Below the Radar Transcript
Episode 195: The Climate Imaginary: Planning for Community Resilience — with Andréanne Doyon
Speakers: Kathy Feng, Steve Tornes, Am Johal, Andréanne Doyon
[nature sounds]
[theme music]
Kathy Feng 00:14
Welcome to ‘The Climate Imaginary,’ a Below the Radar series. As we navigate our future within the ongoing climate emergency, we seek different frameworks to help guide our learning and our actions. In this series, we bring together guests from across artistic and academic disciplines to speak about their approaches to working in solidarity amidst the climate crisis. We feature conversations that range from the unique power of creative works to mobilise people, to the importance of collaboration and interdependence across fields.
Steve Tornes 00:50
Hello listeners! I’m Steve Tornes with Below the Radar, a knowledge democracy podcast. Below the Radar is recorded on the territories of the Musqueam, Squamish, and Tsleil-Waututh peoples. On this episode of our Below the Radar series: The Climate Imaginary, our host Am Johal is joined by Dr. Andréanne Doyon, Assistant Professor at the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. They talk about sustainability versus resilience, and also discuss the role of researchers and planners in the climate emergency, looking at alternate methods of sharing research and how to engage with a community’s specific knowledge and needs. Enjoy the episode!
Am Johal 01:39
Hello, welcome to Below the Radar, delighted that you could join us again this week. Really excited to have special guest Andréanne Doyon with us from SFU's School of Resource and Environmental Management. Welcome, Andréanne.
Andréanne Doyon 01:54
Great, thank you.
Am Johal 01:56
Yeah. Andréanne, maybe we can begin with you introducing yourself a little bit.
Andréanne Doyon 02:01
Yeah, sure. So I'm [with French pronunciation] Andréanne, or Andréanne. I'm a faculty member in the School of Resource and Environmental Management, we also refer to as REM. I'm also the director of the planning program. So I feel like that gives away my disciplinary background. I'm a planner by training and I would say maybe a good part of my research sits within planning. I'm a settler of French origin. And in addition to being a scholar, I'm a parent.
Am Johal 02:29
Great, well, great to be in discussion with you today. Wondering if we can begin with you sort of talking a little bit about where your research interests began, you know, back in when you were doing your doctoral dissertation.
Andréanne Doyon 02:44
So it actually, I guess, began before the doctoral dissertation in the decision to to undertake a PhD. I completed my Master's in Planning at the University of British Columbia. And I found myself- my first jobs, or I guess, where I kind of landed job wise, was a bit more on the sustainability side of things. And yet, that's not where I had imagined I would end up from a planning perspective. I thought I'd end up much more from a multicultural sort of social planning perspective. And yet, I found myself surrounded by mechanical engineers, and architects, and landscape architects all talking about sustainability. So the more I learned about that, the more I was like, why weren't these two fields sort of talking to each other more? I had sort of focused more on the social dynamics. And here I was, all of a sudden talking much more about the technical and environmental, and I was interested in thinking more thoughtfully about what those two spaces meant.
And I had always thought about doing a PhD after my Master's. And that sort of experience in that, kind of being in that space, really encouraged me to think about what would a question look like that did that. So when I first entered my PhD, which was at the University of Melbourne, I thought I'd be wanting to look at sort of the space in between livability and sustainability. Or sustainability, while we, you know, people talk about the three pillars like social, economics, and in the environment. My experience in the work world had been that it'd be much more focused on the environment and economics. And then livability at the time was kind of coming onto the scene. And people were really starting to say, everyone's talking about livability, but no one's defining it. So I was interested in, you know, what's going on there? And what's happening in planning in that space. And are there particular types of built environments that I could be investigating from sort of this dual lens. So that's where I started. And I think I spent the first year of my PhD, trying to figure out how I wanted to define sustainability. Until I decided I wasn't, and I instead started to read about resilience. And I found that was a place that I felt much more excited about. I felt like it was new enough that I could have my own opinions, as well as learn from others, where I felt really... didn't have a lot of confidence, kind of speaking out against sustainability, given sort of all of the voices that had come before me. I didn't know if I had anything to add that was sort of significantly different or better than what had already been kind of being discussed for decades. Whereas in resilience, I found this place of like, openness, and thinking, and innovation. And I felt like maybe I could step into that space and contribute. And maybe I could think about planning from a resilience perspective in a different way, again, that could add to that conversation. So that's really where I ended up doing is thinking about the role of sort of bottom up change within a resilience context within planning. So how can we think about bottom up changes in cities, in local governments? And how might that tell us if those places or those institutions have the ability to be resilient? Do they have an adaptive capacity? And how can we sort of investigate that? So rather than think about resilience for as like something big has happened, and how do we fix it, I was really more interested in ongoing change. So what some folks refer to as evolutionary resilience, something that keeps going. And how do we improve sort of the system that we're in?
