2010
DOI: 10.1080/1523908x.2010.505414
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

‘It Takes More to Get a Ship to Change Course’: Barriers for Organizational Learning and Local Climate Adaptation in Sweden

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
70
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 80 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
3
70
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example management practises often take the form of reactive and sector-based responses, diminishing the prospects to evolve more comprehensive climate adaptation strategies (Naess et al 2005;Glaas et al 2010;O'Brien and Hochachka 2010) or to better integrate climate adaptation into other policy areas (Huq and Reid 2004;Ahmad 2009;Biesbrook et al 2010;Storbjörk 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example management practises often take the form of reactive and sector-based responses, diminishing the prospects to evolve more comprehensive climate adaptation strategies (Naess et al 2005;Glaas et al 2010;O'Brien and Hochachka 2010) or to better integrate climate adaptation into other policy areas (Huq and Reid 2004;Ahmad 2009;Biesbrook et al 2010;Storbjörk 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In creating long term strategies, municipalities can learn much from local and regional strategic 28 planning for economic growth. Both growth and vulnerability are insufficient to approach as a one-time issue due to their dynamic and rapid characteristics (Glaas et al 2010;Storbjörk 2010). Contrary to vulnerability, growth is rarely dealt as a one-time issue.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Mickwitz et al (2009, p. 60) claim that the capacities of spatial planning are shrinking due to "the rigidity of administrative and political borders, the stability of departmentalism and the strength of sectional interests and preferences for small-scale solutions". Such fragmentation in the form of "silo mentalities" and cross-sectoral mismatches in integrating critical concerns has been problematized in both planning studies (Blanco & Alberti, 2009;Healey, 2007;Isaksson & Storbjörk, 2012;Nilsson, 2007;Vigar, 2009) and adaptation studies (Glaas et al, 2010;Lidskog & Uggla, 2009;Mickwitz et al, 2009;Naess et al, 2005;Romero-Lankao, 2012;Storbjörk, 2010;Wilby & Keenan, 2012;Wilson, 2006). Fragmentation is also evident in the interplay between planning instruments, such as municipal comprehensive and local development plans (Hilding-Rydevik & Åkerskog, 2011;Measham et al, 2011;Vigar, 2009).…”
Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first step was to assess current adaptation approaches using a meta-evaluation of existing single and cross-case studies published between 2008 and 2013 [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. These studies were identified through searching databases of scientific articles using the following search string: adaptation AND (Sweden OR Swedish) AND (urban OR city OR cities OR municipa*).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%