In the Biblical narrative of the ark, Noah's capacity to manage the impending ...... documents were identified by using the search engine for public documents at ...
Reconstructing Noah’s ark Integration of climate change adaptation into Swedish public policy
Erik Glaas
Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 578 Linköping University, Department of Thematic Studies Water and Environmental Studies Linköping 2013
Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 578 Within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Linköping University, research and doctoral training is carried out within broad problem areas. Research is organized in interdisciplinary research environments, doctoral studies mainly in research institutes. Together they publish the series Linköping Studies in Arts and Science. This thesis comes from the Department of Thematic Studies – Water and Environmental Studies
Distributed by: Department of Thematic Studies - Water and Environmental Studies Linköping University SE -581 83 Linköping
Erik Glaas Reconstructing Noah’s ark Integration of climate change adaptation into Swedish public policy
Edition 1:1 ISBN 978-91-7519-648-0 ISSN 0282-9800 Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 578 ©Erik Glaas Department of Thematic Studies – Water and Environmental Studies 2013 Cover: Johan Hörberg 2013 Printed by LiU-Tryck, Linköping 2013
Abstract
Due to expected impacts such as flooding, landslides, and biodiversity loss, climate change adaptation has become recognized as an inevitable part of climate change policy and practice. However, our understanding of how to organize the management of adaptation is lacking, and few concrete measures have yet been implemented. Knowledge gaps exist relating to constraints on and opportunities and facilitating factors for adaptation. This study aims to fill such gaps by analyzing how Swedish climate change vulnerability and adaptation management is integrated across issues, sectors, and scales in public policy. The analysis is supported by two interconnected sub-studies. The first maps the national and local institutionalization of adaptation through document analyses at different policy levels. The second analyses practical approaches to and perceptions of vulnerability and adaptation management in two case municipalities. In the latter sub-study, qualitative interviews and stakeholder dialogues were held with officials from various local sector departments. The results indicate that climate change adaptation is poorly integrated into Swedish public policy. Constrains on local horizontal integration include a lack of cross-sectoral coordination and knowledge, weak local political interest, and varying opportunities for sector departments to influence policy. These constraints result in climate vulnerability being considered late in municipal and regional strategic planning processes. They also reduce the possibility of identifying overarching municipal goals. At the national level, horizontal integration is negatively affected by a lack of government guidelines and by unclear division of responsibility. Constraints on vertical integration include poor fit between the national and municipal levels, due to a perceived absence of national goals, guidelines, and funding, and the lack of a sufficient knowledge base for decisionmaking. This makes it difficult to know what measures to prioritize and
how to evaluate progress. The analysis of adaptation policy integration also gives insights into some general factors found to either constrain or facilitate implementation of adaptation. In Sweden, both horizontal and vertical integration has been facilitated by the few national and regional guidelines established to date, indicating that national steering would offer a useful way forward. Policy integration could be increased by formulating national adaptation goals, creating a national adaptation fund, creating municipal adaptation coordinator posts, and paying greater attention to climate change vulnerability in proactive economic planning.
Sammanfattning
Förväntade konsekvenser av klimatförändringar såsom översvämningar, jordskred och biodiversitetsförluster har utvecklats till viktiga klimatpolitiska frågor. Förståelsen av hur hantering av klimateffekter kan organiseras är dock begränsad. Kunskapsluckor existerar även kring hinder och möjligheter för implementering av klimatanpassning. Därför har få anpassningsåtgärder hittills realiserats. Denna studie syftar till att bidra med kunskap för att fylla ovanstående luckor, genom att analysera hur hantering av klimatsårbarhet och anpassning är integrerade i andra frågor, sektorer och nivåer i svensk offentlig policy. Analysen stöds av två sammanlänkande delstudier. Den första kartlägger genom dokumentanalyser, hur anpassning institutionaliserats på nationell och lokal nivå. Den andra analyserar praktiska tillvägagångssätt till, och åsikter om, hantering av anpassning i två svenska kommuner. I den senare delstudien har kvalitativa intervjuer och intressentdialoger genomförts med kommuntjänstemän från olika förvaltningar. Studien visar att anpassningsfrågan är undermåligt integrerad i svensk offentlig policy. Hinder för horisontell integrering på det lokala planet inkluderar en brist på tvärsektoriell koordinering och kunskapsuppbyggnad, ett svalt lokalpolitiskt intresse och olika möjligheter för sektorsförvaltningar att påverka beslutsfattande. Detta får till följd att klimatsårbarhet övervägs sent i kommunal och regional strategisk planering. Det försvårar också möjligheten att finna övergripande kommunala mål. På den nationella nivån påverkas den horisontella integreringen negativt av en avsaknad av statliga riktlinjer och fördelning av ansvar. Hinder för vertikal integrering inkluderar en brist på matchning mellan nationell och lokal policynivå på grund av en upplevd avsaknad av nationella mål, riktlinjer, finansiering och kunskapsunderlag. Detta gör det svårt att prioritera bland åtgärder, och att utvärdera framsteg. Analysen av
policyintegrering ger även insyn i mer generella faktorer som antingen hindrar eller främjar implementering av klimatanpassning. De få statliga och regionala riktlinjer som hittills utvecklats i Sverige, har främjat horisontell och vertikal integrering av anpassning. Detta indikerar att nationell styrning är viktigt för att underlätta implementering av klimatanpassning. För att stärka policyintegreringen föreslås därför att nationella anpassningsmål utvecklas, att en nationell anpassningsfond instiftas, att en tjänst inom kommuner för att koordinera klimatanpassning etableras och att större vikt ges till klimatsårbarhet och anpassning i proaktiv ekonomisk planering.
Acknowledgements
There are many who have supported me in different ways when writing this thesis. First of all I would like to thank my main supervisor Anna for all your support, great comments, warmth and laughter that you have given me during my time as a PhD and environmental science student. You have made me feel relaxed and (most of the time) confident in my work. You have always been there for my questions or worries. Thanks also to my cosupervisor Lotta for your good comments and for believing in me. There are of course also many others in the work environments at Tema-V and CSPR to whom I am very thankful. Thanks all colleagues for inspiring me with your interesting research and for the challenging discussions we have had. You have made my environmental science knowledge both broader and deeper. Thanks also to all of you who have helped me to find a structure in my work and studies. Here you, Ingrid and Mathias, have been so important. Ingrid, you have been the node and the engine for many of us at CSPR. Mathias, you have been the best guide I could ever hope for. Thanks to the ”Enhancing cities capacity to manage vulnerability to climate change”-team (Anna, Mattias, Karin, Yvonne, Louise and Sofie), thanks for giving me a platform to stand on and for the many nice dinners we had in Gothenburg and Lilla Edet. Thanks especially to Mattias and Anna for the cooperation when co-writing several of the articles, I have learned a lot from you. Thanks also to you officials from Gothenburg and Lilla Edet who participated in the project and generously shared your views. Thanks to all of you who have read and commented on my manuscripts and seminar papers. Especially thanks to Sirkku, Pelle and Mattias for valuable comments on my final seminar text, to Johanna, Mattias and Sofie for good comments on my half-time seminar text, and to Mathias, Ola, Karin, Therese and Johan for constructive comments on article manuscripts. Thanks so much to my fellow PhD students and research assistants for all your support, friendship and nice discussions, especially to Carlo, Dana,
Eva-Maria, Jacob, Jenny, Johan, Karin, Lotten, Madelaine, Madeleine, Magdalena, Martin, Mathias, Naghmeh, Ola, Sabine, Sepehr and Therese. Although I haven’t always met all of you as much as I would have hoped, it has been very nice having you around. Last, but of course not least, thanks to all of you family, framily and friends that have given me so many nice moments and so much love. To Johan, thank you for drawing the very nice book cover. And to my small family, my son Albin and my fiancée Carolina, you are truly my life. I could never have done this without you!
Contents List of papers ......................................................................................................... 3 1. Introduction........................................................................................................ 5 1.1. Theoretical point of departure ......................................................................6 1.2. Aim and research questions .........................................................................9 1.3. Delimitations ..............................................................................................11 1.4. Appended papers ........................................................................................12 1.5. Thesis outline .............................................................................................15 2. Background ...................................................................................................... 16 2.1. Adaptation policy across scales .................................................................16 2.2. Previous research .......................................................................................19 2.2.1. Vulnerability to climate change ......................................................... 19 2.2.2. Adaptive capacity ............................................................................... 20 2.2.3. Adaptation processes .......................................................................... 23 2.2.4. Swedish adaptation studies ................................................................ 25 3. Analytical framework ...................................................................................... 27 3.1. Institutions and institutional structures ......................................................27 3.2. Analyzing the integration of adaptation policy ..........................................29 3.2.1. Horizontal policy integration ............................................................. 32 3.2.2. Vertical policy integration.................................................................. 33 3.4. Using AC to focus the CPI analysis ...........................................................35 4. Methodology and research methods ................................................................ 37 4.1. Studying public policy processes ...............................................................37 4.2. Studying formal institutionalization of adaptation.....................................39 4.2.1. Document analyses ............................................................................. 40
4.2.2. Group interview .................................................................................. 41 4.3. Studying local perceptions and practices .................................................. 42 4.3.1. Stakeholder dialogues ......................................................................... 45 4.3.2. Interviews ............................................................................................ 48 5. Results and discussion...................................................................................... 53 5.1. Institutionalization of adaptation ............................................................... 53 5.1.1. National level ...................................................................................... 53 5.1.2. Local level ........................................................................................... 54 5.2. Horizontal policy integration ..................................................................... 56 5.2.1. National level ...................................................................................... 56 5.2.2. Local level ........................................................................................... 57 5.3. Vertical policy integration ......................................................................... 61 6. Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 64 6.1. Main findings............................................................................................. 65 6.2. Constrains and facilitating factors for adaptation ...................................... 68 6.3. Policy interventions for adaptation ............................................................ 70 6.4. In the footsteps of Noah ............................................................................ 71 7. Literature .......................................................................................................... 74
3
List of papers The thesis is based on the following papers which will be referred to in the text by their Roman numerals (I-V):
I.
Glaas, E., Jonsson, A.C., Hjerpe, M. and. Andersson-Sköld, Y. 2010. Managing climate change vulnerabilities: formal institutions and knowledge use as determinants of adaptive capacity at the local level in Sweden. Local Environment, 15:6, 525–539
II.
Hjerpe, M. and Glaas, E. 2012. Evolving local climate adaptation strategies: incorporating influences of socio–economic stress. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17:5, 471-486
III.
Glaas, E. and Jonsson, A.C. forthcoming. Facilitating co-production of knowledge in integrated climate change vulnerability assessments. Manuscript
IV.
Jonsson, A.C., Hjerpe, M., Andersson-Sköld, Y., Glaas, E., André, K. and Simonsson, L. 2012. Cities’ capacity to manage climate vulnerability: experiences from participatory vulnerability assessments in the lower Göta Älv Catchment, Sweden. Local Environment, 17:6-7, 735-750
V.
Glaas, E. and Juhola, S. 2013. New levels of adaptation policy: analyzing the institutional interplay in the Baltic Sea Region. Sustainability, 5:1, 256-275
5
1. Introduction
It has been widely recognized that climate change will increasingly demand innovative human responses to seize opportunities and to reduce impacts on ecosystems, human health, infrastructure, and economic activity. Like the narrative of the patriarch Noah, societies in the northern hemisphere will have to deal with scenarios of increased precipitation, sea level rise, and rising groundwater levels, all of which amplify the risks of floods and landslides, and with other severe impacts, such as increased heat waves and biodiversity loss. However, societal changes are also likely to affect our capacity to adapt and should be considered when making substantive decisions (Adger et al. 2007). In the Biblical narrative of the ark, Noah’s capacity to manage the impending change was fairly high, though the change he faced was dramatic. His capacity was high because, unlike the non-fictional actors in today’s societies, Noah had much more reliable guidelines regarding both exactly what changes to adapt to and the optimal way to do so. If built according to God’s directions, the ark and all the representatives of the world’s animal species would withstand the Genesis flood. In our present situation, however, societies also have to deal with the uncertainties of long-term future change and the more complex decision-making and governing systems in democratic societies. To incorporate the challenges posed by climate change into these public political and administrative systems, it is critical to formulate effective responses integrated across sectors and levels in national policy (Moser and Luers 2008, Davidsdóttir et al. 2013). The level of integration of these responses into related policy areas influences both whether, and what type of, adaptive measures are prioritized (Mickwitz et al. 2009). In several European countries, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change is increasingly discussed as key policy development issues. However, detailed strategies for how to integrate adaptation into other areas of public policy are scarce and few measures have yet been implemented. Accordingly, adaptation policy integration merits study as we need to improve our knowledge of how societies are vulnerable to, and will be able to cope with, climate change (Dovers and Hezri 2010). As argued within this thesis, without broadly discussing how
6
we are, and could be, dealing with change, we might end up in a situation in which measures seem rational from a short-term perspective, but are hardly sustainable in the long term. In other words, we might reconstruct Noah’s ark to protect ourselves against a problem that does not fit this solution.
1.1. Theoretical point of departure This thesis starts by conceptualizing management of vulnerability to climate change and how this management can be further facilitated through the increased integration of climate change adaptation into public policy. By analyzing societal approaches to, rather than universal preconditions for, adaptation, this thesis sets out to explore a specific gap in previous vulnerability and adaptation literature, concerning how our capacity to adapt can be converted into actual adaptation (e.g., Rodima-Taylor et al. 2012, van den Berg and Coenen 2012, Storbjörk 2007, O’Brien et al. 2006, Klein et al. 2005). Theoretically, this point of departure entails combining two concepts when analyzing the current management of climate change vulnerability in public policy: adaptive capacity and climate policy integration. Together, these concepts delimit the scope of the research, first, by focusing on areas identified as important for building capacity to adapt to climate change and, second, by focusing the analysis on policy integration as a key principle in facilitating adaptation. The former concept, adaptive capacity (AC), is increasingly used in the climate vulnerability and adaptation literature and is defined as “the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and change” (Adger et al. 2007:727). AC is presented as one of three interlinked components that together constitute vulnerability to climate change, the other two being the exposure and sensitivity of a socio-ecological system to climate variability and change (Schneider et al. 2007, Adger 2006). The focus on socio-ecological systems indicates that climate change likely has both social and ecological effects and that vulnerability in general, and AC in particular, are influenced by both climatic and societal change (Soares et al. 2012, Carter et al. 2007, Brooks et al. 2005, Adger 2003, Yohe and Tol 2002). The societal determinants often used when assessing AC are often divided into six general categories: economic resources, access to technology, functioning infrastructure, useful knowledge systems, robust institutional setup and equity (e.g., Keskitalo et al. 2011, Engle and Lemos 2010,
7
Adger et al. 2007, Smit and Wandel 2006). AC is arguably influenced by the availability of these determinants and by the interplay among them across various governmental scales and sectoral divisions (Keskitalo 2010, Füssel 2007, Vogel et al. 2007, Cash et al. 2006, Adger et al. 2005, Lemos and Morehouse 2005). However, how these determinants have been, or could be, mobilized to facilitate actual adaptation is generally less studied (Rudberg et al. 2012). The concept of climate policy integration (CPI) is also relatively underdeveloped in the climate vulnerability and adaptation literature, but has been used in other applications when analyzing the integration of climate change issues into other areas of public policy (e.g., Urwin and Jordan 2008, Dowlatabadi 2007). In this thesis, CPI is used as a framework for analyzing the facilitation of climate adaptation. CPI is defined as “the incorporation of the aims of climate change mitigation and adaptation into all stages of policy-making in other policy sectors,” as “a commitment to minimize contradictions between climate policies and other policies” (Mickwitz et al. 2009:19), and is strongly anchored in ongoing political practices. For example, CPI is a common policy-making mechanism in the European Union (EU), the United Nations (UN), and individual countries such as Sweden, where it often is labeled “mainstreaming” (Burton et al. 2012, Ahmad 2009, Kok and Coninck 2007). When used as a research concept, CPI has often been applied when analyzing the potentials and effects of measures aiming to integrate climate adaptation and mitigation into public policy on improving climate change management (Dupont 2010). In such research, institutional and organizational structures and public policy procedures have often been a focus due to their importance for guiding actor’s behaviors. Such public policy configurations are also examined here. To build a holistic understanding of how CPI plays out in these structures and procedures, crossscale and cross-sectoral integration (cf. Dovers and Hezri 2010, Underdal 1980) has been analyzed when studying current approaches to managing climate change vulnerability in Sweden. To support the policy integration analysis, an analytical framework has been developed. This framework focuses on horizontal (cross-sectoral) and vertical (cross-level) integration, as seen in Figure 1 below.
8
High vertical policy integration
A Low horizontal policy integration
C
B
D
High horizontal policy integration
Low vertical policy integration Figure 1. Analytical framework for analyzing integration of adaptation policy.
The horizontal and vertical perspectives are used as two analytical lenses through which the level of integration across sectors and policy levels can be compared. A high level of integration on both axes (B) is arguably a precondition for facilitating substantial implementation of adaptation by utilizing AC. Policy integration can facilitate practical adaptation by, for example, elucidating divisions of responsibilities among national sector authorities (horizontal integration) and providing guidance on practical local management (vertical integration) (Westerhoff et al. 2011). Indicators of policy integration are refined from previous indicators developed for analyzing the integration of environmental issues into public policy, which makes the Environmental Policy Integration (EPI) literature an important reference point. Horizontal integration focuses on how adaptation is managed across sectoral divides, for example, between the building, energy, environmental management, traffic, and city planning sectors. Vertical integration focuses on how adaptation is managed across levels of public policy-making, for example, between the national and sub-national policy levels. Indicators focus primarily on current cooperation, the availability and use of objectives, and various steering and guiding mechanisms in the public institutional setup. The framework and its indicators are more thoroughly presented in section 3.