Am Johal 06:04
Wondering if you can speak a little bit more to that kind of. The sort of overlaps and the difference between sustainability and resilience? Resilience is such a fascinating word because it does come through different disciplines. You know, you look at early childhood development, resilience has a certain meaning. And in contexts related to cities. It does resonate across disciplines in very interesting ways and so there's a way of bringing about a conversation. But wondering if you could speak just a little bit to kind of the areas where sustainability and resilience overlap and where there are slight differences or nuances.
Andréanne Doyon 06:40
I think where they overlap, particularly when we're thinking about planning, or the built environment, or sort of communities, is the sense where both of them are trying to— the words, but also, I think the actions behind those words is about sort of moving towards a better future. And responding to climate change in many ways. So thinking about within sustainability, people often talk about sort of wanting to think about the longevity of our communities, of resource use, and making sure that our impact balances out with sort of what's around us. So it's a certain amount of sustaining current functions and being aware of how much we're taking, and how much is being given back from the planet. But again, the ideal is still wanting to sort of come out and be better and respond to climate change. Whereas for resilience, the focus is less on sort of thinking about balance or thinking about sustaining a certain lifestyle, but more about thinking, how do we incorporate adaptability, flexibility into our system so that when something does happen—because inevitably it's going to happen—are we in a position to respond, still enabled to sort of work towards that better future? So it's a lot more about the functioning of systems and being... Yeah, being responsive, being adaptable, being malleable, but working towards something that is better. And potentially that, you know, that's going to mean making changes, that's going to mean stopping certain practices. It's going to be about introducing different sort of ways of doing things. But it's much more about how systems are functioning, I think. I think Systems Thinking is still part of sustainability, but I think it's more central to the way that we think about resilience. For some people, sustainability is a goal we're trying to achieve. It's a kind of a normative outcome, we want to be more sustainable, full stop. Whereas with resilience, a lot of the times, there is no endpoint. Resilience is ongoing. So it's about understanding that our world is continually— is dynamic, and we don't just work towards something and then when we've done it. The work is never done.
Am Johal 08:51
I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit to, you know, you've worked inside of planning departments, and how that informs your research or your approach to your own research, because being inside of a department has its own mode of thinking, ways of working, how change happens. And of course, being inside must inform how you think through these systems.
Andréanne Doyon 09:15
This might not be the answer you want. But having had experience in the planning profession made me realise that I didn't think it was for me.
Am Johal 09:25
[laughs] There's never an answer I don't want, that is the answer I want.
Andréanne Doyon 09:28
It really was the fact that I'm genuinely interested in change, how we can facilitate change, how change occurs. And planning is inherently risk averse. Most planners work within local governments. So then sort of municipal governments, regional districts, that sort of level where a lot of this profession exists. And they operate within risk averse institutions. They are bounded by election cycles. They are bounded by the fact that planners are experts in their field, but they are not decision makers. They provide advice to decision makers. So when you're within a system that doesn't like to take risks, you're in a system that you don't get to make big decisions. You can make, obviously, some decisions, but there's bigger decisions around the big change that I'm interested in, that I wasn't going to be able to tackle in a practitioner position. And I think good planners that are planners that work in and know how to navigate that system really well, know how to find loopholes, know how to find collaborators within the system, as well as outside the system. And maybe find a bit more joy in sort of that navigation. And maybe understanding sort of thinking about where to operate: Are you a detail oriented person or are you a bigger systems or thinking person. And I, again, I found myself much more interested in those bigger questions. I find a lot of value in working with practitioners now that I'm a researcher, like I really enjoy either collaborating on a project that lasts for months and months and months, or even sometimes just being invited to come and speak to a group of practitioners who want to know more about my research. And I find that's where I get moments where I'm like, oh, I'm still in there, I'm still having an impact, I still get to know what's happening. But I'm no longer the one, you know, I'm not the one trying to push the boulder up the hill. I'm trying to help that person do that. But I'm not the one doing that energy.
