Stakeholders Perceptions

The involvement of local-level decision makers and community stakeholders revealed to be beneficial in this empirical study. Firstly, the findings from this study support Freeman’s (1984) definition of a stakeholder, which is anyone impacted by an issue at hand. In alignment with the perspectives of Newig and Fritsch (2009) and Bowie (1988), it was beneficial to set a boundary and narrow the focus of key informant

interview and workshop participants to those who are local-level decision makers and community stakeholders, respectively. It may have been challenging and possibly

counter-productive to include all members of society (including those outside the community), as Bryson et al. (2002) argue should be done, as such a method could have easily led to discussions that were irrelevant to the community of interest and potentially derailed the focus of the interviews and community workshops. The use of engagement in this study supports the views of Nocke et al. (2008), who see benefit in using stakeholder engagement for providing scientific information to decision makers, and others

(Sheppard, 2012; Ricker et al., 2013; Robinson et al., 2011; Brzeski et al., 2013;

Arciniegas et al., 2013) who see benefit in using participatory approaches with public stakeholders. Contradictory to Newig and Fritsch’s (2009) view that two-way

communication can derail a discussion, two-way communication during community workshops did not distract from the topic of discussion; it is possible that having the visualization tool viewable during most of the allocated workshop time contributed to maintaining this focus. It is also possible that the goals of stakeholders (Newig and Fritsch, 2009) and the egoistic/social/biospheric drivers for motivation (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002; Stern et al., 1993) were aligned with discussions, which were based on physical impacts that threaten the community and its members. Overall the findings of this study agree with the general perspective that stakeholder engagement can be

beneficial (Reed, 2008; Stringer et al., 2008; Pellizzoni, 2003; Steel, 2001; Brody, 2003;

Mearns and Norton, 2010; Macnaghten and Jacobs, 1997; Schenk et al., 2007; Rodima-Taylor, 2012; Robinson et al., 2011).

As for perceptions of stakeholders, the findings of this study agree with the literature (Sheppard, et al., 2011; Sheppard, 2012; Brzeski et al., 2013) that states people relate to what they see when what they are shown is geographically and temporally

relevant to them. While viewing the visualization tools, stakeholders tended to focus on exploring individual scaled impacts (i.e., home and work) and near-future timeframes (i.e., 2025 and 2030). This is because these were the geographical locations and temporal periods of greatest concern that were most relatable for the stakeholders (Sheppard, et al., 2011; Sheppard, 2012; Brzeski et al., 2013). Furthermore, although it is beneficial to raise awareness regarding the physical vulnerability of one’s community, it is possible that such community-focused awareness could skew stakeholder perceptions to be biased towards the community of concern; making it appear more vulnerable than other communities that are not represented. Further, as Ricker et al. (2013) discuss, there is a risk that the type of information portrayed in a visualization could be perceived in an exaggerated or skewed manner; for example, exposure to only physical vulnerability does not provide a holistic vision of the actual complex impacts of climate change. The

attention participants gave to the physical vulnerabilities of their natural and built environment is indicative of a potentially skewed perspective on the impacts of climate change.

The findings of this research build on existing research that explores local-level stakeholder engagement and behaviour change by identifying specific factors that

changed after tool exposure. The need to consider the lives of future generations, moving off the island, bringing in external expertise, and investing in more information and education are all need-based factors that are directly associated with stakeholder exposure to visualization tools.

As we know from the literature, changes in awareness and priorities do not translate to action. There is not only a complexity of information and resources needed to

holistically understand climate impacts (e.g., social/economic vulnerabilities) (Brzeski et al., 2013; Maarleveld et al., 2006; Sheppard, 2012), but also numerous complex and dynamic factors that play a role in shifting attitudes into behaviour (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). The literature states that simply having information and knowledge is not enough to create behaviour change (Diekmann & Preisendoerfer, 1992;

Fliegenschnee & Schelakovsky, 1998; Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). Yet interestingly, this study reveals evidence of a direct association with the information provided through the AdpatNS visualization tool and willingness to act in the Town of Lockeport. This is exemplified through the town’s approval and implementation of a sand dune stabilization project. It was noted that this project would not have been approved as quickly as it was if it were not for stakeholder exposure to the AdaptNS tool; this is in agreement with the findings of Newig and Fritsch (2009), which state that stakeholder engagement helps with acceptance of decisions. Though it cannot be assumed that AdaptNS was the primary reason behind the decision to go ahead with the project, tool exposure was definitely associated with moving the idea forward in a quick manner. Thus, this further emphasizes the linkage between the use of visualization tools and change in awareness and priorities for action.