9
1.2. Aim and research questions This thesis aims to improve our understanding of the constraints on, and opportunities and facilitating factors for, climate change adaptation by analyzing the level and form of integration of adaptation into Swedish public policy. The main empirical focus is the formal administration in Sweden at two principal levels, i.e., the national and municipal. However, other political and administrative scales at the sub-national and EU levels are also touched on to support the analysis of cross-scale interplay and to enable some generalization of the research results. Sweden makes an interesting case for analyzing climate change adaptation through public policy because, unlike many other northwest European countries, Sweden has not implemented any top–down national adaptation strategy (Biesbroek et al. 2010), despite Sweden’s top–down management of environmental issues in general. Municipalities have so far been given great responsibility for adaptation, which is managed in the nexus of locally concerned sectors, all with their own priorities (Storbjörk 2007). How adaptation is organized in this institutional landscape is bound to create important challenges and opportunities when it comes to making and implementing decisions regarding climate adaptation. Furthermore, due to the early stage of organization of adaptation, it has also been possible to obtain a broad overview of policy developments in this field, from initial actions taken in 2005 up to the institutional structure current as of 2012. This permits the implications of the few public adaptation policy developments so far, or general lack thereof, to be analyzed in more detail. In terms of general climate effects, Sweden is not among the countries likely to experience the most extreme negative effects (Aall et al. 2012). On the contrary, initial calculations indicate that, economically, the net sum of climate change effects might even be positive for Sweden over the next one hundred years (SOU 2007:60). Nevertheless, though some economically positive aspects, such as increased forest growth and greater hydropower potential, expected, negative effects, such as intensified heavy rains, sea level rise and ground instability, are also expected to result from climate change in Northern Europe (World Bank 2012, EEA 2012). Within Sweden, there will also likely be great variation in
10
both the projected effects among sectors and regions and in the capacity to adapt to them. This means that, despite Sweden’s overall good location in terms of climate change effects, specific areas will experience severe impacts and missed opportunities to make use of positive effects (Juhola et al. 2012a). Moreover, Sweden is not isolated and will also be affected by societal changes in other countries, for example, through changes in policy, economic development, and demographic patterns. Adaptation is therefore important also for Sweden. Accordingly, the preconditions for implementing climate change adaptation measures are studied in this thesis.
The aim of the thesis is guided by the following three research questions: 1. How is adaptation to climate change incorporated into public policy at different levels of policy and in various sectors in Sweden? 2. How is adaptation issues integrated horizontally across sectors at the local and national levels, how does this affect practical adaptation work, and what facilitates adaptation through cross-sectoral interaction? 3. How is adaptation issues integrated vertically across levels of government, how does this affect practical adaptation work, and how can local implementation of adaptation measures be stimulated? To build an understanding of the cross-sectoral (horizontal) and cross-scale (vertical) integration of climate change adaptation into Swedish public policy, this thesis is based on two overlapping empirical sub-studies. The first is a study of how climate change vulnerability and adaptation have been institutionalized at the national and local levels in Sweden. The study builds on empirical analysis of policy documents. The second study examines local perceptions of the existing institutionalization and management of climate change vulnerability and adaptation, obtaining empirical materials through interviews and stakeholder dialogues with representatives of municipal administrations in two case municipalities. The cases aimed at building an understanding of the practical implementation of adaptation as well as perceptions of the national and local institutional setups.
11
The focus on municipal administrations as representatives of the local level is justified by the large number and importance of decisions made at this level. For example, municipalities have been given great responsibility to manage risks, environmental issues, and physical planning, and are the general providers of social services in Sweden (Johansson et al. 2009, Granberg och Elander 2007). Two municipalities in southwest Sweden were chosen as cases: Gothenburg and Lilla Edet. These municipalities were chosen because both are located along the river Göta älv on the Swedish southwest coast, an area identified as relatively highly exposed to the negative biogeophysical impacts of climate change (SOU 2007:60). At the same time, they differ in population, economic structure, and previous work on climate variability, likely resulting in a great diversity of perspectives on the issues studied.
1.3. Delimitations Due to the breadth of the task of analyzing national to local management of a complex issue such as adaptation to climate change, delimitations have been made in this study that have affected the design of the research process and ultimately the results. Though many detailed delimitations were made, for example, when selecting research methods, two overall delimitations are especially important for the outcome of this study: first, the focus on government and public policy as the arena for managing vulnerability and adaptation and, second, the greater weight given to the study of horizontal policy integration at the municipal level. The more detailed delimitations will be discussed throughout the thesis. First, the focus on public rather than private policy and management of climate change vulnerability and adaptation in Sweden has meant that some issues are more emphasized than otherwise would have been the case. As indicated in central public policy documents, priority has been given to climate change vulnerability in urban settings, especially at the municipal level. This has meant that key areas such as agriculture, forest management, industry, fisheries, and electricity production have been downplayed. This has also meant that the analysis has focused on flooding as a primary climate change impact. If households, companies, or private networks received more attention, different
12
impacts would likely have been emphasized and adaptation processes would have been portrayed in different ways. Second, the empirical focus of this study is on adaptation processes in municipalities. Most results accordingly relate to horizontal policy integration at the local level, even though horizontal integration at the national level and vertical policy integration are also studied. It is also at this level that the perceptions of actors involved in managing vulnerability and adaptation are studied. The examined obstacles to the current institutionalization of adaptation are thus viewed largely from a municipal perspective, especially those of the two case municipalities.
1.4. Appended papers The results presented here are extracted from the results found in the five appended papers. These papers – four published and one in manuscript – all to varying degrees analyze how adaptation to climate change can be conceived and enhanced. Due to the perspectives gained from the rewarding, and challenging, cooperation with the papers’ coauthors, who come from various disciplinary backgrounds, such as economics, environmental science, chemistry, and political science, adaptation has been analyzed from somewhat different perspectives. This section presents a brief overview of the aims of these papers, how their results have been used to answer the three research questions, and what parts of the work underlying these are conducted by the present author. Paper I, “Managing climate change vulnerabilities: formal institutions and knowledge use as determinants of adaptive capacity at the local level in Sweden” (Local Environment, 2010), aimed to improve our understanding of how municipalities manage vulnerability to climate change by discussing various practical examples presented in previous Swedish studies and by analyzing interviews with officials from various departments in a local case municipality. The analyses focused on how vulnerability concerns were incorporated into the formal institutional structure of the municipality and in the other presented examples. The institutional structure or, more specifically, the use of climate adaptation knowledge within and between sector departments, was tested as a determinant of adaptive capacity. Results of this article were used in analyzing how vulnerability is perceived in various sectors at the local level, what are
13
regarded as common aspects in influencing local adaptive capacity (research question 1), how national and sector-specific policies influence local adaptive capacity, and how this capacity can be enhanced (research questions 2 and 3). This paper is a cooperative effort between four authors; the present author created the analytical framework, conducted and analyzed the interviews, conducted the document study, and was the main writer of the Introduction, Theory, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of the paper. Paper II, “Evolving local climate adaptation strategies: incorporating influences of socio-economic stress” (Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 2012), aimed to improve our understanding of how multiple drivers of change, especially socio-economic stress, influence municipal vulnerability to climate change. A deeper aim was to discuss how socio-economic stress, as a determinant of climate change exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity, can be more efficiently managed at the municipal level. A framework consisting of seven potentially important socio-economic stresses was used as the starting point for analyzing the influence of these stresses on climate change vulnerability in Gothenburg and Lilla Edet. Results related to the perceived influence of socioeconomic change on practical departmental work were used to analyze sectoral incorporation and attitudes toward climate change vulnerability and adaptation (research question 1). Results concerning how internal and external socioeconomic change influences local vulnerability were used in discussing the vertical integration of adaptation policy (research question 3). This paper is a cooperative effort between two authors; the present author conducted and coanalyzed the interviews, and co-wrote the Introduction, Theory, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of the paper. Paper III, “Facilitating co-production of knowledge in integrated climate change vulnerability assessments” (manuscript), aims to build our understanding of how participatory vulnerability assessments can be improved by discussing the factors that facilitate co-production. The paper analyzes how the design of participatory assessments, and the interaction among their participants, can be facilitated to enhance the ability to coproduce cross-organizational knowledge about climate change vulnerability and management. The analyzed project involved participants from various sector departments and national government agencies in Gothenburg and Lilla Edet, and researchers in the participatoty assessment.
14
Results related to identified challenges and opportunities for cooperating across organizational boundaries in assessing local vulnerability are used in discussing the facilitation of cross-sectoral (horizontal) policy integration (research question 2). This paper is a cooperative effort between two authors; the present author cocreated the analytical framework, conducted and co-analyzed the interviews, coanalyzed the transcripts of researcher–stakeholder meetings, and was mainly responsible for writing the Introduction, Theory, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of the paper. Paper IV, “Cities’ capacity to manage climate vulnerability: experiences from participatory vulnerability assessments in the lower Göta Älv Catchment, Sweden” (Local Environment, 2012), aimed to increase Swedish municipalities’ capacity to manage climate change vulnerability by developing and testing tools for conducting integrated vulnerability assessments. The article summarized knowledge gathered in the research project “Enhancing cities’ capacity to manage vulnerability to climate change” conducted between 2007 and 2012. Results regarding how to integrate issues, sectors, and actors when conducting integrated vulnerability assessments were used in analyzing how adaptation can be understood and transformed into an integrated cross-sectoral issue (research question 2). This paper is a cooperative effort between six authors; the present author co-analyzed parts of the empirical material and co-wrote the Introduction, Theory, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of the paper. Paper V, “New levels of adaptation policy: analyzing the institutional interplay in the Baltic Sea Region” (Sustainability, 2013), aimed to analyze the constraints on and opportunities for building a functioning institutional interplay of climate change adaptation policy between the supra-national and national levels in the Baltic Sea Region. The article is based on an assessment of the planned institutionalization of adaptation in two forthcoming EU adaptation strategies, one at the central level and one at the macro-regional Baltic Sea level. The assessment was used as a starting point for analyzing how well this fits the current institutionalization of climate change adaptation in two case countries: Sweden and Finland. Results of the assessments of the national and supranational institutionalization of adaptation were used to build an understanding of how vulnerability and adaptation are incorporated into Swedish public policy (research question 1), and of how the new institutional arrangements may affect vertical adaptation policy integration (research question 3). This paper is a
15
cooperative effort between two authors; the present author co-created the analytical framework, conducted the group interview and most of the document study, and was responsible for writing the Introduction, Theory, Results, Discussion, and Conclusions sections of the paper.
1.5. Thesis outline The thesis is organized as follows: Section two provides a background overview of climate change adaptation policy from the international to Swedish levels and presents the state of the art of research into climate change vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and adaptation. Section three examines the analytical framework used here, focusing on institutional structures and climate policy integration as analytical concepts and presenting indicators of horizontal and vertical integration. Section four presents the methodology and research methods used in the thesis research, including document analysis, stakeholder dialogues, and qualitative interviews. Section five summarizes and discusses the main results of the appended papers, in order to answer the three research questions. Section six presents the main conclusions of the thesis and directs attention back to the initial analogy between the challenges Noah faced in the Genesis flood narrative and those faced by contemporary societies due to climate change effects. Section seven presents the literature used.
16
2. Background This section presents an overview of the policy developments structuring the management of vulnerability and adaptation to climate change at various policy levels (section 2.1). This overview is used as the background to the policy processes studied here. This section also presents the state of the art of vulnerability and adaptation research, including the identification of existing knowledge gaps, to which the results of this study are compared (section 2.2).
2.1. Adaptation policy across scales Climate change has long been an internationally discussed policy issue, at least since the United Nations (UN) Conference on the Human Environment held in Stockholm in 1972 (Linnér and Jacob 2005). To provide national governments with a scientific overview of the problem, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC’s task was to review the knowledge of climate change, including its economic and social impacts, and to make recommendations for possible responses (www.ipcc.ch). The IPCC’s first assessment report was completed in 1990, and four comprehensive reports have since been released. International negotiations on climate change, later held under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), were first held in 1990, using the IPCC assessment report as the main scientific departure point. These negotiations led to the establishment of the UNFCCC, adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which entered into force in 1994 (www.unfccc.int). Among other matters, the UNFCCC stipulates that all country parties should facilitate the mitigation of greenhouse gases to prevent the dangerous impacts of climate change and should implement adequate adaptation measures to accommodate possible climate change effects (UN 1992:5). The UNFCCC further states that all parties should prepare regulatory inventories (i.e., National Communications) describing both mitigation and adaption measures and periodically present these inventories to the Conference of Parties. National adaptation strategies are arguably necessary to coordinate national initiatives,
17
while practical measures arguably should be implemented at the local level due to the geographical variation of climate vulnerability. However, even though adaptation is arguably a necessary part of climate change policy as formulated by the IPCC, and is included in the UNFCCC, the issue was given a very low priority in many international political discussions from the mid 1990s to the mid 2000s (Knaggård 2009). According to Pielke Jr. et al. (2007), this neglect was partly due to a “taboo on adaptation” in this decade, adaptation being seen as the “lazy” side of climate policy (p. 597). Other possible explanations of why adaptation was downplayed include scientific uncertainties regarding climate change effects (Hallegatte 2009, Pielke Jr. 1998) and a worry on the part of developed countries that the focus of the Convention would shift to compensation rather than mitigation (Schipper 2006). However, partly due to extreme weather events such as hurricane Katrina in 2005, influential publications such as the Stern report in 2006, and the 2007 recognition by the IPCC that, even with ambitious mitigation targets, climate impacts will still occur, adaptation was back on the political agenda in the late 2000s (Perry et al. 2009). This can be exemplified at the international level by the Nairobi work program under the UNFCCC and at the national level by the several European countries that have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, national adaptation strategies (Biesbroek et al. 2010). Efforts to coordinate national adaptation are also implemented at the European level, for example, through the EU White Paper on adaptation (EC 2009). In light of IPCC findings, an EU adaptation strategy is arguably needed to manage expected future climate change effects. Such a central EU strategy is currently under development to “ensure proper coordination and the efficiency of policies that address the impacts of climate change” (EC 2007:3). This strategy, which is planned for implementation in the spring of 2013, aims to complement national actions and steer adaptation by mainstreaming climate change vulnerability concerns into sectoral policies, developing a common knowledge base, compiling and spreading examples of best practices, and focusing on coherency of EU adaptation (EC 2009). Sweden was one of the first countries to begin implementing climate change mitigation measures in 1990 and has generally been active in international
18
climate change politics (Knaggård 2009). Its development of adaptation measures, however, has been slower. Sweden’s fourth communication (Ministry of the Environment 2005) to the UNFCCC emphasized that Sweden must begin thinking about adapting society to a changed climate. A government investigation commission was appointed in the summer of 2005 to, among other things, come up with suggestions for how society can become more robust toward future climate. A few new initial adaptation measures were also presented in this Communication. For example, some municipalities have changed their building codes due to expected flood risks, safety margins of hydropower dams have been increased, and a new refining strategy has been implemented in the forestry sector. This communication also stated that, without a national adaptation strategy, the issue will be managed differently by various actors. In 2007, the report of a deeper vulnerability assessment, entitled “Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities” (SOU 2007:60), was finished. This report thoroughly assessed, from a sectoral perspective, vulnerability to climate change in all major sectors and proposed concrete overarching adaptation measures. Among the most extensive were: to deploy climate adaptation committees in all 21 county administrations to coordinate adaptation measures, to adapt physical planning to new risks by increasing from 10 to 20 years the duration for which municipalities are responsible for detailed planning, to budget adaptation funds to which municipalities and other organizations could apply to implement projects to prevent, for example, flooding and landslides, to update water management laws, and to create a body through which the division of costs between the state and other actors could be negotiated. The 2009 Swedish government bill (2008/09:162), “An integrated climate and energy policy,” contained a small section related to adaptation. The bill states that existing adaptation work needs to be strengthened and coordinated and be included among sectoral responsibilities. The bill also states that much of the adaptation work needs to be done in specific sectors, even though the issue encompasses all of society. The government stood behind two of the overarching proposals contained in the 2007 vulnerability assessment: to deploy an adaptation coordinator position at the county administration level and to update the Planning and Building Act to include climate change vulnerability and adaptation as issues to consider in municipal planning. However, for example, the proposals to increase the duration for which municipalities are responsible for their detailed
19
planning and to implement adaptation funds were not implemented by the government (Johansson and Mobjörk 2009). As of 2013, only one additional overarching adaptation measure has been implemented, to fund the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute (SMHI) to set up a knowledge center for vulnerability and adaptation.
2.2. Previous research 2.2.1. Vulnerability to climate change Many research fields have elaborated on the concept of climate change vulnerability, which has led to considerable confusion as to its meaning (Eakin and Luers 2006). Vulnerability is studied, for example, in the hazard, human ecology, food security, political ecology, development studies, and political economy literatures (Soares et al. 2012). In addition, several different definitions may be used in the same research fields, which only increase the confusion. Achieving an overview of how the concept “vulnerability” is scientifically used is difficult for at least two reasons: first, the concept is defined differently in different applications and, second, the definitions used are often vague and offer little concrete insight into how vulnerability should be understood (Hinkel 2011). As a broad review of vulnerability-related research is beyond the scope of this thesis, it is important instead to present the understanding of vulnerability on which this thesis is based. Due to the present focus on societal influences on vulnerability and adaptive capacity, which corresponds to the aim of this thesis, this presentation will focus mainly on how vulnerability has been defined in research into the human dimensions of climate change (HDCC). This thesis accordingly uses the definition of vulnerability found in the IPCC’s fourth assessment report, also widely applied in contemporary research, which states that vulnerability is the degree to which a system is susceptible to, and unable to cope with, adverse effects of climate change, including climate variability and extremes. (Perry et al. 2007)
In the HDCC field, vulnerability is often used as a departure point for identifying “who and what are at risk to climate change and why, outlining limits to
20
adaptation and identifying opportunities for policy to moderate or reduce potential negative effects and take advantage of new opportunities” (Ford et al. 2010:376). Due to the focus on vulnerability as an analytical departure point, this research field has been criticized, as climate change might also contribute to positive changes. However, these aspects are also analyzed in the HDCC field through the adaptive capacity component (Ford et al. 2010). As presented in the introductory chapter, vulnerability is understood as consisting of three interrelated components: exposure of the analyzed system to likely climate change effects; sensitivity of the analyzed system to climatic and societal stresses; and adaptive capacity of the analyzed system to climatic and societal stresses (e.g., Gallopin 2006, Adger and Vincent 2005). The first two components, exposure and sensitivity, refer to the first part of the above definition, concerning susceptibility to the adverse effects of climate change. Exposure assessment can reveal what parts of a system are, or will be, at risk of a certain type or combination of climatic effects, such as sea level rise, increased freshwater runoff, or increased heat waves. Assessment can also identify societal determinants influencing the parts of society that will be at risk, for example, through deciding where to build or setting fishing quotas. Sensitivity analysis can indicate how robust a specific part of a system is to climate and societal effects and thus estimate the possible extent of impacts in various scenarios, for example, the extent of impacts in a specific residential area if flooding occurs (Perry et al. 2007).
2.2.2. Adaptive capacity Adaptive capacity (AC) refers to the second part of the above definition of vulnerability, which relates to coping capacity. The component is defined as the ability or potential of a system to respond successfully to climate variability and change. (Adger et al. 2007)
As indicated by this definition, the AC component is used to build an understanding of a system’s capacity to prevent or reduce expected negative impacts, or to incorporate positive impacts. Assessment of adaptive capacity can, for example, reveal how well a system is suited to reactively managing the effects of climate change impacts, such as rescuing people in flooded areas, and estimate a system’s capacity to implement proactive measures, such as regulating where it is safe to build houses.