Am Johal 11:29
I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit to where your current research has taken you. What are you working on now? And what has you excited about the questions that are sort of on the table and in research partnerships and things that you're working on?
Andréanne Doyon 11:46
So yeah, there's a number of research projects that I'm working on. So I've been a researcher on a PICS—so Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions—funded project, that's called "Coastal Adaptation, Living With Water." And on that project, we've been thinking about how the BC South Coast can respond to the fact that we are going to have more water. And this more water is going to be through sea level rise, but also through flooding, and through addition, more rain. So my team has been primarily focused on what they're calling the governance related questions within that. And I feel like they say governance sometimes because non governance scholars see it as a catch all. But it's more about sort of how are people making decisions? What are sort of the equity and justice implications? What type of collaborations exists to try to enact change? So we've been looking at different questions within that. Maybe there's two projects there that I'm excited about that are worth mentioning. One was initially the idea that we wanted to investigate the relationship between nature based solutions, so thinking about incorporating natural assets and mimicking or creating new natural systems in an attempt to respond to climate change, while also wanting to support biodiversity as well as human health and well being. So there's these interventions, these nature based solutions where we're trying to learn from nature and work with nature in response to climate change, but also other types of crises that we're experiencing right now. So we wanted to look at the relationship between those kinds of interventions and working with Indigenous communities. And in particular, could they benefit Indigenous communities or relationships between sovereign Indigenous governments.
So we went in just being, you know, really hopeful and positive about this potential relationship. And actually, what we found was that nature based solutions can be really harmful and really problematic, if we're not more aware of the power dynamics, if we're not more aware of the history, if we're not more aware of the context with which we're entering into these spaces. We talk a lot about—in nature based solutions—the importance of place based responses. But too often those place based responses are the ecological conditions, and not the social conditions. So in the end, what we're doing is we're not talking about how nature based solutions can support reconciliation efforts, we're actually flipping the whole project on its head, and really focusing much more on how researchers and practitioners, particularly from settler backgrounds, are entering these spaces and are unaware of the complexities and the potential trauma and harm that they may be inflicting. So we've been really— we've flipped it and focus much more on doing this work, and what needs to be done even before we enter into these spaces to ensure or at least to hope, to work towards better outcomes. Where again, we actually are seeing, responding to climate change, responding to biodiversity loss, but also human health and well being and being much more holistic about that. And that's really fascinating.
And it speaks to sort of some of the other work that I like to do, where I really like to be thoughtful as a researcher. I think it's really important. We hold a lot of privilege as academics, where we get the time and space and sometimes money to ask really interesting questions. And to do research and hopefully in that research, we are able to give back and have impact in the fields that we work in both from in the academy but also on the ground. I think if you're working in climate change, you want your work to sort of have an impact on the ground. But I also want the researchers doing this work to be thoughtful about the work that they're doing. So where are they working? Who are they working with? What kinds of questions are they asking? How are they developing those questions? So I think it's important that we as academics, engage in reflexive practice, maybe more so than we're trained to do. Particularly in that climate change space, because a lot of the colleagues I work with do come from the natural science backgrounds. And while I have an undergrad in sociology, where it was part of my training to be reflexive about who I was, and where I was, I learned, you know, I'm learning that not everyone obviously, engaged in that kind of foundational work as part of their education or as part of their ongoing research practices. So I think it's really important that we do that. And then the other project that I think is really interesting within the living with water larger project is we're looking at developing an evaluative framework for like thinking about how justice and equity are incorporated into... Particularly, we're looking at a design challenge, but it more generally, we're more interested in looking at when urban coastal adaptation initiatives are undertaken, in which ways are equity and justice incorporated in there? And what's really common in that space, drawing from environmental justice and climate justice is to think about procedural distributed and recognition justice. So procedural thinking about participation, accessible participation, access to information, people being able to engage in decision making processes, distribution. We think much more about spatial geographic impacts and interventions. And then recognition, we recognize past current and future harms that different communities and individuals have experienced, as well as trying to overcome those. So we try to recognize people's inability to be able to participate in some of these processes that we create and why. So that's sort of more traditionally how a lot of this work gets discussed or analysed. But when it comes to urban adaptation, we've been wanting to sort of think about what's missing from from that sort of framework. And in particular, we've been adding two different forms of justice to try to be more responsive. One is intergenerational justice with sea level rise and coastal adaptation, it becomes really important to think about longer timeframes. And what this means to the people now versus the people in 100 years, and everywhere in between. I'm thinking about different generations in terms of how do youth participate in these sorts of projects as well? And then the other one is epistemic justice. So thinking much more about how do we incorporate different people's worldviews and knowledges and experiences more directly into the way that we think about this. So in a place like Vancouver, it being really important to not only recognize that we live on unceded traditional land, but to think about what would vocal responses be to coastal adaptation? What are local ways of living with water? And how might we think about that? And for other places in the world, it would be other types of ways of knowing and being that would be really important to incorporate. But to be more explicit about this place based, this kind of coming back to that.
