Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:00:16.199Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

27 - Limits to adaptation: analysing institutional constraints

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 August 2009

W. Neil Adger
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Irene Lorenzoni
Affiliation:
University of East Anglia
Karen L. O'Brien
Affiliation:
Universitetet i Oslo
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The academic literature has been biased towards depicting adaptation to climate change as a rational decision-making process, with constraints being mainly available resources and technologies. An ideal rational adaptation process would start by evaluating the problem of climate change (assessing exposure), mapping possible solutions (possible adaptive measures), and, through a cost–benefit approach, the best and most feasible adaptation measure(s) would be decided and simply implemented. Should organisational structure not favour the implementation of measures directed at the goals set, it would be accordingly altered.

Recent studies have focused on institutional barriers and limits to adaptation, however (for example Adger et al., 2007). We share their concern that neglecting institutional constraints may conceal true human limits to adaptation and also narrowly frame the scope of measures that could be taken in order to increase adaptive capacity. Society consists of formal and informal social structures (regulatory factors, values, norms and cognitive limits) influencing choice and behaviour. These factors have still not received the deserved attention in the adaptation literature. After all, resources and technology are of little use if such institutional factors hinder implementation of proper adaptive measures.

In this chapter, we develop an institutional approach and seek to apply it to analyse constraints to adaptive capacity in the national energy system, chosen due to its vital role as a hub linking together other societal systems and functions. Human life, welfare and security in modern societies are highly dependent on stable supply of energy.

Type
Chapter
Information
Adapting to Climate Change
Thresholds, Values, Governance
, pp. 433 - 447
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, W. N., Agrawala, S., Mirza, M. M. Q., Conde, C., O'Brien, K., Pulhin, J., Pulwarty, R., Smit, B. and Takahashi, K. 2007. ‘Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity’, in Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., Linden, V. J. and Hanson, C. E. (eds.) Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 717–743.Google Scholar
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. A. 1978. Organisational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. 1991. ‘Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation’, Organization Science 2: 40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N. 2003. The Organisation of Hypocrisy: Talk, Decisions and Action in Organisations. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Carlsson, B. and Jacobsson, S. 1997. ‘Diversity creation and technological systems: a technology policy perspective’, in Edquist, C. (ed.) Systems of Innovation, Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. London: Pinter, pp. 266–294.Google Scholar
Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R. 1991. ‘On the nature, function, and composition of technological systems’, Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1: 93–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christensen, T. and Peters, B. G. 1999. Structure, Culture, and Governance: a Comparison of Norway and the United States. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
,Commission of the European Communities. 2003. Undergrounding of Electricity Lines in Europe. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
Cyert, R. M. and March, J. G. 1992. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DiMaggio, P. J. and Powell, W. W. 1983. ‘The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review 48: 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Førland, E. J., Amundsen, H. and Hovelsrud, G. K. (eds.). 2007. Utviklingen av naturulykker som følge av klimaendringer: Utredning på oppdrag fra Statens Landbruksforvaltning, CICERO Report No. 2007:03. Oslo: CICERO.
Fridheim, H., Hagen, J. and Henriksen, S. 2001. En sårbar kraftforsyning – Sluttrapport etter BAS3. FFI/Rapport-2001/02381. Kjeller: Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt.Google Scholar
Hatch, M. J. and Cunliffe, A. L. 2006. Organization Theory: Modern, Symbolic, and Postmodern Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hendron, A. J. and Patten, F. D. 1985. The Vaiont Slide. US Corps of Engineers Technical Report No. GL-85–8. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
,IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of the Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Krasner, S. D. 1988. ‘Sovereignty: an institutional perspective’, Comparative Political Studies 21: 66–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitt, B. and March, J. G. 1988. ‘Organizational learning’, Annual Review of Sociology 14: 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundvall, B.-Å. 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
March, J. G. 1991. ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’, Organization Science 2: 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1979. Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. 1999. ‘Institutional perspectives on political institutions’, in March, J. G. (ed.) The Pursuit of Organizational Intelligence. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 52–72.Google Scholar
Midttun, A. 1987. Segmentering, institusjonelt etterslep og industriell omstilling: Norsk kraftutbyggings politiske økonomi gjennom 1970- og 1980-årene (Segmentation, institutional inertia and industrial transformation: the political economy of Norwegian electrical power development in the 1970s and 80s). Uppsala: Philosophical Department, University of Uppsala.Google Scholar
Nilsen, Y. and Thue, L. 2006. Statens kraft 1965–2006: Miljø og marked, vol. 3. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
Nilsson, M. 2005. Connecting Reason to Power: Assessments, Learning, and Environmental Policy Integration in Swedish Policy. Stockholm: Stockholm Environment Institute.Google Scholar
,NVE. 2006. Endringer i det globale klimaet og norsk vannkraft. Norges Vassdrags- og Energidirektorat (NVE). Available at www.nve.no/modules/module_111/news_item_view.asp?iNewsId=28671&iCategoryId=1523 (accessed 27 March 2008)
Næss, L. O., Bang, G., Eriksen, S. and Vevatne, J. 2005. ‘Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway’, Global Environmental Change 15: 125–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rutledal, F., Hagen, J., Nystuen, K. O. and Østby, E. 2000. Kraftmarkedets føringer for sårbarheten i norsk kraftforsyning, FFI/Rapport-2000/03451/Kjeller: Forsvarets Forskningsinstitutt.Google Scholar
Sabatier, P. A. 1988. ‘An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy oriented learning therein’, Policy Sciences 21: 129–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selznick, P. 1983. Leadership in Administration: A Sociological Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Statnett, . 2005. Kraftsystemutredning for sentralnettet 2005–2020, revidert. Oslo: Statnett SF.Google Scholar
Thelen, K. 1999. ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’, Annual Review of Political Science 2: 369–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yohe, G. and Tol, R. S. J. 2002. ‘Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving towards a working definition of adaptive capacity’, Global Environmental Change 12: 25–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, A. 1991. ‘Learning by doing and the dynamic effects of international trade’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 369–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zucker, L. G. 1987. ‘Institutional theories of organization’, Annual Review of Sociology 13: 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×