21
Adaptive capacity has been transformed from a concept used in biology and organizational studies into a concept used by climate change vulnerability and adaptation researchers, who have focused mostly on the societal drivers of vulnerability and adaptation in socio-ecological systems (Engle 2011, Gallopin 2006). Assessments of vulnerability to climate change are often intended to guide policy-making about the nature of vulnerability and to help identify sub-systems and groups that are particularly vulnerable (Schneider et al. 2007). By taking a human dimension perspective, such assessments can also identify manageable characteristics of vulnerability (O’Brien et al. 2004a). The general evolution of vulnerability assessments can be explained in light of this policy shift, becoming more interdisciplinary in their analyses, considering more concerns, considering various management alternatives, and putting greater emphasis on adaptive capacity (Füssel and Klein 2006). In the HDCC field, the specific systems analyzed in terms of AC have often been local communities or local governments due to the focus on society’s rather than ecosystems’ adaptive capacity (Smit and Wendel 2006). A common starting point for studies of AC has been to focus on one or a few specific determinants and to qualitatively analyze their importance in influencing local adaptive capacity. One alternative to these approaches has been to analyze adaptive capacity at a more generic level, by using several determinants in statistical quantitative studies (e.g., Rød et al. 2012, Posey 2009, Vincent 2007, O’Brien et al. 2004b, Sullivan and Meigh 2004). The latter approach is useful in comparing countries, or regions within a country, to discern and discuss generic patterns. Interestingly for this thesis, a recent study has assessed adaptive capacity at the county level in the Nordic countries (Juhola et al. 2012a). Overall, the study supports previous research arguing that AC is generally high in the Nordic countries, but that AC is context specific and varies greatly between subnational regions. In studies focused on building a qualitative understanding of adaptive capacity, generic lists of common determinants, especially those presented in this thesis, have often been used as analytical starting points (e.g., Keskitalo et al. 2011). These determinants have further been set within a broader context of general societal trends, often described as broader drivers of change, such as globalization or radical institutional changes, which are analyzed jointly with
22
specific climate change effects such as increased average temperatures or sea level rise (Adger et al. 2007). Historically, most research in this field has constituted case studies testing AC determinants, seeking to build an understanding of how the interaction of contextualized vulnerabilities and more general societal trends affects local level adaptive capacity (Ford et al. 2010). Below, two examples of common departures to adaptive capacity case studies are described: Studies of institutions have aimed to build an understanding of how institutional arrangements and policy, mostly in a top–down fashion, influence adaptive capacity at the local, practical level. For example, new national institutional arrangements in the Norwegian energy sector have been concluded important in influencing the capacity to manage climate change effects at lower, more practical levels (Inderberg 2011). Both Eakin et al. (2011) and Inderberg (2012) have analyzed the consequences of introducing “new public management” in the building and electricity sectors and found that this institutional change has eroded the local adaptive capacity. Also policies at higher levels are concluded affecting adaptive capacity at lower levels, though not always as positively as intended (e.g., Juhola et al. 2012b, Urwin and Jordan 2008). National institutional setups for flood management, for example, may reduce the incentives to implement proactive flood protection measures (Næss et al. 2005). Another example is drastic changes in the institutional regulation of resource use in Mongolia, which have resulted in fewer opportunities for herders to obtain funding for adaptive measures (Upton 2012). Decentralization, however, has represented a positive institutional change in terms of building AC in West Africa, at least if combined with increased participation and joint learning processes (Brockhaus and Kambire 2009). Studies focusing on globalization and economics have aimed to build an understanding of how socio-economic changes, for example, driven by globalization, have influenced local vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Several of these studies have invoked the term “double exposure,” referring to the double challenge actors face in trying to manage both climate change effects and new economic structures. Many of these studies have focused on analyzing how specific socio-economic stresses influence local AC, particularly for private rather than public actors (e,g. Belliveau et al. 2006, Eakin 2005, O’Brien et al. 2004b, Leichenko and O’Brien 2002). For example, Eakin (2005) has analyzed
23
the importance for local AC of liberalization and new macro-economic programs in the agricultural sector. Allison and Hobbs (2004) have analyzed the influences of socio-economic development, such as policy development and demands, on the AC of the Western Australian agricultural region and demonstrated that rapid socio-economic change reduces local adaptive capacity. Keskitalo (2009) has analyzed how the AC of reindeer herding, fishing, and forestry communities in northern Scandinavia is influenced by external change, such as economic internationalization, and concluded that local AC is negatively affected by the limited opportunities to influence adaptation-relevant decision-making.
2.2.3. Adaptation processes Although building AC is important in order to prepare societies to adapt to climate change, a high AC does not automatically translate into actual adaptation measures due various constrains (Rudberg et al. 2012, Keskitalo 2010, Adger et al. 2007). These links between generic determinants of AC and how this capacity translates into the implementation of actual climate change adaptation has, however, so far been rather under-studied in the vulnerability and adaptation literature, which masks constraints on and opportunities for adaptation (O’Brien et al. 2006). Studies of adaptation processes have nevertheless provided insight into such factors in various settings. Adger et al. (2009), for example, find that processes including perceptions and power structures at various levels may often in practice obstruct implementation. Other examples are found below: To facilitate substantive adaptation, Hunt and Watkiss (2011) argue that better city or municipal coordination across sectors can help incorporate more perspectives in adaptation decisions. Such coordination should preferably facilitate learning and bridge the knowledge divide between science and policy (Tribba and Moser 2008). Keskitalo (2010) further concludes that the existence of measurable goals and indicators can support adaptation across scales, especially when adaptation is prioritized and supported from the national level. In addition, the regional county level has an important role to play in such crossscale coordination, serving to facilitate the development of robust measures (Hanssen et al. 2012). However, adaptation has occurred even without strong national steering. In such cases, engaged municipal officials play important facilitation roles (Dannevig et
24
al. 2012, Storbjörk 2010). Similarly, the ability of local officials or other actors to convince leading politicians or officials to approve more costly alternatives is important for implementation. A study of the water supply and wastewater sector in Stockholm, for example, revealed that such aspects were important, and that facilitating factors in this case included the ability of officials to prove that adaptation is needed, either by using climate knowledge or by referring to existing regulations (Rudberg et al. 2012). Leadership is another important factor influencing adaptation acknowledged in previous studies (Adger et al. 2007). Measham et al. (2011), for example, found that adaptation priorities were restrained in city planning in three analyzed Australian municipalities due to low political interest in the issue. The authors advocated reform of the planning framework at higher political levels and a wider embeddedness of vulnerability concerns in council functions in order to facilitate adaptation (Measham et al. 2011). Though it is difficult at a general level to decide what constitutes successful adaptation output, due to uncertainties, uneven distribution of climate change vulnerability, and inadequate techniques to measure adaptation (de Franca Doria et al. 2009), there have been attempts to outline what adaptation processes should include to be considered “sustainable.” According to Eriksen et al. (2011), sustainable responses include: assessments of multiple vulnerability stressors, a recognition that adaptation outcomes are affected by various interests and values, integration of context-specific knowledge into measures, and the incorporation of feedback between the local and global levels. By considering these responses, actors can arguably avoid adaptation measures that, for example, increase carbon emissions or lock societies into irreversible and deficient measures (Eriksen et al. 2011). Such non-functional measures have been called “maladaptative,” leading to path dependency in which large infrastructural, building, or institutional changes based on too narrow or poorly grounded perspectives actually increase rather than reduce vulnerability (Barnett and O’Neill 2010). Such measures may be the result of uncoordinated processes or processes that, for various reasons, involve little collaboration. A common observation is that adaptation is defined as a technical issue to be managed primarily by technical departments in the water management or building areas (Lund et al. 2012). Though technical measures have important roles to play, for example, to improve storm water drainage, an excessive focus on technological fixes can lead to policy lock-ins
25
where measures are managing climate change symptoms rather than societal vulnerability (Klein 2011, Næss et al. 2005).
2.2.4. Swedish adaptation studies Municipalities have been assigned the primary responsibility for designing and implementing adaptation measures in Sweden without specific national steering (Keskitalo et al. 2012, Keskitalo 2010). Consequently, most Swedish adaptation research to date has focused on municipal adaptation processes. The municipal focus became particularly obvious in a special 2012 issue of Local Environment on climate change adaptation in Nordic countries (Aall et al. 2012), in which several articles addressed constraints on and opportunities for local adaptation. However, though focusing on municipalities, some studies have also considered specific sectors, such as forestry, agriculture, energy, and reindeer herding, which has added insight into how vulnerability has been approached in various contexts. Previous Swedish research into climate change adaptation in Swedish municipalities has made it clear that the issue of vulnerability to climate change involves an unclear division of responsibility with reference to sectoral roles and financial aspects (Storbjörk 2007). In practical terms, adaptation has often been assigned to be managed solely within institutional structures for disaster risk reduction and, to some extent, physical planning (SALAR 2009, Mossberg Sonnek et al. 2007). Several studies indicate that municipalities lack the experience and tools needed to conduct vulnerability assessments that incorporate long-term perspectives and multiple stresses and that identify adaptation measures (e.g., Uggla 2010, Johansson et al. 2009). Adaptation has thus become part of existing municipal processes, in which organizational cultures and traditions stand in the way of proactive management (Groven et al. 2012, Storbjörk 2010). The issue of climate change vulnerability has often become the responsibility of one or a few officials and cross-sectoral coordination and learning are strongly limited (Storbjörk and Hedrén 2011). Examples of the above problems and facilitating factors are exemplified in several case studies. In a study of planning documents in 33 southern Swedish municipalities, von Oelreich et al. (2012) found that many municipalities failed to consider future sea level rise, which the authors feel indicates a deficient
26
municipal structure and preparedness to manage climate change effects. Such lack of organization for vulnerability management is identified also in other studies, indicating that facilitation of adaptation will require new types of local cooperation (Simonsson et al. 2011). Since Swedish municipalities vary greatly in size, availability of resources, and previous experience managing climate variability, the seriousness of the obstacles to adaptation varies. However, even the municipalities that, according to these parameters, would hypothetically be best suited to planning for climate change vulnerability, such as Gothenburg (the second largest municipality in Sweden), to some degree lack strategies to transform these preconditions into actual adaptation measures (Keskitalo 2010). An additional important reason for these difficulties is the nested relationships between the many stakeholder groups and organizations that to some extent have stakes in and responsibilities for these issues – a problem not limited to the Swedish case (André et al. 2012). As well as leading to confusion, this nested stakeholder landscape risks creating goal conflicts, both between actors involved in adaptation implementation and between adaptation and other important societal objectives (Edvardson Björnberg and Svenfelt 2009).
27
3. Analytical framework
A framework for analyzing the integration of adaptation into Swedish public policy has been developed in this thesis. The framework and its theoretical basis are presented in this section. The first part (section 3.1) describes and defines institutions and institutional setup as an arena for studying the national management of adaptation. The next part (section 3.2) presents the climate policy integration (CPI) concept as a starting point for analyzing the integration of adaptation into national public policy and describes separate indicators of horizontal and vertical integration. The last part (section 3.3) examines how adaptive capacity (AC) has been used to focus and delimit the scope of the CPI analysis.
3.1. Institutions and institutional structures The important role of institutional setup in building capacity to assess and manage environmental and socio-economic change is well established (e.g., Underdal 2008, Young 2006, Adger 2000). As presented in previous studies, this formal setup can either positively influence the management of a specific issue by providing a functioning implementation structure, or negatively influence management by creating a non-functioning and inflexible one (Carter 2011, Inderberg 2011, Engle and Lemos 2010, Storbjörk and Hedrén 2011, Yohe and Tol 2002). A key to building a functioning structure is the extent to which institutions are capable of adapting to become able to integrate new issues, while remaining firm enough to be seen as robust and legitimate by actors who will implement measures (Dovers and Hezri 2010). Institutions have long been an obvious focus of many social science studies, not least in studies of the national management of environmental change in which institutions are seen as playing a significant role as engines driving and/or steering actor behavior (Young 2002). Moreover, Gupta et al. (2010:468) argue that “they [i.e., institutions] are the social rules that both constrain and empower social actors.” Within the setup of connected institutions, various policy
28
problems related to environmental and other issues emerge, raised either by science or by policy itself, which offers ways forward to increase the effectiveness of these institutions (Connor and Dovers 2004). In the case of adaptation, such problems could, for example, concern how to support municipal management of climate-related risks, how to make climate vulnerability an important aspect of sector authorities’ work, and how to move toward more climate-secure building. Identifying and answering such policy questions are important steps in improving the management of climate change adaptation. In this thesis, the institutional setup of climate change vulnerability management in Sweden is used as the arena for analyzing the integration of adaptation policy, and for identifying and discussing existing and emerging policy problems. This is an important arena, since institutions and the institutional setup are seen as an avenue for conceptualizing and guiding practical management (Young 2002), and are thereby central to the present analysis of integration. However, since the term “institution” is used differently in various studies, its meaning should be clarified. The following definition of institution is borrowed from the widely cited Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change (IDGEC) program; this definition is used since the theoretical departure point of IDGEC is similar to that of the present study. The IDGEC project defined institutions as: systems of rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that give rise to social practices, assign roles to the participants in these practices, and guide interactions among the occupants of the relevant roles. (Gupta et al. 2010)
According to this and similar definitions, institutions guide and restrict action through formal and informal rules that are implemented by government organizations and other actors (O’Riordan and Jordan 1999, North 1990). Government organizations are described as “manifestations of institutions such as specific departments, associations and agencies” that implement government policies through management “on the ground” (Dovers and Hezri 2010:222). Management is further guided with the help of various government “policy instruments” (Connor and Dovers 2004). The above reasoning provides an overview of a general institutional structure for national public policy that is applicable to most states. The specific parts of the public policy puzzle highlighted in this overview (i.e., institutions, organizations,
29
policies, policy instruments, and management) have further been treated as concepts that are important to consider in studies of specific issues, such as adaptation to climate change. According to Dovers and Hezri (2010), this has seldom been the case in much of the adaptation literature to date, which has reduced the usefulness of the research outcomes. Therefore, when the management of climate change vulnerability is analyzed here, the above terminology will be applied to facilitate comparisons with the results of other studies. However, one concept used here is crucial for the analyses, namely, the institutionalization
of
adaptation
(particularly
in
articles
I
and
V).
Institutionalization as a concept has previously been used in explaining how an issue or principle has been incorporated into an institutional setup, for example, the new market orientation of the Nordic energy sector (Inderberg 2012, Eckerberg et al. 2007). In this thesis, the institutionalization of adaptation is defined as “the process of incorporating the issue of adaptation to climate change into the formal structures and rules on various levels of government” (paper V). This includes building institutional arrangements and criteria for how to organize adaptation, such as the allocation of responsibilities, roles, resources, and goals. From this perspective, a more formalized structure for the national handling of adaptation leads to a higher degree of institutionalization of adaptation (Peters 1999). To work efficiently, the institutionalization of adaptation should further be integrated across sectors, scales and issues within the institutional government system. To measure the appropriateness of institutionalization of adaptation, thus, climate policy integration (CPI) emerges as a key principle. The framework for measuring integration of adaptation is presented in the following section.
3.2. Analyzing the integration of adaptation policy In both policy and research, CPI is treated as a key principle in meeting the challenges posed by climate change, since adaptation and mitigation policies otherwise risk being down-prioritized in favor of more acute and electionwinning issues or being counteracted by other policy objectives (Dowlatabadi 2007). Policy integration has thereby emerged as a fundamental principle for dealing with climate change, not least in the EU at the supra-national level and in
30
Sweden at the national level (Liberatore 1997). Policy integration has also been emphasized in influential international environmental documents such as the Brundtland Report of 1987 and the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development in 1992, both of which established the groundwork for the UNFCCC (Jordan and Lenschow 2010). There is, however, no general formula for how to promote policy integration, and the principle has proven difficult to translate into action. This is partly due to differences between various institutions, institutional setups, and organizations across nations and local governments (van Assche and Djanibekov 2012). Furthermore, CPI has seldom been studied, especially in the context of analyzing climate change adaptation policy at sub-national levels, so the facilitating factors and indicators for policy integration need to be identified (Dovers and Hezri 2010). In research, CPI has been used as an analytical concept for analyzing how well policy integration has played out and influenced the implementation of actual climate change adaptation or mitigation measures (Nilsson and Nilsson 2005). In this way, CPI constitutes an entry point for establishing facilitating conditions for adaptation (Klein et al. 2005). However, although few studies have explicitly focused on such facilitating factors for adaptation policy, some general conclusions have been reached. Coordination and coherence, for example, are arguably important for facilitation as well as for government testing of policies to avoid obvious mismatches (Urwin and Jordan 2008). To develop CPI as a research concept, this thesis and much previous research have emphasized learning from the more studied concept of environmental policy integration (EPI), where more ways to analyze policy integration have been developed (Ahmad 2009). Aspects seen as important for the implementation of CPI are also more developed in the EPI literature. These aspects include: political leadership and commitment, involving stakeholders in policy-making, the institutional context of decision-making, implementation capacity, and learning processes (Dupont 2010, Ross and Dovers 2008, Lafferty and Hovden 2003). EPI has proved to be most effective in win–win situations involving two or more policies (Persson 2007). Though doing so is problematic, Hertin and Berkhout (2003) have argued that EPI can to some extent be measured by analyzing whether and to what extent
31
environmental issues are put on sectoral agendas and thereby considered in highlevel meetings, inter-departmental working groups are established, and environmental issues are included in internal and external organizational information dissemination and capacity building. Government strategies for EPI in Sweden have generally emphasized informal, administrative, and institutional measures, for example, policy dialogs, capacity building, learning, and involving environmental representatives in various boards and committees (Nilsson and Persson 2003). From analyses of Swedish EPI through studying directed policy interventions for environmental integration, such as sector responsibility, national environmental quality objectives, and environmental management systems, results have further indicated that constraints on integration relate largely to lack of time and staff resources, especially in government sector organizations (Eckerberg et al. 2007). The identified facilitating factors for EPI from a Swedish perspective, on the other hand, are policy-making rules that influence learning by increasing actor interaction, systematic evaluations, political will, and measurable environmental goals (Nilsson 2005, Nilsson and Persson 2003). As argued by Jordan and Lenschow (2010:150), EPI “is a multi-sectoral and multi-level coordination challenge” that demands “organizational structures and procedures that are capable of delivering more coordinated governance amongst the various parts.” These cross-sectorial and cross-scale parameters have been common features for analyzing EPI implementation. However, though quite rich in scope, the EPI literature seldom stretches beyond inventories of the success of specific measures to advance integration (Nilsson et al. 2009). This thesis aims to go beyond such efforts by analyzing: how combined efforts to integrate the management of climate change vulnerability into Swedish public policy have played out, how the management of this vulnerability is perceived by practitioners designated as responsible for its implementation, and how the integration of climate change adaptation can be facilitated. To do this, specially developed indicators for analyzing EPI are presented below.
