Book contents
- Adaptiveness
- Adaptiveness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- 1 On Adaptiveness
- 2 Synthesising and Identifying Emerging Issues in Adaptiveness Research within the Earth System Governance Framework (1998–2018)
- 3 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity Assessments
- 4 Assessing the Adaptive Capacity of Collaborative Governance Institutions
- 5 The Marine Debris Nexus
- 6 Synergies and Trade-Offs between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation across Multiple Scales of Governance
- 7 Lock-Ins in Climate Adaptation Governance
- 8 Governance and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Conflict-Affected Countries of Central Africa
- 9 Policy Tools and Capacities for Adaptiveness in US Public Land Management
- 10 Adaptiveness in Earth System Governance
- Index
- References
7 - Lock-Ins in Climate Adaptation Governance
Conceptual and Empirical Approaches
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 June 2021
Book contents
- Adaptiveness
- Adaptiveness
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- 1 On Adaptiveness
- 2 Synthesising and Identifying Emerging Issues in Adaptiveness Research within the Earth System Governance Framework (1998–2018)
- 3 Climate Change Adaptive Capacity Assessments
- 4 Assessing the Adaptive Capacity of Collaborative Governance Institutions
- 5 The Marine Debris Nexus
- 6 Synergies and Trade-Offs between Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation across Multiple Scales of Governance
- 7 Lock-Ins in Climate Adaptation Governance
- 8 Governance and Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation in Conflict-Affected Countries of Central Africa
- 9 Policy Tools and Capacities for Adaptiveness in US Public Land Management
- 10 Adaptiveness in Earth System Governance
- Index
- References
Summary
Building on the growing body of literature on barriers to adaptation to climate change, this chapter focuses on ‘lock-ins’ as a particular conceptual approach to understanding path dependencies and rigidities in policy processes with a particular relevance to the field. The central research questions are, first, how can lock-ins be conceptualised, what indicators might identify them, and how can they be detected and described? Second, we seek to understand the emergence of lock-ins in climate adaptation policies by reference to central mechanisms originating from: (1) knowledge, discourses, and expertise; (2) physical infrastructures; (3) institutions and past policy tools; and (4) actors and their respective mental frames. Third, in cases where they are considered harmful, how can lock-ins be overcome or abated? It is the central thrust of this chapter to advance an in-depth and conceptually rich explanatory approach to climate adaptation governance and its obstacles. Empirical material, including evidence from pre-existing studies, will support the argumentation essentially by way of illustration.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Adaptiveness: Changing Earth System Governance , pp. 127 - 146Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Arthur, W.B. (1989). Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events. Economic Journal, 99, 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, J., Evans, L.S., Gross, C. et al. (2015). From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: path dependency and the speed of change. Ecology and Society, 20(3), 5. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-07698-200305.Google Scholar
Biesbroek, G.R., Klostermann, J.E.M., Termeer, C.J.A.M., & Kabat, P. (2013) On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 13, 1119–29.Google Scholar
Biesbroek, G.R., Termeer, C.J.A.M., Klostermann, J.E.M., & Kabat, P. (2014). Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19(7), 1011–32. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9457-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brouwer, S., Rayner, T., & Huitema, D. (2013). Mainstreaming climate policy: the case of climate adaptation and the implementation of EU water policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 31(1), 134–53. doi: http://doi.org/10.1068/c11134.Google Scholar
Burch, S. (2010). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 20, 187–97. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burton, R.J., Kuczera, C., & Schwarz, G. (2008). Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociologia Ruralis, 48(1), 16–37.Google Scholar
Buschmann, P. & Oels, A. (2019). The overlooked role of discourse in breaking carbon lock-in: the case of the German energy transition. WIREs Climate Change, 10(3), e574. doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.574.Google Scholar
Carstensen, M. & Schmidt, V.A. (2016). Power through, over and in ideas: conceptualizing ideational power in discursive institutionalism. Journal of European Public Policy, 23(3), 318–37.Google Scholar
Cecere, G., Corrocher, N., Gossart, C., & Ozman, M. (2014). Lock-in and path dependence: an evolutionary approach to eco-innovations. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 24, 1037–65.Google Scholar
Collins, K. & Ison, R. (2009). Jumping off Arnstein's ladder: social learning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(6), 358–73.Google Scholar
David, P.A. (1985). Clio and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75, 332–7.Google Scholar
David, P.A. (2001). Path dependence, its critics, and the quest for ‘historical economics’. In Garrouste, P. & Ioannides, S., eds., Evolution and Path Dependence in Economic Ideas: Past and Present. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 15–40.Google Scholar
De Boer, J., Wardekker, J.A., & van der Sluijs, J.P. (2010). Frame-based guide to situated decision-making on climate change. Global Environmental Change Volume, 20(3), 502–10.Google Scholar
Denton, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Abeysinghe, A.C. et al. (2014). Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. In Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J. et al., eds., Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1101–31.Google Scholar
