Browse
Abstract
Sustainable development is a challenging field of research, colored by the paradoxes of modernity and development, and the trade-offs involved in balancing the “sustainable” and “development” sides of the various sustainable development goals. We must take these overarching challenges into account when entering a more specific discussion of what a concept of sustainable climate change adaptation may entail. This article reviews the history of this concept, including insights provided by the recent publications composing a special collection of Weather, Climate, and Society on the topic of sustainable climate change adaptation. This collection reflects on why and how the term sustainable development should be included in our understandings of and efforts toward climate change adaptation and proposes a preliminary framework for distinguishing between conventional and sustainable adaptation.
Significance Statement
This article reviews the history of the term “sustainable climate change adaptation” and reflects on the relationship between sustainable development and climate change adaptation efforts. It ends by proposing a framework for distinguishing between conventional and sustainable adaptation.
Abstract
Sustainable development is a challenging field of research, colored by the paradoxes of modernity and development, and the trade-offs involved in balancing the “sustainable” and “development” sides of the various sustainable development goals. We must take these overarching challenges into account when entering a more specific discussion of what a concept of sustainable climate change adaptation may entail. This article reviews the history of this concept, including insights provided by the recent publications composing a special collection of Weather, Climate, and Society on the topic of sustainable climate change adaptation. This collection reflects on why and how the term sustainable development should be included in our understandings of and efforts toward climate change adaptation and proposes a preliminary framework for distinguishing between conventional and sustainable adaptation.
Significance Statement
This article reviews the history of the term “sustainable climate change adaptation” and reflects on the relationship between sustainable development and climate change adaptation efforts. It ends by proposing a framework for distinguishing between conventional and sustainable adaptation.
Abstract
Recent research has highlighted that adaptation tends to focus exclusively on the local and direct impacts of climate change and misses the crucial dimension of transboundary climate risk, which all countries are likely to face, irrespective of their level of development. This paper aims to improve the coverage of transboundary climate risk in case-study research for adaptation. It proposes a protocol to help researchers identify how their case studies can incorporate an analysis of transboundary climate risk, thereby supporting more holistic, effective, and just approaches to adaptation. Existing climate risk assessment frameworks and supporting guidelines have significant strengths but also various challenges when applied to the novel context of transboundary climate risk. This is illustrated with reference to the impact chain framework. Its opportunities pertain to both its flexible form and systems-first focus while its constraints include an analytic emphasis on linear cause–effect relationships (that bely the complexity and uncertainty of systemic risk) and its limited applicability to fragmented governance landscapes (in the absence of an effective consideration of risk ownership). After critically examining the suitability of the impact chain framework, a new protocol is introduced, which builds on principles for managing complex risk and frameworks for assessing risk ownership. The protocol is designed to enable case-study researchers to better identify, assess, and appraise transboundary climate risks, as well as enquire into appropriate risk owners and adaptation options across scales. The paper argues for more innovation in adaptation research to better reflect the complexity and interdependency that characterize today’s world.
Significance Statement
This work aims to demonstrate why the transboundary nature of climate risk requires a distinct analytical approach and proposes a seven-step guide that aims to facilitate the exploration of transboundary climate risk through case-study-based research for adaptation. Domestic climate risks continue to dominate the field of climate change research, translating into a significant blind spot in adaptation planning and action. Without the provision of practical guidance—to equip researchers with approaches and tools specifically designed to analyze the transboundary and systemic nature of climate risk—adaptation action will fail to offer sufficient protection against the full range of risks climate change presents. This article begins to address this void and ultimately—through greater recognition and understanding of transboundary climate risk—promote approaches to adaptation that are reflective of the interdependency of our world today and our shared and common future.