32
3.2.1. Horizontal policy integration A basic condition for climate adaptation policy integration is that climate vulnerability should be taken into account when formulating sectoral and crosssectoral policies. Integration among sectors in this process is required, since vulnerability management otherwise tends to be neglected in sectoral policies or is understood differently by various sectors, making it difficult to govern at an aggregated level (van Den Berg and Coenen 2012, Liberatore 1997). Policy integration can be seen as a learning process in which vulnerability aspects become part of how sector representatives perceive and understand a problem as well as its possible solutions or strategies for managing it (Nilsson and Nilsson 2005). Monitoring and coordination efforts are key issues in such learning processes to facilitate the move from policy to implementation (Söderberg 2008, Berkhout 2005). As concluded in previous research, however, there is a general lack of tools for facilitating policy integration on the horizontal level (Söderberg 2011b, Jacob and Volkery 2004). In this thesis, the cross-sectoral (horizontal) integration of adaptation is studied at two principal levels: the national and the municipal. The horizontal perspective is represented by the solid, horizontal arrow in the analytical framework (Figure 2) and is analyzed using three broad indicators refined from earlier literature (mainly Lafferty and Hovden 2003).
High vertical policy integration
Low horizontal policy integration
High horizontal policy integration
Low vertical policy integration
Figure 2. Horizontal integration of adaptation policy.
33
As argued by Lafferty and Hovden (2003:15), assessments of the degree of horizontal integration are “a question of assessing both the basic mandate for environmental [or climate] privilege, as well as the detailed specifics for realising the mandate in and through the workings of public administration.” In this thesis, horizontal policy integration analysis therefore focuses on both the extent to which policies and strategies have been implemented on the super-sectoral level (at the central and municipal scale), and on how vulnerability management is arranged and perceived in individual sector authorities. The following indicators were used in this analysis (cf. Lafferty and Hovden (2003): 1. the existence and role of super-sectoral adaptation strategies or policies describing implementation;
goals,
responsibilities,
and
plans
for
2. the level of inclusion of adaptation concerns in the work of individual sector authorities, including concrete measures and followup systems; and 3. the level of cooperation between sector authorities for managing specific vulnerabilities. Though presented as checkpoints for policy integration, these indicators were instead used as a basis for conducting a qualitative analysis of current and perceived management at the national and municipal scales.
3.2.2. Vertical policy integration In a globalized world, various scales of governing are interconnected. The fit between scales in terms of the institutionalization of an issue thereby influences the interplay across scales (Young 2002). Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change are no exceptions. The institutionalization of climate change vulnerability at the national level affects how local governments and other actors can respond to climate change, and the other way round (Berman et al. 2012). The fit between scales also affects the possibility of cooperating and implementing measures across scales (Cash et al. 2006). Fragmented adaptation management arguably occurs when the “institutional make-up” at lower governmental levels does not fit the direction indicated by the overarching strategies (Betsill and Burkley 2007, Stokke 2001, Ostrom el at. 1999). Institutional fit between scales, also
34
called policy correlation, is particularly important for complex trans-boundary issues, such as climate change adaptation, which demand a high degree of goal alignment to build effective management (Lidskog et al. 2011, Lidskog et al. 2010, Ellison 2010, Andonova et al. 2009, Smith 2004). This makes cross-scale (vertical) policy integration an important aspect of national vulnerability management and thus important to study. In this thesis, cross-scale (vertical) integration of adaptation is studied in two principal ways. First, the institutionalization of adaptation at the overarching national level is compared with the institutionalization of adaptation at the overarching municipal level to analyze the interplay between general supersectoral policies and institutional setups. Second, the institutionalization of adaptation at different levels in selected individual sectors is analyzed to discuss more specific interaction. The vertical perspective is represented by the solid, vertical arrow in the analytical framework (Figure 3), which is analyzed using two broad indicators refined from Lafferty and Hovden (2003).
High vertical policy integration
Low horizontal policy integration
High horizontal policy integration
Low vertical policy integration Figure 3. Vertical integration of adaptation policy.
According to Lafferty and Hovden (2003), the level of vertical policy integration is determined by the extent to which implementation objectives and strategies are merged across governing levels. In this thesis, the level of fit between the institutional setup, objectives, and steering mechanisms for managing climate change vulnerability are compared across scales. The following two indicators were used in this analysis:
35
1. the level of fit between super-sectoral institutional setups, objectives, implementation strategies, and steering mechanisms for climate change adaptation at the national and municipal levels; and 2. the level of fit between objectives and practices for the implementation of adaptation at different scales within sector authorities.
3.4. Using AC to focus the CPI analysis Policy integration, according to one of its earlier definitions, constitutes policies “where the constituent elements are brought together and made subjects to a single, unifying conception” (Underdal 1980:159). An important followup question to this definition is what “elements” need to be incorporated into a policy to be able to call it integrated. The easy answer is that it depends on the aim of the integration. For the management of vulnerability to climate change, the aim of policy integration ought to be to mobilize adaptive capacity, to give rise to concrete adaptation measures. This thesis assumes that the determinants of adaptive capacity are important in such integration processes, in order to incorporate important factors that could either facilitate or obstruct climate change adaptation. The analysis of the integration of adaptation in this thesis therefore focuses on the extent to which the determinants of adaptive capacity are integrated into current vulnerability management and are thereby taken into consideration in implementation. In the climate change vulnerability and adaptation literature, a few general interconnected determinants have often been mentioned as important in facilitating or obstructing adaptation. These determinants are commonly conceptualized as falling into the following six categories, presented in several previous studies (e.g., Keskitalo et al. 2011, Engle 2011, Engle and Lemos 2010, Yohe and Tol 2002): • economic resources • technology • information and skills • infrastructure
36
• institutions • equity These determinants encompass general societal preconditions that influence adaptive capacity and are therefore important to integrate into any climate change adaptation policy. However, these determinants have to be seen in light of specific climate change effects to be understood in detail. Economic resources, though often presented fairly generally, relates to the availability of financing to implement adaptive measures. Technology is also broad in scope but relates to, for example, access to equipment for flood protection or for measuring ground stability. Information and skills relates to access to information such as climate projections and cost estimates, but also to systems for disseminating and building knowledge. Infrastructure relates mostly to the status and use of various physical structures, such as buildings, roads, and power grids. Institutions relates to the overall stability and effectiveness of institutions. Finally, equity relates to the opportunities of various societal groups (e.g., separated by age, income, gender, and mobility) to implement adaptation measures or to influence decision-making. All the above determinants generate possibilities and constraints, not only for building adaptive capacity but also for implementing actual adaptation measures (Adger et al. 2007). The level of incorporation of these determinants into horizontal and vertical integration is therefore an important factor when making substantive adaptation decisions.
37
4. Methodology and research methods
This thesis focuses on how the management of climate change vulnerability is arranged and played out in public policy. It is therefore important to specify how the study of such a complex field is possible. This matter is examined in this section. The first part presents some guiding principles when studying issues in the public policy field, and discusses choices made when applying the Climate Policy Integration (CPI) perspective to public policy analyses in this study (section 4.1). The second part discusses approaches used in analyzing the formal institutional setup of adaptation, including a presentation of document analysis and the group interview as applicable methods (section 4.2). The last part presents the two case studies used in analyzing how climate change vulnerability, adaptation, and their institutional setup can be perceived, practically approached, and stimulated at the local government level, and discusses the methods used for these analyses (section 4.3).
4.1. Studying public policy processes Public policy, including its institutions, organizations, laws, and guiding mechanisms, constitutes the field and the principles through which government decision-making is operationalized (Peters and Pierré 2006). In the public policy system, policy problems related to the governance of various issues are emerging, one being how best to adapt to the effects of climate change. In an idealized policy cycle, a policy problem is put on the agenda for public action when it is considered sufficiently important. It will then be operationalized in the form of particular objectives and guiding principles, which are implemented through policies and concrete management strategies (Jann and Wegrich 2007). Though not necessarily following these exact steps, policy cycles are an important starting point when conducting public policy analyses, which often aim to provide knowledge that can be used to improve, for example, the effectiveness or equity of any individual policy or package of policies (Howlett et al. 2009, Torgerson 1986). As analyzed by Knoepfel and colleagues (2007), policy
38
analyses can “help political actors and public agents in their effort to estimate the changes of success of modernisation projects undertaken by the state and, more generally, the political-administrative institutions” (Knoepfel et al. 2007:xiii). Policy analysis can provide insight into how specific institutional changes can be made in specific areas, or be used as cases for building a more general understanding of what institutional change means for the governance of an issue within a larger system (Young 2002). The former type of knowledge will mainly provide practical and directly usable results to practitioners, while the latter provides more abstract results usable by scientific and other actors interested in a broader understanding of management. This thesis aims to contribute knowledge relevant to both the above groups by providing insight into how the policy problem of adapting to climate change in Sweden can be more effectively managed, and into how national and subnational vulnerability management can be understood when compared with management elsewhere. CPI has been used as an analytical point of departure in these public policy analyses. To build on such knowledge, both analyzing formal political documents and incorporating perceptions from various practitioners working on particular issues are seen as decisive in understanding interrelationships between complementary or contradictory actions that affect the integration process (Peters and Pierré 2006). These two aspects, i.e., the formal institutionalization of climate change adaptation and perceptions of practical implementation, have guided the overview of the methods and empirical material used in this research. In the next section, these aspects are presented as two separate parts of the study. In the practical research process, however, the distinction between these aspects has been less strictly maintained, and overlaps have occurred constantly in both the empirical data gathering and the analyses, allowing the two aspects to inform each other.
39
4.2. Studying formal institutionalization of adaptation Various approaches can be used in studying how the formal management of an issue is institutionally configured in public policy systems. The main approach taken here when studying the institutionalization of vulnerability and adaptation has been to analyze formal policy documents issued by the central government and its sector agencies, municipalities and local sector departments, and the European Commission. Document study rather than, for example, interviewing is used as the main data source due to the comprehensiveness of the information gathered from these texts and the usefulness of observing how the official regulation of an issue is formulated in such policy documents. The main policy documents analyzed were: inquiries, government bills, communications to the UNFCCC, and ministerial reports at the national level; inquiries, departmental reports, and minutes of board meetings at the municipal level; and EU Commission communications and European sector agency reports at the EU level. For the identification and selection of documents, different approaches have been used for the different policy levels. At the national level, documents were identified by using the search engine for public documents at the Swedish government homepage (www.government.se) and through analyzing overviews of public climate change adaptation work in Sweden conducted by the government (through the national communications to UNFCCC) and by national sector authorities (e.g. Rydell et al. 2010). At the municipal and EU levels, public search engines have been used, i.e. at the official homepage of individual Swedish local governments and at EUs official homepage (http://eurlex.europa.eu). The EU perspective has been added since Sweden, as an EU member, is bound to follow the EU’s supra-national directions, which will likely affect the national institutionalization of climate change adaptation. However, since the EU has not yet clarified how two of the main approaches to guiding adaptation in Europe are interrelated, or what the target groups of these approaches are, a group interview with EU officials was conducted to complement the analysis of written sources. The group interview was conducted in 2011 and its results were used when writing paper V in 2012. The document analyses were carried out between 2008 and 2012, with a focus on analyzing national documents when writing paper I in
40
2009 and paper V in 2012, on municipal documents when writing paper I in 2009 as well as papers II and IV in 2011, and on EU documents when writing paper V in 2012. The method used in the document analyses and the group interview is more thoroughly presented below (sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2). Combined, the document analyses and the group interview served as a basis for discussing how vulnerability to climate change is integrated into the formal institutional structures of various sectors at different scales and how integration across scales and sectors is officially structured, with a focus on steering mechanisms and other institutional arrangements.
4.2.1. Document analyses Document analysis can provide data for understanding the context in which a phenomenon, such as the management of a specific issue, plays out (Bowen 2009). By focusing on “meaning-making,” document analysis offers a way not only to identify actual implemented results or actions, but also to gain historical perspective and uncover underlying ideas (Yanow 2007). However, documents are not simply transparent records of actual events; instead, they are manipulated texts in that they are presented in certain ways by certain actors, to make certain issues appear bigger or smaller, more or less important, depending on the underlying interests (Prior 2004). When using document analysis as a research method, therefore, it is important to compare findings from documents with other types of data to highlight differences in perspective. When combined with interviews, document analysis can provide background information to support and enrich interview results (Yanow 2007). The advantages of document analysis as a research method include efficiency, exactness, and stability, while the disadvantages include insufficient detail and biased coverage and selection (Bowen 2009). The document analysis conducted here served to identify: the framework governing how climate change adaptation has been institutionalized, the background to how and why this issue was put on the public policy agenda, the actors involved in the process, and the actions already taken. However, document analysis was also used to sort out current roles and responsibilities in managing climate change vulnerability and implementing adaptation measures, and to give an indication of how such vulnerability is framed, for example, in terms of discussed future impacts and possible measures.
41
In all the included papers that have used document analysis as a method (i.e., papers I, II, IV, and V), the results so obtained have been contrasted to those of interviews to obtain a more nuanced overview of various processes. In practice, the document analyses have mainly been conducted as thematic analyses in which categories have emerged when reading the texts (cf. Coffey and Atkinson 1996). These have been used to identify common patterns and themes used for organizing the data, usually according to predetermined question areas like those presented above. The identified themes and patterns have then been used in the analysis to answer the research questions.
4.2.2. Group interview The group interview was held at the European Commission in Brussels in June 2011 with four EU officials representing the Directorate-General for Climate Action (DG Clima), which is involved in developing a central EU adaptation strategy, and the Directorate-General for Regional Policy (DG Regio), which is involved in developing several macro-regional EU adaptation strategies that are planned to cover, among other regions, the Baltic Sea Region as one of thirteen new EU macro-regions. The interview was conducted to follow up the study of formal EU documents, to illuminate missing links between the documents and their underlying work. The interview centered on questions regarding how the officials perceived the role and ability of the EU strategies as complementing each other and established national approaches. The group interview applied the general approach to qualitative semi-structured interviews that is presented in section 4.3.2 below.
42
4.3. Studying local perceptions and practices To complement the analysis of the formal Swedish institutionalization of adaptation, especially at the municipal level, and to obtain a more practical overview of the implementation process, an in-depth study of two municipalities was performed.1 The basic methodology applied was that of a classic case study. As described by Yin (2009), this methodology is suitable for building an understanding of complex social phenomena since it allows the follow-up of real life events. This methodology is also seen as appropriate for testing hypotheses and theories, which was done here when testing CPI as a tool for facilitating the implementation of adaptation (Cavaye 1996). To approach this issue, the case study focused on analyzing how identified key stakeholders from the administrations in one urban and one rural municipality discuss the interplay between climatic and societal stressors affecting local vulnerability to climate change, and how they perceive the national and local institutionalization of climate change adaptation and its implementation. Stakeholder involvement is seen as crucial to such studies, as stakeholders contribute both expertise and value-based knowledge, providing insight into practical planning and policy-making as well as highly contextualized vulnerability and implementation practices (Larsen and Gunnarsson-Östling 2009, Burton et al. 2002). The present study took several approaches to stakeholder involvement in order to build an understanding of the various local practices and to comprehend some of the complexities surrounding local climate vulnerability. Nevertheless, critical voices have questioned the validity of drawing more general conclusions from case study results (Ford et al. 2010). To allow for some generalizations, the results of the present case study were compared with those of other studies of adaptation processes in Swedish municipalities. The two municipalities studied here, i.e., Gothenburg and Lilla Edet, are located along the river Göta älv on Sweden’s southwest coast (Figure 4). Swedish comparative studies has identified the area as highly exposed to the negative
1
The case study was performed as part of the research project “Enhancing cities’ capacity to manage
vulnerability to climate change” financed by The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (FORMAS) (2006-4871-7662-55).
43
biogeophysical impacts of climate change (Andersson-Sköld et al. 2008, SOU 2007:60), and the area has historically experienced problems with extreme weather impacts such as flooding and landslides. The municipalities differ in population, economic structure, and previous climate vulnerability work, but must deal with similar climate-related risks. Gothenburg (the lower red dot in Figure 4 below), Sweden’s second largest city with a population of approximately 500,000 inhabitants, is located at the mouth of the river Göta älv on the Skagerrak coast. Flooding has long been a problem in the municipality due to its low elevation, many proximate rivers, and is location at the coast. Lilla Edet (the upper red dot in Figure 4), with a population of approximately 13,000 inhabitants, is situated 55 km upstream from Gothenburg on the Göta älv river. The municipality has historically had problems with ground stability along the river bank due to the high amount of quick clay in the ground.
Figure 4. Case study area.
Each municipality is working on a similar development project, establishing a new built-up area with residential, office, and shopping facilities. The Gothenburg project concerns the urban renewal of a central area functioning as a communications hub. The Lilla Edet project concerns the establishment of a transportation center near a newly constructed railway station in the regional periphery. The development projects have served as sub-cases within the overall case study, forming a practical basis for focusing the discussions in the interviews and stakeholder dialogues.
44
Since the focus of the case studies is on the formal administration of the two municipalities, a group of officials from municipal departments, companies, and national government agencies was assembled in each municipality. The key departments from the perspective of managing climate change, however, were selected differently for the two municipalities. In Gothenburg, the key departments and officials within them were pre-selected in a sense, because one such selected group had already been assembled by the municipal board to work on climate vulnerability in a project called “Extreme weather events: how robust is Gothenburg?” The officials in this group were invited to participate in the present study. In Lilla Edet, the selection of key department representatives and officials was discussed with the municipal administration manager; the officials invited were all, to some extent, involved in discussing climate vulnerability aspects in the abovementioned municipal development project. Therefore, in both municipalities the invited officials all had varying amounts of previous experience working on climate vulnerability. In the end, the assembled stakeholder groups included eight officials in Gothenburg and five officials in Lilla Edet, representing the following departments (Table 1): Gothenburg
Lilla Edet
Physical planning
Physical planning
Environment
Water and sanitation
Traffic
Environment
Real estate
Technical issues
Parks and nature Water and sanitation company Energy company Railroads Table 1. Departmental affiliation of involved stakeholders.
The two groups were seen including the key stakeholders from these departments, due to the selection process and the fact that all selected officials were in some way responsible for leading their organizations’ management of climate change vulnerability. The principles for involving stakeholders in the project follow what Stirling (2008) calls a “substantive” rationale to enhance a “better” understanding of a
45
phenomenon. In such approaches, stakeholders are selected based on whether they add valuable insight and contextualized knowledge to a project. The interactions with the selected stakeholders in the case study aimed at building an understanding of how the various sectors address, in practical terms, specific climate change risks and of how the stakeholders perceive their work to be affected by municipal cooperation or national guidance and regulation. Such insights have helped build an understanding of practical issues and values that would otherwise be difficult to incorporate into the study. This rationale is often separated from the more normative rationale of democratizing knowledge production by letting the public have a bigger say in what research should examine and how it should be performed (Blackstock et al. 2007, Jonsson 2005, Klein 1996). Since the main aim of the study was to create better, but not necessarily more democratic (cf. Lövbrand et al. 2011), research, the focus when selecting stakeholders was on the representation of key departments rather than on public participation. The practical forms of stakeholder interaction in the study are described in more detail below.
