Mainstreaming climate adaptation: taking stock about “what works” from empirical research worldwide

Abstract

Adaptation to a changing climate is unavoidable. Mainstreaming climate adaptation objectives into existing policies, as opposed to developing dedicated adaptation policy, is widely advocated for public action. However, knowledge on what makes mainstreaming effective is scarce and fragmented. Against this background, this paper takes stock of peer-reviewed empirical analyses of climate adaptation mainstreaming, in order to assess current achievements and identify the critical factors that render mainstreaming effective. The results show that although in most cases adaptation policy outputs are identified, only in a minority of cases this translates into policy outcomes. This Bimplementation gap^is most strongly seen in developing countries. However, when it comes to the effectiveness of outcomes, we found no difference across countries. We conclude that more explicit definitions and unified frameworks for adaptation mainstreaming research are required to allow for future research syntheses and well-informed policy recommendations.

Global adaptation governance: An emerging but contested domain

“…This question echoes a long‐standing governance question at national and sub‐national levels: whether adaptation is best pursued through a “mainstreaming” approach or a dedicated, stand‐alone approach (Runhaar, Wilk, Persson, Uittenbroek, & Wamsler, ). The rationale for a mainstreaming approach is quite evident given the highly multi‐sectoral nature of adaptation.…”

“…Increased general adaptability of international institutions is essentially what Biermann calls for in his vision of global adaptation governance (see also Dupuis, 2018). This question echoes a long-standing governance question at national and sub-national levels: whether adaptation is best pursued through a "mainstreaming" approach or a dedicated, stand-alone approach (Runhaar, Wilk, Persson, Uittenbroek, & Wamsler, 2017). The rationale for a mainstreaming approach is quite evident given the highly multi-sectoral nature of adaptation.…”

Responsibility for climate change adaptation

“…These legally binding processes are similar to the less‐rigid national adaptation strategies that steer different sectors of public administration. Thus far, a number of studies have assessed national‐level adaptation—either the extent to which it has become mainstream or simply in terms of progress in general (e.g., Biesbroek et al, ; Lesnikowski et al, ; Runhaar, Wilk, Persson, Uittenbroek, & Wamsler, ). Nevertheless, while all these studies focus on the sectors within which adaptation policies are being implemented, none comprehensively present findings on who is responsible for the development and implementation of these measures.…”

Do Administrative Traditions Matter for Climate Change Adaptation Policy? A Comparative Analysis of 32 High‐Income Countries

“…Adaptation is not a policy goal that can be achieved, but rather a continuous process of change that all levels, sectors, and actor groups need to consider in their policy process. Many authors have argued that groundwork and concrete adaptation actions should be “integrated” or “mainstreamed” into existing policies and practices to be effective (Dovers & Hezri, ; Runhaar, Wilk, Persson, Uittenbroek, & Wamsler, ). How this implementation is organized, however, differs across states; some countries have opted for a strong institutionalization of adaptation from which mainstreaming is coordinated or the development of key principles to guide how adaptation will be addressed nationally (Massey & Huitema, ).…”