Abstract
Recent research has highlighted that adaptation tends to focus exclusively on the local and direct impacts of climate change and misses the crucial dimension of transboundary climate risk, which all countries are likely to face, irrespective of their level of development. This paper aims to improve the coverage of transboundary climate risk in case-study research for adaptation. It proposes a protocol to help researchers identify how their case studies can incorporate an analysis of transboundary climate risk, thereby supporting more holistic, effective, and just approaches to adaptation. Existing climate risk assessment frameworks and supporting guidelines have significant strengths but also various challenges when applied to the novel context of transboundary climate risk. This is illustrated with reference to the impact chain framework. Its opportunities pertain to both its flexible form and systems-first focus while its constraints include an analytic emphasis on linear cause–effect relationships (that bely the complexity and uncertainty of systemic risk) and its limited applicability to fragmented governance landscapes (in the absence of an effective consideration of risk ownership). After critically examining the suitability of the impact chain framework, a new protocol is introduced, which builds on principles for managing complex risk and frameworks for assessing risk ownership. The protocol is designed to enable case-study researchers to better identify, assess, and appraise transboundary climate risks, as well as enquire into appropriate risk owners and adaptation options across scales. The paper argues for more innovation in adaptation research to better reflect the complexity and interdependency that characterize today’s world.
Significance Statement
This work aims to demonstrate why the transboundary nature of climate risk requires a distinct analytical approach and proposes a seven-step guide that aims to facilitate the exploration of transboundary climate risk through case-study-based research for adaptation. Domestic climate risks continue to dominate the field of climate change research, translating into a significant blind spot in adaptation planning and action. Without the provision of practical guidance—to equip researchers with approaches and tools specifically designed to analyze the transboundary and systemic nature of climate risk—adaptation action will fail to offer sufficient protection against the full range of risks climate change presents. This article begins to address this void and ultimately—through greater recognition and understanding of transboundary climate risk—promote approaches to adaptation that are reflective of the interdependency of our world today and our shared and common future.
Abstract
Shifting from effect-oriented toward cause-oriented and systemic approaches in sustainable climate change adaptation requires a solid understanding of the climate-related and societal causes behind climate risks. Thus, capturing, systemizing, and prioritizing factors contributing to climate risks are essential for developing cause-oriented climate risk and vulnerability assessments (CRVA). Impact chains (IC) are conceptual models used to capture hazard, vulnerability, and exposure factors that lead to a specific risk. IC modeling includes a participatory stakeholder phase and an operational quantification phase. Although ICs are widely implemented to systematically capture risk processes, they still show methodological gaps concerning, for example, the integration of dynamic feedback or balanced stakeholder involvement. Such gaps usually only become apparent in practical applications, and there is currently no systematic perspective on common challenges and methodological needs. Therefore, we reviewed 47 articles applying IC and similar CRVA methods that consider the cause–effect dynamics governing risk. We provide an overview of common challenges and opportunities as a roadmap for future improvements. We conclude that IC should move from a linear-like to an impact web–like representation of risk to integrate cause–effect dynamics. Qualitative approaches are based on significant stakeholder involvement to capture expert-, place-, and context-specific knowledge. The integration of IC into quantifiable, executable models is still highly underexplored because of a limited understanding of systems, data, evaluation options, and other uncertainties. Ultimately, using IC to capture the underlying complex processes behind risk supports effective, long-term, and sustainable climate change adaptation.
Abstract
Shifting from effect-oriented toward cause-oriented and systemic approaches in sustainable climate change adaptation requires a solid understanding of the climate-related and societal causes behind climate risks. Thus, capturing, systemizing, and prioritizing factors contributing to climate risks are essential for developing cause-oriented climate risk and vulnerability assessments (CRVA). Impact chains (IC) are conceptual models used to capture hazard, vulnerability, and exposure factors that lead to a specific risk. IC modeling includes a participatory stakeholder phase and an operational quantification phase. Although ICs are widely implemented to systematically capture risk processes, they still show methodological gaps concerning, for example, the integration of dynamic feedback or balanced stakeholder involvement. Such gaps usually only become apparent in practical applications, and there is currently no systematic perspective on common challenges and methodological needs. Therefore, we reviewed 47 articles applying IC and similar CRVA methods that consider the cause–effect dynamics governing risk. We provide an overview of common challenges and opportunities as a roadmap for future improvements. We conclude that IC should move from a linear-like to an impact web–like representation of risk to integrate cause–effect dynamics. Qualitative approaches are based on significant stakeholder involvement to capture expert-, place-, and context-specific knowledge. The integration of IC into quantifiable, executable models is still highly underexplored because of a limited understanding of systems, data, evaluation options, and other uncertainties. Ultimately, using IC to capture the underlying complex processes behind risk supports effective, long-term, and sustainable climate change adaptation.
