C.J.A.M. Termeer

On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation

Considerable barriers can emerge in developing and implementing climate change adaptation strategies. Understanding the nature of barriers to adaptation is important so as to find strategic ways of dealing with them. However, our current understanding is limited and highly fragmented across the academic community. This paper aims to bring some conceptual convergence in these debates by applying a systematic review method to assess the current state of knowledge on barriers to adaptation in the peer-reviewed literature. The review results show that: (1) Barriers to adaptation have hardly been defined in the literature and no clear indicators exist so as to identify and assess them systematically. (2) An impressive number of barriers have been reported, but the list of possible barriers is seemingly endless. (3) The most frequently reported barriers relate to the institutional and social dimensions of adaptation. (4) Barriers are identified as configurations of climate and non-climate factors and conditions that emerge from the actor, the governance system, or the system of concern. (5) Barriers are mainly studied in developed countries with a strong focus on water-related domains. (6) The majority of studies on barriers use small-n inductive case approaches while comparative studies across different contexts are limited. (7) Although interventions to overcome barriers are recommended by most studies, empirical studies on interventions are scarce. We present further conceptual clarification and a more precise definition of barriers to adaptation. We conclude that future research should go beyond asking the questions ‘if’ and ‘which’ barriers to adaptation exist and begin asking ‘how’ and ‘why’ barriers emerge.

Disentangling Scale Approaches in Governance Research: Comparing Monocentric, Multilevel, and Adaptive Governance

The question of how to govern the multiscale problems in todays network society is an important topic in the fields of public administration, political sciences, and environmental sciences. How scales are defined, studied, and dealt with varies substantially within and across these fields. This paper aims to reduce the existing conceptual confusion regarding scales by disentangling three representative approaches that address both governance and scaling: monocentric governance, multilevel governance, and adaptive governance. It does so by analyzing the differences in (1) underlying views on governing, (2) assumptions about scales, (3) dominant problem definitions regarding scales, and (4) preferred responses for dealing with multiple scales. Finally, this paper identifies research opportunities within and across these approaches.

The regional governance of climate adaptation: A framework for developing legitimate, effective, and resilient governance arrangements

Adaptation to climate change raises important governance issues. Notwithstanding the increasing attention on climate adaptation at the global and European level, the variety of local conditions and climate impacts points towards a prime role for regional actors in climate change adaptation. They face the challenge of developing and implementing adaptation options and increasing the adaptive capacity of regions so that expected or unexpected impacts of future climate change can be addressed. This paper presents a conceptual framework to analyse the regional governance of climate adaptation. It addresses the following key questions: (1) What are the distinct challenges for the regional governance of climate adaptation? (2) Which concepts can guide the design of new governance arrangements and strategies? (3) What challenges to legal principles are posed by the climate? (4) What research methods are suitable for developing and testing governance arrangements and strategies? We present a framework designed to address each of these questions; it has analytical, design, normative, and methodological components. In the paper, examples from the Dutch regional governance of climate adaptation serve as illustrations of the conceptual argumentation.

Barriers To New Modes Of Horizontal Governance

Abstract Across the world public managers are attracted to the narratives of governance and networks. However, implementing new strategies of policy making is difficult, above all when these conflict with the rules and beliefs of existing institutions. This article explores the barriers public managers encounter, the mechanisms underlying and perpetuating these barriers and possible interventions. Using a theoretical framework based on sense-making theory, three case studies are presented in the field of sustainable agriculture. Five types of barriers are discussed: (1) conflicting convictions about good policy making; (2) stereotyping partners; (3) framing of the situation; (4) fear of undermining existing policy; and (5) cover-up strategies.

Governance Capabilities for Dealing Wisely With Wicked Problems

This article explores an integrative approach for dealing with wicked problems. Wicked problems not only require alternative action strategies but also alternative ways of observing and enabling. Four governance capabilities are essential: (a) reflexivity, or the capability to deal with multiple frames; (b) resilience, or the capability to adjust actions to uncertain changes; (c) responsiveness, or the capability to respond to changing agendas and expectations; (d) revitalization, or the capability to unblock stagnations. These capabilities form the basis for achieving small wins in wicked problems. We illustrate our argument with examples from sustainable food production of the Common Agricultural Policy.

