A framework for facilitating dialogue between policy planners and local climate change adaptation professionals: Cases from Sweden, Canada and Indonesia

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

A framework for facilitating dialogue between policy planners and local climate change adaptation professionals: Cases from Sweden, Canada and Indonesia Rasmus Kløcker Larsen a,*, A˚sa Gerger Swartling a,b, Neil Powell a, Brad May c,d, Ryan Plummer b,d, Louise Simonsson e, Maria Osbeck a a

Stockholm Environment Institute, Kra¨ftriket 2B, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden Stockholm Resilience Centre, Kra¨ftriket 2B, 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden c Environment Canada, Climate Research Division, 4905 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3H 5T4 d Brock University, Environmental Sustainability Research Centre, 500 Glenridge Ave., St. Catharines, Ont., L2S 3A1 Canada e Swedish Defence Research Agency, 901 82 Umea˚, Sweden b

article info

abstract

Article history:

The dominant approach to mainstreaming climate adaptation into sectoral policies relies on

Received 5 September 2011

an ‘upscaling’ model in which it is envisaged to extract lessons from local change processes

Received in revised form

to inspire generic sub-national and national policies. One of the central methodological

8 June 2012

questions, which remain unanswered in climate change adaptation research, is exactly how

Accepted 27 June 2012

public policy can learn from highly contextual experiences of community-based adaptation

Published on line 10 August 2012

and what role should be played by case study research. In this paper we undertake a

Keywords:

aim to study and/or foster local adaptation in selected case studies through a process of

Climate adaptation

social learning. We present a novel framework based on mapping of ‘sense-making per-

Case study

spectives’, which enables analysis of the multiple ways case study research can support

comparison between three large research projects in Sweden, Canada and Indonesia, which

Meta-analysis

local climate adaptation and link such efforts to higher level public policy. The analysis

Public policy

demonstrates how methodological choices shape how case study research works at the

Social learning

interface between planned (steered/regulatory policy) and self-organised adaptation of stakeholders (non-coercive policy). In this regard, there is a need for a high degree of transparency from the research community to enable local professionals to decide on their stakes and interests when inviting researchers into their grounded activities. We conclude that case study research can achieve new significance if viewed as a platform to leverage stakeholder competencies when informing existing social structures and enable the implementation of political objectives, but equally driving the very reinvention and improvement of these institutions. # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.K. Larsen). 1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.014

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

1.

Introduction

1.1. Contradictions in the ‘upscaling model’ for climate adaptation Unlike the issue of climate change mitigation, discussions about climate adaptation are still in their infancy in most national policy debates. Climate change manifests itself as one of the most intractable global problems to precipitate the employment of new governance approaches in nation states. Still, little attention has yet been paid to human adaptive responses and methods to assess the feasibility of adaptation measures are only in the initial stages of development. As part of the establishment of a global governance regime on climate change mitigation and adaptation, there has, however, recently been a burgeoning of government interest in supporting, fostering and learning from local experiences with climate change adaptation (e.g. van Aalst et al., 2008; Fu¨ssel, 2007; McCarthy et al., 2001). From within the polity, a central motivation is the expectation to mainstream findings from local cases studies in order to inform decision making at higher governance level/s, and find ways in which adaptation can be aligned with other priorities. This motivation is associated with an approach to mainstreaming of climate adaptation into sectoral policies, which relies on an ‘upscaling’ model in which it is envisaged to extract lessons from local change processes, to inform generic sub-national and national policies, which can be upscaled, replicated and implemented across localities. Research is here expected to identify conditions and trade-offs for establishing win-win situations and synergies between sectors as well as mitigation and adaptation measures (Laukkonen et al., 2009; Smit and Wandel, 2006; Klein et al., 2005). The ambition of extraction, upscaling and replication is not easily reconcilable with research traditions, which approach adaptation as ‘‘a community-led process, based on communities’ priorities, needs, knowledge, and capacities, which should empower people to plan for and cope with the impacts of climate change’’ (Reid et al., 2009, p. 13). Participatory approaches have gained prominence in areas such as disaster risk reduction and public planning as means of building more legitimate and effective governance regimes (e.g. Thomalla and Larsen, 2010; Twigg, 2003; Thrupp et al., 1994). Yet, uncertainty persists as to the efficacy of feeding outcomes from these negotiated processes into the larger decision-making system. As Khanlou and Peter (2005) have noted, participatory research is frequently characterised as an emancipating process of knowledge generation; but, it is less clear what guidelines exist once the lessons leave the case study context. Indeed, Laukkonen et al. (2009) suggest that ‘transfer’ of lessons from localities is not possible without also affecting the ‘upscaling’ process into higher-level policy through an equally participatory approach as was initially employed locally. Irrespective of the balance between so-called ‘top-down’ or ‘bottom-up’ approaches, case study lessons are frequently adopted into a policy framework that emphasises an optimal mix of policy instruments; and, in this case, departs from a knowledge prescriptive model in which the climate change ‘problem’ is already known and not open for negotiation

13

(Urwin and Jordan, 2008). It thus raises the challenge of reconciling the unavoidability of a ‘local’ level that represents a different context of complexity and uncertainty with that of national and international policy (Steyaert et al., 2007). The political ambition of using local case studies for revision of governance regimes must also be set against a background of the numerous examples where so-called participatory research is used chiefly as a means to justify findings convenient for centralized decision makers while harming those who had original ownership of the knowledge and/or change process (Cooke and Kothari, 2001; van Aalst et al., 2008). Shortcomings of so-called ‘community-based’ management efforts have generated a well established recognition with regards to the oft-propagated but flawed assumptions regarding what constitutes a local ‘community’ – a challenge today also faced by the climate adaptation discourse. Amongst other things, this includes the assumption that communities are relatively homogenous social entities that can live in balance with their bio-physical environment. This disregards the range of institutions that link local stakeholders with other organizational levels as well as the diversity and non-equilibrium character of ecological and physical processes (Leach et al., 1999).

1.2.

Objective

Significant efforts have gone into refining the use of case studies for vulnerability science and research on climate change adaptation; seeking to bridge different disciplinary case study approaches to climate adaptation and linking local vulnerability case studies with national or global vulnerability assessments, including mediating between qualitative and quantitative research results (e.g. Kok et al., 2010; Orlove, 2005). Further, there is a growing interest in meta-analysis methodologies in sustainability science in general as means of providing authoritative science-based voices to support decision making (e.g. Zou and Thomalla, 2010). These efforts generally acknowledge the difficulty in accounting for contextual factors and vested interests of stakeholders participating in the ‘case studies’ which are objects of analyses, and that there are dimensions which are not captured through traditional causal meta-analyses of cases of disaster risk (e.g. Burton, 2010). In consequence, some central questions remain largely unanswered in climate change adaptation research. How can generic regulatory policy learn from highly contextual community-based adaptation, and what is the role of the climate adaptation professional in facilitating this learning process? In other words, what are the prospects for a dialogue between policy makers, who are primarily concerned with drawing generalisations based on local lessons, and local professionals, who examine community-based climate adaptation in context? Through asking these questions up front, this paper acknowledges that scientific knowledge on climate change is subject to negotiation between scientists, policy makers, donor agencies etc. – thus recognizing the social contingency of scientific case studies (Hulme and Dessai, 2008). In pursuing this line of inquiry, the paper also builds on the advances in learning based theories in integrated natural resource governance, e.g. as previously communicated in this journal (Blackmore et al., 2008).

