terms of climate change and water issues (Patiño and Gauthier, 2009). Federal and provincial policies, strategies and programs can seriously benefit from considering the input of the rural communities in the development of public policies and programs, particularly because community vulnerabilities are site‐specific (Klein and Smith, 2003; Smit and Pilifosova, 2003). Within this context, government institutions have the opportunity of potentially enhance the adaptive capacity of rural communities by addressing relevant community issues, and positively impact the elastic character of the adaptive capacity of the communities in question.

The integrated methodological approach developed in this study provides one means of facilitating community input, while building capacity in those participating in the sessions. Participants engaged in a reflective and learning process and enriched their perspectives in terms of climate and water stress. By integrating climate change scenarios perspectives in the construction of the vulnerability to climate change, participants were provided with a broader integrated knowledge supporting the process of making informed and conscious recommendations relevant to policy makers.

There are some important considerations in terms of the replicability of the methodological approach developed in this study. First, the content of the participatory mapping approach requires to be built upon two main pre‐existing components:

• 1.

  climate change vulnerability and adaptation issues relevant to community members, hence identified directly by community members through venues such as ethnographic work; and

• 2.

  climate change scenarios pertinent to the geographic area.

Another consideration relates to the construction of the participatory mapping session per se. The participatory mapping approach was developed by using geographic information systems (GIS) software and hardware, and required technical expertise. The cost and use of GIS may represent a limitation to some groups and areas of the world. Digital data availability may also be challenge.

An interesting and regrettable fact arising during the preparation of the participatory mapping sessions, relates to the lack of interest and apathy existing in rural communities regarding participating and collaborating as research subjects, hence in participatory processes. For example, the number of rural community members attending the participatory mapping sessions was smaller than anticipated. In addition, rural community members' comments, such as the need of government to stop pursuing research and start applying the knowledge already gained, also reflects this situation. Nonetheless, the evaluations of the participatory mapping sessions indicated this type of approaches might help somewhat in reversing this negative pattern. The evaluations revealed that most of participants would like to be contacted in the future, either to receive further information resulting from this study, or to participate in other participatory mapping sessions.

An important limitation in terms of the resulting recommendations of this study relates to the low‐attendance rate met in the participatory mapping sessions. Therefore, the rural community recommendations, important to policy makers, presented in this study represent the perspectives of a small portion of the members of each rural community in question. In addition, the resulting recommendations may or may not be applicable to other rural areas, or any other communities.

The methodological approach developed in this study supports the integration of a variety of information about the multiple dimensions of sustainability, reflecting the juxtaposition of the multiple factors involved in the climate change issue. The integration accomplished through this methodological approach reflects patterns, trends and processes meaningful to rural community members. In this regard, the integration of information necessarily occurs in the minds of rural community members. In addition, once those patterns, trends and processes have been consciously reflected upon, the integration of alternative and additional knowledge on the vulnerability to climate change impacts flows as part of a progressive learning process. Furthermore, this integrated approach has enriched the capacity of participants to adapt to future impacts of climate change by providing the means to foresee future alternatives/options to reach such a goal. Such integration presents rural community members with a broader understanding of the climate change and water issues, supporting the development of a set of recommendations relevant to policy makers.

There are two main lessons derived from this study. This research observed that the transfer of expert knowledge to rural community members regarding complex phenomena, such as climate change, is facilitated by building such understanding upon issues relevant to community members. In addition, the use of visuals, such as maps and images, supports learning and encourages participants to engage in a reflective and progressive learning process, hence helping them to develop a set of recommendations of value to policy makers.

Future research is desirable in terms of expose Canadian policy makers to the results of this study. Thus, evaluate whether policy makers consider and incorporate the resulting rural community recommendations, presented above, into the development of future policies and strategies.

The authors wish to acknowledge the participation of rural community members in the towns of Taber, Cabri and Stewart Valley, and Outlook, Canada. Special thanks to research assistants Susana Prado, Jeremy Pittman, and Monica Hadarits. The authors wish to recognize PhD student Susan Lapp (University of Regina) for providing climate change scenarios and expertise, and Dr David Sauchyn's contribution on climate change information and expertise. The authors gratefully acknowledge the input provided by Darrell Corkell and Alain Moor of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. This research was supported by the Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change project funded through the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Multi‐collaborative Research Initiatives (MCRI) program.

Lorena Patiño pursued her undergraduate studies in Geography at the Pontific Catholic University in Santiago, Chile, and completed a Master in Science at the University of Regina in Regina, Canada. She developed a strong background in the application of geographic information systems, and a deep appreciation of inter‐disciplinary research projects while working at the Canadian Plains Research Center at the University of Regina. Currently, she is pursuing a PhD program related to integrated knowledge frameworks and participatory mapping within the climate change adaptation field at the University of Regina. She currently holds a research fellowship of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council – Major‐Collaborative Research Initiatives (SSHRC – MCRI) Institutional Adaptation to Climate Change Project. Lorena Patiño can be contacted at: patinol@uregina.ca

David A. Gauthier is the Vice‐President (Research and International) and a Professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Regina. He is the author of over 140 publications (refereed articles and book chapters and non‐refereed articles and reports) and recipient of 121 academic awards and multiple grants and contracts. He conducts research in protected ecological areas planning and management, ecological indicators for sustainable communities, applications of GIS in natural resources management, rural social cohesion, human adaptation to climate change, and ecological land classification. He is a leading proponent of interdisciplinary team research activities helping to further research and education needs through projects in Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. He is a currently co‐directing a Canadian International Development Agency (project on rural water conservation) with the Universidad de La Serena in Chile, and leading a team of scientists from three South American countries in a study of institutional capacity for water management. David A. Gauthier can be contacted at: david.gauthier@uregina.ca