5 Gods, Spirits and Natural Hazards …
83
of tailoring information and adaptation imperatives around climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction to target cultural contexts which typically interpret
natural and social phenomena through faith based and spiritual lenses. It is argued
that a lack of nuance in policy hitherto has hindered potential transformational change
throughout Pacific Island Countries and beyond.
The rest of the chapter is as follows. First, we review existing research from the
Pacific on traditional and introduced religious beliefs and perceptions of climate
and hazard causality. Second, a brief section on the methodology and case study
backgrounds is presented. Third, the ontological and epistemological understanding
of hazards and climate change across the two case study sites are detailed, leading
into the identification of themes underlying the commonalities and differences of
the study sites. Lastly, we discuss the importance of these findings for the future of
climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the Pacific.
Changing Religious Perceptions in the Pacific
Throughout history, natural hazards have been perceived as supernatural events
caused by gods or spirits, often in response to human actions that were mistaken
or intentionally perverse (Ahmad 2019; Furendi 2007; Hardwick and Stephens
2020). This understanding first began to shift in Europe during the enlightenment
when rational ‘naturalistic’ explanations superseded religious ones (Hardwick and
Stephens 2020). Today the dominant scientific epistemology is logical positivism,
which requires that only what can be proven through logic and replicated through
empirical observation can be ‘true’. Despite the ubiquity of logical positivism and its
dominance in the development of global ideas and initiatives, many people around
the world favour faith-based understandings of natural hazards and climate change
(Ahmad 2019; Haluza-DeLay 2014; Luetz and Nunn 2020). These understandings
vary immensely and are hard to generalise about, in part due to the subjectiveness of
people’s interpretations of their religion (Gaillard and Texier 2010).
There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that this is
likely attributable to an increase of greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2018). Within
Pacific Island Countries, observable changes in the climate are widely recognised
by local communities, yet often causality is attributed to God (Donner 2007; Luetz
and Nunn 2020). Indeed, Indigenous and Christian rationalisations exist even at the
governmental level (Kempf 2017; Luetz and Nunn 2020; Tomlinson and McDougall
2012). Logical positivism means little to most Indigenous people in the region
because they are enculturated with their own unique Indigenous epistemologies and
strong Christian faith. Unfortunately, and perhaps unnecessarily, this has created a
conflict based on values and beliefs between Pacific Islanders’ worldviews and those
of scientists and other secular climate change adaptation actors (Luetz and Nunn
2020). We suggest this conflict is partly responsible for the failure of externally
driven climate change adaptation to date.
83
of tailoring information and adaptation imperatives around climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction to target cultural contexts which typically interpret
natural and social phenomena through faith based and spiritual lenses. It is argued
that a lack of nuance in policy hitherto has hindered potential transformational change
throughout Pacific Island Countries and beyond.
The rest of the chapter is as follows. First, we review existing research from the
Pacific on traditional and introduced religious beliefs and perceptions of climate
and hazard causality. Second, a brief section on the methodology and case study
backgrounds is presented. Third, the ontological and epistemological understanding
of hazards and climate change across the two case study sites are detailed, leading
into the identification of themes underlying the commonalities and differences of
the study sites. Lastly, we discuss the importance of these findings for the future of
climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction in the Pacific.
Changing Religious Perceptions in the Pacific
Throughout history, natural hazards have been perceived as supernatural events
caused by gods or spirits, often in response to human actions that were mistaken
or intentionally perverse (Ahmad 2019; Furendi 2007; Hardwick and Stephens
2020). This understanding first began to shift in Europe during the enlightenment
when rational ‘naturalistic’ explanations superseded religious ones (Hardwick and
Stephens 2020). Today the dominant scientific epistemology is logical positivism,
which requires that only what can be proven through logic and replicated through
empirical observation can be ‘true’. Despite the ubiquity of logical positivism and its
dominance in the development of global ideas and initiatives, many people around
the world favour faith-based understandings of natural hazards and climate change
(Ahmad 2019; Haluza-DeLay 2014; Luetz and Nunn 2020). These understandings
vary immensely and are hard to generalise about, in part due to the subjectiveness of
people’s interpretations of their religion (Gaillard and Texier 2010).
There is a scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and that this is
likely attributable to an increase of greenhouse gas emissions (IPCC 2018). Within
Pacific Island Countries, observable changes in the climate are widely recognised
by local communities, yet often causality is attributed to God (Donner 2007; Luetz
and Nunn 2020). Indeed, Indigenous and Christian rationalisations exist even at the
governmental level (Kempf 2017; Luetz and Nunn 2020; Tomlinson and McDougall
2012). Logical positivism means little to most Indigenous people in the region
because they are enculturated with their own unique Indigenous epistemologies and
strong Christian faith. Unfortunately, and perhaps unnecessarily, this has created a
conflict based on values and beliefs between Pacific Islanders’ worldviews and those
of scientists and other secular climate change adaptation actors (Luetz and Nunn
2020). We suggest this conflict is partly responsible for the failure of externally
driven climate change adaptation to date.