14

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

This paper presents the results from a study, which undertook a comparative analysis of three research projects that all have drawn on a meta-methodology of case study research to study and/or foster social learning for climate change adaptation. Accepting the political inevitability that local adaptation lessons will be upscaled from case study research into sub-national or national policy regimes, the goal of the study was to develop a methodological framework in order to (1) support dialogue between regulatory policy and local cases of climate change adaptation, and (2) facilitate comparison between different case study research projects, which draw on both shared and divergent research approaches in order to overcome apparent incommensurabilities. While focusing on issues connected to climate change adaptation, we expect that the analytical model developed here may be equally relevant for case study research in other fields, such as broader environmental and disaster risk governance.

2.

Methodology

Insights were garnered from three projects, which have evolved independently of one another, but which all address questions of local climate adaptation and have been inspired by a desire to study and/or foster adaptation as a process of social learning: The Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research funded Mistra-Swedish Research Programme on Climate, Impacts and Adaptation (Mistra-SWECIA). The present paper considers only the case study of the Stockholm Region, Sweden (Nilsson and Gerger Swartling, 2009a) The joint Brock University/Environment Canada Adaptive Collaborative Risk Management & Climate Change Adaptation project in the Niagara Region, Canada (ACRM&CCA) (May and Plummer, 2011; Gafarova et al., 2010); The EU 6th Framework Programme Mangrove ecosystems, communities and conflict: developing knowledge-based approaches to reconcile multiple demands project in Southeast Asia in the Mahakam Delta, Indonesia. In this paper we consider only work packages 5 and 8. Reconciling multiple demands: institutions & stakeholders (Powell and Osbeck, 2010). These three projects were selected because they represent major ongoing or recently completed efforts of the involved research institutions in studying and/or facilitating social learning through case studies in climate change adaptation. Previous communication between the involved researchers indicated that the projects appeared to adopt diverging case study methodologies and interest thus emerged to obtain a more solid understanding of the relative efficacy of these approaches and benefit from disciplinary diversity. To all of the researchers involved, the respective projects also represented platforms for engagement in a region and context in which they had worked for most of their professional life, building both professional and personal contacts with people and organisations. The three projects are at various stages: ACRM&CCA is the youngest and at the time of this study was initiating its first activities with an intensive planning process; Mistra-SWECIA kicked off in 2008 and has collected a significant amount of data

already; and the MANGROVE project was completed after four years in 2009. As with any learning process, the analysis below is thus confined by the time and place bound perspectives of those involved. Still, as noted above, the extended exposure of the research teams to their respective research contexts and the legacies of the different research teams provide for an outlook, which to some extent looks beyond the single project and unveils larger methodological tendencies and traditions. The analysis was conducted as a desktop review: concrete climate adaptation issues, case study contexts and methodologies were described through a review of documented evidence available from the projects as of March 2010. Insights were also elicited through six key informant interviews with project/work package leaders by the lead author, who had not been involved in any of the selected projects. The synthesis, including presentation of preliminary results and the analytical framework, was critiqued by researchers from the three projects at a workshop held in Stockholm on 26–27 May 2010. The present study thus offers a meta-level analysis of the empirical evidence from the projects, through the involvement of the project investigators themselves. This reflects an effort on behalf of the research teams involved to take the role of reflective practitioners (sensu Argyris and Scho¨n, 1996) in order to facilitate both individual and institutional learning to improve future research praxes.

2.1.

Analytical framework

Qualitative case study methodologies were originally developed to examine complex questions requiring attention to detail and contingencies in a range of scientific disciplines, including sociology, political science, human geography, etc. In this study, we have specifically considered case study research that expressly intends to foster and/or study social learning or otherwise draw on social learning theory. Methods which are inspired by social learning theories have been gaining popularity in the past decade as an effective response option for researchers studying and/or facilitating local climate adaptation efforts. Approaches to social learning rely on a wide range of differing theoretical traditions (see reviews in Blackmore, 2007; Armitage et al., 2008; Nilsson and Gerger Swartling, 2009a; Reid et al., 2009). Common to most of these is an appreciation that adaptation requires cooperation and networks among stakeholders at different levels of society, and these stakeholders might have both interrelated and contrasting views on climate risks and adaptation needs and options. Thus vulnerability to climate change is distributed and perceived differently between different groups in society, and if the interactions between climate change and societal change are to be understood, it is important to gain the perspectives of the people who are experiencing such change (Smit and Skinner, 2002; ACIA, 2005). This highlights the importance of interests, perspectives, and perceptions in shaping adaptation actions, a dimension often overlooked in adaptation research (Parry et al., 2007; Adger and Brown, 2009). Within a qualitative learning based tradition, case studies can thus generally be conceptualised as a form of learning ‘platforms’, which are arenas that provide space and time for new meaning to emerge. They are ‘‘. . .resulting from

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

disagreements between social groups, or at least from the appearance of difficulties in managing a problem common to them all’’ (Steyaert et al., 2007, p. 542). The role of the researchers here is to facilitate problem definition, create options for feedback between groups, and otherwise support the management of interactions. The creation and use of platforms can often benefit from drawing on socio-technical objects, which are co-created by participants, as intermediaries for dialogue (Reid et al., 2009; Billaud et al., 2004). Examples of such intermediaries (risk maps, vulnerability rankings, documented story lines etc.) are found in participatory methodologies in fields such as disaster risk reduction (van Aalst et al., 2008) and vulnerability research (Smit and Wandel, 2006). In order to organise the analysis of the evidence from the three selected projects, we introduce a conceptual model of sense-making perspectives that emerged out of a review of the documentation and findings from the three projects. In searching for a way to capture the diversity as well as similarities among the research approaches, we were inspired by the development of ‘worldview mapping’, an approach originally applied by Richard Bawden to capture different paradigmatic approaches to natural resource management (e.g. Bawden, 1999; Packham and Sriskandarajah, 2005). Our adaption of this model distinguishes four dominant sense-making perspectives, within which case study research is made meaningful for climate change adaptation (Fig. 1). Two axes serve as theoretical organising principles, with the

15

Fig. 1 – Analytical model: sense-making approaches to case study research.

guiding epistemology (the method of knowing, i.e. how the researchers know what they know) on the vertical axis and the intent of the research (inquiry) – particularly in terms of how it is made relevant to users – on the horizontal axis. The axes thus represent, respectively, a continuum between epistemologies of ‘realism’ and ‘constructionism’ as distinct mainstream philosophies of science, and assumptions of ‘contextual’ and ‘universal’ usage of the work. The latter

Table 1 – Definitions of the organizing principles in the analytical framework. Epistemology

General approach to knowledge generation

Heuristic systems model

Realism

Views the cases as ‘real’ settings distinguishable from human perception, which can further be made objectively available through investigation and verification (Holliday, 2002). Draws on assumptions of the existence of natural ‘objects’ independent of the observer, which are used to delineate the case study (McLaughlin and Dietz, 2008).