The other project that I talked about: the importance of place based not just being about the ecological conditions, but the importance of place based, also been about the social conditions with which we're trying to respond and intervene in climate change. So those are two sort of interesting current projects. I just received funding to look at planning for heat. So that'll be an another area that I'll be sort of stepping into, after the last two summers of increased heat waves. So in 2021, where we experienced the heat dome, and then a series of heat waves, and then this past summer of 2022, where we've had sort of less intense heat waves, but more consistent higher temperatures. We're finding that the BC south coast, but also the entire province, is not set up for heat, nor have people ever really thought about how do we respond to heat? And for the most part, heat in British Columbia is dealt either as a emergency management problem. So there's going to be a heatwave, what do we do? We open up cooling centres, we make sure we check on people. So it's dealt as an emergency or as a public health consideration. But what we're not seeing is either the province, regional districts, municipalities or other types of governments think about how do we mitigate long term impacts of heat? So how do we actually—again coming back to my roots and planning—how do we actually think about our built environment and the places that we live and work and play and spend time in. Do they need to be retrofitted, adapted, thought of differently in order for us to be able to continue to live in these places? And who has been more heavily impacted by these temperatures? And what type of infrastructure do they currently have available to them and what do people need in the future. So, thinking about heat mitigation planning or heat resilience planning, coming back to that word resilience, and I'm interested in thinking about that from a built environment and equity lens. Equity, because I think it's important that as that saying goes, you know, we might all be in the same storm, but we're definitely not in the same boats. People experience heat really differently depending on what type of infrastructure or what are their current health conditions. But as well built environment, thinking anywhere from urban greenery, access, to sort of water access, to sort of clean air, but also thinking about the way that our houses are built and where they're built is really important as well. So heat planning is going to be a new area.
Am Johal 20:47
Yeah, there's no shortage of crises that have been emerging for some time, given the broader context. And it's a really important point you raise around conservation efforts that oftentimes result in you know, park land being created, or a certain type of spaces being preserved, oftentimes can overlook colonial histories and local contexts on the ground. And decisions over land use, when publicly stated can seem like a positive measure relate to the environment, but have whole sets of implications on the ground and walk into histories that are in terms of reconciliation and decolonization efforts, work against the sovereignty of of Indigenous nations. I'm wondering if you could, Andréanne, and some of your research as well as looking at you know, the differences between sort of climate change co2 emissions effects that are that are happening on the ground with other implicated environmental issues like biodiversity loss, and certainly, from the BC— my parents live up in Williams Lake, so there was a forest fire that went through very close to there. A number of years ago, I had a chance to travel through Lytton working on an article and of course, the flooding in the Fraser Valley and other places that there's a kind of duration and a tempo to how this is being experienced on a broader level. And although the crisis is here, in many ways, it's happening in different places at different times. And so the kind of public policy response on the broader issues that speak to oftentimes, is still being worked through in a lot of ways. But wondering if you could sort of parse through a little bit, you know, the way that you as a researcher approach the difference between what would be climate change co2 emissions related, and related, but slightly different things like biodiversity loss, which are kind of part and parcel of the broader environmental condition?
Andréanne Doyon 22:46
It's a really good question. One of the things that comes to mind is more recently, folks have been talking about the intersecting emergencies. And the two emergencies being climate change and biodiversity loss, and the fact that they are, as you're saying, they intersect. And in many ways, I would say, if you're thinking about planning, and if you're thinking sort of about local scale, so anywhere from a community to a region, on the ground, where we live, they do intersect, and they respond to each other. In a place like British Columbia, it has had sort of a a short but long, you know, sort of a long short and climate change sort of policy response world of being known for its mitigation strategies. So for all over the world, people are aware and acknowledge the work that the province has done in terms of its efforts towards mitigation, thinking about the way that it's responded to energy, to building codes, to thinking about carbon taxes, things like that. We're seen as you know, a province or a jurisdiction that has been responsive. Where they have not been responsive until very, very, very, very recently is on adaptation. And I think, to me, that speaks to the sort of climate change emissions versus biodiversity loss conversation a little bit.
