How climate-related events become climate governance problems: climate change attribution divergence as an interpretive mechanism
Abstract
Climate-related events are often viewed as potential catalysts for policy learning and changes in climate governance. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, and other environmental changes can expose vulnerabilities in infrastructure, land-use planning, and emergency preparedness, drawing attention to the need to reassess existing practices. However, events can be associated with different responses, proving that exposure and scientific information alone do not determine collective action. Governance responses depend not only on institutional, political, and socioeconomic conditions, but also on how actors interpret experienced environmental changes in relation to anthropogenic climate change. These subjective interpretations are distinct from scientific event attribution and vary in strength across actors. Differences in attribution may contribute to divergent problem definitions, shaping which issues are prioritised and the type, scale, and temporal orientation of adaptation, mitigation, and other governance responses. Building on empirical research documenting variation in climate change attribution strength across actors and contexts, this paper introduces climate change attribution divergence, defined as differences among actors in the strength with which experienced environmental events and impacts are attributed to anthropogenic climate change. While existing research has examined attribution primarily at the individual level, less attention has been given to how differences in attribution may matter within shared governance contexts. The paper develops a conceptual framework specifying how subjective attribution, variation in attribution strength, and problem definition are linked, and how attribution divergence may contribute to divergent governance responses. The framework offers an interpretive mechanism for understanding why environmental events may give rise to different governance pathways.
Related
- Automated identification, industrial attribution and conditional emission-rate quantification of recurrent CO enhancement source regions from TROPOMI observations
- Nuclear contamination limits 14CH4 but not 14CO2 source attribution in a five-year Swiss atmospheric monitoring network
- AutoCF: An Automated LLM-Assisted Ecosystem for Compound Flood Simulation, Evaluation, and Impact Attribution
- On the role of moderator and mediator variables in conditional event attribution of heatwaves over Europe
- Structural deficits in large ensembles limit detection and attribution of terrestrial water storage
BibTeX
@misc{blennow2026climaterelated,
title = {{How climate-related events become climate governance problems: climate change attribution divergence as an interpretive mechanism}},
author = {Kristina Blennow and Johannes Persson},
howpublished = {EarthArXiv},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.31223/x5mz3s},
url = {https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/15900/},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - How climate-related events become climate governance problems: climate change attribution divergence as an interpretive mechanism
AU - Kristina Blennow
AU - Johannes Persson
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/01
PB - EarthArXiv
DO - 10.31223/x5mz3s
UR - https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/15900/
AB - Climate-related events are often viewed as potential catalysts for policy learning and changes in climate governance. Floods, droughts, heatwaves, wildfires, and other environmental changes can expose vulnerabilities in infrastructure, land-use planning, and emergency preparedness, drawing attention to the need to reassess existing practices. However, events can be associated with different responses, proving that exposure and scientific information alone do not determine collective action. Governance responses depend not only on institutional, political, and socioeconomic conditions, but also on how actors interpret experienced environmental changes in relation to anthropogenic climate change. These subjective interpretations are distinct from scientific event attribution and vary in strength across actors. Differences in attribution may contribute to divergent problem definitions, shaping which issues are prioritised and the type, scale, and temporal orientation of adaptation, mitigation, and other governance responses. Building on empirical research documenting variation in climate change attribution strength across actors and contexts, this paper introduces climate change attribution divergence, defined as differences among actors in the strength with which experienced environmental events and impacts are attributed to anthropogenic climate change. While existing research has examined attribution primarily at the individual level, less attention has been given to how differences in attribution may matter within shared governance contexts. The paper develops a conceptual framework specifying how subjective attribution, variation in attribution strength, and problem definition are linked, and how attribution divergence may contribute to divergent governance responses. The framework offers an interpretive mechanism for understanding why environmental events may give rise to different governance pathways.
ER -