Abstract
It is increasingly evident that climate sustainability depends not only on societal actions and responses, but also on ecosystem functioning and responses. The capacity of global ecosystems to provide services such as sequestering carbon and regulating hydrology is being strongly reduced both by climate change itself and by unprecedented rates of ecosystem degradation. These services rely on functional aspects of ecosystems that are causally linked—the same ecosystem components that efficiently sequester and store carbon also regulate hydrology by sequestering and storing water. This means that climate change adaptation and mitigation must involve not only preparing for a future with temperature and precipitation anomalies, but also actively minimizing climate hazards and risks by conserving and managing ecosystems and their fundamental supporting and regulating ecosystem services. We summarize general climate–nature feedback processes relating to carbon and water cycling on a broad global scale before focusing on Norway to exemplify the crucial role of ecosystem regulatory services for both carbon sequestration and hydrological processes and the common neglect of this ecosystem–climate link in policy and landscape management. We argue that a key instrument for both climate change mitigation and adaptation policy is to take advantage of the climate buffering and regulative abilities of a well-functioning natural ecosystem. This will enable shared benefits to nature, climate, and human well-being. To meet the global climate and nature crises, we must capitalize on the importance of nature for buffering climate change effects, combat short-term perspectives and the discounting of future costs, and maintain or even strengthen whole-ecosystem functioning at the landscape level.
Significance Statement
Natural ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and heaths are key for the cycling and storage of water and carbon. Preserving these systems is essential for climate mitigation and adaptation and will also secure biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Systematic failure to recognize the links between nature and human well-being underlies the current trend of accelerating loss of nature and thereby nature’s ability to buffer climate changes and their impacts. Society needs a new perspective on spatial planning that values nature as a sink and store of carbon and a regulator of hydrological processes, as well as for its biodiversity. We need policies that fully encompass the role of nature in preventing climate-induced disasters, along with many other benefits for human well-being.
Abstract
It is increasingly evident that climate sustainability depends not only on societal actions and responses, but also on ecosystem functioning and responses. The capacity of global ecosystems to provide services such as sequestering carbon and regulating hydrology is being strongly reduced both by climate change itself and by unprecedented rates of ecosystem degradation. These services rely on functional aspects of ecosystems that are causally linked—the same ecosystem components that efficiently sequester and store carbon also regulate hydrology by sequestering and storing water. This means that climate change adaptation and mitigation must involve not only preparing for a future with temperature and precipitation anomalies, but also actively minimizing climate hazards and risks by conserving and managing ecosystems and their fundamental supporting and regulating ecosystem services. We summarize general climate–nature feedback processes relating to carbon and water cycling on a broad global scale before focusing on Norway to exemplify the crucial role of ecosystem regulatory services for both carbon sequestration and hydrological processes and the common neglect of this ecosystem–climate link in policy and landscape management. We argue that a key instrument for both climate change mitigation and adaptation policy is to take advantage of the climate buffering and regulative abilities of a well-functioning natural ecosystem. This will enable shared benefits to nature, climate, and human well-being. To meet the global climate and nature crises, we must capitalize on the importance of nature for buffering climate change effects, combat short-term perspectives and the discounting of future costs, and maintain or even strengthen whole-ecosystem functioning at the landscape level.
Significance Statement
Natural ecosystems such as forests, wetlands, and heaths are key for the cycling and storage of water and carbon. Preserving these systems is essential for climate mitigation and adaptation and will also secure biodiversity and associated ecosystem services. Systematic failure to recognize the links between nature and human well-being underlies the current trend of accelerating loss of nature and thereby nature’s ability to buffer climate changes and their impacts. Society needs a new perspective on spatial planning that values nature as a sink and store of carbon and a regulator of hydrological processes, as well as for its biodiversity. We need policies that fully encompass the role of nature in preventing climate-induced disasters, along with many other benefits for human well-being.
Abstract
To reach the 1.5°–2° goal of the Paris Agreement, the speed of transition to a renewable energy society must increase significantly. Applying Perrow’s theory of societal risk, we argue that switching from a fossil-based energy system to a future 100% renewable energy system may increase climate risks. Reviewing policy and research literature, and interviewing key energy policy actors in Norway, we find that there is limited knowledge on this topic and that the knowledge that does exist suffers from several shortcomings. Climate risks are generally discussed by applying future climate to the current energy system and thus failing to consider climate vulnerabilities caused by the ongoing energy transition. Also, discussions are frequently limited to subsystem reflections as opposed to system reflections and mostly present supply-side perspectives as opposed to demand-side perspectives. Most of the policy actors conclude that a future 100% renewable energy system will mainly benefit from climate change and reduce rather than increase climate risks. A research agenda is proposed to gain a better understanding of how the ongoing energy transitions can affect climate risks, especially to address the potential that reducing the level of energy consumption, diversifying energy sources, and prioritizing short-traveled energy can have to reduce climate risk in high-consuming countries.
Significance Statement
Switching from a fossil-based to a mostly “climate driven” renewable energy system may increase climate risks, and rapid transitions may increase risks even more. Still, knowledge of such risks is limited and suffers from several shortcomings. Studies are generally applying future climate to current energy system conditions and thus failing to consider vulnerabilities caused by the ongoing transformation of the energy system. Studies so far are also often limited to analyzing only parts of the system and not the energy system as a whole, and they are aiming at the production side rather than the consumption side. Thus, they tend to conclude that the energy system will mainly benefit from climate change. To reduce climate risks, we claim the need to focus on energy consumption and short-traveled energy.
Abstract
To reach the 1.5°–2° goal of the Paris Agreement, the speed of transition to a renewable energy society must increase significantly. Applying Perrow’s theory of societal risk, we argue that switching from a fossil-based energy system to a future 100% renewable energy system may increase climate risks. Reviewing policy and research literature, and interviewing key energy policy actors in Norway, we find that there is limited knowledge on this topic and that the knowledge that does exist suffers from several shortcomings. Climate risks are generally discussed by applying future climate to the current energy system and thus failing to consider climate vulnerabilities caused by the ongoing energy transition. Also, discussions are frequently limited to subsystem reflections as opposed to system reflections and mostly present supply-side perspectives as opposed to demand-side perspectives. Most of the policy actors conclude that a future 100% renewable energy system will mainly benefit from climate change and reduce rather than increase climate risks. A research agenda is proposed to gain a better understanding of how the ongoing energy transitions can affect climate risks, especially to address the potential that reducing the level of energy consumption, diversifying energy sources, and prioritizing short-traveled energy can have to reduce climate risk in high-consuming countries.
Significance Statement
Switching from a fossil-based to a mostly “climate driven” renewable energy system may increase climate risks, and rapid transitions may increase risks even more. Still, knowledge of such risks is limited and suffers from several shortcomings. Studies are generally applying future climate to current energy system conditions and thus failing to consider vulnerabilities caused by the ongoing transformation of the energy system. Studies so far are also often limited to analyzing only parts of the system and not the energy system as a whole, and they are aiming at the production side rather than the consumption side. Thus, they tend to conclude that the energy system will mainly benefit from climate change. To reduce climate risks, we claim the need to focus on energy consumption and short-traveled energy.
Abstract
Rapid and interacting change poses an increasing threat to livelihoods and food production, and pastoralists in Nordland, northern Norway, are at a crossroads both economically and culturally. Some of these changes are localized and pertain to changing weather and grazing conditions caused by climate change and land fragmentation. Others, driven by national management policies and governance specifically related to predators, are poorly adjusted for the different and localized contexts. The pastoralists are inherently adaptive and have a long history of responding well to variable changing conditions. This is now changing with the continued increasing pressures from many directions. The central government systematically ignores pastoralists’ traditional knowledge and enforces narrow sector policies to be implemented at regional and local levels. We address the effect of how institutional, physical, and societal constraints challenge pastoralists’ prospects for sustainable adaptation. Our results show how pastoralists’ livelihoods become compromised and potentially threatened because they are forced to respond in ways that they know are counterproductive in the long run. Adaptation outcomes are affected by different approaches and epistemologies that are situated across scale and context in terms of regional and national regulations versus local empirical reality among the pastoral communities. This study concludes that radical change is needed toward a more holistic governance in which multiple knowledge systems are integrated to ensure sustainable adaptation at all levels. This study is based on extensive and long-term fieldwork among reindeer herders and sheep farmers in Nordland, through a collaborative process of knowledge coproduction.
Abstract
Rapid and interacting change poses an increasing threat to livelihoods and food production, and pastoralists in Nordland, northern Norway, are at a crossroads both economically and culturally. Some of these changes are localized and pertain to changing weather and grazing conditions caused by climate change and land fragmentation. Others, driven by national management policies and governance specifically related to predators, are poorly adjusted for the different and localized contexts. The pastoralists are inherently adaptive and have a long history of responding well to variable changing conditions. This is now changing with the continued increasing pressures from many directions. The central government systematically ignores pastoralists’ traditional knowledge and enforces narrow sector policies to be implemented at regional and local levels. We address the effect of how institutional, physical, and societal constraints challenge pastoralists’ prospects for sustainable adaptation. Our results show how pastoralists’ livelihoods become compromised and potentially threatened because they are forced to respond in ways that they know are counterproductive in the long run. Adaptation outcomes are affected by different approaches and epistemologies that are situated across scale and context in terms of regional and national regulations versus local empirical reality among the pastoral communities. This study concludes that radical change is needed toward a more holistic governance in which multiple knowledge systems are integrated to ensure sustainable adaptation at all levels. This study is based on extensive and long-term fieldwork among reindeer herders and sheep farmers in Nordland, through a collaborative process of knowledge coproduction.
Abstract
In 2018, tourism was the fastest growing sector in the world, accounting for 10% of all jobs worldwide and 10.4% of the world’s gross domestic product. Tourism is often cited as a strategy for future development at national, regional, and local levels. This paper takes a closer look at the Lofoten Islands in northern Norway, where the increase in nature-based tourism over the last two decades has occurred in parallel with the restructuring of the traditional fisheries. Nature-based tourism in rural regions relies heavily on a broad range of ecosystem services (ES). This paper will present how stakeholders in nature-based tourism assess the influence of climate change on ES crucial for their activities and for the destination and will outline and explain how the practitioners perceive their ability to withstand or adapt to these changes. With the aid of models depicting potential future climate scenarios, we initiated discussions with stakeholders and found that tourism actors have only to a minor degree sought to develop strategies to increase adaptive capacity and therefore resilience to climate change. Based on our findings, we discuss how the adaptive capacity of individual actors in nature-based tourism forms the basis for the system’s resilience, and that a general resilience focus also forms the basis for transformational capacity, a capacity needed for future resilience. In light of our findings and analyses, we will conclude by reflecting on overarching systemic transformative tendencies in the wake of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and obligations contained in the Paris Agreement on reducing global emissions.
Abstract
In 2018, tourism was the fastest growing sector in the world, accounting for 10% of all jobs worldwide and 10.4% of the world’s gross domestic product. Tourism is often cited as a strategy for future development at national, regional, and local levels. This paper takes a closer look at the Lofoten Islands in northern Norway, where the increase in nature-based tourism over the last two decades has occurred in parallel with the restructuring of the traditional fisheries. Nature-based tourism in rural regions relies heavily on a broad range of ecosystem services (ES). This paper will present how stakeholders in nature-based tourism assess the influence of climate change on ES crucial for their activities and for the destination and will outline and explain how the practitioners perceive their ability to withstand or adapt to these changes. With the aid of models depicting potential future climate scenarios, we initiated discussions with stakeholders and found that tourism actors have only to a minor degree sought to develop strategies to increase adaptive capacity and therefore resilience to climate change. Based on our findings, we discuss how the adaptive capacity of individual actors in nature-based tourism forms the basis for the system’s resilience, and that a general resilience focus also forms the basis for transformational capacity, a capacity needed for future resilience. In light of our findings and analyses, we will conclude by reflecting on overarching systemic transformative tendencies in the wake of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and obligations contained in the Paris Agreement on reducing global emissions.
