Climate adaptation heuristics and the science/policy divide

Abstract

The adaptation science enterprise has expanded rapidly in recent years, presumably in response to growth in demand for knowledge that can facilitate adaptation policy and practice. However, evidence suggests such investments in adaptation science have not necessarily translated into adaptation implementation. One potential constraint on adaptation may be the underlying heuristics that are used as the foundation for both adaptation research and practice. Here, we explore the adaptation academic literature with the objective of identifying adaptation heuristics, assessing the extent to which they have become entrenched within the adaptation discourse, and discussing potential weaknesses in their framing that could undermine adaptation efforts. This investigation is supported by a multi-method analysis that includes both a quantitative content analysis of the adaptation literature that evidences the use of adaptation heuristics and a qualitative analysis of the implications of such heuristics for enhancing or hindering the implementation of adaptation. Results demonstrate that a number of heuristic devices are commonly used in both the peer-reviewed adaptation literature as well as within grey literature designed to inform adaptation practitioners. Furthermore, the apparent lack of critical reflection upon the robustness of these heuristics for diverse contexts may contribute to potential cognitive bias with respect to the framing of adaptation by both researchers and practitioners. We discuss this phenomenon by drawing upon heuristic-analytic theory, which has explanatory utility in understanding both the origins of such heuristics as well as the measures that can be pursued toward the cogeneration of more robust approaches to adaptation problem-solving.

How to Make Local Context Matter in National Advice: Towards Adaptive Comanagement in Norwegian Climate Adaptation

“…The concept of adaptive capacity is receiving increasing attention in the adaptation literature because it problematizes the linear thinking that adaptation will happen if we only have enough knowledge (e.g., Preston et al 2015;Moser and Ekstrom 2010). It is increasingly recognized that the ability to respond or adapt to perturbations hinges on the degree to which adaptive capacity is activated, utilized, or enabled (e.g., Keskitalo et al 2011;Hovelsrud et al 2010).…”

How to Survive the Anthropocene: Adaptive Atheism and the Evolution of Homo deiparensis

“…They illustrate some of the ways in which cognitive biases like anchoring, framing, false representativeness, availability, attention to intentionality, and affective forecasting lead to systematic errors in judgment, and bad policy decisions [12]. In a similar study in Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Preston and colleagues examined the role of heuristic biases in "adaptation discourse", which all too easily lead to ways of framing the problems, and to policy proposals for solving them, that rely on affective (quick, innate) reasoning processes rather than analytic (slow, methodical) reasoning [13]. Increasingly, scholars in these fields are recognizing the extent to which cognitive biases help to explain resistance to the scientific consensus about climate change and the relative lack of success in policies aimed at promoting pro-environmental behavior.…”

Material and Social Construction: A Framework for the Adaptation of Buildings

“…There exists today a great deal of variation in the meanings and heuristics assigned to a variety of concepts which address the nature of a response to change (Moser and Ekstrom 2010;Preston et al 2013). The distinction and definitional or conceptual consistency between the terms adaptation, mitigation, resiliency and coping is a practical hurdle to framework development in a variety of applied domains.…”