Limits to adaptation: analysing institutional constraints

Inderberg, Tor Håkon Jackson; Eikeland, Per Ove

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511596667.028

Cited by 29 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A narrow interpretation of adaptation as a rational decision making process constrained largely by resources and technology, can obscure the value-laden and societal limits to adaptation and the ways in which different strategies are negotiated , Inderberg and Eikeland 2009. As has been illustrated in this paper, the duel goals of fostering resilience and decision making around well-being may pull in different directions and involve trade-offs and hard choices.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Can We Be Both Resilient and Well, and What Choices Do People Have? Incorporating Agency into the Resilience Debate from a Fisheries Perspective.

Coulthard¹

2012

E&S

191

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the midst of a global fisheries crisis, there has been great interest in the fostering of adaptation and resilience in fisheries, as a means to reduce vulnerability and improve the capacity of fishing society to adapt to change. However, enhanced resilience does not automatically result in improved well-being of people, and adaptation strategies are riddled with difficult choices, or trade-offs, that people must negotiate. This paper uses the context of fisheries to explore some apparent tensions between adapting to change on the one hand, and the pursuit of well-being on the other, and illustrates that trade-offs can operate at different levels of scale. It argues that policies that seek to support fisheries resilience need to be built on a better understanding of the wide range of consequences that adaptation has on fisher well-being, the agency people exert in negotiating their adaptation strategies, and how this feeds back into the resilience of fisheries as a social-ecological system. The paper draws from theories on agency and adaptive preferences to illustrate how agency might be better incorporated into the resilience debate

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Can We Be Both Resilient and Well, and What Choices Do People Have? Incorporating Agency into the Resilience Debate from a Fisheries Perspective.

Coulthard¹

2012

E&S

191

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The production or integration of new forms of knowledge in the field of water management is rife with challenges (Disco, 2002;Edelenbos et al, 2011;Inderberg & Eikeland, 2009;Rayner et al, 2005;Van der Brugge, Rotmans & Loorbach, 2005). The observed reluctance to change in order to accommodate new types of knowledge or allow for new forms of knowledge production is often especially related to the strong institutionalisation of the field.…”

Section: Adapting Regional Flood Risk Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transforming adaptation. Authoritative knowledge for climate change governance

Boezeman¹

2017

Bestuurskunde

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This complexity may be translated into a series of both physical and social barriers to adaptation [4]. In many cases, institutional barriers such as regulations, norms, values and cognitive structures have determined people's responses to climate change [5][6][7][8]. These barriers are, however, malleable and may be overcome [4,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Adaptation in Swedish Forestry: Exploring the Debate and Policy Process, 1990–2012

Ulmanen¹,

Swartling

Wallgren

2015

Forests

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores how climate change adaptation concerns were integrated into the Swedish forestry debate and policy process during the period of 1990-2012, and draws lessons on barriers and opportunities identified in this process. Using a framework focusing on "advocacy coalitions", we analyze how the adaptation debate in the forestry sector evolved over the period; who the main advocates for and against adaptation were; and which main arguments and processes affected the debate and policy. The results show that academics advocating climate change adaptation, aided by outside influences, such as political pressure for adaptation responses and the negative impacts of the 2005 storm Gudrun, contributed to an increased general awareness and understanding of adaptation issues amongst forestry stakeholders. Nonetheless, the strong dominance of actors arguing for increased forest production and the limited number and relatively poor organization of adaptation advocates have acted as barriers to mainstreaming adaptation concerns into forestry policy and practice. The dominant coalitions and their values have also determined the direction of debate and policy. The main conclusions for policymakers aiming to further this integration process are the importance of stimulating adaptation coalitions and the value of creating arenas for multiple stakeholder learning about adaptation. OPEN ACCESSForests 2015, 6 709

show abstract

Limits to adaptation: analysing institutional constraints

Cited by 29 publications

References 12 publications

Can We Be Both Resilient and Well, and What Choices Do People Have? Incorporating Agency into the Resilience Debate from a Fisheries Perspective.

Can We Be Both Resilient and Well, and What Choices Do People Have? Incorporating Agency into the Resilience Debate from a Fisheries Perspective.

Transforming adaptation. Authoritative knowledge for climate change governance

Climate Adaptation in Swedish Forestry: Exploring the Debate and Policy Process, 1990–2012

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About