A lot of times we do focus on adaptation as a response to climate impacts. We need to respond. But also biodiversity loss is impacted in that. We need to change the way we live. And we need to change our infrastructures and our environments, because of climate change. But one of the impacts is that we're losing biodiversity in that and how can we be more responsive in terms of the way that we think about our interventions and we think about our adaptations to support biodiversity loss. But also for me, that makes me think about the way that we intervene in systems needs to take on more of a more-than-human approach. We are not the only species or entities that exist on this planet, in our communities. And I think that mitigation carbon emissions focus tends to really prioritise humans above all else. We kind of go, what do we need to do to keep being? And often I think it also, does it at an expense of thinking about different social dimensions. So how do we lower admissions to this target by this date? What does that look like? Bold stuff like that. It's a tunnel vision, where it's just, it doesn't ask questions like who's being impacted by these decisions, who's going to win and lose in our race to lower our admissions? I think a biodiversity loss and an adaptation lens, kind of thinking about those intersection emergencies, I hope helps us to be more nuanced in the way we're thinking about responding to climate change. Helps us to think about that, it's not just about us, that we actually can't survive without other species and entities, as well. So we need to be more holistic, and yet, that's really challenging, because I think as researchers, but even as practitioners, a lot of people are trained to be specialists in something. And how do you step away from that specialty, and think about how your very specific knowledge interest intersects with other systems, other forms of knowledge, other actors, other entities as well, because that's what we need to do, right?
Like, what we've been experiencing more recently, in BC, we've been experiencing a lot of climate impacts. They're not all the same, but a lot of them are related. When we have things like forest fires, and we are seeing the loss of forest, then that land becomes prime for water to go down, and then to flood certain areas, when we have too much water in certain areas, again, we continue to have these, these cascading impacts. So again, if you're only focused on one thing, it's going to be kind of difficult to kind of see beyond that. But again, we can't just focus on the energy or the physical features, people exist. But also, animals exist, and plants exist as well. And this is their home, as well. So to me, I don't know if I have a solution. But sometimes, it is why I feel like I can't just focus on one thing, like I've talked about, like, you know, I'm working on sea level rise project, and then I'm working on heat, and then other parts of my research about housing. And it might seem really disjointed. But it's at the core, I'm always really interested in thinking about how can we respond? And how can we do it in a sort of appropriate and respectful way? And how can we be aware of the context around us?
Am Johal 27:18
It doesn't seem disjointed to me at all, it does not seem— it seems integrated. I have a question for you. It's just you know, of course, I'm friends with many environmental activists who were doing frontline work and organising work and political and policy change work. Oftentimes the work of researchers that can happen, you know, with communities or alone, and it takes, you know, several years to get to policy implications of the work if they even exist at all. But it's a really, really important part of informed evidence based policymaking. And I'm wondering how you navigate that context of working with practitioners, people on the ground going through urgent crises, and the work of a researcher working in the context and structures, bureaucratic structures of universities and funding timelines, like things happen in a different temporal pace than a climate emergency or the demands on the ground might ask for it. And that's like the work of being on the inside and trying to translate between different worlds, code switching that's required to function in this context. So I'm wondering if you can speak to that a little bit.
Andréanne Doyon 28:29
Yeah, two things come to mind with that is... one of the things I think academics can do to support the climate emergency is to identify important but non urgent questions. So sometimes you need to be able to have more space, more time, more reflexive capacity to think about larger implications of something. And that's where I think we shine because we do take a long time to do things. But we have the time, so we take time, but we have the time. And sometimes something— we need to have that space to think about, okay, you know, we might— the people on the ground working frontline in frontline positions or with communities are often more interested in like, okay, we need to access funding for this yesterday. We need to work out the legal dimensions of this now and that is really, really important work. But sometimes we need to go, this new bill or this new policy is sort of, has just sort of been launched, we need to think through what this might mean, because that policy might, you know, might exist for five to 10 years. So there's the immediate work of kind of often trying to access funding to get things off the ground. But then there is the: what does this really mean? And how might we really benefit? Or why would we need to be more critical of this? And sometimes that's where we can provide that sort of perspective that I think, is useful kind of thinking to the activist and practitioners like, what do you want to know that you don't have time to figure out yourself? What are the connections that you think might exist, but you don't, you don't have the capacity to figure it out yourself. I want to be here for those sorts of moments where I can do that work, and then come back, and not just come back at the very end, but be able to sort of engage throughout but knowing that I'm the one sort of doing that type of lifting. So I think that the non urgent important work is where... that's the meat of where I think our work tends to live. And that doesn't have to be a bad thing, right? As long as I think we're in communication with the people who are doing the urgent, important work.