Dudley, G. & Richardson, J. (2000). Why Does Policy Change? Lessons from British Transport Policy, 1945–99. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Earth System Governance (ESG) Project. (2018). Earth System Governance: Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Utrecht: Earth System Governance.Google Scholar
Eisenack, K., Moser, S., Hoffmann, E. et al. (2014). Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 4, 867–72.Google Scholar
Evans, P.B., Rueschemeyer, D., & Skocpol, T. (eds.) (1985). Bringing the State Back In. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–73.Google Scholar
Foxon, T.J. (2011). A coevolutionary framework for analysing a transition to a sustainable low carbon economy. Ecological Economics, 70, 2258–67.Google Scholar
Foucault, M. (1976). The History of Sexuality. Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Garud, R. & Karnøe, P. (2001). Path creation as a process of mindful deviation. In Garud, R. & Karnøe, P., eds., Path Dependence and Creation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1–38.Google Scholar
Geels, F.W., Kiern, F., Fuchs, G. et al. (2016). The enactment of socio-technical transition pathways: a reformulated typology and a comparative multi-level analysis of the German and UK low-carbon electricity transitions (1990–2014). Research Policy, 45(4), 896–913. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.015.Google Scholar
Haasnoot, M., Kwakkel, J.H., Walker, W.E., & Ter Maat, J. (2013). Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23(2), 485–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajer, M.A. (1995). The Politics of Environmental Discourse: Ecological Modernization and the Policy Process. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hake, J.-F., Fischer, W., Venghaus, S., & Weckenbrock, C. (2015). The German Energiewende: history and status quo. Energy, 92, 532–46. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2015.04.027.Google Scholar
Hall, P.A. & Taylor, R.C.R. (1996). Political science and the three new institutionalisms. Political Studies, 44(5), 936–57.Google Scholar
Hartmann, T. (2012). Wicked problems and clumsy solutions: planning as expectation management. Planning Theory, 11, 242–56. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095212440427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassink, R. (2010). Locked in decline? On the role of regional lock-ins in old industrial areas. In Boschma, R. & Martin, R., eds., The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 450–68.Google Scholar
Hegger, D., Lamers, M., van Zeijl-Rozema, A., & Dieperink, C. (2012). Conceptualising joint knowledge production in regional climate change adaptation projects: success conditions and levers for action. Environmental Science & Policy, 18, 52–65.Google Scholar
Hermans, L.M. (2008). Exploring the promise of actor analysis for environmental policy analysis: lessons from four cases in water resources management. Ecology and Society, 13(1), 21.Google Scholar
Hetz, K. & Bruns, A. (2014). Urban planning lock-in: implications for the realization of adaptive options towards climate change risks. Water International, 39, 884–900.Google Scholar
Hirsch, P.M. & Gillespie, J. (2001). Unpacking path dependence: differential valuations accorded history across disciplines. In Garud, R. & Karnoe, P., eds., Path Creation and Dependence, Mahwah, NJ: Psychology Press, 69–90.Google Scholar
Huitema, D., Adger, W.N., Berkhout, F. et al. (2016). The governance of adaptation: choices, reasons, and effects. Ecology and Society, 21(3), 37. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-08797-210337.Google Scholar
Huitema, D. & Meijerink, S. (2010). Realizing water transitions: the role of policy entrepreneurs in water policy change. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W. et al. (2009). Adaptive water governance: assessing adaptive management from a governance perspective. Ecology and Society, 4(1), 26.Google Scholar
Immergut, E.M. (1998). The theoretical core of the new institutionalism. Politics & Society, 26(1), 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2014). Summary for policymakers. In Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J. et al., eds., Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1–32.Google Scholar
Janis, I.L. & Mann, L. (1977). Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Jordan, A.J. & Huitema, D. (2014). Policy innovation in a changing climate: sources, patterns and effects. Global Environmental Change, 29, 387–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, A.J. & Turnpenny, J.R. (2015). The Tools of Policy Formulation: Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. & Tripsas, M., (2008). Thinking about technology: applying a cognitive lens to technical change. Research Policy, 37(5), 790–805.Google Scholar
Kline, S. & Rosenberg, N. (1986). An overview of innovation. In Landau, R. & Rosenberg, N., eds., The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 275–306.Google Scholar
Lauber, V. & Jacobsson, S. (2016). The politics and economics of constructing, contesting and restricting socio-political space for renewables: the German Renewable Energy Act. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 18, 147–63. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2015.06.005.Google Scholar
Leipprand, A., Flachsland, C., & Pahle, M. (2017). Advocates or cartographers? Scientific advisors and the narratives of German energy transition. Energy Policy, 102, 222–36. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2016.12.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45, 123–52. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-012-9151-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McEvoy, D., Fünfgeld, H., & Bosomworth, K. (2013). Resilience and climate change adaptation: the importance of framing. Planning Practice & Research, 28(3), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G. & Olsen, J.P. (1984). The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life. American Political Science Review, 78(3), 734–49.Google Scholar
