LAUSR

It is not an everyday occurrence that our articles are subject to a published commentary, and we appreciate the input and are grateful for the opportunity to respond. In her commentary, Bercht criticizes the Cultural Theory of Risk (CTR) framework applied to our findings from Lofoten Islands, Norway, and used in our analysis and conclusions about the apparent lack of salience towards climate change impacts among fishers in the Lofoten Islands (Dannevig and Hovelsrud 2016). By employing CTR, we suggest that an individualist worldview typically held by fishers can explain the low-issue salience of adaptation to climate change. The typology associated with fishers is compared and contrasted with that attributed to farmers and municipal officials. Our main interest is to understand why the fishers, farmers, and municipal officials, within the same community, have varying views on the need for climate adaptation. Bercht has discovered that the fishers indeed are worried about climate change, some of them are even Bhijacked by fear .̂ Based on the interview statements, Bercht discovers that fishers are suffering from cognitive dissonance and Bhard wired^ neurological emotions that prevent them from seeing climate change as a salient issue that require adaptation. The anxiety and fear among fishers exposed by Bercht’s research are not evident in our empirical findings, which we agree may be attributed to different disciplinary focus, questions asked, the design of the research, and the theoretical approach. Bercht set out to understand Arctic change and likely designed her interviews to that effect. In our case, the CTR typologies or world view categories emerged from years of field work in Lofoten and other areas in Northern Norway. In other words, we did not set out to apply the CTR framework, but rather use it as a tool to explain clear differences, empirically observed, between livelihood groups who at the same Climatic Change (2017) 144:573–575 DOI 10.1007/s10584-017-2063-4