Constructionism

Seeks to establish a dialogue among stakeholders in the case study so that shared understanding emerges as the basis for collective action. Researchers and participants are here all engaged in reality as unfinished and co-created. One dominant influence for constructionist epistemology is the sociology of knowledge in the empirical science tradition (e.g. Nielsen and Nielsen, 2006; Berger and Luckman, 1966) Value of cases for policy Case study research is valuable in so far as it can be used to examine certain phenomena of interest that have been identified prior to engagement with the context. The purpose herein is to generate sufficient insights to draw the necessary type of generalisation that will predicate actions in other localities (Holliday, 2002). Instead of generalisations, this view values the unveiling of diverse manners in which a phenomenon is expressed in different contexts. Rather than using predefined research questions, the context informs the formulation of hypotheses. Contextualism implies that longer term adaptive strategies and shorter term coping mechanisms always must be considered against a background of general unpredictability and uncertainty of people’s agency (e.g. Charmaz, 2006).

Within the realist tradition, the view of the world is often contained within the paradigm of immutable or ‘hard’ systems. This means that the world is construed as a set of interacting systems that exist beyond the domain of perception and that can be modified to improve their functioning – for instance, they can be objectively defined according to naturally given ecological boundaries (i.e. ‘ecosystem’) (e.g. Ro¨ling and Wagemakers, 1998). In the constructionist tradition, there is an emphasis on ‘soft’ systems, which acknowledges that all systems are in fact ‘systems of interest’ as defined through the eyes of stakeholders. Systemic qualities such as optimality or resilience reflect negotiated outcomes (e.g. Checkland, 2000; Powell and Jiggins, 2003) Measure of quality Robustness of conclusions depends on meta-level analysis of a large number of case studies with similarly derived data. This tradition is frequently located in social science empirical research (Yin, 1989; Stake, 2000).

Intent of inquiry Universalism

Contextualism

Specific case outcomes are considered irreproducible. Higher order patterns are not independent of the perspective of those who generate such analysis. Authorisation of findings depends on scientific and societal rules, based on expected beneficiaries and the acknowledgement made by both researchers and participants that the knowledge is considered ‘robust’ and useful (e.g. Svensson and Nielsen, 2006).

16

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

distinction highlights whether research questions and hypotheses emerge from and are intended to inform the context in response to interaction with the clients of the research, or through a priori and expert-defined perspectives (Table 1). Such a mapping of research approaches was relevant to the study because it allowed us to move beyond a merely technical discussion of ‘research method’ and potential disciplinary tensions and instead to consider the underlying assumptions that shape how research seeks to link local adaptation efforts to the domain of public policy. In our view, the specific value of this framework is that is provides a novel vocabulary to consider more explicitly the link between cases of local climate adaptation and higher level policy.

3.

Results and analysis

The three projects, through their ambition to study or foster local adaptation through social learning, overlap in terms of assumptions and methodologies. Yet, they also differ in some important respects. In this section we present a comparative analysis of how each research approach is designed vis-a`-vis its local context, project objectives, and linkages to policy and change processes (Table 2). To organize and support this discussion we draw on the analytical model, where key elements from each project have been selected from the project outlines and mapped against the two axes of differentiation; epistemology and intent of inquiry (Fig. 2). All three projects depart from an initial realist-universalist problem definition and undertake a journey into two or three of the other perspectives. This illustrates that the application of methods in case study research frequently draws upon

several research traditions, and the axes of differentiation effectively become continuums where projects may shift location over time. The journeys undertaken by the projects and the diversity in the utilization of the four different sensemaking perspectives also highlight the many ways through which case study research can be operationalised in the context of local climate adaptation. It is important to keep in mind that the differences in research methods and design reflect that the projects operate in different contexts, scales, and with distinct objectives, histories and management structures. Below, we present the findings, which have implications regarding the prospects for how case study research may inform public policy as well as how to enable synergies between different case study research projects. In structuring the narrative, we rely on the constructed visualisation of the journeys of inquiry for each project and present the findings under sub-headings, which refer to the major phases of project life (as viewed through Fig. 2).

3.1.

Project starting point: realist-universalist perspective

The Mistra-SWECIA and ACRM&CCA projects convene their respective participatory research processes through an explicit focus on the process of adaptation to climate change, and identify relevant problem definitions within this frame in the dialogue with stakeholders. In contrast, the MANGROVES project departed from the issue of mangroves rehabilitation, which is one concrete outcome of the international climate change discourse (Table 2). MANGROVES relocated to the constructionist–contextualist perspective when it was realized that mangroves could be approached as a platform to

Fig. 2 – Analysis of the operationalisation of case study research in the three projects. Key methodological steps in the projects are located in the most appropriate sense-making perspective in order to trace the journey undertaken by each project. The location of each step does not include information of degree. Details regarding the project methodologies can be found in Larsen et al. (2011a,b).

17

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

Table 2 – Comparative summary of the three projects examined. Descriptor Geographical focus

Problem context

Mistra-SWECIA Stockholm County, consisting of 26 municipalities hosting 2 Million inhabitants (21% of Sweden’s total population). Stockholm has a highly developed infrastructure, access to advanced technology, and higher levels of income and education. However, adaptation measures are undermined by lack of coordination between local practitioners and regional organizations, conflicting interests, and lack of political will to prioritize adaptation.

Key objective

To investigate factors that influence stakeholders’ decisions to prepare or not to prepare for future climate risks, involving analysis of perceptions of risk; how information on climate change impacts and stakeholder deliberations promote processes of social learning and its implication for adaptive capacity.

Funding and organization

Interdisciplinary research collaboration of five Swedish research organizations funded by Mistra. This paper focuses on the project Processes for Adaptation to Climate Change.

Research approach

The approach aims to create platforms for stakeholders to identify and consider adaptation options which can be alternatives to expert or politically defined pathways. Participatory research is an essential method for data collection as well as a means to study the creation of networks for exchange of knowledge and experiences and collaboration and capacity building at local and regional scales. The participatory research includes focus groups a final stakeholder workshop and follow-up interviews with involved stakeholders. The groups consisted of practitioners and experts within municipal and regional administration and private sectors working with planning and technical issues. The stakeholder mapping exercise identified stakeholders in relation to water related risks which had been identified previously as the key risks for Stockholm region.

