114 chapter 4 be especially important to encourage a variety of actions meant to address such a collective threat (cf. Chen, 2015). Limitations and Future Research Directions Our research presents compelling findings, yet it also has some limitations and raises important questions for future research. First, we did not examine which factors influence collective (and individual) transilience. Future studies could examine which individual (e.g., individual resources), social (e.g.., social networks and support; Barnes et al., 2020), socio-political (unequal power relations; Barnwell et al., 2020), and contextual factors (e.g., local resources or ecological characteristics; Clayton et al., 2016; Galappaththi et al., 2020) may influence collective (and individual) transilience, and in turn the extent to which it can promote a range of community-based (and individual) adaptive actions. Future studies could also aim to replicate our findings among different samples not taken from WEIRD countries (Western, Educated, Industrial, Rich, and Democratic), such as developing countries, which are the most affected by climate change risks (Mertz et al., 2009) and likely to have less resources to adapt. Particularly in the second study, a big portion of the original sample (35%) filled in neither the individual nor the collective transilience scale. It may be that the similarity between the scales made the survey quite lengthy and repetitive. Future studies can reduce repetitiveness by randomising the order of the transilience items. Additionally, among those who filled in the scales, there were several people (around 20%) who scored neutral (i.e., they selected 4 on a 7-point scale) on the full collective transilience scale, particularly in Study 2. People may have difficulties to answer collective transilience items, and more research is needed to examine whether this is systematically the case. It may also be that questions regarding the community of ‘inhabitants of Stadshagen’ were difficult to answer, as this community may not be very relevant to people. Future studies could examine whether including different groups with varying levels of self-relevance in the collective transilience scale (e.g., the neighbourhood, a church, a club, the Dutch, EU-citizens) affects response rates and patterns. Notably, the transilience scales showed very high reliability across studies, thus some of the items may be redundant. Future research could explore if a shorter scale (e.g., one or a few items per component) yields comparable results to the full scale, potentially enhancing its practicality. We included a wide range of community adaptation indicators. Yet, we did not examine to what extent people felt able to engage in the adaptation actions or to support the hypothetical policies we measured. Transilience may be less strongly (or not significantly) related to adaptation actions that are difficult or not feasible to people.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw