Everyday limits to adaptation

Adaptation to climate change, in terms of both academic and policy debates, has been treated predominantly as a local issue. This scalar focus points towards local agency as well as the contested responsibilisation of local actors and potential disconnects with higher-level dynamics. While there are growing calls for individuals to take charge of their own lives against mounting climatic forces, little is known about the day-to-day actions people take, the many hurdles, barriers, and limits they encounter in their adaptation choices, and the trade-offs they consider envisaging the future. To address this gap, this article draws on 80+ interviews with urban and rural residents in Western Australia to offer a nuanced analysis of everyday climate adaptation and its limits. Our findings demonstrate that participants are facing significant adaptation barriers and that, for many, these barriers already constitute limits to what they can do to protect what they value most. They also make visible how gender, age, and socioeconomic status shape individual preferences, choices, and impediments, revealing compounding layers of disadvantage and differential vulnerability. We argue that slow and reflexive research is needed to understand what adaptation limits matter and to whom and identify opportunities to harness and support local action. Only then will we be able to surmount preconceived neoliberal ideals of the self-sufficient, resilient subject, engage meaningfully with ontological pluralism, and contribute to the re-politicisation of adaptation decision making.

The adequacy of institutional frameworks and practice for climate change adaptation decision making

<p>The ability of decision makers to respond to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise and increased flood frequency is challenged by uncertainty about scale, timing, dynamic changes that could lead to regime shifts, and by societal changes. Climate change adaptation decision making needs to be robust and flexible across a range of possible futures, to provide sufficient certainty for investment decisions in the present, without creating undue risks and liabilities for the near and long-term futures. A country’s governance and regulatory institutions set parameters for such decisions. The decision-making challenge is, therefore, a function of the uncertainty and dynamic characteristics of climate change, a country’s institutional framework, and the ways in which actual decision-making practice delivers on the intention of the framework. My research asks if the current decision-making framework, at national and sub-national scales, and practices under it are adequate to enable decision makers to make climate change adaptation decisions that sufficiently address the constraints posed by climate change uncertainty and dynamic change. The focus is on New Zealand’s multi-scale governance and institutional framework with its high level of devolution to the local level, the level assumed as the most appropriate for climate change adaptation decisions. Empirical information was collected from a sample of agencies and actors, at multiple governance scales reflecting the range of geographical characteristics, governance types, organisational functions and actor disciplines. Data were collected using a mix of workshops, interviews and document analyses. The adequacy of the institutional framework and practice was examined using 12 criteria derived from the risk-based concepts of precaution, risk management, adaptive management and transformational change, with respect to; a) understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate change; b) governance and regulations; and c) organisations and actors. The research found that the current decision-making framework has many elements that could, in principle, address uncertainty and dynamic climate change. It enables long-term considerations and emphasises precaution and risk-based decision making. However, adaptive and transformational objectives are largely absent, coordination across multiple levels of government is constrained and timeframes are inconsistent across statutes. Practice shows that climate risk has been entrenched by misrepresentation of climate change characteristics. The resulting ambiguity is compounded at different governance scales, by gaps in the use of national and regional instruments and consequent differences in judicial decisions. Practitioners rely heavily upon static, time-bound treatments of risk, which reinforce unrealistic community expectations of ongoing protections, even as the climate continues to change, and makes it difficult to introduce transformational measures. Some efforts to reflect changing risk were observed but are, at best, transitional measures. Some experimentation was found in local government practice and boundary organisations were used as change-agents. Any potential improvements to both the institutional framework and to practices that could enable flexible and robust adaptation to climate change, would require supporting policies and adaptive governance to leverage them and to sustain decision making through time. This thesis contributes to understanding how uncertainty and dynamic climate change characteristics matter for adaptation decision making by examining both a country-level institutional framework and practice under it. The adequacy analysis offers a new way of identifying institutional barriers, enablers and entry points for change in the context of decision making under conditions of uncertainty and dynamic climate change.</p>

The adequacy of institutional frameworks and practice for climate change adaptation decision making

