Climate change adaptation at different levels of government: Characteristics and conditions of policy change

Abstract

Climate change adaptation strategies that aim to minimize harm and maximize benefits related to climate change impacts have mushroomed at all levels of government in recent years. While many studies have explored barriers that stand in the way of their implementation, the factors determining their potential to mainstream adaptation into various sectors are less clear. In the present paper, we aim to address this gap for two international, six national, and six local adaptation strategies. Based on document analyses and 35 semi‐structured interviews, the 14 case studies also explore in how far the factors facilitating climate change adaptation are similar across levels of government or level‐specific. Although located at three different levels of government, we find that the 14 adaptation strategies analyzed here represent “one‐size‐fits‐all governance arrangements” that are characterized by voluntariness and a lack institutionalization. Since adaptation strategies are relatively weak coordination hubs that are unable to force adaptation onto sectoral policy agendas, they rely mainly on sectoral self‐interest in adapting to climate change, largely determined by problem pressure. We conclude that one‐size‐fits‐all governance arrangements are rarely adequate responses to complex challenges, such as climate change. Although climate change adaptation depends more on framework conditions such as problem pressure than on administrative or governance features, the findings presented here can help to understand under what circumstances adaptation is likely to make progress.

Sea Level Rise and Implications for Low-Lying Islands, Coasts and Communities

“…Cross-scale and cross-domain coordination: SLR creates new coordination problems across jurisdictional levels and domains, because impacts cut across scales, sectors and policy domains and responding often exceeds the capacities of local governments and communities (medium confidence; Araos et al, 2017;Termeer et al, 2017;Pinto et al, 2018;Clar, 2019;Clar and Steurer, 2019;Sections 4.3.2 and 4.4.2). Local responses are generally nested within a hierarchy of local, regional, national and international governance arrangements and cut across sectors (Cuevas, 2018;Chhetri et al, 2019;Clar, 2019).…”

Untapped capacity for resilience in environmental law

“…Through this integrated approach, the European Union seeks to identify and use untapped adaptive and transformative capacities to better address environmental challenges. The strategy is focused on providing opportunities and facilitating decision-making at the local and regional level (45), in line with the elevated consideration that the European Union gives to the issue of subsidiarity and the respective roles of public and private actors.…”

Awareness levels of the dynamics of the climate change risk impacts

“…The causes may be either natural or human-triggered. Natural systems include forest fires, earthquakes, oceans, permafrost, wetlands, mud volcanoes and volcanoes (Clar & Steurer, 2019;Yue & Gao, 2018). Human activities are predominantly related to energy production, industrial activities and those related to forestry, land use and land-use change (Edenhofer et al, 2014;Hamilton, Fischer, Guikema & Keppel-Aleks, 2018).…”