Methodology

Duration and status

2008–2011. (with possible extension)

ACRM&CCA

MANGROVES 2

Niagara Region, covering 1863 km (0.2% of the Province of Ontario) and hosting close to 400,000 residents.

Mahakam delta, East Kalimantan, Indonesian Borneo, covering approx. 1800 km2.

The challenge of implementing adaptive measures at the municipal level is both political in nature, requires improved buy-in from decision makers and stakeholders and is coupled to resource availability. Scientists and federal staff play an important role in supporting municipal administrations and agencies in adaptation measures through the development of decisionmaking tools. To develop adaptation and mitigation portfolios in the 12 municipalities in the region and evaluate the effectiveness of social learning in the context of climate change adaptation mitigation and sustainable development (SAM).

The delta is undergoing rapid socioeconomic and environmental change owing to urban encroachment, land use intensification, overfishing and pollution. Unprecedented attention is given to mangroves rehabilitation to reduce effects of natural hazards and adapt to increased climate risks whilst contributing to sustainable coastal resource management.

Funded within Environment Canada’s Adaptation and Impacts Research Science Plan (AIRSP). Four work packages: (1) Social Learning and Participatory Approaches (2) Adaptive Collaborative Risk Management (3) Community Sustainable Adaptation and Mitigation and (4) Indicators The implementation represents an integration of steps from adaptive comanagement climate change adaptation and risk management. It rests on the assumption that a more coherent research process can be facilitated if integrating frameworks of risk management social learning and transformative capacity and incorporating this thinking into community-based adaptation The work is initiated with a Social– Ecological Inventory (Schultz et al., 2007) to identify social–ecological system boundaries local social and ecological processes interactions between these processes key actors and relationships among these actors and their roles within the region. Information is derived interviews surveys from Geographical Information System and vulnerability/ adaptive capacity mapping and socioeconomic scenario development. 2009–2013.

To facilitate an action planning process mapping out the institutional setting and addressing goal conflicts between local national and international legislation developing scenarios and options to reconcile conflicts of interest and facilitate a process enabling stakeholders to critique emergent management policy and planning options. 6th EU framework research programme implemented by consortium of organizations in Indonesia Thailand and Vietnam. Here we consider only work packages 5 and 8 on Reconciling multiple demands: institutions & stakeholders in Mahakam Delta. Action planning process whereby the restoration and rehabilitation of mangroves aimed to lead to the reconciliation of conflicts of interests. Departed from a predefined view of mangroves as ecosystems which could be delineated through the use of ecological science. As researchers became immersed in the local realities of land users they deconstructed this original realist delineation of the case. Institutional analysis through soft systems methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 2000) a participatory methodology that helps different stakeholders understand each other’s perspectives and clarify unstructured or messy problem situations through designing ideal or conceptual human activity systems for concrete actions. Qualitative data derived from literature reviews stakeholder interviews workshops and personal communication with stakeholders and experts. 2004–2008. Project completed.

The information is corroborated from the review of project documentation, interviews, and the workshop with project managers. Individual references to specific project and published documents are provided in Larsen et al. (2011a,b).

18

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

reconcile discord amongst stakeholders with diverging problem definitions and that the notion of rehabilitation was coming from a realist knowledge domain. The project initially departed from a predefined expert view that mangrove forests could be delineated and understood solely through the use of ecological science without consideration for stakeholder perspectives and how mangrove forests was meaningful to them. This partly reflected the sense-making perspective of those who originally designed the project, prior to the involvement of the researchers competent in stakeholder process design. Further, as the project evolved and researchers became immersed in the local realities of land users in the delta, the emphasis shifted to broader concerns of coastal management. Mistra-SWECIA adopted an initial realist-universalist perspective in that the criteria for stakeholder identification were defined by the researchers with the aim of composing homogenous focus groups, where participants share important characteristics regarding the local climate adaptation process. Mistra-SWECIA applies this approach to derive lessons for specific groups of practitioners and ensure that valid claims can be made which are representative for the larger group regarding risk perceptions and individual learning. For a government authority such as Environment Canada, the facilitation of stakeholder involvement has to be adequately designed within its official mandate and its science and technology role in understanding the impacts of climate change and the processes that lead to more effective community adaptation. Hence, in ACRM&CCA, a thorough social–ecological inventory and stakeholder mapping exercise was pioneered before initiating the participatory process in order to obtain an accurate and justifiable scientific outline of the stakeholders, social networks, and resources. The social–ecological systems approach originates in ‘hard’ systems science (see Table 2), which aims to understand the complexity and non-equilibrium character of the governance system. It assumes that the researcher, through an expert perspective, can position her/ himself outside the system of interest and define the logical bounds of the system as well as what constitutes desirable adaptation. This maintains a separation between science and the negotiation amongst stakeholders in the governance system. In the social–ecological inventory of the project, the approach is based on social network theory from Ostrom (2009). A distinction is here drawn between a democratic process perspective, and a successful ecosystem management approach, which is seen as mutually exclusive. The work underlying the ACRM&CCA project also draws on realist reductionist inspired methodologies as inputs to the participatory risk management process. This includes use of preliminary universal indicators of adaptive capacity, several of which assume that whereas adaptive capacity is not directly measurable it can be measured in aggregate manner through the reduction to sub-categories of indicators (Khan, 2009). In contrast, Mistra-SWECIA investigates learning resulting from the participatory process, where the relevant indicators of learning are negotiated with the participating stakeholders in individual interviews.

3.2.

Stakeholder interactions in context

In all three projects, the actual facilitation of stakeholder interactions takes place within a contextualist perspective.

This reflects the necessity to ground the initial universalist expectations and situation analysis conducted by researchers in a local context, in the face of surfacing of insights from the stakeholder process. Whilst the MANGROVES project operates in the constructionist epistemology, Mistra-SWECIA and ACRM&CCA draw on realist contextualism (Fig. 2). The focus groups, workshops, interviews, identification of adaptation leaders and development of adaptation portfolios are guided by the context-independent categories created in the universalist-realist phase. By contrast, the soft systems action planning process in the MANGROVE project operated within the constructionist perspective and delineates the foci of interest based on the ‘system of interest’ of stakeholders. The soft systems analytical tool applied by the MANGROVE project was used to identify the interests involved and to provide a framework with which to analyse the different kinds of stakeholders involved in the learning process. The analysis supporting the facilitation of self-organised action acknowledged that the ‘case’ was an originally situated learning process that changes character with the intervention of the researchers or those who expect to derive higher order lessons for the purpose of comparison.

3.3.