<p>The ability of decision makers to respond to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise and increased flood frequency is challenged by uncertainty about scale, timing, dynamic changes that could lead to regime shifts, and by societal changes. Climate change adaptation decision making needs to be robust and flexible across a range of possible futures, to provide sufficient certainty for investment decisions in the present, without creating undue risks and liabilities for the near and long-term futures. A country’s governance and regulatory institutions set parameters for such decisions. The decision-making challenge is, therefore, a function of the uncertainty and dynamic characteristics of climate change, a country’s institutional framework, and the ways in which actual decision-making practice delivers on the intention of the framework. My research asks if the current decision-making framework, at national and sub-national scales, and practices under it are adequate to enable decision makers to make climate change adaptation decisions that sufficiently address the constraints posed by climate change uncertainty and dynamic change. The focus is on New Zealand’s multi-scale governance and institutional framework with its high level of devolution to the local level, the level assumed as the most appropriate for climate change adaptation decisions. Empirical information was collected from a sample of agencies and actors, at multiple governance scales reflecting the range of geographical characteristics, governance types, organisational functions and actor disciplines. Data were collected using a mix of workshops, interviews and document analyses. The adequacy of the institutional framework and practice was examined using 12 criteria derived from the risk-based concepts of precaution, risk management, adaptive management and transformational change, with respect to; a) understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate change; b) governance and regulations; and c) organisations and actors. The research found that the current decision-making framework has many elements that could, in principle, address uncertainty and dynamic climate change. It enables long-term considerations and emphasises precaution and risk-based decision making. However, adaptive and transformational objectives are largely absent, coordination across multiple levels of government is constrained and timeframes are inconsistent across statutes. Practice shows that climate risk has been entrenched by misrepresentation of climate change characteristics. The resulting ambiguity is compounded at different governance scales, by gaps in the use of national and regional instruments and consequent differences in judicial decisions. Practitioners rely heavily upon static, time-bound treatments of risk, which reinforce unrealistic community expectations of ongoing protections, even as the climate continues to change, and makes it difficult to introduce transformational measures. Some efforts to reflect changing risk were observed but are, at best, transitional measures. Some experimentation was found in local government practice and boundary organisations were used as change-agents. Any potential improvements to both the institutional framework and to practices that could enable flexible and robust adaptation to climate change, would require supporting policies and adaptive governance to leverage them and to sustain decision making through time. This thesis contributes to understanding how uncertainty and dynamic climate change characteristics matter for adaptation decision making by examining both a country-level institutional framework and practice under it. The adequacy analysis offers a new way of identifying institutional barriers, enablers and entry points for change in the context of decision making under conditions of uncertainty and dynamic climate change.</p>

Assessing the quality of state-of-the-art regional climate information: the case of the UK Climate Projections 2018

In this paper, we assess the quality of state-of-the-art regional climate information intended to support climate adaptation decision-making. We use the UK Climate Projections 2018 as an example of such information. Their probabilistic, global, and regional land projections exemplify some of the key methodologies that are at the forefront of constructing regional climate information for decision support in adapting to a changing climate. We assess the quality of the evidence and the methodology used to support their statements about future regional climate along six quality dimensions: transparency; theory; independence, number, and comprehensiveness of evidence; and historical empirical adequacy. The assessment produced two major insights. First, a major issue that taints the quality of UKCP18 is the lack of transparency, which is particularly problematic since the information is directed towards non-expert users who would need to develop technical skills to evaluate the quality and epistemic reliability of this information. Second, the probabilistic projections are of lower quality than the global projections because the former lack both transparency and a theory underpinning the method used to produce quantified uncertainty estimates about future climate. The assessment also shows how different dimensions are satisfied depending on the evidence used, the methodology chosen to analyze the evidence, and the type of statements that are constructed in the different strands of UKCP18. This research highlights the importance of knowledge quality assessment of regional climate information that intends to support climate change adaptation decisions.