4.3.1. Stakeholder dialogues As presented above, various forms of stakeholder interaction were used in the case study to improve our understanding of local practices and perceptions. A central form of interaction, which to some extent has steered the other forms of interaction, is the stakeholder dialogue, described as “a structured communicative process of linking scientists with selected actors that are relevant for the research at hand,” which aims to “link different domains of discourse” or different types of knowledge and ways of knowing (Welp et al. 2006:171–172). By involving participants in so-called science-based stakeholder dialogues, as was done in this thesis research, researchers can deepen their understanding of an issue or context, and gain a useful “reality check” regarding both the actual research approaches and the research results gathered (de la Vega-Leinert 2008). As noted, however, “stakeholder dialogue is no universal remedy” in itself; such dialogues must be soundly based methodologically, properly followed through, and well communicated (Kaptein and von Tulder 2003). According to Kaptein and van Tulder (2003:211), the following requirements need to be met to build effective and transparent stakeholder dialogues:
46
participants should know their common areas of interest, participants should trust the approach, the dialogue outline should be clear, the dialogue should have clear goals, participants should be prepared, participants should have some expertise in the field, and participants should obtain feedback about the process and its results. To further create the potential to solve problems (i.e., in this study, to find ways to increase integration of climate change vulnerability and adaptation into public policy), stakeholder dialogues should take a deliberative approach in the sense of using an open definition of the problem at hand (van de Kerkhof 2006). In this thesis research, a series of four stakeholder dialogues was arranged in each of the two municipalities. The dialogues aimed to create a co-production process (cf. paper III, Lemos and Morehouse 2005) in which knowledge is produced in collaboration between all invited participants, both municipal officials and researchers. As described above, five to eight officials from the municipalities plus about three researchers were included in each dialogue. The stakeholder dialogues were facilitated by researchers and, in most cases, only officials (not researchers) participated in the actual discussions on the presented topics. However, researchers participated by asking follow-up questions, etc. As facilitators, thus, the researchers were highly involved in the co-production of knowledge. The stakeholder dialogues were held over three years, from 2008 to 2010, plus a build-up phase in which the dialogues were planned by the researchers and preparatory information was sent to the officials, and a follow-up phase in which results were analyzed and presented (Figure 5).
Build-up
2007
Follow-up
2008
2009
2010
2011-2012
Figure 5. Overview of the stakeholder dialogues.
Each of the four dialogues included exercises covering different aspects of local climate change vulnerability, current local and national approaches to vulnerability management, and possibly needed adaptation measures (cf. Jonsson
47
et al. 2011). In total, the four dialogues included nine research-driven exercises focusing on the abovementioned local development projects to keep the discussions concrete. Each dialogue used various stakeholder involvement techniques (cf. Hjerpe and Wilk 2010), such as brainstorming regarding climaterelated risks and socio-economic futures and participatory GIS exercises identifying sensitive areas (Jonsson et al. 2011). To facilitate detailed analysis of the exercise content, every exercise had clear aims, agreed on by the researchers and communicated to the officials (Table 2). Dialogue 1
Exercise Scanning climaterelated risks
Aim Provide an overview of how risks are perceived by the various participants
2
Exposure to climate change
Adaptive capacity factors
Agree on what climate change effects are most important in influencing vulnerability and what knowledge is needed for more effective management Agree on what socio-economic effects are most important in influencing vulnerability and what knowledge is needed for more effective management Agree on factors that affect municipal capacity to adapt to climate change
Overlay of sensitive locations Managing adaptive capacity factors Identification of key stakeholders
Find the most vulnerable locations in the development project areas Rank the possibility of influencing the adaptive capacity factors Agree on what stakeholders or organizations are most important to include in vulnerability management
Exposure to socioeconomic change
3
4
Sensitive sectors and Agree on what sectors and groups are most vulnerable to activities climate change effects Managing Identify adaptation actions needed to reduce local vulnerability vulnerability Table 2. Exercises and aims of the stakeholder dialogues.
The discussions held in the exercises were recorded and transcribed. This documentation, together with recordings of the evaluations conducted with the participants at the end of dialogues 3 and 4, comprises approximately 30 hours of recorded material that was used to analyze opportunities for and constraints on cross-sectoral cooperation in local vulnerability management, which is an indicator of horizontal integration of adaptation in this study. To analyze the interaction among participants, the material was analyzed with the help of evaluative criteria developed when writing paper III. These criteria are
48
based on previous research concluding that co-production among divergent viewpoints and interests (e.g., between organizations with different logics of knowledge production, as was the case here) is often hampered by organizational knowledge boundaries (Evans 2009, Jasanoff and Wynne 1998, Gieryn 1983). Co-production thus demands processes that facilitate knowledge production across such boundaries, independent of differences among organizations, traditions, cultures, methods, and worldviews (Friman 2010, Keller 2009, Burger et al. 2007, Lövbrand 2007, Owens et al. 2006). The evaluative criteria were developed for analyzing, first, how well the goals, structure, and dynamics of the stakeholder dialogues spurred or obstructed productive interaction among project participants to discuss preconditions for inter-organizational cooperation regarding these issues in the municipality (e.g., Blackstock et al. 2007). Second, specific exercises or parts of exercises that had facilitated deeper discussions were analyzed to identify intermediaries – described as materials, such as maps, reports, scenarios, or data software tools, and portrayals, such as metaphors, storylines, and formulations – that could facilitate inter-organizational cooperation (e.g., Toderi et al. 2007, Teulier and Hubert 2004, Forsyth 2003, Thurk and Fine 2003, Star and Griesemer 1989). The results of these analyses were used primarily in papers III and IV to discuss how climate change vulnerability assessments and management can be stimulated.
4.3.2. Interviews In connection with the stakeholder dialogues, individual interviews were held with officials in the two municipalities. In addition, the researchers participating in the stakeholder dialogues were interviewed, individually and in groups. These interviews had two overarching aims: first, to discuss the management of climate change vulnerability as an issue in the municipalities and, second, to discuss the co-production of knowledge among participants in the stakeholder dialogues. The former aim was addressed in discussions of how the interviewed officials’ own departments did, or potentially could, deal with climate change vulnerability and implement adaptation, to obtain a more practical view of climate policy integration. The latter aim was addressed in discussions of what stimulated or obstructed productive interactions among participants in the stakeholder dialogues in general and in the participatory exercises in particular. In total, 28 interviews were held with local officials in three interview rounds, four
49
interviews were held with researchers in one interview round, and six group interviews were held with researchers in three interview rounds. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed to allow for deeper analysis. The results of these interviews were used when writing paper I in 2009, papers II and IV in 2011, and paper III in 2012. An overview of the conducted interviews is found in table 3 below. Date
Respondent(s)
Aim
January 2008
Individual interviews: 5 officials from Gothenburg 3 officials from Lilla Edet
Map initial perceptions on local climate change vulnerability and discuss expectations on the research project
March-April 2008
Individual interviews: 4 researchers
Discuss expectations on the research project and results and experiences from stakeholder dialogue 1
May 2008
Individual interviews: 8 officials from Gothenburg 5 officials from Lilla Edet
Map perceived challenges and opportunities from climate change facing sector departments. Discuss results and experiences from stakeholder dialogue 1
May 2008
Group interviews: Researchers after stakeholder dialogue 2 in Gothenburg Researchers after stakeholder dialogue 2 in Lilla Edet
Discuss results and experiences from stakeholder dialogue 2
June 2008
Individual interviews: 4 officials from Gothenburg 3 officials from Lilla Edet
Discuss results and experiences from stakeholder dialogue 2
June 2009
Group interviews: Researchers after stakeholder dialogue 3 in Gothenburg Researchers after stakeholder dialogue 3 in Lilla Edet
Discuss results and experiences from stakeholder dialogue 3
February 2010
Group interviews: Researchers after stakeholder dialogue 4 in Gothenburg Researchers after stakeholder dialogue 4 in Lilla Edet
Discuss results and experiences from stakeholder dialogue 4
June 2011
Group interview: Officials from the EU Commission
Map perceptions on the role and ability of the EU adaptation strategies as complementing each other and established national approaches
Table 3. Date and aim of interviews.
50
Research interviews can be approached in many ways, ranging from inductive approaches in which the unprejudiced researcher collects input from interviews to build theories of various phenomena, to deductive approaches in which the researcher tests theories by applying them to real-life contexts (Niiniluoto 1999). As argued by Wengraf (2001), however, such a clear-cut distinction between induction and deduction seldom applies in practical research, so it is more relevant to talk about degrees or elements of the two in processes in which both approaches are more or less relevant. The approach used when gathering and analyzing the empirical material in this study oscillated between forms of induction and deduction, especially for the interviews. The first two rounds of interviews – with eight officials, held before the first stakeholder dialogue in January 2008, and with thirteen officials, held before the second dialogue in May 2008 – applied a somewhat deductive approach in which the concept of climate change vulnerability guided the formulation of research questions and the initial analysis of answers. Taken together, these interviews were intended to map initial perceptions of vulnerability to climate change, identify the main challenges facing the departments in their daily work, and provide some initial views of project expectations, including goals and hypothetical outputs. After deeper, and more inductive, analyses of the first two interview rounds and the first two stakeholder dialogues, however, the results revealed that horizontal connections between actors within the municipalities and vertical connections between the national government and local municipal levels were seen as important but lacking by the studied officials. These insights informed the development of the analytical framework used in this thesis. This framework was in turn used in analyzing the third round of interviews, held with seven officials between stakeholder dialogues 2 and 3 in the summer of 2008, and the last two dialogues (i.e., 3 and 4) held in June 2009 and February 2010. The four individual interviews with researchers held in the spring of 2008 focused on obstacles and potential in the co-production process. These were complemented by input about the process from the group interviews with participating researchers held directly after stakeholder dialogues 2–4 and by responses about the co-production process from the individual interviews with officials. The interview questions focused rather unprejudiced on the co-
51
production process. However, after some initial analysis, themes were identified in the material that matched theories of organizational boundaries and boundary spanning treated in the science and technology studies (STS) literature (presented in paper III). Accordingly, the criteria for co-production (presented in section 4.3.1 above) were developed from this literature and applied when conducting the deeper analysis of the co-production process. The abovementioned interviews were semi-structured in approach. Semistructured interviews are interviews in which the researcher uses a predetermined interview guide to guide the interview, but in which the researcher and respondent(s) can digress during the responses and follow-up questions are common (Arksey and Knight 1999). In this type of interview, meaning is created in the dialog between the researcher and the respondent (Mishler 1988). The individual interviews were generally around one hour long to allow time for some digressions in the conversation. The research guides used served to keep the conversation within the areas of interest. For the group interviews, the interview guides were generally much more detailed, since it is otherwise difficult to have focused discussions. For example, the group interview questions relating to the co-production process partly followed the agendas for the stakeholder dialogues and employed specific exercises to facilitate discussion and detailed interaction among participants. A starting point when analyzing the interviews conducted in this study was recognizing that interviews cannot provide “mirror reflections of the social world,” but instead “provide access to the meanings people attribute to their experiences and social worlds” (Miller and Glassner 2004:126). Accordingly, interview responses are not treated as “facts” about how the institutionalization of adaptation in Sweden supports implementation. The responses do, however, say something about how actors experience this institutionalization and how it affects their work. By combining several views, it is therefore possible to obtain a more nuanced picture of how institutionalization can affect implementation. In more practical terms, the analysis of interview transcripts generally followed a stepwise coding process (cf. Burnard 1991). In the first step, notes were taken during the interview to document potentially interesting themes raised by the respondent, providing a preliminary content scanning. In the second step of the
52
more inductive analyses, the notes from the first scanning were used to guide the transcript coding and in formulating themes. In the second step of the more deductive analyses, a predetermined broad theoretical scheme was used to help with this coding, for example, by categorizing answers according to the components of vulnerability, as was done in the first two rounds of interview with officials. In the third step, the transcripts were reanalyzed from the perspectives of the formulated themes and, in some cases, from the perspective of a new theoretical framework, to ensure their significance. In the fourth step, the themes were grouped into broader categories used in analyzing a specific phenomenon or context.
53
5. Results and discussion This section summarizes and discusses the main results of the appended papers in order to answer the research questions. The results are anchored in recent research literature and in ongoing policy processes presented in section 2, “Background.” The papers, I-V, as listed on page 3, are referred to by their Roman numerals.
5.1. Institutionalization of adaptation This section provides an overview of results related to research question one: How is adaptation to climate change incorporated into public policy at different levels of policy and in various sectors in Sweden?
5.1.1. National level At the Swedish national government level, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change are still vaguely defined and exemplified, despite the early mentioning of expected climate change effects and possibly needed adaptation measures by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (Swedish EPA) as early as the late 1980s (paper V). A 1989 EPA report (Swedish EPA 1989:86) stated that some adaptation measures, such as changed hydropower dam dimensions and new physical planning guidelines, might be necessary, but that the effects were too uncertain to warrant starting to implement measures. The first nationally initiated adaptation measures were not actually implemented in Sweden until approximately 15–20 years later. However, these measures were the same as those mentioned in 1989. The main climate change adaptation efforts prioritized in Swedish public policy over the last five years have been investments in various types of investigations and research to improve the general knowledge of expected climate change effects and of our exposure to these, and to provide an overview of the ongoing implementation of adaptation measures (papers I and V). As presented in section 2, “Background,” to increase general societal preparedness, regional level coordination has also been prioritized by creating an adaptation coordinator
54
position at the county administration level. The roles of these county-level coordinators are still rather unspecified, though the roles were strengthened in the government spending authorization for 2013. It states that county boards should formulate regional adaptation action plans together with other concerned actors, nevertheless without providing any further national guidance as to what to prioritize in these plans. To disseminate information about climate change vulnerability and adaptation, funding has also been provided to SMHI to create a national adaptation knowledge center, which was established in the spring of 2012 (paper V). Despite these national investments, adaptation is mainly seen as a municipal issue. For example, the climate bill (2008/09:162, the official Swedish regulation of adaptation) states that climate change adaptation largely relates to municipal self-determination for planning. The Swedish government has chosen to implement much less centralized steering of climate change adaptation compared with many other European countries (Biesbroek et al. 2010, Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2007). Compared with Finland, for example, which generally has a similar system for implementing political decisions, Sweden has unclear goals and division of responsibility when it comes to adaptation (paper V). However, in terms of practical support to municipalities, seen in both these countries as the main implementers of adaptation measures, the Swedish government has been more proactive through its investments in coordination measures (paper V). Furthermore, the Swedish institutionalization of adaptation, with a strong focus on local and regional steering, has taken the opposite direction to the institutionalization of climate change mitigation, where objectives and regulations are much more clearly guided from the central level and where horizontal and vertical integration is a much more explicit management aim (Ministry of the Environment 2009).
5.1.2. Local level Analyzed documents and the reviewed Swedish adaptation research reveal that climate change vulnerability and adaptation are emergent issues increasingly discussed in municipal administrations in general (e.g., SALAR 2011). However, in terms of creating strategies and practically implementing adaptation measures, progress has been slower (paper I) – which has been observed in the other Nordic countries as well (Klein and Juhola 2013). Nevertheless, in cases in which adaptation has been developed as a prioritized issue and concrete measures have
55
been implemented, this has often followed in reaction to previous extreme weather events, such as storms and floods, and in some cases in response to government guidelines and regulations (paper I). Adaptation initiatives are therefore often related to improving the efficiency of local risk management and gaining a better overview of exposed technical infrastructure, especially in relation to important public facilities such as fire stations and hospitals (paper I). In addition, when planning new residential areas, climate vulnerability concerns have become more prominent (papers I and II), mostly in relation to exposure to extreme weather. Also within the case municipalities, the few documents relating to climate change vulnerability and adaptation generally describe adaptation as constituting measures to increase risk management preparedness and reduce the sensitivity of technical systems, viewing this as an important combination to increase local preparedness for climate change. Based on previous Swedish research (paper I), and as mentioned in the interviews (papers I and II), it is further concluded that sufficient knowledge of, and capacity to evaluate the risks of, expected future climate change effects is generally considered lacking. This is considered a problem when it comes to building local management capacity, which will be further discussed below. Although municipal administrations and national authorities have been discussed in general terms in this section, naturally, they do not consist of homogenous organizations and actors with identical perspectives. The next section explores the diversity of views on climate change vulnerability and adaptation of officials from various sectors in the two cases and discusses practical adaptation activities at the national and local levels. It also explores how integration among local departments can be facilitated to stimulate the implementation of adaptation measures.
56
5.2. Horizontal policy integration This section discusses results related to research question two: How is adaptation issues integrated horizontally across sectors at the local and national levels, how does this affect practical adaptation work, and what facilitates adaptation through cross-sectoral interaction?
5.2.1. National level At the national sector authority level, no authority has been assigned overriding responsibility for coordinating climate change adaptation in Sweden, which seems to have negatively affected the horizontal interaction among authorities, ultimately resulting in a lack of implemented adaptation measures (paper V). These observations correspond to those of Mashram et al. (2011), who claimed that reforms must be instituted at the central political level, and by Storbjörk (2007) who argued that a clear division of responsibility is an important facilitator of action. So far, adaptation has had to fit into the existing institutional structures for sector responsibility presented in the 2009 climate bill (2008/09:162). However, the central level still provides almost no guidance regarding the division of responsibility for specific vulnerabilities and adaptation actions between the sector authorities, which is paid specific attention in national adaptation strategies in other European countries (paper V). Since climate change vulnerability and adaptation, as opposed to mitigation, have been kept outside Sweden’s national system of environmental objectives, existing systems for steering, guiding, and funding this system cannot be applied. This seems to have led to some confusion among the sector authorities as to what processes and decisions should take account of vulnerability and adaptation concerns (paper V). This supports previous observations that a lack of clear goals and indicators can obstruct the implementation of practical adaptation measures (e.g., Keskitalo 2010). Nevertheless, there has been slowly growing interest in some sectors in working on climate change vulnerability and adaptation. From overviews compiled by a network of Swedish authorities involved in disaster risk reduction, it has been concluded that, while there are very few steering documents (or strategies) about working on vulnerability and adaptation (SCCA 2012), preparatory action, primarily in the form of various vulnerability assessments, is ongoing in various sectors. The sectors in which most action has been taken are planning and
57
building, technical support systems, forest and agriculture, and infrastructure, where the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, the Swedish National Grid, and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency have been the most active authorities (Rydell et al. 2010). Networks of authorities working on climate change vulnerability and adaptation in relation to drinking water and disaster risk reduction issues have also been started and may facilitate further horizontal national policy integration (SCCA 2012). Under the umbrella of the new knowledge center for adaptation hosted by the SMHI, several authorities are also contributing information, providing another example of practices that could unify national sector authorities (paper V).