Abstract
Through the years, several papers have criticized climate policy decision-making for being naïve with respect to how it views climate model outputs as objective facts and uses the outputs directly to program policies. From this and similar observations, many of the papers conclude that there is a need for shifting to a new approach on how climate policy makers may relate to climate change uncertainties. The article proposes such a shift by presenting a road map on how to address uncertainties in climate change adaptation. It consists of three major elements: first, to accept that in many cases we will not be able to reduce climate change uncertainties; second, to diversify the way in which we describe climate change uncertainties, moving from a one-dimensional technical perspective to a multidimensional perspective that applies uncertainties also to social and political processes and systems; and third, to change the way we address climate change uncertainties by moving from a predict-then-act to a reflect-then-act approach, implying that we must adapt to climate change even under high and varied forms of uncertainties. Embedded in this last point is to accept that, unlike for climate change mitigation, the precautionary principle will apply in many situations of climate change adaptation. In the last part of the article the usability of the proposed road map is demonstrated post ante on four Norwegian cases of climate-related natural hazard events.
Significance Statement
The article sums up the international policy and scientific climate change uncertainty discourses and presents a road map on how to improve the way uncertainties are addressed in local efforts of adapting to climate change. The underlying logic of the proposed road map is to expand from the so far prevailing logic of adapting only when uncertainties are low with an additional logic that is applicable in situations with high uncertainties. The road map consists of seven questions to be addressed and seven alternative adaptation options to follow. A selection of recent practical cases on local climate change adaptation efforts in Norway is then presented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed road map.
Abstract
Through the years, several papers have criticized climate policy decision-making for being naïve with respect to how it views climate model outputs as objective facts and uses the outputs directly to program policies. From this and similar observations, many of the papers conclude that there is a need for shifting to a new approach on how climate policy makers may relate to climate change uncertainties. The article proposes such a shift by presenting a road map on how to address uncertainties in climate change adaptation. It consists of three major elements: first, to accept that in many cases we will not be able to reduce climate change uncertainties; second, to diversify the way in which we describe climate change uncertainties, moving from a one-dimensional technical perspective to a multidimensional perspective that applies uncertainties also to social and political processes and systems; and third, to change the way we address climate change uncertainties by moving from a predict-then-act to a reflect-then-act approach, implying that we must adapt to climate change even under high and varied forms of uncertainties. Embedded in this last point is to accept that, unlike for climate change mitigation, the precautionary principle will apply in many situations of climate change adaptation. In the last part of the article the usability of the proposed road map is demonstrated post ante on four Norwegian cases of climate-related natural hazard events.
Significance Statement
The article sums up the international policy and scientific climate change uncertainty discourses and presents a road map on how to improve the way uncertainties are addressed in local efforts of adapting to climate change. The underlying logic of the proposed road map is to expand from the so far prevailing logic of adapting only when uncertainties are low with an additional logic that is applicable in situations with high uncertainties. The road map consists of seven questions to be addressed and seven alternative adaptation options to follow. A selection of recent practical cases on local climate change adaptation efforts in Norway is then presented to demonstrate the applicability of the proposed road map.
Abstract
The Russian Arctic is a highly urbanized region, with most towns built in the Soviet era to facilitate extraction industries as well as to provide and maintain military facilities. Global environmental and developmental changes, as well as national political decisions, open up Russia’s Arctic to massive investment and industrial and socioeconomic development. How do Russian Arctic cities, towns, and municipalities reflect on new opportunities in terms of designing their climate change adaptation strategies at a local level? Starting with theoretical discourse on urban climate change adaptation strategy, this research examines state-of-the-art challenges and trends in planning for adaptation measures in Russia’s Arctic industrial centers. Special attention is given to a comparative analysis of the cities’ climate change adaptation strategies. The role of civil society institutions and business community in the adaptation strategy planning process is explored. Moreover, conflict-sensitive approaches to ensure participatory processes for designing and implementing adaptation measures are discussed. The field component of research is based on the cities of Apatity, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Norilsk, Salekhard, and Severodvinsk and the towns of Monchegorsk, Nickel, and Vorkuta. The study concludes that, despite significant challenges identified, the total “balance sheet” of the Arctic cities’ efforts to enhance their adaptive capacities is very positive: Russian northern urban settlements do their best in addressing existing challenges via planning for sustainability approach. However, there is more to do, and municipalities should learn from one another’s experiences, as the different approaches can be helpful in developing adequate climate change adaptation strategies at the local level.