Building consensus or addressing social structures

Whilst both Mistra-SWECIA and MANGROVES undertake a journey into the constructionist perspective (Fig. 2), they do so with a universalist and contextualist intent, respectively. The universalist approach of Mistra-SWECIA emphasizes learning through facilitation of dialogue between groups and actors, including consensus building, sharing of perceptions etc., whilst the contextualist view of MANGROVE attends more explicitly to marginalizing social structures, conflict and contestation. Mistra-SWECIA aims at assessing individual risk perceptions and how adaptive capacity is framed by the participants in order to subsequently revert back to higherlevel policy making with more generic recommendations. In contrast, MANGROVE undertook an action planning process aiming to foster self-organized action amongst the participants (who also included different policy makers). The approach in Mistra-SWECIA refers to social learning as a process ‘‘by which agents and organisations continuously frame and reframe the issues at stake and develop enhanced capabilities to deal with common problems which individuals often cannot resolve on their own’’ (Nilsson and Gerger Swartling, 2009b, p. 2, sensu J. D. Tabara). This is linked to an emphasis on perceptions and psychological factors, such as risk perception and perceived adaptive capacity in determining adaptation (Grothmann and Patt, 2005). It also includes an emphasis on joint development of individuals’ knowledge (‘elaboration of knowledge’) as well as common generated knowledge (‘co-construction of knowledge’) in group settings (Wibeck et al., 2007). This shows how the constructionistuniversalist perspective is naturally oriented towards informing meta-level analysis in the realist-universalist perspective; the work on risk assessments anticipates the later journey back towards more generic policy recommendations. In fact, the project objective of informing regulatory policy is what motivates that it is relevant for the project team to attach higher value to some kinds of learning than others. For

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

19

instance, it is more relevant to understand how increased awareness amongst participants about the need for climate adaptation emerged, or how focus groups could lead to a more sophisticated and pragmatic awareness of adaptation needs amongst the participants (Nilsson and Gerger Swartling, 2009b). By contrast, the MANGROVE project’s contextualist (action research) methodology sought to identify and respond to problematic social structures in order to enable the negotiation of concerted action during the research interventions. The research process aimed at facilitating the reframing of issues situated in a need to reconstruct existing institutional structures, which currently hindered local adaptation. This implies that a rigorous learning process was inextricably bound to whether the research negotiated its ethics of the knowledge generation and change process (Powell and Osbeck, 2010). One further illustration of the difference between universalist and contextualist constructionism is the different types of stakeholder analyses applied by the Mistra-SWECIA and MANGROVE projects. MANGROVE worked through a framework distinguishing between different types of stakeholders through use of soft systems tools, where stakeholder roles are defined according to their engagement in and degree of benefitting from the change process, in this case mangrove forest rehabilitation. For action planning in the Mahakam Delta, the stakeholders were often not identical with the formal institutional units. By contrast, Mistra-SWECIA’s analysis both draws on an inter-organisational stakeholder approach reliant on an codification of stakeholder types and roles focusing on the formal/informal roles and administrative and organisational boundaries (Andre´ et al., forthcoming; Andre´ and Simonsson, 2009; Ballejos and Montagna, 2008). Both approaches to stakeholder analysis offer valuable methodological insights in lieu of the rather crude definitions of stakeholding as phenomenon in most climate and environmental policy documents (e.g. Andre´ and Simonsson, 2009), but differ significantly in their assumptions regarding the nature of the policy process and how research ought to contribute.

here an emphasis on planned adaptation as steered through regulatory policy instruments. This explains why the selected case (Stockholm region) and stakeholder mapping and analyses are bounded by administrative and organisational units (e.g. municipalities, offices). To elicit the context-specific nature of the Stockholm region, the empirical approach in Mistra-SWECIA combines the predefined, realist point of departure with a bottom up approach to stakeholder articulation of preferences of a future, desirable institutional landscape and governance structures for adaptation action. The focus groups do not intend to foster immediate collective action but instead to identify risk perceptions and adaptation needs, barriers and options, and the potential for social learning on climate adaptation, which can yield recommendations to regulatory policy. ACRM&CCA has a similar realist-universalist goal (generic policy recommendations) in keeping with the formal science mandate of Environment Canada. It also has an end point in the realist–contextualist perspective, seeking to foster concrete local climate adaptation through the support of adaptation leadership in the region’s communities. In contrast to Mistra-SWECIA, it forms part of a governmental mandate and its activities thus have joint policy implementation significance as well as research/facilitation relevance. As a governmental agency, Environment Canada is responsible for ensuring that Canadians understand the impacts of a changing atmosphere in order to reduce the adaptation deficit and take advantage of new opportunities that may arise (Environment Canada, 2009). Moreover, the programme must refer to the government protocols and agency objectives. As a public authority in which not all claims are negotiable when interacting with local communities, a degree of prescriptive knowledge in the realist-universalist tradition is required. Finally, the MANGROVE project ended its journey in the contextualist-constructionist perspective by means of the soft systems methodology that aimed at direct self-organised action as the outcome of the social learning process. This project thus sought to enable contextualised and selforganised action in its research activities rather than informing regulatory policy directly.

3.4. Project goal: planned versus self-organised adaptation

4.

The analysis of the three research projects above has shown how case study research can foster dialogues between local climate adaptation professionals and higher level policy makers in a wide array of ways. The choices regarding how to operationalise case study research within different sensemaking perspectives significantly shapes the manner in which a research project informs policy and change processes. In particular, it determines the degree to which the research project contributes to planned policy (coercion, regulation) and/or self-organised adaptation of stakeholders in the context of the research (non-coercive policy); i.e. whether the projects conclude their journey in the universalist or contextualist perspective (Fig. 2). Both Mistra-SWECIA and ACRM&CCA intend to inform planned policy interventions, providing policy recommendations through meta-analysis of the research findings. There is

In all three projects, priorities of ‘adaptation’ were initially defined by international players and/or national government. The research examined and supported the processes through which these priorities integrate into the regulative, coercive, and normative governance framework with implications for resource allocation. But for stakeholders involved in the case studies the research equally served as an opportunity to highlight issues and responsibilities which belong to higher levels of decision making and thus to embed community issues into national or climate related debates. This enables clarification of sub-national and local risk definitions to infuse these into national frameworks, in which acknowledged stressors are typically biophysical in origin. It also enables a negotiation of definitions of who is vulnerable to what, as well as what comprises the most desirable adaptation process (van Aalst et al., 2008; Nadasdy, 2007; Bankoff, 2003).