5.2.2. Local level As indicated by previous research into adaptation processes in Swedish municipalities, generally, the horizontal integration among sectors in municipalities also appears to have been limited, and climate change adaptation has so far been managed primarily in the areas of risk management and detailed planning (paper I). Consequently, vulnerability has been framed more as a technical challenge than a social phenomenon (paper I). The findings of previous Swedish studies of the constraints to implementing adaptation, such as inflexible organizational cultures (Storbjörk 2010, Groven et al. 2012), lack of systems for cross-sectoral learning (Storbjörk and Hedrén 2011), and no established structures for incorporating long-term effects (Oelreich et al. 2012, Simonsson et al. 2011), can help explain to some extent this low level of horizontal integration. Similarly, further explanations were found in the two cases examined here. Many interviewed officials claimed that institutional and political factors have been obstacles to the local management of climate change vulnerability and adaptation (papers I and II). For example, the yearly allocation of resources to municipal departments is regulated by local political priorities. This, in turn, partly determines the amount of resources available for municipal departments to allocate to specific adaptation measures or to more overarching measures, such as investing in knowledge building (paper IV). Linked to this allocation, several interviewed officials noted a problem with short-sighted local political priorities (paper I); similar observations have been made in other Swedish municipalities as well (Rudberg et al. 2012, Storbjörk 2007). In such cases, officials perceived
58
the four-year election cycle as hindering politicians from prioritizing investments in capacity building to adapt to effects that will likely not occur in the near future (paper IV). This was also perceived as complicating interaction and communication between officials and politicians from a vertical perspective, though this played out very differently in various departments. Consequently, departments felt they had very different abilities to influence the top level of local politics (paper II). In Gothenburg, for example, the sector departments with representatives on the municipal board are seen as having a big advantage in getting their sector’s priorities on the political agenda (paper I). In relation to the importance of resources for building municipal management capacity, an additional factor was mentioned by several officials, namely, the risk of departmental competition. This was explained as a situation in which departments, due to funding constraints, prioritized only issues within their own mandates, ignoring more cross-sectoral issues that would confer greater common benefits, but would incur charges to their departments’ own budgets (paper II). Due to these power relationships, climate change adaptation could be prioritized only in some sectors, and technical adaptation measures in particular were more likely to garner economic support due to the dominance of technical department representatives on the municipal board (paper I). Officials also say that it is easier to find information on practical adaptation measures involving technical solutions than on other measures because they are often more visible (paper IV). This focus on technical adaptation measures has also been found in several previous studies (e.g., Klein 2011, Næss et al. 2005). However, though a technical focus was apparent in both case municipalities and in previous Swedish studies (e.g., Johansson and Mobjörk 2009), it does not seem to be the core of the problem with power structures. The capacity to assess the vulnerability of technical systems is instead a strong component of municipal capacity to adapt to climate change. Nevertheless, a focus solely on technical solutions such as barriers and pumps may hinder horizontal integration and thereby alternative measures, such as implementing new criteria for adaptive concerns when planning new city areas (papers I and II). An apparent risk in prioritizing only technical systems was also emphasized in interviews with officials. As one official in Gothenburg noted:
59
“You know Gothenburg builds itself into a dead end, Once one have built houses under water level one has taken on a long term commitment to make sure the houses can be there”…”One can never back out and say let’s quit repairing our barriers…” (paper II, p. 479)
Another constraint on horizontal integration mentioned by interviewed officials is that knowledge relevant to making adaptation decisions is produced or ordered by specific sector departments without formal systems for sharing or analyzing it in common (paper I). In this, the officials were stressing the lack of a municipal organization that could coordinate knowledge production and use (papers I and II). Officials also claimed that there is currently a lack of systems to document knowledge at a higher institutional level; such information could promote cooperation, be a resource for organizations that wish to initiate a vulnerability assessment or adaptation process, and make the municipality less dependent on individual officials (paper IV). Ways to facilitate horizontal integration were, however, found in the two cases. A conclusion drawn from the above results and from previous research (e.g., Larsen et al. 2012, Fazey et al. 2009, Lemos and Morehouse 2005) is that one way to develop a deeper and more complex overview of local vulnerability, and to identify substantive adaptation measures, is to include more perspectives when assessing climate change vulnerability and possible responses to it. One way to go about doing this is to include participants representing multiple sectors in a knowledge co-production process. However, coproducing knowledge in multiorganizational settings is often hampered by knowledge boundaries, manifested as different knowledge production traditions and methods in various organizations (Friman 2010, Lövbrand 2007, Jasanoff and Wynne 1998, Gieryn 1983). As presented in section four, the stakeholder dialogues held in this study aimed at analyzing how knowledge co-production across boundaries could be facilitated and, in turn, how climate change vulnerability and adaptation could be understood as cross-sectoral issues. These results have been used in this study to build an understanding of how local cross-sectoral integration can be facilitated (paper III). Taken together, the stakeholder dialogues and the followup questions asked in the individual interviews suggested that perceptions of the processes influencing local climate change vulnerability were less spread among departments than
60
expected (paper III). For example, the exercise of mapping the most important determinants of municipal adaptive capacity revealed that officials largely agreed that the three most important determinants were economic resources, political priorities, and ability to communicate with other sectors and other actors in the municipality (paper I). If conducted, such cross-sectoral exercises can provide opportunities to identify common interests (cf. Jonsson et al. 2011). However, departments seldom conduct joint assessments of vulnerability, partly due to the low level of current cooperation among departments and partly due to a lack of economic resources (paper IV). Furthermore, exercises held at the stakeholder dialogues (Table 2, section four) led to the identification of a few more specific factors that can either facilitate or obstruct cross-sectoral (i.e., horizontal) integration when working on adaptation. At a general level, the first factor perceived as stimulating co-production among participants was the facilitating role of the researchers (paper III). Participants claimed that having external facilitators with slightly different perspectives made it easier to focus on issues regarded as “out-of-the-box” relative to their everyday activities (paper IV). Another facilitating factor was the use of a local case area seen as tangible and relevant to all involved officials. The two case areas cited both exemplified differences between departments in terms of vulnerability to climate change and highlighted issues common to all departments. Discussions were specifically stimulated by a participatory GIS exercise in which each participant mapped a layer of sensitivity to flooding in the case area. These were put on top of each other to discuss sensitivity hot-spots (paper III). One factor seen as obstructing interaction relates to project aims and realistic outcomes not being negotiated in the start-up phase. Without specifically discussing what goals were shared by the various departments and what common outcomes were realistically attainable, the process risked becoming too abstract and not constructive (papers III and IV). A crucial requirement when conducting such integrated assessments was a strategy for incorporating the knowledge produced in a project (e.g., knowledge of specific key determinants or new ways to cooperate across departments) into the municipal administration’s knowledge base. Without such strategies, there is a risk that the knowledge produced will not be used (paper I).
61
The constraints on and opportunities and facilitating factors for horizontal integration discussed in this section partly correlate with the factors affecting vertical policy integration, which is discussed in the following section.
5.3. Vertical policy integration This section presents results related to research question three: How is adaptation issues integrated vertically across levels of government, how does this affect practical adaptation work, and how can local implementation of adaptation measures be stimulated? The abovementioned mapping of the formal institutionalization of climate change adaptation in Swedish public policy revealed that vulnerability and adaptation generally follow the standard sector responsibility principle in which authority is divided between sectors and implementation is managed by municipalities as part of their general responsibility for services to their citizens (paper V). The changes made in the Planning and Building Act (2010:900), which principally states that vulnerability concerns should be included in municipal planning in a way municipalities find appropriate, is one indication of the important role of municipalities in managing adaptation. So far, there are no specific national adaptation goals, while there are specific national goals for climate change mitigation. This issue was often stressed in both the interviews and stakeholder dialogues with officials in the two case municipalities and was also identified in previous Swedish research (cf. Simonsson et al. 2011). At the local level, specific goals and guidelines are seen as vital in order to know what adaptation measures are available and merit prioritization. The lack of national guidance thus negatively affects local management (papers I and II). National goals, expressed in legislation and other guidelines, were also suggested as the only effective way to put adaptation priorities on local political agendas, considering the problems associated with these issues’ currently low local political priority (paper I). In international research, climate change adaptation is presented as an issue where “ownership” is important, at least when clarifying the aims of adaptation (e,g, Hinkel 2011, Budreau and McBean 2007). This claim was mirrored by officials in the interviews (papers I and II), so unclear ownership of the issue
62
clearly negatively affects horizontal policy integration between the national and municipal levels. These results indicate that, at the local level, adaptation is conceptualized as an issue where national guidance and goal setting are important, as opposed to how it is regarded at the national level; this divergence clearly gives rise to tensions (paper I). The national allocation of resources to the adaptation coordinator posts at the county administration level is likely intended to reduce these tensions by contributing support to municipalities (paper V). However, since the types of adaptation measures desired and how adaptation is to be coordinated are still unspecified, this new level of administration will likely not be as effective as it otherwise might be (paper I). As expressed by officials in Gothenburg, without municipal adaptation goals or practices, there will not be much for the coordinator to coordinate (paper I). The partially developed national guidelines given to the county administrations for 2013, with the additional request to formulate regional adaptation action plans, will supposedly reduce the tension between the national and municipal levels. However, this depends on whether it will be possible to come up with the tangible guidelines demanded by local officials (papers I and II). The interviewed officials said that the development of a relevant knowledge base was an important factor affecting the ability to assess vulnerability and implement climate change adaptation measures (papers I and II). This has also been stressed in previous research reviews (Adger et al. 2007). In interviews, officials expressed a general difficulty gaining access to sufficient support material to plan for adaptation measures (in the form of both local climate change impact assessments and guidelines for building), stemming from, among other matters, inadequate budgets to buy such material and a general lack of information (paper II). From the results of a recent survey of all Swedish municipalities it can be concluded that this seems to be a general problem: 70% of the municipalities declared they lacked such support material (SALAR 2011). The funds allocated to national sector authorities earmarked for assessing specific climate change risks, for example, to the Swedish Geotechnical Institute for mapping areas at risk of landslides in the exposed Göta älv valley, will supposedly make such inputs available (paper I). In addition, more general basic knowledge, such as the new height model for Sweden currently under development and the National Knowledge Centre for Climate Adaptation hosted
63
by SMHI, will probably make useful information available to municipalities (paper V). However, to make such information more useful, the interviewed officials requested a forum for increased dialog between data producers and users (paper I). Furthermore, as a member of the EU, Sweden will be targeted by guidelines developed in the two forthcoming EU adaptation strategies (briefly presented in section 2.1). These guidelines may be useful to municipalities and other actors in the absence of clear national guidelines. However, the institutional interplay analysis comparing the institutionalization of adaptation between the two EU levels as well as between the EU and national levels revealed major gaps in institutional fit between the levels, in terms of the intended level of the main responsible authority, prioritized issues, and political instruments of control (paper V). Making use of all these complex and slightly different guidelines will place high demands on actors at sub-national levels, such as county adaptation coordinators and municipal actors (paper V). A final conclusion drawn in this study is that, though there clearly is a general lack of national goals and guidelines for climate change adaptation in Sweden, it is worth mentioning that the mere presence of such goals cannot guarantee that adaptation measures will be implemented. As the comparison between Sweden and Finland in paper five indicates, without sufficient funding, adaptation will be problematic to integrate and implement, with or without national goals (paper V).
64
6. Conclusions This thesis has aimed to improve our understanding of the constraints, opportunities, and facilitating factors involved in transforming adaptive capacity into practical climate change adaptation by analyzing the level and form of the integration of adaptation into Swedish public policy. This has been done with the help of an analytical framework developed through the analytical lens of climate policy integration. The framework has been applied to study horizontal integration between sectors at the national and municipal policy levels and vertical integration between scales in the public institutional setup. The main empirical material comprised interviews and stakeholder dialogues with officials and researchers in two local case municipalities as well as national and local policy documents and previous Swedish research. Climate change adaptation is increasingly understood as expressed in decisive policies that will enable society to reduce the negative impacts and exploit the positive effects of climate change. Expected changes in Sweden include, for example, increased sea water levels, changed precipitation patterns, landslides, heat waves, increased freshwater runoff, and increased forest growth, which, together with economic and institutional changes, will all affect our vulnerability to climate change. Previous research has concluded that our capacity to adapt to such change is influenced by determinants such as economic resources, access to technology, functioning infrastructure, useful knowledge systems, robust institutional setup, and equity considerations (Keskitalo et al. 2011, Engle and Lemos 2010, Adger et al. 2007). However, adaptive capacity does not automatically translate into action, which is apparent from the so far relatively few measures implemented (Klein and Juhola 2013). This implementation gap is not fully understood. Initial studies of adaptation processes suggest that factors such as political leadership, regulation, power structures, learning processes, goals, organizational cultures, and division of responsibility are influencing the level and appropriateness of implementation (e.g., Measham et al. 2011, Adger et al. 2009, Tribba and Moser 2008). This thesis has aimed to improve our understanding of this gap.
65
This section presents conclusions rooted in the three research questions, discusses a possible way forward to increase integration of adaptation in Swedish public policy, and returns to the analogy of the Noah narrative with which this thesis began.
6.1. Main findings Generally, climate change adaptation is under-regulated at the central national government level in Sweden relative to the regulation of other issues, such as mitigation, and to the many other European countries that have already implemented national adaptation strategies (cf. Biesbroek et al. 2010). Most central government efforts have so far been put into: assessing vulnerability through funding research and government inquiries, coordinating adaptation through funding adaptation coordinator posts at the county administration level, and transferring knowledge through funding the adaptation knowledge center at SMHI. However, these investments have been provided without supplying adequate guidance as to the expected outcomes. The only formal steering so far provided by the national government includes changing the Planning and Building Act to include climate change vulnerability as a parameter in comprehensive and detailed planning. At the national sector authority level, climate change vulnerability and adaptation have started being considered to various degrees. The authorities at the leading edge of this effort are the National Board of Housing, Building and Planning, the Swedish National Grid, and the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, which indicates that adaptation is often perceived in terms of issues to be managed within existing institutional setups for planning and risk management. Generally, most adaptation-related activities have constituted various vulnerability assessments of areas or activities designated as important in the Swedish national vulnerability assessment (SOU 2007:60). However, also some adaptation measures have been implemented, such as new guidelines for dimensioning hydropower dams. In municipalities, climate change vulnerability and adaptation have generally started to be regarded as concepts meriting attention, mainly in reaction to extreme events, but also in response to initial central government action.
66
However, only a limited number of municipalities have so far implemented comprehensive management programs for vulnerability and adaptation, even though many vulnerability assessments have been carried out. Generally, action has been taken in municipalities with previous experience of extreme weather events, indicating that adaptation action has been initiated largely from the bottom up in Swedish public policy. Furthermore, at the national authority level as well as at the municipal, adaptation has often been approached as an issue to be managed primarily by technical departments from the planning and flood risk perspectives. The lack of goals and leadership regarding climate change adaptation at the central government level in Sweden has undermined horizontal integration among national sector authorities. Adaptation falls under existing institutional structures for sector responsibility, though without any guidance from the central level as to how vulnerability and adaptation should principally be conceived. Since these issues have been kept outside the national system of environmental governance, as opposed to climate change mitigation, existing systems for steering, guiding, and funding cannot be applied. This has led to some confusion among the sector authorities as to what processes and decisions should take account of vulnerability and adaptation concerns, and few, if any, sector authorities have developed any clear goals or implementation strategies for adaptation. To judge from the initial actions taken by national sector authorities, however, climate change vulnerability as a concept seems to have been applied to some extent when planning new, or making inventories of old, infrastructure projects. In addition, for specific sub-issues with specified designated responsible authorities, such as the National Food Agency, which is responsible for coordinating drinking water issues, useful networks have been created among sector authorities. The horizontal integration of climate change adaptation at the municipal level has generally been fairly minimal, judging from previous Swedish research. In some areas, however, the integration has been greater. Physical planning is an area where most adaptation efforts have so far been made, especially in newly planned areas, which likely indicates a response to new governmental demands. In the two case municipalities, officials identified a lack of, and a need for, crosssectoral coordination of adaptation efforts at the municipal level. The current lack of such coordination is obstructing the development of common goals. Another
67
factor experienced as obstructing this development is the shortsightedness of local politicians responsible for allocating resources. This was seen as less of a problem by departments with easier access to decision-making through seats on the municipal board. Furthermore, cross-sectoral cooperation in planning for adaptation was seen as weak and, moreover, hampered by strict sectoral budgets that make departments focus more on selecting the strategy that is economically best for the department rather than best for the common good of the municipality. Other experienced constraints on the horizontal integration of adaptation concern the lack of super-sectoral knowledge portals for institutionalizing knowledge that could be used as platforms for new cross-sectoral cooperation, making municipalities less vulnerable to staff turnover. In terms of vertical integration, the lack of fit between the national and local scales seems to be a main factor obstructing climate change adaptation. More specifically, two factors were identified both in previous Swedish research and by officials in the two case municipalities: unclear division of responsibility between the local and national levels, and inadequate information on which to base adaptation decisions. Regarding the first factor, a clear finding of this thesis is that the lack of national adaptation goals makes it difficult for municipal administrations to know what to prioritize and to evaluate the success of municipal adaptation measures – if such measures are implemented. Without adaptation goals, for example, it will be problematic for a county administration to evaluate implementation in the municipalities it encompasses. The national funding of adaptation, which was sought by the interviewed officials, would likely increase the vertical integration of adaptation and provide some examples of best practices. However, the lack of goals makes such an allocation of funding problematic. Upcoming EU adaptation strategies may somewhat compensate for the lack of national goals, but the complexity of overlapping EU guidelines and information will call for even more sub-national and local coordination. Regarding the second factor, interviews with several officials in the two case municipalities and the results of nationwide surveys sent to municipal actors (SALAR 2011, 2009) indicate that a sufficient knowledge base for making adaptation decisions is lacking. This lack has prompted demands for more context-specific information and planning tools to enable municipalities to work more efficiently on climate adaptation issues. In this respect, several of the
68
ongoing or recently completed assessments conducted by national sector authorities (e.g., new flood and ground instability mapping and a refined national elevation model) and the new adaptation knowledge center at SMHI will supply useful information and possibly increase the vertical integration by facilitating new cooperation and inventories. However, if followed up by national plans, such efforts would undoubtedly be even more effective, considering the extensive activity that even limited national guidelines have created so far.
6.2. Constrains and facilitating factors for adaptation Returning to the analytical framework and the aim of the study a few central issues can be elaborated upon a bit further. To what extent is climate change adaptation integrated into Swedish public policy, and what can this reveal about the constraints on and facilitating factors for the implementation of adaptation measures? As presented above, adaptation is still fairly poorly integrated into public policy, corresponding to the bottom right quadrant (C) of Figure 6 below. High vertical policy integration
A Low horizontal policy integration
C
B
D
High horizontal policy integration
Low vertical policy integration Figure 6. Integration of adaptation in Swedish public policy.
