Legitimacy building in weak institutional settings:climate change adaptation at local level in Denmark and Norway

Abstract

Local strategies for adaptation to climate change in Denmark and Norway are discussed. In both countries, the national impetus for local adaptation is weak; it is largely left to local actors to take the initiative. The dynamics of the different approaches to climate-change adaptation at the local level are illuminated. Using decision-making and learning theory, we present an analytical framework to examine four cases, two in Norway and two in Denmark, which represent two different responses, i.e. anticipatory actions and obligatory actions. We find that, by bringing in knowledge and resources and engaging in persuasive communication across sectors, the presence of institutional entrepreneurs in the adaptation process plays a key role in building legitimacy for anticipatory action in the municipal organisation.

Is environmental impact assessment fulfilling its potential? The case of climate change in renewable energy projects

“…Furthermore, in the last decade, Denmark has seen an increasing focus on climate change specifically, driven, e.g. by the UN 15th Conference of Parties (COP15) which was held in Copenhagen in 2009 (Wejs et al 2013). In Denmark, the responsibility for an EIA rests with the authorities, either municipal or state (as mentioned in Section 2), and the high focus on climate change could be influenced by the responsibilities that the authorities have for living up to international and national agreements and goals on reduction of CO 2 emissions.…”

Stimuli for climate adaptation in cities: insights from Philadelphia – an early adapter

“…Wejs et al 2014), also referred to as policy entrepreneurs (Bassett and Shandas 2010;Bulkeley 2010;Kingdon 2002;Meijerink & Huitema 2010) or local champions (Carmin et al 2012). These entrepreneurs take up the role of mobilizing other actors and building legitimacy for climate adaptation (Wejs et al 2014) and can be positioned both inside and outside the municipal organization (Kingdon 2002). Institutional entrepreneurship is demonstrated by individuals as well as by collectives.…”

The regional level as boundary organization? An analysis of climate change adaptation governance in Norway

“…However, the approaches to adaptation vary considerably between municipalities (Rauken et al, 2014), often adaptation garners limited attention from the public (Hjerpe et al, 2014) and it is perceived to compete with other, more pressing planning concerns (Dannevig et al, 2012;Nilsson et al, 2012). Research has also shown that huge discrepancies exist between the extent municipalities in the Nordic countries are able to adapt (Amundsen et al, 2010;Dannevig et al, 2012;Glaas et al, 2010;Wejs et al, 2013), which also points toe weak coordination from the national government (Dannevig et al, 2013;Wejs et al, 2013).…”