Abstract
The Russian Arctic is a highly urbanized region, with most towns built in the Soviet era to facilitate extraction industries as well as to provide and maintain military facilities. Global environmental and developmental changes, as well as national political decisions, open up Russia’s Arctic to massive investment and industrial and socioeconomic development. How do Russian Arctic cities, towns, and municipalities reflect on new opportunities in terms of designing their climate change adaptation strategies at a local level? Starting with theoretical discourse on urban climate change adaptation strategy, this research examines state-of-the-art challenges and trends in planning for adaptation measures in Russia’s Arctic industrial centers. Special attention is given to a comparative analysis of the cities’ climate change adaptation strategies. The role of civil society institutions and business community in the adaptation strategy planning process is explored. Moreover, conflict-sensitive approaches to ensure participatory processes for designing and implementing adaptation measures are discussed. The field component of research is based on the cities of Apatity, Arkhangelsk, Murmansk, Norilsk, Salekhard, and Severodvinsk and the towns of Monchegorsk, Nickel, and Vorkuta. The study concludes that, despite significant challenges identified, the total “balance sheet” of the Arctic cities’ efforts to enhance their adaptive capacities is very positive: Russian northern urban settlements do their best in addressing existing challenges via planning for sustainability approach. However, there is more to do, and municipalities should learn from one another’s experiences, as the different approaches can be helpful in developing adequate climate change adaptation strategies at the local level.
Abstract
In recent decades there has been a surge in the scholarship on climate change adaptation (CCA) terminology, and diverging interpretations of the term have emerged. Given the crucial role of local governments in building societywide adaptive capacity, understanding how municipalities understand and interpret CCA is important. In this study, we analyze 12 large-scale questionnaires from 2007 to 2020 distributed to all Norwegian municipalities. Using a combination of directed and conventional content analysis of the questions and answers, we summarize and map the progress of adaptation work over the 14 years and assess the consistency and the scope of the surveys in light of the current research on climate adaptation. We find diverging views on what adaptation entails, both from the researchers, in the phrasing of questions, and from the respondents. The empirical evidence suggests an overall imbalanced interpretation of CCA, in terms of the risks and consequences we may face, the climate to which adapting is needed, and adequate adaptation strategies. We go on to discuss the implications of these findings, highlighting the need for a shared and well-communicated framework for local CCA and a closer monitoring of the actual efforts of the municipalities. If instead left unchecked, this confusion might lead to unsustainable maladaptation at the local government level throughout Norway and beyond.
Abstract
In recent decades there has been a surge in the scholarship on climate change adaptation (CCA) terminology, and diverging interpretations of the term have emerged. Given the crucial role of local governments in building societywide adaptive capacity, understanding how municipalities understand and interpret CCA is important. In this study, we analyze 12 large-scale questionnaires from 2007 to 2020 distributed to all Norwegian municipalities. Using a combination of directed and conventional content analysis of the questions and answers, we summarize and map the progress of adaptation work over the 14 years and assess the consistency and the scope of the surveys in light of the current research on climate adaptation. We find diverging views on what adaptation entails, both from the researchers, in the phrasing of questions, and from the respondents. The empirical evidence suggests an overall imbalanced interpretation of CCA, in terms of the risks and consequences we may face, the climate to which adapting is needed, and adequate adaptation strategies. We go on to discuss the implications of these findings, highlighting the need for a shared and well-communicated framework for local CCA and a closer monitoring of the actual efforts of the municipalities. If instead left unchecked, this confusion might lead to unsustainable maladaptation at the local government level throughout Norway and beyond.