As presented in the main results above, this low level of integration is a consequence of several factors: a lack of goals and guidelines, institutional setups limiting cross-sectoral cooperation, climate change vulnerability and adaptation being considered too late in decision-making processes, and unclear division of responsibilities between scales and sectors within the public policy system. However, as the dashed arrow in Figure 6 indicates, steps are being taken towards a more integrated management. National actions that have spurred this
69
development include some government clarification of the division of responsibility between sector authorities and between the national and local policy levels, the production of relevant knowledge, and investments in regional coordination. These implemented actions alone, though, are not enough to further facilitate integration to the extent that a substantial implementation of adaptation (B) is supported at the local level in Sweden. Based on the results in this study, the next section presents suggested policy interventions to increase the integration of adaptation in Swedish public policy. First, however, this study provide insights into some more general, foremost institutional, factors – acting as either constraints or facilitators for converting adaptive capacity into actual implementation of adaptation – which is worth lifting out of the main results above. As described in the fourth assessment report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), “there is an important role for public policy in facilitating adaptation to climate change” (Adger et al. 2007:731). This statement has been developed further in this study within a number of areas. In previous studies, national goals and guidelines have been concluded important for facilitating local implementation of adaptation (e.g. Keskitalo 2010). Such observations are strengthened in this study. However, the results suggest that such goals are decisive also for the regional coordination of local adaptation as well as for measuring and evaluating progress. Regional coordination, which is found important for facilitating implementation of adaptation (Hanssen et al. 2012) and has been given a key role in Swedish vulnerability management, is here found difficult to manage without clear national guidelines. With reference to the importance of sufficient information to implement adaptation (Westerhoff et al. 2011), it is concluded in this study that the mere existence of information on current and future climate change vulnerability and adaptation options is not enough for various actors to take action. To facilitate adaptation, also local routines for incorporating and mobilizing this information into practical management are important to develop. This entails that information and knowledge is integrated into local knowledge portals to be accessible and usable by all relevant actors.
70
Related to the importance of power structures, previous research suggests that different possibilities for various actors to influence decision-making comprise constrains to implement adaptation (Adger et al. 2009). Results in this study support these conclusions. However, in addition this study found that different possibilities to influence political decisions by various sector departments influences also what adaptation measures are most likely to find support, and thereby what type of adaptation measures that will be implemented. As found here, and in previous studies (e.g. Næss et al. 2005), these tend to often focus on large-scale technical measures which has been prioritized without holistic consideration of the alternatives or potential long term consequences. Finally, still another factor found important in facilitating implementation of adaptation in previous studies is local political leadership and coordination (Hunt and Watkiss 2011, Measham et al. 2011). These conclusions are supported in this study. Furthermore, it can be concluded that adaptation has to be more explicitly considered also in long-term regional economic planning. Otherwise, any local leadership and coordination will be less effective.
6.3. Policy interventions for adaptation In line with the results of previous research, this study has treated policy integration as a useful departure point for identifying constraints on and opportunities for the implementation of adaptation (e.g., Dovers and Hezri 2010, Mickwitz et al. 2009, Urwin and Jordan 2008). However, this departure point has also been useful in identifying policy interventions for transforming adaptive capacity into practical adaptation measures. The conclusions of this thesis suggest four principal policy interventions by which to increase the integration of adaptation in Swedish public policy. First, one way to make better use of the regional adaptation coordinators and to internally coordinate municipal work concerning climate change vulnerability and adaptation issues would be to establish adaptation coordinator posts at the municipal level as well. Such posts could potentially facilitate implementation by coordinating knowledge at a super-sectoral level, advising departments on specific issues, institutionalizing the results of project-based work, and managing contact with the county administration coordinator. A similar post, but directed mostly toward households, currently exists in municipalities to advise the public
71
on energy efficiency and climate mitigation issues. The post is financed primarily by the Swedish Energy Agency. Second, implementing national goals and guidelines for climate change adaptation will make it easier for actors at various levels of government to know what actions to prioritize. Furthermore, connecting adaptation targets to mitigation targets might make it easier to devise measures simultaneously addressing both these areas, which represent “two sides of the same coin.” Third, one way to give an idea, at the national level, of what best adaptation practices might entail, while stimulating local cooperation, would be to start a fund for climate change adaptation projects to which municipalities and other organizations can apply. Similar funds were suggested by the Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability (SOU 2007:60) and have previously been tested for mitigation issues under the name Climate Investment Programs. Fourth, notwithstanding the interconnectedness of economic determinants and climate change effects, vulnerability is seldom considered in regional long-term planning. Consequently, climate change adaptation becomes a reactive issue considered only after decisions, for example, to build, have already been made. One way to ensure that climate change vulnerability is taken account of earlier in the new development process would be to mainstream vulnerability concerns in long-term regional strategic planning.
6.4. In the footsteps of Noah This thesis started with the analogy of the challenges facing Noah in the biblical narrative of the Genesis flood, and the challenges facing contemporary societies in adapting to climate change effects. At the first glimpse, the change that Noah faced, and the change that societies in this part of the world face due to climate change, shares similarities. Increased rain and sea level rise are two likely effects which somehow need to be managed. Noah adapted to this change by building the ark to foreclose the floodwaters from him, his family and pairs of all the worlds’ land-living bird and animal species. In our situation, we plan to, or have already, for example build water barriers and pumping systems installed in newly
72
established residential areas or houses built on stilts to deal with the expected increase in sea level. These are among many examples of our technocratic tradition to adapt to change by building ourselves out of troublesome situations which can be seen analogous to the logic underlying the building of the ark. On the local level this has also been exemplified frequently in this study. Vulnerability has often been framed more as a forthcoming technical challenge than a social phenomenon that would require partly new ways of organizing society. At a closer look, many differences can be distinguished though. Unlike Noah, who knew exactly both what to adapt to and the optimal way of doing this through the directions from God, we face uncertainties and more complex system of decision-making in a democratic society which makes this framing problematic. Although it now looks like we are in a situation were expected climate change effects are inevitable, this is but one of among many changes to incorporate when deciding what future society we would like to construct. As suggested by results in this study, taking on this task demands considering climate change effects not only as increased risks of extreme weather events, but as long term incremental changes amongst, and correlating with, other trends such as globalization. Without considering the relationship among these when organizing our management, we might end up in a situation where measures seem rational in a short perspective, but hardly are sustainable in the long perspective. Without a long term perspective, thus, we might lock ourselves in situations where we on the one hand are lowering the short-term risks, but on the other are increasing the consequences if they still occur. If, for example, the sea level rises just one centimeter above the calculated needed height of the water barriers, instead of protecting against floods these barriers will keep flood water in a city, causing indefinite damage. Thus, although technical adaptation measures arguably have important roles to play in adapting to climate change, and though the technical capacity to adapt to climate change effects is fairly great, faith in technical solutions is even greater. And even though a general lack of adaptation preparedness might be a bigger problem than the technical aspects of adaptation per se, what the results in this thesis is indicating is that the capacity to manage long term climate change effects in society is still fairly under-developed. One reason for this
73
underdevelopment, argued here, is the low level of adaptation policy integration. With an increased such integration, facilitated by national guidelines, a first step towards demanded developments, such as more concrete measures, a wider diversity of involved actors and win-win situations, can be found.
74
7. Literature Aall, C. Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and Hovelsrud, G. 2012. Local climate change adaptation: missing link, Black Jack or blind alley? Local Environment, 17:6-7, 573-578 Adger, W.N. 2000. Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under the transition in Vietnam. Annuals of the Association of American Geographers. 90:4. 738-758 Adger, W.N. 2006, Vulnerability, Global Environmental Change, 16:3, 268–281. Adger, W.N.2003, Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change, Economic Geography, 79:4, 387-404 Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W. and Tompkins, E.L. 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15, 77-86 Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit and K. Takahashi, 2007: Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 717-743 Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Næss, L.O., Wolf, J. and Wreford, A. 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change. Climatic Change, 93, 335-354 Adger, W.N. and Vincent, K. 2005. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity. Competence Rendus Geoscience, 337:4, 399–410 Ahmad, I.H. 2009. Climate policy integration: towards operationalization. DESA Working Paper No. 73, United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs, New York, USA
75
Allison, H.E. and Hobbs, R.J. 2004. Resilience, adaptive capacity, and the “Lock-in Trap” of the Western Australian agricultural region. Ecology and Society, 9:1, online publication Andersson-Sköld, Y., Fallsvik, J., Hultén, C., Jonsson, A., Hjerpe, M. and Glaas, E. 2008. Climate change in Sweden: geotechnical and contaminated land consequences. In: A. De Santis, R. Baker, B. Klug, P. Vanicek, S. D’EiRey, A. Foyo, M. Ercanoglu and D. Dordevic, eds. Conference proceedings, WSEAS international conference on environmental and geological science, 11–13 September, WSEAS Press, Malta, 52–57. Andonova, L.B., Betsill, M.M. and Bulkeley, H. 2009. Transnational climate governance. Global Environmental Politics. 9:2, 52-73 André, K., Simonsson, L., Gerger-Swartling, Å. and Linnér, B-O. 2012. Method development for identifying and analyzing stakeholders in climate change adaptation processes. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. 14:3, 243-261 Arksey, H and Knight, P. 1999. Interviewing for social scientists. Sage Publications, London, UK Barnett, J. and O´Niell, S. 2010. Editorial: Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20, 211-213 Belliveau, S., Smit, B. and Bradshaw, B. 2006. Multiple exposures and dynamic vulnerability: evidence from the grape industry in the Okanagan Valley, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 16, 364–378 Berkhout, F. 2005. Rationales for adaptation in EU climate change policies. Climate Policy, 5; 377-391 Berman, R., Quinn, C. and Paavola, J. 2012. The role of institutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. Environmental Development, 2, 86-100 Betsill, M. and Bulkeley, H. 2007. Locking back and thinking ahead: a decade of cities and climate change research (editorial). Local Environment, 12:5, 447–456
76
Biesbroek, C.R., Swart, R.J., Carter, T.R., Cowan, C., Henrichs, T., Mela, H., Morecroft, M.D. and Rey, D. 2010. Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies. Global Environmental Change, 20, 440-450 Blackstock, K.L., Kelly, G.J. and Horsey, B.L. 2007. Developing and applying a framework to evaluate participatory research for sustainability. Ecological Economics, 60, 726-742 Bowen, G.A. 2009. Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9:2, 27-40 Brockhaus, M. and Kambire´, H. Decentralization: a window of opportunity for successful adaptation to climate change. In: W.N Adger, I. Lorenzoni and K. O’Brien, (eds). 2009. Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Brooks, N., Adger, W.N. and Kelly, M. 2005, The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation, Global Environmental Change, 15, 151-163 Burger, J., Gochfeld, M., Powers, C.W., Kosson, D.S., Halverson, J., Siekaniec, G., Morkill, A., Patrick, R., Duffy, L.K. and Barnes, D. 2007. Scientific research, stakeholders, and policy: continuing dialogue during research on radionuclides on Amchitka island, Alaska. Journal of Environmental Management, 85, 232-244 Burnard, P. 1991. A method of analysing interview transcripts in qualitative research. Nurse Education Today, 11, 461-466 Burton, I., O.P. Dube, D. Campbell-Lendrum, I. Davis, R.J.T. Klein, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, A. Sanghi, and F. Toth, 2012: Managing the risks: international level and integration across scales. In: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, USA, pp. 393-435
77
Burton, I., Huq, S., Lim, B., Pilifosova, O. and Schipper, E.L. 2002. From impacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy, 2:2, 145–159 Carter, J.G. 2011. Climate change adaptation in European cities. Current Opinion on Environmental Sustainability, 3, 193-198 Cash, D.W., Adger, W.N., Berkes, F., Garden, P., Lebel, L., Olsson, P., Prichard, L and Young, O. 2006, Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world. Ecology and Society. 11:2. Online publication Carter, T.R., R.N. Jones, X. Lu, S. Bhadwal, C. Conde, L.O. Mearns, B.C. O’Neill, M.D.A. Rounsevell and M.B. Zurek, 2007: New Assessment Methods and the Characterisation of Future Conditions. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 133-171 Cavaye, A.L.M. 1996. Case study research: a multi-faceted research approach for IS. Information Systems Journal, 8, 227-242 Coffey, A. and Atkinson, P. 1996. Making sense of qualitative data. Sage Publications, Thousand oaks, USA Connor, R. and Dovers, S. 2004. Institutional change for sustainable development. Edward Elgar Publishing. Cheltenham, UK Danneveig, H., Rauken, T. and Hovelsrud, G. 2012. Implementing adaptation to climate change at the local level. Local Environment, 17:6-7, 597-611 Davídsdóttir, B., M.E. Goodsite, S. Juhola, M. Davis, R.J.T. Klein, K.P. Andreasen, R. Atlason, G. Eskeland, A. Gammelgaard, E. Glaas, L. Johannsdottir, F.X. Johnson, M. Landauer, B.O. Linnér, T. Neset, J.K. Rød, M. Termansen, 2013: White Paper: Climate Change Adaptation in the Nordic Countries. Nordic Climate, Mitigation, Adaptation and Economic
78
Policies Network (N-CMAEP), Norden Top-level Research Initiative, Oslo, Norway de Franca Doria, M., Boyd, E., Tompkins, E.L. and Adger, W.N. 2009. Using expert elicitation to define successful adaptation to climate change. Environmental Science and Policy, 12, 810-819 de la Vega-Leinert, A., Schröter, D., Leemans, R., Fritsch, U. and Pluimers, J. 2008. Regional Environment Change, 8, 109-124 Dovers, S. R. and Hezri, A. 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1:2, 212-231 Dowlatabadi, H. 2007. On integration of policies for climate and global change. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 651-663 Dupont, C. Climate policy integration in the EU. In: Filho, W.L. (ed) 2011. The economic, social and political elements of climate change. Springer, Berlin, Germany Eakin, H. 2005. Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases from Central Mexico. World Development, 33, 1923–1938 Eakin, H. and Luers, L. 2006. Assessing the vulnerability of socio-environmental systems. Annual Review of Environmental Recourses, 31, 365-394 Eakin, H., Eriksen, S., Eikeland, P-O. and Øyen, C. 2011. Public sector reform and governance of adaptation: implications of new public management for adaptive capacity in Mexico and Norway. Environmental Management, 47, 338-351 EC. 2007. Adapting to Climate Change in Europe: Options for EU Action. European Commission Green Paper COM(2007) 354 final, Brussels, Belgium EC. 2009. Adapting to climate change: Towards a European Framework for Action. European Commission White paper COM(2009) 147/4 Final, Brussels, Belgium Eckerberg, K., Nilsson, M., Gerger-Swartling, Å. and Söderberg, C. Institutional analysis of energy and agriculture. In: Nilsson, M. and Eckerberg, K. 2007.