The other thing that I think we can do as researchers to intersect with that urgent important is to be available. Be available for a cup of coffee being like, hey, Andréanne, do you know anything about x? I do! Do you want an hour of my time where I can unload all of that information on you that can then help you move forward next week on this topic? I'm available for that. I'm available for a cup of coffee, I'm available to come and speak to different practitioner industry groups, I get invited to speak at different events, primarily focus on industry and practitioners. And wherever possible, I say yes, because I think that's something I can do, I can share information that I have, I can share half, you know, a half finished research project, I can still share the results that we have Many people aren't aware of, you know, past studies that have been done. I am. I can share that information. And I think in researchers, I recently actually was talking to someone about this. But I think being a researcher that way we can think of our research as also as a form of service. Research doesn't always have to mean a peer reviewed publication. Our research can also be service in the sense of I'm available because I hold knowledge. And if that knowledge is useful to you, it doesn't always have to come out in a, you know, sort of institutionally sort of designated "great Andréanne has X amount of publications, we feel good about her progress." I do that. But I also don't want this information to go to waste. So I think it's about being connected and being available.
Am Johal 31:55
Yeah, it's just I spoke recently, we interviewed Genevieve LeBaron whose the director of the Public Policy Program. And she was talking about the restructure lab that she's involved in. It's really, they've got their own website that they put out sort of working papers and put it into policy bureaucrats language so policy people working inside government and other places can sort of grab it and take it as it's still in progress. And just like useful way that research can move and findings can be shared before the kind of the publication process which can take sometimes years to go through. Andréanne, I'm wondering if there's anything you'd like to add?
Andréanne Doyon 32:33
These are always the questions that stump people. Um, I think maybe the other thing that I get not... Okay. Maybe the other thing that I like to add, when I think about what is my role as a researcher in responding to the climate emergency... While not all researchers teach. I do. And while not all researchers supervise grad students, I do that as well. And to me that's such an important role that I think I play in the climate emergency is training the next generation of planners or environmental managers, or policymakers. And I take that role really seriously. I think if I can instil certain values or certain questions in students' minds before they go up and into practice, I hope that we'll have sort of some of those ripple effects as well. So I think about— I'm not a practitioner anymore, but I do, you know, do projects with practitioners, I try to make myself available to them, but I also train them. I am actually training practitioners. At some point, they will be out there and I really hope that I'll be able to sort of have an impact that way. I'm not sort of assuming that I'm going to be able to completely change the world by this sort of current— I have 88 students currently in my class right now. And I know not all of them are going to go and want to sort of change the world and be environmental warriors, but some of them might be. And some of them who might not be might still keep some of the sort of the questions that I planted in their minds as they progress throughout their careers or throughout their lives. And I think the roles that university plays, if it's through formal education, like the courses I teach, but also other types of initiatives be they podcasts, public lectures, where we're trying to find different ways to engage with audiences. And I think that's so important to do, and to think of that really adds something that's really important, but it's also a privilege, right? People are giving enough attention, and what are we doing with that? Are we being thoughtful in what we're saying? How we're saying it? And can we be, can we sort of invite them to participate in the change that we hope to see? I really hope that we can do that in sort of different types of teaching situations.
Am Johal 34:47
Andréanne, thank you so much for joining us on Below the Radar.
Andréanne Doyon 34:51
Thanks for having me. This is great.
[theme music]
Steve Tornes 34:58
Below the Radar is a knowledge democracy podcast created by SFU’s Vancity Office of Community Engagement. Thanks for listening to our conversation with Andréanne Doyon. Head to the show notes to check out the resources mentioned in the show. We release episodes every Tuesday, so subscribe to Below the Radar on your podcasting app of choice to make sure you never miss an episode.
Tune in next week for the fifth episode of The Climate Imaginary with guest Geoff Dembicki!
[theme music fades]