Meyer, U. & Schubert, C. (2007). Integrating path dependency and path creation in a general understanding of path constitution: the role of agency and institutions in the stabilisation of technological innovations. Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, 3, 23–44.Google Scholar
Miller, P. & Rose, N. (1993). Governing economic life. In Gane, M. & Johnson, T., eds., Foucault’s New Domains. London: Routledge, 75–105.Google Scholar
Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: a word and some questions. Sociological Review, 47(S1), 74–89. doi: http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.1999.tb03483.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mol, A. (2002). The Body Multiple: Ontology in Medical Practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Moodysson, J., Trippl, M., & Zukauskaite, E. (2016). Policy learning and smart specialization: balancing policy change and continuity for new regional industrial paths. Science and Public Policy, 44(3), 382–91. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scw071.Google Scholar
Moser, S.C. & Ekstrom, J.A. (2010). A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 22026–31.Google Scholar
Nyamwanza, A.M. & Bhatasara, S. (2015). The utility of postmodern thinking in climate adaptation research. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 17(5), 1183–96. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-014-9599-5.Google Scholar
O’Brien, K.L. (2009). Do values subjectively define the limits to climate change adaptation? In Adger, N., Lorenzoni, I., & O’Brien, K.L, eds., Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 164–80.Google Scholar
O’Brien, K.L. (2011). Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667–76.Google Scholar
Owens, S., Rayner, T., & Bina, O. (2004). New agendas for appraisal: reflections on theory, practice and research. Environment and Planning A, 36, 1943–59.Google Scholar
Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., Dewulf, A. et al. (2007). Social learning and water resources management. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 5.Google Scholar
Peters, B.G. (2012). Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism, 3rd ed. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 94, 251–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raiffa, H., Richardson, J., & Metcalfe, D. (2002). Negotiation Analysis: The Science and Art of Collaborative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Rayner, T. (2004). Sustainability and transport appraisal: the case of the Access to Hastings multi-modal study. Journal of Environment Policy Planning and Assessment, 6(4), 465–91.Google Scholar
Richardson, T. (2001). The pendulum swings again: in search of new transport rationalities. Town Planning Review, 72(3), 299–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, T. & Haywood, R. (1996). Deconstructing transport planning: lessons from policy breakdown in the English Pennines. Transport Policy, 3(1–2), 43–53.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2008). Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 303–26.Google Scholar
Schreyögg, G. & Sydow, J. (2011). Organizational path dependence: a process view. Organization Studies, 32, 321–35.Google Scholar
Späth, P. (2012). Understanding the social dynamics of energy regions: the importance of discourse analysis. Sustainability, 4(12), 1256–73. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/su4061256.Google Scholar
Steinmo, S., Thelen, K., & Longstreth, F. (eds.) (1992). Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Strunz, S. (2014). The German energy transition as a regime shift. Ecological Economics, 100, 150–8. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.01.019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sydow, J., Schreyögg, G., & Koch, J. (2009). Organizational path dependence: opening the black box. Academy of Management Review, 34, 689–709.Google Scholar
Termeer, C.J.A.M., Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, G.R. (2017). Transformational change: governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4), 558–76.Google Scholar
Thomsen, D.C., Smith, T.F., & Keys, N. (2012). Adaptation or manipulation? Unpacking climate change response strategies. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 20. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-04953-170320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrane, S., Blaabjerg, S., & Møller, R.H., (2010). Innovative path dependence: making sense of product and service innovation in path dependent innovation processes. Research Policy, 39(7), 932–44.Google Scholar
Tschakert, P. & Dietrich, K.A. (2010). Anticipatory learning for climate change adaptation and resilience. Ecology and Society, 15(2), 11.Google Scholar
Vigar, G. (2002). The Politics of Mobility: Transport, the Environment, and Public Policy. New York: Spon Press.Google Scholar
Wejs, A., Harvold, K., Vammen Larsen, S., & Saglie, I.-L. (2014). Legitimacy building in weak institutional settings: climate change adaptation at local level in Denmark and Norway. Environmental Politics, 23(3), 490–508.Google Scholar
Wilson, G.A. (2013). Community resilience, policy corridors and the policy challenge. Land Use Policy, 31, 298–310.Google Scholar
Wilson, G.A., Quaranta, G., Kelly, C., & Salvia, R. (2015). Community resilience, land degradation and endogenous lock-in effects: evidence from the Alento region, Campania, Italy. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(3), 518–37.Google Scholar
Wise, R.M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M. et al. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28, 325–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeelenberg, M., van Dijk, W.W., Manstead, A.S.R., & van der Pligt, J. (2000). On bad decisions and disconfirmed expectancies: the psychology of regret and disappointment. Cognition and Emotion, 14(4), 521–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5
- Cited by