79
Environmental policy integration in practice: shaping institutions for learning. Earthscan, London, UK Edvardson Björnberg, K. and Svenfelt. Å. 2009. Goal conflicts in adaptation to climate change. Swedish Defence Research Agency Report No. FOI-R2747-SE, Stockholm, Sweden Engle, N.L. 2011. Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change, 21, 647–656 EEA. 2012. Urban adaptation to climate change in Europe: challenges and opportunities for cities together with supportive national and European policies. European Environment Agency Report No 2/2012, Copenhagen, Denmark Ellison, D. Addressing adaptation in the EU policy framework. In: E. Carina H. Keskitako. (ed) 2010. Developing adaptation policy and practice in Europe: Multilevel governance of climate change, Springer Engle, N.L. and Lemos, M.C., 2010. Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 20:1, 4–13 Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C.S., Martins, R.D., Molefe, J.I., Nhemachena, C., O’Brien, K., Olorunfemi, F., Park, J., Sygna, L. and Ulsrud, K. 2011. When not every response to climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate and Development. 3, 7-20 Evans, M. S. 2009. Defining the public, defining sociology: hybrid sciencepublic relations and boundary-work in early American sociology. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 5-22 Fazey, I., Kesby, M., Evely, A., Latham, I., Wagatora, D., Hagasuna, J-E., Reed, M.S. and Christie, M. 2010. A three-tiered approach to participatory vulnerability assessments in the Solomon Islands. Global Environmental Change, 20, 713-728
80
Ford, J.D., Keskitalo, E.C.H., Smith, T., Pearce, T., Berrang-Ford, L., Duerden, F. and Smit, B. 2010. Case study and analogue methodologies in climate change vulnerability research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 374-392 Forsyth, T. 2003. Critical political ecology: the politics of environmental science. Routledge, London, UK Füssel, H.M. and Klein, R.J.T. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75:3, 301–329 Friman, M. 2010. Understanding boundary work through discourse theory: inter/disciplines and interdisciplinarity. Science Studies, 23:2, 5-19 Friman, M. 2013. Historical and responsibility: assessing the past in international climate negotiation. Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences, Thesis No. 569, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden Gagnon-Lebrun, F. and Agrawala, S. 2007. Implementing adaptation in developed countries: an analysis of progress and trends. Climate Policy, 7:5, 392–408 Gallopin, G. 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16, 293–303 Gieryn, T.F. 1983. Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from nonscience-strains and interests in professional ideologies of science. American Sociological Review, 48, 781-795 Granberg, M. and Erlander, I. 2007. Local governance and climate change: reflections on the Swedish experience. Local Environment, 12:5, 537–548 Groven, K., Aall, C., van den Berg M., Carlsson-‐Kanyama, Annika. and Coenen, F. 2012. Integrating climate change adaptation into civil protection: comparative lessons from Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Local Environment, 17:6-7, 679-694 Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klostermann, J., Meijerink, S., van den Brink, M., Jong, P., Nooteboom, S. and Bergsma, E. 2010. The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the
81
adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 459471 Hallegatte, S. 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change, Global Environmental Change, 19, 240-247 Hanssen, G.S. Mydske, P.K. and Dahle, E. 2012. Multi-level coordination of climate change adaptation: by national hierarchical steering or by regional network governance? Local Environment, iFirst publication, DOI:10.1080/13549839. 2012.738657 Hertin, J. and Berkhout, F. 2003. Analyzing institutional strategies for environmental policy integration: the case of EU enterprise policy. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 5:1, 39-56 Hinkel, J. 2011. “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: towards a clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change, 21, 198-208 Hjerpe, M. and Wilk, J. 2010. Baltic climate vulnerability assessment framework: introduction and guidelines. Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research Briefing No. 5, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden Howlett, M., Ramesh, M. and Perl, A. 2009. Studying public policy: policy cycles and policy subsystems. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK Hunt, A. and Watkiss, P. 2011. Climate change impact and adaptation in cities: a review of the literature. Climatic change, 104, 13-49 Inderberg, T.H. 2011. Institutional constraints to adaptive capacity: adaptability to climate change in the Norwegian electricity sector. Local Environment, 16, 303–317 Inderberg, T.H. 2012. Governance for climate-change adaptive capacity in the Swedish electricity sector: do changes in structure and culture matter? Public Management Review, 14:7, 967-985 Jacob, K. and Volkery, A. 2004. Institutions and instruments for government self-regulation: environmental policy integration in a cross-country perspective. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6:3, 291-309
82
Jann, W. and Wegrich, K. Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fisher, F., Miller, G.J. and Sidney, M.S. (eds.) 2007. Handbook of public policy: theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA Jasanoff, S. and Wynne, B. Science and decision making. In: Rayner, S. and Malone, E.I. (eds). 1998. Human Choice and climate change, Battelle Press, Ohio, USA Johansson, B. and Mobjörk, M. 2009. Climate adaptation in Sweden: organisation and experiences. Swedish Defence Research Agency, Report No. FOI-R-2725-SE, Stockholm, Sweden Johansson, M., Hjerpe, M., Simonsson, L. and Storbjörk, S. 2009. Hur möter östgötakommunerna klimatfrågan? [How do municipalities in Östergötland meet the issue of climate change]. The Centre for Municipality Studies, Report No. 2009:4, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden Juhola, S., Peltonen, L. and Niemi, P. 2012a. The ability of Nordic countries to adapt to climate change: assessing adaptive capacity at the regional level. Local Environment, 17:6-7, 717-734 Juhola, S., Keskitalo, E.C.H. and Westerhoff, L. 2012b. Understanding the framings of climate change adaptation across multiple scales of governance in Europe. Environmental Politics, 20, 445–463 Jonsson, A. 2005. Public participation in water resources management: stakeholder voices on degree, scale, potential, and methods in future water management. AMBIO, 7, 495–500 Jonsson, A., Glaas, E., André, K. and Simonsson, L. 2011. Verktygslåda för klimat- anpassningsprocesser. Från sårbarhetsbedömning till sårbarhetshantering. [Tool box for climate change adaptation processes: from vulnerability assessment to vulnerability management]. Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research Report No. 2011:1, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden Jordan, A. and Lenschow, A. 2010. Environmental policy integration: a state of the art review. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 147-158 Kaptein, M. and van Tulder, R. 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and Society Review, 108:2, 203-224
83
Keller, A.C. 2009. Credibility and relevance in environmental policy: measuring strains and performances among science assessment organisations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20:2, 357-386 Keskitalo, E.C.H. 2009. Governance in vulnerability assessment: the role of globalizing decision-making networks in determining local vulnerability and adaptive capacity. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 14, 185-201 Keskitalo, E.C.H. (ed). 2010. Developing adaptation policy and practice in Europe: Multi-level governance of climate change. Springer, Dordrecht Keskitalo, E.C.H., Dannevig, H., Hovelsrud, G.K., West, J.J. and GergerSwartling, Å. 2011. Adaptive capacity determinants in developed states: examples from the Nordic Countries and Russia. Regional Environmental Change, 11, 579-592 Keskitalo, E.C.H., Juhola, S. and Westerhoff, L. 2012. Climate change as governmentality: technologies of government for adaptation in three European countries. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 55:4, 435-452 Klein, J.T. 1996. Crossing boundaries: knowledge, disciplinarities and interdisciplinarities. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville, USA Klein, R.J.T. More than technology. In: I. Linkov and T.S. Bridges (eds). 2011. Climate: Global change and local adaptation. NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands Klein, R.J.T., Schipper, E.L.F. and Dessai, S. 2005. Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science and Policy, 8, 579-588 Klein, R.J.T. and Juhola, S. 2013. A framework for Nordic Actor-Oriented Climate Adaptation Research. Nordic Centre of Excellence for Adaptation Research Working Paper 2013-1, Online publication: (www.nordstar.info/workingpapers/wp-2013-01.pdf)
84
Knaggård, Å. 2009. Vetenskaplig osäkerhet i policyprocessen: En studie av svensk klimatpolitik (Scientific uncertainty in the policy process: A study of Swedish climate policy). Lund Political Studies, Thesis No. 156, Lund University, Lund Knoepfel, P., Larrue, C., Varone, F. and Hill, M. 2007. Public policy analysis. The Policy Press, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Kok, M.T.J. and de Coninck, H.C. 2007. Widening the scope of policies to address climate change: directions for mainstreaming. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 587-599 Lafferty, W.M. and Hovden, E. 2003. Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical framework. Environmental Politics, 12:3, 1-22 Larsen, R.K., Gerger-Swartling, Å., Powell, N., May, B., Plummer, R., Simonsson, L. and Osbeck, M. 2012. A framework for facilitating dialogue between policy planners and local climate change adaptation professionals: cases from Sweden, Canada and Indonesia. Environmental Science and Policy, 23, 12-23 Larsen, K. and Gunnarsson-Östling, U., 2009, Climate change scenarios and citizen-participation: Mitigation and adaptation perspectives in constructing sustainable futures. Habitat International, 33, 260-266 Leichenko, R. and O’Brien, K. 2002. The dynamics of rural vulnerability to global change: the case of southern Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 7, 1–18 Lemos, M.C. and Morehouse, B.J. 2005. The co-production of science and policy in integrated climate assessments. Global Environmental Change, 15, 57-68 Liberatore, A. The integration of sustainable development objectives into EU policy-making. In: Baker, S., Kousis, M., Richardson, D. and Young, S. (eds). 1997. The politics of sustainable development: theory, policy and practice within the European Union. Routledge, London, UK Lidskog, R., Uggla, Y. and Soneryd, L. 2011. Making transboundary risk governable: reducing complexity, constructing spatial identity, and ascribing capabilities. AMBIO, 40, 111-120
85
Lidskog, R., Soneryd, L. and Uggla, Y. 2010. Transboundary risk governance. Earthscan. Sterling, USA Linnér, B-O. and Jacob, M. 2005. From Stockholm to Kyoto and beyond: a review of the globalization of global warming policy and north–south relations. Globalizations, 2:3, 403–415 Lund, H.D., Sehested, K., Hellesen, T. and Nellemann, V. 2012. Climate change adaptation in Denmark: enhancement through collaboration and meta governance? Local Environment, 17:6-7, 613-628 Lövbrand, E. 2007. Pure science or policy involvement? Ambiguous boundarywork for Swedish carbon cycle science. Environmental Science and Policy, 10, 39-47 Lövbrand, E., Pielke Jr, R. and Beck, S. 2011. A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science Technology Human Values, 36, 474-496 Measham, T.G., Preston, B.L., Smith, T.F., Brooke, C., Gorddard, R., Withycombe, G. and Morrison, C. 2011. Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: barriers and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16:8, 889-909 Mickwitz, P., Aix, F., Beck, S., Carss, D., Ferrand, N., Görg, C., Jensen, A., Kivimaa, P., Kuhlicke, C., Kuindersma, W., Máñez, M., Melanen, M., Monni, S., Branth Pedersen, A., Reinert, H. and van Bommel, S. 2009. Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and Governance. PEER Report No 2, Partnership for European Environmental Research, Helsinki, Finland Miller, J. and Glassner, B. The “inside” and the “outside”: finding realities in interviews. In: Silverman, D. (ed). 2004. Qualitative research: theory, method and practice. Sage Publications, London, UK Ministry of the Environment. 2005. Sweden’s fourth communication on climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry Publications Series No. DS 2005:55, Stockholm, Sweden
86
Ministry of the Environment. 2009. Sweden’s Fifth Communication on Climate Change Under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry Publications Series No. DS 2009:63, Stockholm, Sweden Mishler, E.G. 1988. Research interviewing: context and narrative. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, USA Moser, M.C. and Luers, A.K. 2008. Managing climate risks in California: the need to engage resource managers for successful adaptation to change. Climatic Change, 87, 309-322 Mossberg Sonnek, K., Lindberg, A., and Lindgren, J. 2007. Anpassning till klimatförändringar i risk och sårbarhetsanalyser på kommunal nivå [Adaptation to climate change in risk and vulnerability analysis on a municipal level, a basis for further work]. Swedish Defence Research Agency Report No. FOI-R-2412-SE, Stockholm, Sweden Næss, L.O., Bang, G., Eriksen, S. and Vevante, J. 2005. Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Global Environmental Change, 15:2, 125–138 Niiniluoto, I. 1999. Defending Abduction. Philosophy of Science, 66, 436-451 Nilsson. M. 2005. Learning frames, and environmental policy integration: the case of Swedish energy policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 23, 207-226 Nilsson, M. and Nilsson, L.J. 2005. Towards climate policy integration in the EU: evolving dilemmas and opportunities. Climate Policy, 5, 363-376 Nilsson, M., Pallemaerts, M. and von Homeyer, I. 2009. International regimes and environmental policy integration: introducing the special issue. International Environmental Agreements, 9, 337-350 Nilsson, M. and Persson, Å. 2003. Framework for analysing environmental policy integration. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning. 5:4, 333359 North, C.D., 1990. Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
87
O’Brien, K., Eriksen, S., Sygna, L. and Næss, L.O. 2006. Questioning complacency: climate change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. AMBIO, 35:2, 50–56 O’Brien, K., Sygna, L. and Haugen J.E. 2004a. Vulnerable or resilient? A multiscale assessment of climate impacts and vulnerability in Norway, Climatic Change, 64, 193-225 O'Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venerna, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L. and West, J. 2004b, Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environmental Change, 14, 303–313 O’Riordan, T. and Jordan, A. 1999. Institutions, climate change and cultural theory: towards a common analytical framework. Global Environmental Change, 9:2, 81–93 Ostrom, E., Burger, J., Field, C.B., Norgaard, R.B. and Policansky, D. 1999. Revising the commons: local lessons, global challenges. Science, 284, 278282 Owens, S., Petts, J. and Burkley, H. 2006. Boundary work: knowledge, policy, and the urban environment. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 24, 633-643 Perry, M., Lowe, J. and Hanson, C. 2009. Overshoot, adapt and recover, Nature, 458:30, 1102-1103 Perry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J. and Hanson, C.E. 2007, IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK Persson, Å. Different perspectives on EPI. In: Nilsson, M. and Eckerberg, K. 2007. Environmental policy integration in practice: shaping institutions for learning. Earthscan, London, UK
88
Peters, B.G. and Pierré, J. 2006. Handbook of public policy. Sage Publications, London, UK. Pielke jr, R.A. 1998. Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Global Environmental Change, 8:2, 159-170 Pielke jr, R.A., Prins, G., Rayner, S. and Sarewitz, D. 2007. Lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature, 445, 597-598 Posey, J. 2009. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the municipal level: Evidence from floodplain management programs in the United States. Global Environmental Change, 19, 482-493 Prior, L. Doing things with documents. In: Silverman, D. (ed) 2004. Qualitative Research: theory, method and practice. Sage Publications, London, UK Rodima-Taylor, D., Olwig, M.F. and Chhetri, N. 2012. Adaptation as innovation, innovation as adaptation: an institutional approach to climate change. Applied Geography, 33, 107-111 Ross, A. and Dovers, S. 2008. Making the harder yards: environmental policy integration in Australia. The Australian Journal of Public Administration, 67:3, 245-260 Rudberg, P.M., Wallgren, O. and Gerger-Swartling, Å. 2012. Beyond generic adaptive capacity: exploring the adaptation space of the water supply and wastewater sector of the Stockholm region, Sweden. Climatic Change, 114, 707-721 Rydell, B., Nilsson, C., Alfredsson, C. and Lind, E. 2010. Klimatanpassning i Sverige: en översikt [Climate adaptation in Sweden: an overview]. Swedish National Platform for Disaster Risk Reduction, Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, Karlstad, Sweden Rød, J.K., Berthling, I., Lein, H., Lujala P., Vatne, G. and Bye, L.M. 2012. Integrated vulnerability mapping for wards in Mid-Norway. Local Environment, 17:6-7, 695-716 SALAR. 2009. Klimatarbetet i kommuner, landsting och regioner – andra reviderade upplagan [The climate work in municipalities, county councils
89
and regions]. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, Edita, Stockholm, Sweden SALAR. 2011. Kommunernas arbete med klimatanpassning [Municipalities’ work with climate adaptation]. Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions, Online publication: (http://www.skl.se/vi_arbetar_med/tillvaxt_och_samhallsbyggnad/plan/klim atanpassning/sa-arbetar-kommunerna) SCCA. 2012. Strategier och Styrande Dokument för Klimatanpassning och Katastrofreducering [Strategies and steering documents for climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction]. Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency, Publication No. MSB422, Karlstad, Sweden Schipper, E.L.F. 2006. Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. RECIEL, 15:1, 82-92 Schneider, S.H., S. Semenov, A. Patwardhan, I. Burton, C.H.D. Magadza, M. Oppenheimer, A.B. Pittock, A. Rahman, J.B. Smith, A. Suarez and F. Yamin, 2007: Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 779-810 Simonsson, L., Gerger-Swartling, Å., André, K., Wallgren, O. and Klein, R.J.T. Perception of risk and limits for climate change adaptation: case studies of two Swedish urban regions. In: J. Ford and L. Berrang-Ford, (eds). 2011. Climate change adaptation in developed nations. Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 321–334. Smith, M.E. 2004. Institutionalization, policy adaptation and European foreign policy cooperation. European Journal of International Relations, 10, 95–136 Smit, B. and Wandel, J. 2006, Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16:3, 282–292
90
Soares, M.B., Gagnon, A.S. and Doherty, R.M. 2012. Conceptual elements of climate change vulnerability assessments: a review. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 4:1, 6-35 SOU. 2007. Sweden facing climate change: threats and opportunities. Swedish Government Official Reports 2007:60, Edita, Stockholm, Sweden Star, S.L. and Griesemer, J.R. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Bounmdary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420 Stirling, A. 2008. “Opening up” and “closing down”: power, participation, and pluralism in the social appraisal of technology. Science, technology and human values, 33:2, 262–294. Stokke, O.S. 2001. The Interplay of International Regimes: Putting Effectiveness Theory to Work. The Fridtjof Nansen Institute Report 14/2001, Lysaker, Norway Storbjörk, S. 2007. Governing climate adaptation in the local arena: challenges of risk management and planning in Sweden. Local Environment, 12 :5, 457– 469 Storbjörk, S. 2010. It takes more to get a ship to change course: barriers for organizational learning and local climate adaptation in Sweden. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 12, 235–254 Storbjörk, S. and Hedrén, J. 2011. Institutional capacity-building for targeting sea-level rise in the climate adaptation of Swedish coastal zone management: lessons from Coastby. Ocean and Coastal Management. 2010, 54:3, 265–273 Sullivan, C. and Meigh, J., 2004. Targeting attention on local vulnerabilities using integrated index approach: the example of the climate vulnerability index, Paper for the international conference on climate change: challenge or threat for water management, 27–29 September, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. Växthuseffekten: orsak, effekter och möjliga åtgärder [The greenhouse effect: causes, effects, and measures]. Naturvårdsverkets förlag, Solna, Sweden
91
Söderberg, C. 2008. ”Much ado about nothing? - energy forest cultivation in Sweden: how intersectoral policy coordination affects outcomes from EPI in multisectoral issues. Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning, 10:4, 381-403 Söderberg, C. 2011. Institutional conditions for multi-sector environmental policy integration in Swedish bioenergy policy. Environmental Politics, 20:4, 528-546 Teulier, R. and Hubert, B. 2004. The notion of “intermediary concept” contributes to a better understanding of the generative dance between knowledge and knowing. In: Proceedings of the 20th EGOS Conference, Ljubljana Slovenia, 30 June – 3 July 2004 Thurk, J. and Fine, G.A. 2003. The problem of tools: technology and the sharing of knowledge. Acta Sociologica, 46:2, 107-117 Toderi, M., Powell, N., Seddaiu, G., Roggero, P. P. and Gibbon, D. 2007. Combining social learning with agro-ecological research practice for more effective management of nitrate pollution. Environmental science and policy, 10, 551-563 Torgerson, D. 1986. Between knowledge and politics: three faces of policy analysis. Policy Sciences, 19, 33-59 Tribbia, J. and Moser, S. 2008. More than information: what coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science and Policy, 11, 315-328 World Bank. 2012. Turn down the heat: why a 4°C warmer world must be avoided. A Report for the World Bank by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics, Washington DC, USA Uggla, Y. 2010. Risk, uncertainty, and spatial distinction: a study of urban planning in Stockholm. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 6:15, 48-59 UN. 1992. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Nations Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework
92
Convention on Climate Change, A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1, New York, USA Underdal, A. 1980. Integrated marine policy: what? why? how? Marine Policy, 4:3, 159-169 Underdal, A. Determining the causal significance of institutions: accomplishments and challenges. In: Young, O.R., King, L.A. and Schroeder, H. (eds). 2008. Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications and research frontiers. MIT Press, Cambridge, UK Upton, C. 2012. Adaptive capacity and institutional evolution in contemporary pastoral societies. Applied Geography, 33, 135-141 Urwin, K. and Jordan, A. 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance, Global Environmental Change, 18, 180-191 van Assche, K. and Djanibekov, N. 2012. Spatial planning as policy integration: The need for an evolutionary perspective: Lessons from Uzbekistan. Land Use Planning, 29:1, 179–186 van de Kerkhof, M. 2006. Making a difference: on the constraints of consensus building and the relevance of deliberation in stakeholder dialogues. Policy Sciences, 39, 279-299 van den Berg, M. and Coenen, F. 2012. Integrating climate change adaptation into Dutch local policies and the role of contextual factors. Local Environment, 17:4, 441-460. Vincent, K. 2007. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Global Environmental Change, 17:1, 12–24 Vogel, C., Moser, S.C., Kasperson, R.E. and Dabelko, G.D. 2007, Linking vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience science to practice: pathways, players, and partnerships, Global Environmental Change, 17, 349-364 von Oelreich, J., Svenfelt, Å., Wikman-Svahn, P. and Carlsson-Kanyama, A. 2012. Framtida havsnivåhöjning i kommunal planering [Future sea level rise in municial planning]. Swedish Defence Research Agency Report No. FOI-R-3500-SE, Stockholm, Sweden
93
Welp, M., de la Vega-Leinert, A., Stoll-Kleemann, S. and Jaeger, C.C. 2006. Science-based stakeholder dialogues: Theories and tools. Global Environmental Change, 16:2, 170–181 Wengraf, T. 2001. Qualitative research interviewing: biographic narrative and semi-structured methods. Sage Publications, London, UK Westerhoff, L., Keskitalo, E.C.H. and Juhola, S. 2011. Capacities across scales: local to national adaptation policy in four European countries. Climate Policy, 11, 1071-1085 Yanow, D. Qualitative-interpretive methods in policy research. In: Fisher, F., Miller, G.J. and Sidney, M.S. (eds.) 2007. Handbook of public policy: theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, USA Yin, R.K. 2009, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA Yohe, G. and Tol, R.S.J., 2002. Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 12:1, 25–40 Young, R. O. 2002. The institutional dimension of environmental change: fit interplay and scale. MIT Press. Massachusetts, USA Young, R. O. 2006. Vertical interplay among scale-dependent environmental and resource regimes. Ecology and Society. 11:1. Online publication
