Institutional adaptation to climate change: Flood responses at the municipal level in Norway

The practice of settling and enacting strategic guidelines for climate adaptation in spatial planning: lessons from ten Swedish municipalities

“…/…/ We want to be able to stand next to the water and say "we want to build here" rather than withdrawing to the mountains" (Interview 7. Similar 1,(6)(7)(8)(10)(11)(12) Here our interviews confirm conclusions from previous studies that dealing with flood risks can end up being at odds with local planning strategies aimed at developing attractive waterfront areas (Naess et al 2005;Bulkeley 2006;Storbjörk 2007;Uggla 2009;RomeroLankao 2012;Wilby and Keenan 2012). Nine out of ten municipalities state that an important goal is to increase rather than restrict waterfront settlements.…”

“…In this respect planning can either increase the local capacity to deal with climate risks or "lock future generations into development pathways that increase vulnerability" (Rayner 2012, 41;Pielke et al 2007). Studies of initial climate adaptation in Europe, North America and Australia document that municipalities tended to adopt wait-and-see approaches with reactive or eventdriven adaptations relying upon technical measures and mostly focusing on climate variability and current weather extremes rather than climate change (Naess et al 2005;Storbjörk 2007;Uggla 2009;Glaas et al 2010;Burch 2010;Amundsen et al 2010;Preston et al 2011;Runhaar et al 2012;Dannevig et al 2012;Nilsson et al 2012). Further, studies in the Global North and South suggest that practical climate proofing include problematic positions in mediating conflicting values, interests and positions resulting in limited, fragmented and piecemeal integration where local authorities call for guidelines and recommendations for how to act (Wilson 2006;Blanco and Alberti 2009;Vasey Ellis 2009;Glaas et al 2010;Amundsen et al 2010;Dovers and Hezri 2010;Storbjörk and Hedrén 2011;Anguelovsky and Carmin 2011;Measham et al 2011;Romero-Lankao 2012;Hurlimann and March 2012).…”

When not every response to climate change is a good one: Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation

“…Not only could the interests of vulnerable groups be heard; by including vulnerable groups in the sciencepolicy interface understanding of the implications of climate change in the local context was enhanced, generating local interest and policy action (Vogel et al, 2007). The case also exemplifies the importance of having local champions within government structures that can spearhead such engagement, an observation previously made in other contexts such as Norway, Sweden and the USA (Naess et al, 2005;Lowe et al, 2009;Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2009;Storbjørk et al, 2009). Such a dependence on individuals within government structures can nevertheless be a barrier to the social inclusion of vulnerable groups, since how (and if) processes are designed and which interests are heard are related to the particular knowledge, connections and orientation of an individual rather than institutionalized and democratic adaptation policy processes.…”

“…Strategies or policies that make sense from one perspective, or for one group, may at the same time reduce the livelihood viability or resource access of other groups. Likewise, an eagerness to reduce climate risk through specific technologies or infrastructural changes may sometimes lead to the neglect of other environmental concerns, such as biodiversity (Naess et al, 2005;Eriksen and Lind, 2009). Hence, adaptation can have unintended negative effects both on people and on the environment.…”

Climate-smart agriculture: perspectives and framings

“…Notes 1. Institutions in this research are defined as the systems in place that give rise to rules, decision-making procedures, social and cultural practices, and the interactions among the formal and informal organizations of the relevant roles (Naess, Bang, Eriksen, & Vevatne, 2005). 2.…”