Do scale frames matter? Scale frame mismatches in the decision making process of a 'mega farm' in a small Dutch village

Scale issues are an increasingly important feature of complex sustainability issues, but they are mostly taken for granted in policy processes. However, the scale at which a problem is defined as well as the scale at which it should be solved are potentially contentious issues. The framing of a problem as a local, regional, or global problem is not without consequences and influences processes of inclusion and exclusion. Little is known about the ways actors frame scales and the effect of different scale frames on decision making processes. This paper addresses the questions that different scale frames actors use and what the implications of scale frames are for policy processes. It does so by analyzing the scale frames deployed by different actors on the establishment of a so-called new mixed company or mega farm and the related decision making process in a Dutch municipality. We find that actors deploy different and conflicting scale frames, leading to scale frame mismatches. We conclude that scale frame mismatches play an important role in the stagnation of the decision making process.

Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands

Review of recent literature on adaptation to climate change and general literature on policy processes shows that there are a large number of barriers that hamper the development and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies. To reduce and manage the number of barriers and combine both streams of literature, we propose seven clusters of barriers to adaptation. Little is known, however, about the relative importance of these barriers to climate change adaptation policies and practices. An online survey was conducted between March 2010 and July 2010 among 264 scientists, policymakers, and private actors from different sectors and levels who are involved in climate change adaptation projects and programmes in the Netherlands. The survey aimed to gather their experiences with, and perceptions of, the barriers identified in the literature and encountered in their daily work. Both climate-related and non-climate-related barriers were included in the survey. Data were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis. A survey feedback workshop was organized to discuss the results with several of the survey respondents. Results of this study revealed that respondents considered conflicting timescales as the most important cluster of barriers to adaptation. Other highly ranked barriers include conflicting interests; lack of financial resources; unclear division of tasks and responsibilities; uncertain societal costs and future benefits; and fragmentation within and between scales of governance. Furthermore, the analysis demonstrated that scales matter in understanding the barriers to adaptation: actors from lowlevels of governance seem to consider the barriers as more severe than actors from high levels of governance.

Revitalizing stagnated policy processes

Many complex policy processes face stagnations. People involved sense that continuing along existing paths will not produce those outcomes that are desired and deemed necessary. But changing and developing new action strategies is difficult. This article presents the results of an action research that was conducted with civil servants of the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality. They worked on policy aimed at sustainable agriculture but deadlocked on existing ways of organizing, structuring, and thinking. The configuration approach, a social-cognitive approach of change, provided the theoretical basis. The research reveals hidden configurations, including their fixated frames and patterns perpetuating them. Based on these insights, some suitable interventions are developed. In addition, the research itself proves to be an intervention in its own right that contributes to revitalizing the stagnated processes.

Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation

Barriers to adaptation have become an important concept in scientific and political discussions in the governance of climate change adaptation. Over the past years, these discussions have been dominated by one analytical lens in examining barriers and proposing ways to overcome them: the problem solving lens. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate theoretically and empirically that the choice of analytical lens influences how barriers to adaptation are constructed and the intervention strategies proposed. Drawing from recent governance literature, we explore the rationale of three dominant philosophies in the study of governance: the optimist, the realist, and the pessimist philosophy. Next, we demonstrate how these philosophies are operationalized and guide scientific inquiry on barriers to adaptation through four empirically rooted analytical lenses: i) governance as problem solving, ii) governance as competing values and interests, iii) governance as institutional interaction, and iv) governance as dealing with structural constraints. We investigate the Dutch government’s Spatial Adaptation to Climate Change programme through each of the four lenses. We discuss how each analytical lens frames barriers in a specific way, identifies different causes of barriers, leads to competing interpretations of key events, and presents other types of interventions to overcome barriers. We conclude that it is necessary to increase analytical variety in order to critically engage in theoretical debates about barriers and to empower policy practitioners in their search for successful intervention strategies to implement adaptation measures.

Governance of wicked climate adaptation problems

Climate change adaptation has been called a “wicked problem par excellence.” Wicked problems are hard to define because ‘the formulation of the problem is the problem; they are considered a symptom of another problem; they are highly resistant to solutions and extremely interconnected with other problems. Climate change problems are even more complex because they lack a well-structured policy domain, and knowledge about climate change is uncertain and contested. Given the wicked characteristics of the climate issue and its particular challenges, the question is which theories are useful starting points for the governance of climate adaptation? The chapter distinguishes between theories and concepts that focus on reflexivity, on resilience, on responsiveness and on revitalisation. Instead of integrating these theories in one overarching governance approach, the chapter suggests an approach of theoretical multiplicity. It proposes that exploiting the variety of concepts and strategies based on the different theories can increase the governance capacity to deal with climate change. Finally, it addresses the moral dimension of wicked problems, which suggests that it is unacceptable to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one. Governance scholars nowadays risk raising expectations far beyond their ability to deliver, and thus enhance confusions over whether wicked problems are in fact tame ones.