Frame Divergence in Climate Change Adaptation Policy: Insights from Australian Local Government Planning

Abstract

Complex policy issues such as climate change adaptation can be interpreted in many different ways, resulting in different assumptions about their purpose and goals. Using material from a qualitative study in the Australian local government sector, this research shows that stakeholders involved in local adaptation policy formulation often do not have a shared view about the meaning and purposes of adaptation, although such shared understanding is commonly assumed in adaptation processes. Drawing on the frame-research literature and current conceptualisations of climate change adaptation, we argue that subconscious frame divergence can present a major challenge for effective organisational-level adaptation. Conversely, making frames and framing processes explicit is a first step towards clarifying adaptation goals and generating shared ownership of adaptation processes. While frames have been shown to be intrinsically subjective, we discuss three dominant frames that emerged from the study: avoiding disasters, community resilience, and averting organisational risk. We evaluate these in light of their theoretical origin and recent application towards climate change adaptation. Our research suggest that the 'averting organisational risks' frame is by far the most commonly activated frame. Individuals working in the community services sector frequently referred to the 'community resilience' frame, while the 'avoiding disasters frame' was used in public and policy discourse to circumvent the arguments of those sceptical about the existence and causes of climate change. We suggest that, by incorporating frame reflexivity into existing adaptation planning processes, a more diverse range of policy options can be explored, delivering more effective adaptation policies.

Local authorities and the engagement of private actors in climate change adaptation

“…It is further understood that the existing context, ideologies and underlying rationales for adaptation influence the choice of policy instruments 3 and the modes of public-private interaction (Felli and Castree, 2012;Fünfgeld and McEvoy, 2014;Juhola, 2013;Klein, 2016;Klein et al, 2016;Mees et al, 2015;O'Hare et al, 2016;Rickards et al, 2014;Romero-Lankao et al, 2013;Taylor and Harman, 2016;Tennekes et al, 2013). The emergence of governance has influenced the way in which power and responsibilities are allocated between the public and private actors including individuals and companies (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011;Hooghe and Marks, 2003;Jordan et al, 2005).…”

Opening and Closing the Future: Climate Change, Adaptation, and Scenario Planning

“…Oels (2013, page 17) argues that internationally adaptation efforts to date are a mix of a "traditional risk management" approach based on climate science projections (ie, based on certainties) and "risk management through contingency" (ie, based on uncertainties). As illustrated by the project discussed by Fünfgeld and McEvoy (2014), variants on these two broad types exist.…”

“…As illustrated by Fünfgeld and McEvoy (2014), framing clashes are an increasingly well-recognised problem for climate change adaptation efforts, with the issue becoming an academic subfield in its own right, in keeping with widespread interest in how climate change is framed. While the focus of the latter literature is how to (best) communicate climate change, the notion of framing more generally refers to the often-implicit choices that are made about issues in terms of, for example, what and who is relevant; how risks, causes, and effects are distributed; and where problems and solutions are seen to lie, leading to 'interpretive packages' that present an issue a certain way and privilege some responses over others (Gasper et al, 2013).…”

“…While some existing approaches may be deeply valuable, as illustrated by sustainable development, others may be actively unhelpful. Along with Fünfgeld and McEvoy (2014), the growing number of governmentality critiques of adaptation (eg, Grove, 2014) suggest that not only is climate change adaptation being conceived and implemented through the adaptation of ideas from other contexts-namely, vulnerability, resilience, and risk management-but that also through the promotion of these ideas under the adaptation label these ideas are subsequently being combined with certain stances to the future and governance in order to serve different purposes including, in most cases, the perpetuation of economic growth and neoliberalism, of the sort widely agreed to underline climate change itself.…”

A diagnostic framework for biodiversity conservation institutions

“…The final aspect should include consideration of the actors with a role in solving the problem. Frames organize an actor's understanding and perception of reality (Goffman 1974), setting the agenda and translating facts, values, and interests into policy (Fünfgeld and McEvoy 2014).…”