Effective Coastal Adaptation Needs Accurate Hazard Assessment : A Case Study In Port Resolution, Tanna Island Vanuatu

Developing countries face risks from natural hazards that are being amplified by climate change. Selection of effective adaptation interventions to manage these risks requires a sufficiently accurate assessment of the coastal hazard at a given location. Yet challenges remain in terms of understanding local coastal risks given the coarseness of global wave models and the paucity of locally scaled data in most developing countries, including Small Island Developing States (SIDS) like Vanuatu. The aim of this paper was to examine the differences in hazard assessment and adaptation option selections arising from analyses using globally versus locally scaled data on coastal processes. As a case study, we focused on an eroding cliff face in Port Resolution on Tanna Island, Vanuatu, which is of concern to the local community and government authorities. The coastal process modelling revealed that the global wave data generated unrealistically high predictions of wave height within Port Resolution bay. Expensive engineering adaptations designed to provide coastal protection were therefore likely to fail in preventing ongoing cliff erosion. In this case, the best adaptation solution involves changing land use to revegetate and help stabilise the cliff top. Our case study highlights the importance of accurate hazard assessment, especially in data poor regions where extrapolation of global datasets and models in the absence of local data can result in poor adaptation decision making. Furthermore, the multidisciplinary approach applied here can be applied in other data-poor regions to strengthen analyses exploring the benefits of local adaptation interventions.

Assessing the quality of state-of-the-art regional climate information: the case of the UK Climate Projections 2018

&lt;p&gt;We assess the quality of state-of-the-art regional climate information intended to support adaptation decision-making. We use the UK Climate Projections 2018 (UKCP18) as an example of such information. The probabilistic, global and regional land projections of UKCP18 exemplify some of the key methodologies that are at the forefront of providing regional climate information for decision support in adapting to a changing climate. We assess the quality of the evidence and the methodology used to support their statements about future regional climate derived from these projections along five quality dimensions: transparency, theory, diversity, completeness and adequacy for purpose. The assessment produced two major insights. First, the main issue that taints the quality of UKCP18 is the lack of transparency. The lack of transparency is particularly problematic if the information is directed towards non-expert users, who would need to develop technical skills to evaluate the quality and epistemic reliability of this information. Second, the probabilistic projections are of lower quality than the global projections. This assessment is a consequence of both lack of transparency in the probabilistic projections, and the way the method is used and justified to produce quantified uncertainty estimates about future climate. We suggest how higher quality could be achieved. This can be achieved by improving transparency of evidence and methodology and by better satisfying other dimensions through changes in elements of evidence and methodology. We conclude by recommending further avenues for testing the effectiveness of the framework and highlighting the need for further research in user perspectives on quality.&lt;/p&gt;

Economics of Climate Change Adaptation

To view climate change adaptation from an economic perspective requires a definition of adaptation, an economic framework in which to view adaptation, and a review of the literature on specific adaptations (especially in agriculture). A focus on tools for applying adaptation to developing countries highlights the difference between mitigation and the adaptation decision-making process. Mitigation decisions take a long-term perspective because carbon dioxide lasts for a very long time in the atmosphere. Adaptation decisions typically last the lifespan of the investments, so the time frame depends on the specific adaptation investment, but it is invariably short compared to mitigation choices, which have implications for centuries. The short time frame means that adaptation decisions are not plagued by the same uncertainty that plagues mitigation choices. Finally, most adaptation decisions are local and private, whereas mitigation is a global public decision. Private adaptation will occur even without large government programs. Public adaptations that require government assistance can mainly be made by existing government agencies. Adaptation does not require a global agreement.

The Politics of Maladaptation

An emerging component of the adaptation discourse, embracing theory, practice and review, is that of the negative assessment of adaptation, namely, maladaptation. Political theories and concepts have been applied as one of these assessment tools, giving rise to a political critique of maladaptation. Such a critique contrasts with the more conventional scientific and technical assessments of adaptation policies, programs and practices. Key political themes in studies of maladaptation include resource management and allocations, decision making processes, equity and fairness, gender, power and influence, and Nature and ecology. Within the scholarship on the politics of maladaptation, overlapping frameworks can be identified. Critiques of adaptation have been applied to the preconditions of adaptation, adaptation decision making processes and institutions, and to adaptation outcomes. There are a number of conceptual challenges in undertaking political analyses of adaptation. In this article, we outline the origins of the adaptation and maladaptation concepts, we describe the key political issues, we identify the application of politics in the maladaptation discourse and identify the major political perspectives. Finally, we draw conclusions on the state of the maladaptation discourse.