Path Dependencies and Path Change in Complex Fields of Action: Climate Adaptation Policies in Germany in the Realm of Flood Risk Management

Abstract

The spatial and temporal repercussions of climate change are of an extremely complex nature. Coping with climate change is, first and foremost, a challenge to political decision making and, considering the long-term effects of the climate system, to planning. However, there have never been more doubts that the political-administrative system is able to meet these requirements. Although much evidence has been put forward in favor of such skepticism, sometimes, it is dangerous to overstate the existing limits. Drawing on two case studies in the area of flood risk management in Germany, the article illustrates how and why significant path change came about. In both cases, the state proved to still being a pivotal actor, due to a number of functions that cannot be assumed by other actors. However, other actor groups-such as actors from science, the media, NGOs, and citizen groups-play a significant role as well by providing relevant expertise and influencing the public discourse, thus mobilizing significant political pressure.

The practice of settling and enacting strategic guidelines for climate adaptation in spatial planning: lessons from ten Swedish municipalities

“…We cannot move the whole city" This strongly suggests path-dependencies involved in urban development, where climate change is not really allowed to fundamentally challenge ongoing urban development patterns. That tendencies of path-dependency have limited climate adaptation practice has been identified in other studies on climate adaptation (Garrelts and Lange 2011) but the results here suggest that this takes place also in light of strategic guidelines. Since existing urban areas still needs to be secured by various protective measures, future protective measures will step in and provide the needed adaptive measures suggesting that waterfront spatial planning might just as well continue.…”

“…This point to the importance of learning about the positions and perspectives of frontline practitioners in implementation (Clifford 2012;Healey 2009;Newman 2008;Barrett 2004;Schofield 2004). That responding to climate change is dependent on key actors initiating, mainstreaming and sustaining momentum has been highlighted in the adaptation literature (Bulkeley et al 2009;Burch 2010;Moser and Ekstrom 2010;Tompkins et al 2010;Garrelts and Lange 2011;Measham et al 2011;Storbjörk and Hedrén 2011;Anguelovski and Carmin 2011;Runhaar et al 2012). Consequently our analysis document the views of planners charged with practically fulfilling intentions of the Swedish PBA where climate change considerations are to be managed in planning.…”

From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: path dependency and the speed of change

“…One of the deep drivers of barriers to adaptation in Australia, and in many other countries, appears to be path dependency (Burch 2010, Garrelts and Lange 2011, Inderberg 2011, Eckstom and Moser 2014. History shapes current decisions, and the changes identified for adaptation are impeded because they work against existing governance institutions.…”

“…This latter point speaks to much of the problem of social vulnerability to climate change, which arises because important basic freedoms and opportunities such as primary education for girls or social protection in times of crisis are not provided for reasons of ignorance or prejudice (Barnett 2009). Of course, path change is always possible (Garrelts and Lange 2011), but if it does not commence for a protracted period or progresses more slowly than climate change, then path dependency may best be described as a deeper cause of limits to adaptation. Indeed, the distinction between barriers and limits to adaptation is ambiguous.…”

Recurrent Governance Challenges in the Implementation and Alignment of Flood Risk Management Strategies: a Review

“…This is challenging for in practice this means that policy entrepreneurs have to find a balance between involving too many actors (which might be good from a democracy point of view) on one hand and too few (which might be more effective in the short term) on the other hand via selective activation (Green and Penning-Rowsell 2010). Pro-actively involving the community in itself may result in different perspectives on the issues at stake (Garrelts and Lange 2011;Bruchnach and Ingram 2012). The involvement of some actors will also be crucial because of the resources they have, while the involvement of others might be motivated to get more societal support for the final proposal that has to be developed.…”