Discussion

20

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

In Mistra-SWECIA, the case study work supports a compromise between the national adaptation objectives and municipal experiences of climate related crises such as flooding and storms (see also Uggla and Lidskog, 2006, Storbjo¨rk, 2006). It also highlights many indirect stakeholders who are not visible from the outset and points to discrepancy between people’s own conceptions of being an actor and the formal conceptions held by the state (Andre´ and Simonsson, 2009). Similarly, the ACRM&CCA project identified a mismatch between the most pertinent hazards in the government’s historical hazard information databases and the self-generated community risk profiles, which emphasise health and socially determined risks (Boettcher, 2009). In the MANGROVES project, the work identified an incredible capacity within the informal system to self-organize in a national policy environment characterized by ambiguity and diverging interests. Significant power imbalances between human actors and between discourses of conservation and production, including institutional and geopolitical conflicts, obstructed the long-term, sustainable governance of mangrove systems for climate adaptation (Powell and Osbeck, 2010). Whilst the journeys undertaken in each project are/were partly expressions of explicit research designs the de facto project trajectories were arising also out of pragmatic responses to the respective project realities; including donor needs and the legitimation to project owners and clients, as well as personal perspectives, education and professional competencies of project investigators. Arguably, this is symptomatic of most research consortia, where people of diverse disciplines and institutions are brought together. This mode of adaptive project management was found to be necessary when the research was navigating the interface of planned and self-organised adaptation and different views of the role of policy. Research on climate adaptation, which adopts a case study approach, may seek to play a facilitatory role in connecting local stakeholder interests and higher level political objectives. This highlights the need for attention to how methodological choices affect how the case study research mediates between the local efforts and experiences of professionals and stakeholders and the higher order policy goals of society and policy makers. In turn, this calls for an explicit attention to the interests of the research teams involved as they will themselves never be objective or neutral actors (see also our earlier note recalling the need for reflective practice in research; Argyris and Scho¨n, 1996). Amongst others, Eikeland (2006, p. 205) describes how researchers’ ‘‘modern theories and other ‘head stuff’ are like superficial opinions, words, easy to remove. . .But prejudices. . .are subconscious and tacit, merged with or submerged in our practices and routines’’. It is particularly important to be aware of such underlying prejudices when the engagement of stakeholders in knowledge generation processes for climate adaptation invites a breaking of the traditional division of labor between researchers and researched, with associated increased risks and exposure of the participants. Some research interests agree better with the case study stakeholders’ interests than others. Collaboration on research design, knowledge transfer between cases (including through

stakeholders’ participation in joint events) and a general improvement of research practice can support the efforts of concerned stakeholders. However, researchers may equally have desires to eliminate research overlaps to produce cutting edge publications and this may conflict with the need to engage laboriously in concrete processes, where the outcomes are never given. Collaboration between projects which draw on case study approaches will often be motivated by the increased access to empirical results, opportunities of joint publishing and advancing scholarship. Further, researchers will often have in the back of their minds how they can politically sell the project to funding agencies. These objectives do not have any direct value for stakeholders in the cases, on the contrary this can lead to that the generation of ‘generalizable’ insights may take precedence over actual change process in concrete contexts, and/or that case study participants may lose ownership over the insights they have produced. In the discourse on climate adaptation there is an acknowledged lack of consensus regarding what exactly constitutes ‘successful’ and/or ‘sustainable’ adaptation actions (Doria et al., 2009; Reid et al., 2009). This should not be surprising, given that adaptation concerns societal development and thus political and normative priorities. Yet, despite the heralding of learning based approaches to local adaptation in disaster risk reduction and environmental governance at large over the last decade, most efforts suffer from an absence of enquiry into the so-called normative aspects of the learning process, i.e. how different interests are embedded in human adaptation (Larsen et al., 2011a,b; Armitage et al., 2008). As regards the literature of social learning for natural resource management (e.g. Blackmore et al., 2008), the evidence and analysis in this paper has substantiated new facets of the diversity in research traditions concerned with studying and/or fostering social learning; highlighting methodological choices that researchers can make to better address normative aspects of the learning process. Traditional meta-analyses methodologies of case study results are generally unable to pay explicit attention to the interaction between planned adaptation as directed from within the public sector and the autonomous and selforganized actions at lower levels in the governance system (Juhola and Westerhoff, 2011). Still, the seeking of synergies between case study results and linking local lessons to national policy design depends on the reconciling of interests of case study stakeholders (multiple types of ‘community members’), recipients of the work, who are placed outside the ‘case study’ (e.g. national policy makers) and researchers themselves. As suggested in the framework presented above, case study research may be approached as knowledge driven means of supporting the harnessing of a wider spectrum of governance mechanisms within regulatory policy as well as non-coercive policy. As expressed by Lidskog and Elander (2010), this may contribute to finding new synergies between representational, participatory, deliberative and radical forms of democracy to solve the unprecedented challenges faced by climate change – as well as the associated environmental, institutional and socioeconomic transformations provoked by human concerns

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

with the future. The way we design and use case studies have direct implications for the democratic governance of such adaptation efforts.

5.

Conclusions

The analysis of the three case study based projects in (Mistra-SWECIA), the Niagara Region Stockholm (ACRM&CCA) and the Mahakam Delta (MANRGOVES) has synthesized and compared a number of qualitative and lived experiences of local climate change adaptation, which would fall outside the scope of traditional causal metaanalysis methodologies. We have presented and tested an analytical model to identify the multiple ways through which case study research can support local climate adaptation and link such efforts to higher level public policy. Referring back to our original research questions, including recognition of the potential ‘conflicts of interest’ between centralised policy makers and local climate change adaptation professionals, the findings demonstrate that the choices made regarding different sense-making perspectives and research methods have more than academic interest; in fact, they significantly shape how the research projects inform policy and change processes. Specifically, this paper has outlined a range of opportunities for researchers/facilitators to shape their research approach so as to engage at the interface between planned (steered/ regulatory policy) and self-organised adaptation of stakeholders (non-coercive policy). The efficacy of such methodological choices must be judged relative to the objective of each project and the interests of stakeholders engaged. In this regard, there is a need for a high degree of transparency from the research community to enable local professionals to decide on their stakes and interests when inviting researchers into their grounded activities. Further, attention to sense-making perspectives may also contribute to overcoming what in academic debates often are seen to be philosophical and normative incompatibilities, which prevents synergies in research collaboration. The analysis of the project trajectories has shown how the research projects work at the interface between planned (steered/regulatory policy) and self-organised adaptation of stakeholders (non-coercive policy). As such, case studies can acquire a political momentum and become a channel for local actors to access decision makers, in which the research facilitated platforms invite actions and insights of local practitioners as ‘cases’ in policy making, thus surfacing the practical experiences and capacities of stakeholders. The stakeholder processes in all three cases investigated in this paper made stakes and mandates more explicit, hence enabling a meta-communication regarding how issues and mandates are defined in climate change adaptation at the interface between politics and local implementation. Case study learning can achieve new significance if viewed as a platform to leverage stakeholder competencies and capacities to informing existing structures and enable the implementation of political objectives, but equally driving the very change and reinvention of these institutions.

21

Acknowledgements This paper is based on work originally commissioned by Environment Canada, funded from the Adaptation & Impacts Research Section under the Letter of Agreement between Brock University, Environment Canada and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). The presented work from Mistra-SWECIA was undertaken with Karin Andre´ of Linko¨ping University and the work from the MANGRROVE project in Indonesia was undertaken with Ahmad Syafei Sidik of the Faculty of Fisheries and Marine Science, Mulawarman University. We also acknowledge financial support of the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra), the European Commission and SEI. The authors are grateful to Monirul Mirza and Linda Mortsch from the Environment Canada Climate Research Division and John Forrester and an anonymous SEI colleague for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this text, as well as Sarah King Head for providing editorial services, which helped improve the arguments presented. We also thank two anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback to improve this paper for publication. Finally, we wish to express our gratitude and appreciation to the people who are and have been involved in the three projects discussed.

references

ACIA, 2005. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England. Adger, W.N., Brown, K., 2009. Adaptation, vulnerability and resilience: ecological and social perspectives. Companion to Environmental Geography 109–122. ˚ ., Linne´r, B.-O., Andre´, K., Simonsson, L., Gerger Swartling, A Method development for identifying and analysing stakeholders in climate change adaptation processes. Journal of Environment Policy and Planning, forthcoming. Andre´, K., Simonsson, L., 2009. Identification of regional stakeholders for adaptation to climate change. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Environmental Social Science Conference (NESS): Knowledge, learning and action for sustainability London, UK. 10th – 12th June 2009. Argyris, C., Scho¨n, D.A., 1996. Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method and Practice. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Wokingham, England. Armitage, D., Marschke, M., Plummer, R., 2008. Adaptive comanagement and the paradox of learning. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 18, 86–98. Ballejos, L.C., Montagna, J.M., 2008. Method for stakeholder identification in interorganizational environments. Requirements Engineering 13 (4), 281–297. Bankoff, G., 2003. Vulnerability as a measure of change in society. International Journal of Mass Emergenices and Disasters 21 (2), 5–30. Bawden, R.J., 1999. The community challenge: the learning response. New Horizons in Education 99, 40–59. Berger, P., Luckman, T., 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Penguin Books Ltd., London, UK. Billaud, J.-P., Brives, H., Jiggins, J., Reynolds, M., Ro¨ling, N., Toderi, M., 2004. Facilitation of Social Learning Processes for

22

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

Integrated Catchment Management and Sustainable Use of Water SLIM Thematic Paper no. 2. Open University, UK. Blackmore, C., 2007. What kinds of knowledge, knowing and learning are required for addressing resource dilemmas? A theoretical overview. Environmental Science and Policy 10, 512–525. Blackmore, C., Ison, R., Jiggins, J., 2008. Social learning: an alternative policy instrument for managing in the context of Europe’s water. Environmental Science and Policy 10 (6), 493–498. Boettcher, E.C., 2009. Bridging Science and Policy For Community Climate Change Adaptation: is Climate Science ‘‘Useable’’ for Local Practitioners? Adaptation and Impacts Research Division, Environment Canada. Burton, I., 2010. Forensic disaster investigations in depth: a new case study model. Environment Magazine 52 (5), 36–41. Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publishing Ltd., London, UK. Checkland, P., 2000. Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 17, 11–58. Cooke, B., Kothari, U. (Eds.), 2001. Participation. The New Tyranny? Zed Books Ltd., London, UK. Doria, M., de, F., Boyd, E., Tompkins, E.L., Adger, W.N., 2009. Using expert elicitation to define successful adaptation to climate change. Environmental Science and Policy 12 (7), 810–819. Eikeland, O., 2006. The validity of action research – validity in action research. In: Nielsen, K.A., Svensson, L. (Eds.), Action Research and Interactive Research. Shaker publishing, Maastricht, Netherlands, pp. 193–240. Environment Canada, 2009. Adaptation and Impacts Science Plan. Adaptation and Impacts Science Strategy 2009–2012. . Fu¨ssel, H.-M, 2007. Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustainability Science 2, 265–275. Gafarova, S., May, B., Plummer, R., 2010. Adaptive Collaborative Risk Management and Climate Change in the Niagara Region: A Participatory Integrated Assessment Approach for Sustainable Solutions and Transformative Change. General Overview. Adaptation and Impacts Research Section – Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario. Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 15 (3), 199–213. Holliday, A., 2002. Doing and Writing Qualitative Research. Sage Publications, London, UK. Hulme, M., Dessai, S., 2008. Negotiating future climates for public policy: a critical assessment of the development of climate scenarios for the UK. Environmental Science Policy 11, 54–70. Juhola, S., Westerhoff, L., 2011. Challenges of adaptation to climate change across multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European countries. Environmental Science and Policy 14, 239–247. Khan, Z.A., 2009. Adapting to climate change: the concept of adaptive capacity. Environment Canada unpublished research report. Khanlou, N., Peter, E., 2005. Participatory action research: considerations for ethical review. Social Science and Medicine 60, 2333–2340. Klein, R., Schipper, E.L., Dessai, F.S., 2005. Integrating mitigation and adaptation into climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental Science and Policy 8, 579–588. Kok, M.T.J., Lu¨deke, M.K.B., Sterzel, T., Lucas, P.L., Walter, C., Janssen, P., de Soysa, I., 2010. Quantitative Analysis of

Patterns of Vulnerability to Global Environmental Change. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Den Haag/Bilthoven. Larsen, R.K., Thomalla, F., Calgaro, E.L., 2011a. The role of stakeholder agency Governing Resilience Building in Thailand’s tourism-dependent coastal communities. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 21 (2), 481–491. ˚ ., Powell, N., Simonsson, L., Osbeck, Larsen, R. K., Swartling, A M., 2011. A Framework for Dialogue Between Local Climate Adaptation Professionals and Policy Makers. SEI Research Report, Stockholm, Sweden. Laukkonen, J., Blanco, P.K., Lenhart, J., Keiner, M., Cavric, B., Kinuthia-Njenga, C., 2009. Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the local level. Habitat International 33, 287–292. Leach, M., Mearns, R., Scoones, I., 1999. Environmental entitlements: dynamics and institutions in communitybased natural resource management. World Development 27 (2), 225–247. Lidskog, R., Elander, I., 2010. Addressing climate change democratically. Multi-level governance transnational networks and governmental structures. Sustainability Development 18, 32–41. May, B., Plummer, R., 2011. Accommodating the challenges of climate change adaptation and governance in conventional risk management: adaptive collaborative risk management (ACRM). Ecology and Society 16 (1), 47 [online] http:// www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art47/ McCarthy, J.J., Canziani, O.F., Leary, N.A., Dokken, D.J., White, K.S. (Eds.), 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.. Cambridge University Press, UK. McLaughlin, P., Dietz, T., 2008. Structure, agency and environment: toward an integrated perspective on vulnerability. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 18, 99–111. Nadasdy, P., 2007. Adaptive co-management and the gospel of resilience. In: Armitage, D., Berkes, F., Doubleday, N. (Eds.), Adaptive Co-management: Collaboration, Learning and Multilevel Governance. Canada: UBC Press, Vancouver, British Columbia, pp. 208–227. Nielsen, K.A., Nielsen, B.S., 2006. Methodologies in action research. In: Nielsen, K.A., Svensson, L. (Eds.), Action Research and Interactive Research. Shaker publishing, Maastricht, Netherlands, pp. 63–88. ˚ ., 2009a. Social Learning about Nilsson, A.E., Gerger Swartling, A Climate Adaptation: Global and Local Perspectives. SEI Working Paper, Mistra-SWECIA Working paper No 1, Stockholm Environment Institute. ˚ ., 2009b. Social learning about Nilsson, A.E., Gerger Swartling, A climate adaptation: some observations from the Stockholm region Mistra-SWECIA. Newsletter 1:09 . Orlove, B., 2005. Human adaptation to climate change: a review of three historical cases and some general perspectives. Environmental Science and Policy 8, 589–600. Ostrom, E., 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325, 419– 422. Packham, R., Sriskandarajah, N., 2005. Systemic action research for postgraduate education in agriculture and rural development. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 22, 119–130. Parry, M.L., Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J., Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

environmental science & policy 23 (2012) 12–23

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: University Press. Powell, N., Osbeck, M., 2010. Understanding and embedding stakeholder realities coastal governance: the case of Mangroves in the Mahakam delta East Kalimantan. International Journal of Sustainability Development 18 (3), 260–270. Powell, N., Jiggins, J., 2003. Learning from participatory land management. In: Becker, H.A., Vancley, F. (Eds.), The International Handbook of Social Impact Assessment. Conceptual and Methodological Advances, pp. 44–55. Reid, H., Cannon, T., Berger, R., Alam, M., Milligan, A., 2009. Community-based Adaptation to Climate Change. Participatory Learning and Action 60. International Institute for Environment and Development, London, UK. Ro¨ling, N., Wagemakers, A., 1998. Facilitating sustainable agriculture; Participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. University Press, Cambridge. Schultz, L., Folke, C., Olsson, P., 2007. Enhancing ecosystem management through social–ecological inventories: lessons from Kristianstads Vattenrike. Sweden Environment Conservation Journal 34 (2), 140–152. Smit, B., Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 16, 282–292. Smit, B., Skinner, M.W., 2002. Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 7, 85–114. Stake, R.E., 2000. Case studies. In: Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. second ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, pp. 435–454. Steyaert, P., Barzman, M., Billaud, J.-P., Brives, H., Hubert, B., Ollivier, G., Roche, B., 2007. The role of knowledge and research in facilitating social learning among stakeholders in natural resources management in the French Atlantic coastal wetlands. Environmental Science and Policy 10, 537–550. Storbjo¨rk, S., 2006. Klimatanpassning i Sverige – Drivkrafter och utmaningar fo¨r riskhantering och fysisk planering. CSPR Research Report 06:02. Linko¨ping University, Linko¨ping (in Swedish). Svensson, L., Nielsen, K.A., 2006. Action research and interactive research. In: Nielsen, K.A., Svensson, L. (Eds.), Action Research and Interactive Research. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht, Netherlands, pp. 13–44. Thomalla, F., Larsen, R.K., 2010. Resilience in the Context of Tsunami Early Warning Systems and Community Disaster Preparedness in the Indian Ocean Region. Environmental Hazards 9 (3), 249–265. Thrupp, L.A., Cabarle, B., Zazueta, A., 1994. Participatory methods in planning & political processes: linking the grassroots & policies for sustainable development. Agriculture and Human Values 11 (3–4), 77–84. Twigg, J., 2003. The human factor in early warnings: risk perception and appropriate communications. In: Zschau, J., Kuppers, A.N. (Eds.), Early Warning Systems for Natural Disaster Reduction. Springer, New York. Uggla, Y., Lidskog, R., 2006. Att planera fo¨r en osa¨ker framtid. Kommuners arbete info¨r hotet om ett fo¨ra¨ndrat klimat. ¨ rebro Universitet, Centrum fo¨r Urbana och Regionala O Studier Rapport No 60 (in Swedish). Urwin, K., Jordan, A., 2008. Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy

23

interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 18, 180–191. van Aalst, M.K., Cannon, T., Burton, I., 2008. Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global Environmental Change – Human and Policy Dimensions 18, 165–179. ¨ berg, G., Abrandt-Dahlgren, M., 2007. Learning in Wibeck, V., O focus groups: an analytical dimension for enhancing focus group research. Quality Research 7, 249–262. Yin, R., 1989. Case Study Research: Design and Methods, revised ed. Sage, London, UK. Zou, L., Thomalla, F., 2010. Social Vulnerability to Coastal Hazards in South-East Asia: a Synthesis of Research Insights. In: Hoanh, C.T., Szuster, B.W., Suan-Pheng, K., Ismael, A.M., Noble, A. (Eds.), Tropical Deltas and Coastal Zones: Food Production, Communities and Environment at the Land– Water Interface. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. Rasmus Klocker Larsen is a research fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). His research focuses on the fostering of effective, adaptive and legitimate multi stakeholder and governance processes in integrated natural resource management and international development. ˚ sa Gerger Swartling is senior research fellow, transforming A governance theme leader at SEI, and also researcher in the Stockholm Resilience Center. Her research focuses on stakeholder participation, collaboration and learning in the context of environmental policy and governance, with focus on climate change adaptation. Neil Powell is senior research fellow at SEI. His research, training and development action is geared towards addressing intractable problems and resource dilemmas in the context of natural resource governance and management. Brad May is a research manager at the Climate Research Division of Environment Canada. He provides integrated impacts and adaptation research that combines the science of climate change and socio-economic modeling to protect Canadians from climate change impacts and weather-related risk. Ryan Plummer is professor and director of the Environmental Sustainability Research Centre at Brock University as well as senior research fellow with the Stockholm Resilience Center. His research broadly concerns environmental governance and social–ecological systems, focusing amongst other on adaptive co-management, adaptive capacity, and climate adaptation. Louise Simonsson is an environmental researcher at the Swedish Defence Research Agency. She specialises in climate change adaptation, urban planning, and participatory research methodologies, with a focus on Sweden as well as South-East Asia. Maria Osbeck is a research fellow at SEI. She specialises in a broad range of social theories and applications, with a particular focus on governance, stakeholder engagement, learning, sustainability assessment, project evaluation and policy integration in water-, forests- and coastal systems.