26 chapter 2 opportunities. At the same time, we do not assume higher transilience implies that people perceive less the risks posed by climate change or are less worried about climate change, as perceiving climate change as an adversity is key for engaging in adaptive action (Van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a). We tested predictive validity by examining whether transilience is positively related to relevant outcome variables in the context of climate change adaptation (Boateng et al., 2018), namely more adaptation behaviours (van Valkengoed & Steg, 2019a, 2019b) and stronger support for adaptation policies (Dietz et al., 2009; García de Jalón et al., 2013). Furthermore, we assessed whether higher transilience is associated with higher general well-being. Finally, we explore incremental validity by examining whether transilience still relates to relevant outcome variables when controlling for other indicators of adaptive capacity, i.e., self-efficacy, outcome efficacy, and resilience, respectively. Items Generation and Selection Based on our definitions, we compiled items to measure persistence, adaptability and transformability, by selecting and adapting items from existing measures (Carver et al., 1989; Connor & Davidson, 2003; Martin & Rubin, 1995; Watson & Homewood, 2008). We also developed new items to ensure sufficient items for each component. The initial pool consisted of 24 items (8 items per component; see Appendix A). We invited 18 experts in climate change adaptation and/or resilience to evaluate our items. Those who agreed (n = 11) were provided with our definitions of transilience and the three components. Experts rated each item in terms of relevance for the component and general quality (e.g., clarity) on a scale from 1 = terrible to 5 = excellent. They could also comment on each item. Based on the experts’ judgement we improved some phrasings and selected six items per component for the initial transilience scale (Table 2.1).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw