Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Barriers to adaptation have become an important concept in scientific and political discussions in the governance of climate change adaptation. Over the past years, these discussions have been dominated by one analytical lens in examining barriers and proposing ways to overcome them: the problem solving lens. In this paper, we aim to demonstrate theoretically and empirically that the choice of analytical lens influences how barriers to adaptation are constructed and the intervention strategies proposed. Drawing from recent governance literature, we explore the rationale of three dominant philosophies in the study of governance: the optimist, the realist, and the pessimist philosophy. Next, we demonstrate how these philosophies are operationalized and guide scientific inquiry on barriers to adaptation through four empirically rooted analytical lenses: i) governance as problem solving, ii) governance as competing values and interests, iii) governance as institutional interaction, and iv) governance as dealing with structural constraints. We investigate the Dutch government’s Spatial Adaptation to Climate Change programme through each of the four lenses. We discuss how each analytical lens frames barriers in a specific way, identifies different causes of barriers, leads to competing interpretations of key events, and presents other types of interventions to overcome barriers. We conclude that it is necessary to increase analytical variety in order to critically engage in theoretical debates about barriers and to empower policy practitioners in their search for successful intervention strategies to implement adaptation measures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Chang 15(2):77–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Naess LO, Wolf J, Wreford A (2009a) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Chang 93:335–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien K (eds) (2009b) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values and governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Adger WN, Barnett J, Brown K, Marshall N, O’Brien K (2012) Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat Clim Chang 3:112–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Allison GT, Zelikow P (1999) Essence of decision: explaining the cuban missile crisis. Longman, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • ARK (2006) Nationaal Programma Adaptatie Ruimte en Klimaat (ARK) [in dutch]. The Hague, the Netherlands: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Union of Water Boards, Interprovincial Committee, Association of Dutch municipalities

  • Bailey I, Wilson GA (2009) Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate change: technocentrism, ecocentrism, and the carbon economy. Environ Plan A 41(10):2324–2341

    Google Scholar 

  • Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Paterson J (2011) Are we adapting to climate change? Glob Environ Chang 21(1):25–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevir M (2009) Key concepts in governance. SAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Biesbroek GR, Termeer CJAM, Klostermann JEM, Kabat P (2013) On the nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg Environ Chang 1–11. doi:10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y

  • Biesbroek GR, Klostermann JEM, Termeer CJAM, Kabat P (2011) Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Clim Law 2:181–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Boer H (2010) Policy options for, and constraints on, effective adaptation for rivers and wetlands in northeast Queensland. Australas J Environ Manag 17(3):154–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens MAP, ‘t Hart P (1995) Frame multiplicity and policy fiascoes: limits to explanation. Knowl Technol Policy 8(4):61–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens MAP, ‘t Hart P (1996) Understanding policy fiascoes. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown RR, Farrelly MA (2009) Delivering sustainable urban water management: A review of the hurdles we face. Water Sci Technol 59:839–846

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch S (2010a) In pursuit of resilient, low carbon communities: an examination of barriers to action in three Canadian cities. Energy Pol 38(12):7575–7585

    Google Scholar 

  • Burch S (2010b) Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Glob Environ Chang 20(2):287–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen MD, March JG, Olsen JP (1972) A garbage can model of organizational choice. Adm Sci Q 17(1):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornelissen JP (2006) Making sense of theory construction: metaphor and disciplined imagination. Organ Stud 27(11):1579–1597

    Google Scholar 

  • Court of Audit (2012) Adaptation to climate change: strategy and policy. Netherlands Court of Audit, the Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Deltacommittee (2008) Working together with water. A living land builds for its future. Findings of the Deltacommissie 2008: Hollandia Printing

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302(5652):1907–1912

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovers SR, Hezri AA (2010) Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adaptation. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Clim Chang 1(2):212–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit A, Galaz V (2008) Governance and complexity—emerging issues for governance theory. Governance 21(3):311–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Edelman M (1977) Political language: words that succeed and policies that fail. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM, Zbaracki MJ (1992) Strategic decision making. Strateg Manag J 13(S2):17–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Esbjörn-Hargens S (2010) An ontology of climate change integral pluralism and the enactment of multiple objects. J Integr Theory Pract 5(1):143–174

    Google Scholar 

  • EUROSAI (2012) Adaptation to climate change—are governments prepared? A cooperative audit. Oslo, Norway: European Supreme Audit Institutions Working Group on Environmental Auditing (EUROSAI WGEA)

  • Fieldman G (2011) Neoliberalism, the production of vulnerability and the hobbled state: Systemic barriers to climate adaptation. Clim Dev 3:159–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Flugman E, Mozumder P, Randhir T (2012) Facilitating adaptation to global climate change: perspectives from experts and decision makers serving the Florida Keys. Clim Chang 112(3–4):1015–1035

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L (eds) (2011) Climate change adaptation in developed nations: From theory to practice (vol. 42). Springer, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Paterson J (2011) A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations. Clim Chang 106(2):327–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gifford R, Kormos C, McIntyre A (2011) Behavioral dimensions of climate change: drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Clim Chang 2(6):801–827

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia DA, Pitre E (1990) Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Acad Manag Rev 15(4):584–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Guba EG, Lincon YS (1994) Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Dezin N, Lincon YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 105–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta J, Termeer C, Klostermann J, Meijerink S, van den Brink M, Jong P, Nooteboom S, Bergsma E (2010) The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environ Sci Pol 13(6):459–471

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajer M (2003) Policy without polity? Policy analysis and the institutional void. Pol Sci 36(2):175–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanger S, Pfenninger S, Dreyfus M, Patt A (2013) Knowledge and information needs of adaptation policy-makers: a European study. Reg Environ Chang 13(1):91–101

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon AB, Douglas Y (2001) When innovations meet institutions: Edison and the design of the electric light. Adm Sci Q 46(3):476–501

    Google Scholar 

  • Harries T, Penning-Rowsell E (2011) Victim pressure, institutional inertia and climate change adaptation: the case of flood risk. Glob Environ Chang 21(1):188–197

    Google Scholar 

  • Hedger MM, Connell R, Bramwell P (2006) Bridging the gap: empowering decision-making for adaptation through the UK Climate Impacts Programme. Clim Policy 6(2):201–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Huntjens P, Lebel L, Pahl-Wostl C, Camkin J, Schulze R, Kranz N (2012) Institutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climate change in the water sector. Glob Environ Chang 22(1):67–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson N, Carter P (1991) In defence of paradigm incommensurability. Organ Stud 12(1):109–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Jann W, Wegrich K (2007) Theories of the policy cycle. In: Fischer F, Miller G, Sidney MS (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 43–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff S (2010) A new climate for society. Theory Cult Soc 27(2–3):233–253. doi:10.1177/0263276409361497

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop B (1998) The rise of governance and the risks of failure: the case of economic development. Int Soc Sci J 50(155):44–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessop B (2003) Governance and metagovernance: on reflexivity, requisite variety, and requisite irony. In: Bang HP (ed) Governance as social and political communication. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 101–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Juhola S, Westerhoff L (2011) Challenges of adaptation to climate change across multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European countries. Environ Sci Policy 14(3):239–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabat P, Van Vierssen W, Veraart J, Vellinga P, Aerts J (2005) Climate proofing the Netherlands. Nature 438(7066):283–284

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan S (2008) Framing contests: strategy making under uncertainty. Organ Sci 19(5):729–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ (2012) Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(19):7156–7161

    Google Scholar 

  • Keskitalo ECH (ed) (2010) Developing adaptation policy and practice in Europe: multi-level governance of climate change. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn EH (2001) Rules as institutional context for decision making in networks: the approach to postwar housing districts in two cities. Adm Soc 33(2):133–164

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn EH (2008) Complexity theory and public administration: what’s new? Public Manag Rev 10(3):299–317

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooiman JAN, Jentoft S (2009) Meta-governance: values, norms and principles, and the making of hard choices. Public Adm 87(4):818–836

    Google Scholar 

  • Koppenjan JFM, Klijn EH (2004) Managing uncertainties in networks: a network approach to problem solving and decision making. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouzakova M, Ellemers N, Harinck F, Scheepers D (2012) The implications of value conflict. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 38(6):798–807

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn TS (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Laudan L, Donovan A, Laudan R, Barker P, Brown H, Leplin J, Thagard P, Wykstra S (1986) Scientific change: philosophical models and historical research. Synthese 69(2):141–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Lazarus RJ (2009) Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev 94(5):1153–1233

    Google Scholar 

  • Lebel L, Manuta JB, Garden P (2011) Institutional traps and vulnerability to changes in climate and flood regimes in Thailand. Reg Environ Chang 11(1):45–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemieux CJ, Scott DJ (2011) Changing climate, challenging choices: identifying and evaluating climate change adaptation options for protected areas management in Ontario, Canada. Environ Manag 48(4):675–690

    Google 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 Sci 45(2):123–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis MW, Kelemen ML (2002) Multiparadigm inquiry: exploring organizational pluralism and paradox. Hum Relat 55(2):251–275

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCoun RJ (1998) Biases in the interpretation and use of research results. Annu Rev Psychol 49:259–287

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney J, Thelen K (2010) Explaining institutional change: ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG (1994) A primer on decision making: how decisions happen. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Olsen JP (1989) Rediscovering insitutions: the organizational basis of politics. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • March JG, Olsen JP (1996) Institutional perspectives on political institutions. Governance 9(3):247–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauthner NS, Doucet A (2003) Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology 37(3):413–431

    Google Scholar 

  • McConnell A (2010) Policy success, policy failure and grey areas in-between. J Public Policy 30(03):345–362

    Google Scholar 

  • Measham T, Preston B, Smith T, Brooke C, Gorddard R, Withycombe G, Morrison C (2011) Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: barriers and challenges. Mitig Adapt Strat Gl 16(8):889–909

    Google Scholar 

  • MNP (2006) The effects of climate change in the Netherlands. Bilthoven, the Netherlands: Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency

  • Morgan G (1980) Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Adm Sci Q 25(4):605–622

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(51):22026–22031

    Google Scholar 

  • Moser SC, Kasperson RE, Yohe G, Agyeman J (2008) Adaptation to climate change in the Northeast United States: opportunities, processes, constraints. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Chang 13(5–6):643–659

    Google Scholar 

  • Mozumder P, Flugman E, Randhir T (2011) Adaptation behavior in the face of global climate change: survey responses from experts and decision makers serving the Florida Keys. Ocean Coast Manag 54(1):37–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Næss LO, Bang G, Eriksen S, Vevatne J (2005) Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Glob Environ Chang 15(2):125–138

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K (2009) Do values subjectively define the limits to climate change adaptation? In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien K (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 164–180

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K, Hochachka G (2010) Integral adaptation to climate change. J Integr Theory Pract 5(1):89–102

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K, Wolf J (2010) A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisc Rev: Clim Chang 1(2):232–242

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Nygaard LP, Schjolden A (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim Pol 7(1):73–88

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill SJ, Hulme M (2009) An iconic approach for representing climate change. Glob Environ Chang 19(4):402–410

    Google Scholar 

  • PBL (2012) Climate Change Impacts in the Netherlands: 2012 [in Dutch]. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelling M (2011) Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents: living with high risk technologies. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1997) What is a processual analysis? Scand J Manag 13(4):337–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer J (1993) Barriers to the advance of organizational science: paradigm development as a dependable variable. Acad Manag Rev 18(4):599–620

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson P (2000) Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 94(2):251–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman J, Wildavsky A (1984) Implementation: how great expectations in Washington are dashed in Oakland; or, why it’s amazing that federal programs work at all, this being a saga of the economic development administration as told by two sympathetic observers who seek to build morals on a foundation of ruined hopes. Berkeley: University of California Press

  • Rayner S, Malone EL (1998) Human choice and climate change. Battelle, Columbus

    Google Scholar 

  • Regmi MB, Hanaoka S (2011) A survey on impacts of climate change on road transport infrastructure and adaptation strategies in Asia. Environ Econ Policy Stud 13(1):21–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes RAW (1997) Understanding governance: policy networks, governance, reflexivity and accountability. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhodes RAW (2007) Understanding governance: ten years on. Organ Stud 28(8):1243–1264

    Google Scholar 

  • Rijke J, Brown R, Zevenbergen C, Ashley R, Farrelly M, Morison P, van Herk S (2012) Fit-for-purpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environ Sci Policy 22:73–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Routeplanner (2006) Naar een klimaatbestendig Nederland (towards climate proofing the Netherlands) Abstract of the national research programs ‘Climate changes spatial planning’, ‘Living with water’, and ‘Habiforum’ and National Programme ‘Adaptation to climate change in spatial planning’. the Hague, Netherlands

  • Sabatier PA (2007) Theories of the policy process, 2nd edn. Westview Press, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier PA, Hunter S, McLaughlin S (1987) The devil shift: perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. West Polit Q 40(3):449–476

    Google Scholar 

  • Scharpf FW (1997) Games real actors play: actor-centered institutionalism in policy research. Westview Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon DA, Rein M (1994) Frame reflection. Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. Basic Books, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz SH (1994) Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? J Soc Issues 50(4):19–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2008a) Approaching adulthood: the maturing of institutional theory. Theory Soc 37(5):427–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott WR (2008b) Institutions and organisations: ideas and interests, 3rd edn. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepherd C, Challenger R (2013) Revisiting paradigm(s) in management research: a rhetorical analysis of the paradigm wars. Int J Manag Rev 1–20. doi:10.1111/ijmr.12004

  • Shmueli D, Elliott M, Kaufman S (2006) Frame changes and the management of intractable conflicts. Confl Resolut Q 24(2):207–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Shove E (2010) Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environ Plan A 42(6):1273–1285

    Google Scholar 

  • Sil R, Katzenstein PJ (2010) Analytic eclecticism in the study of world politics: Reconfiguring problems and mechanisms across research traditions. Perspect Polit 8(2):411–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorensen E, Torfing J (2009) Making governance networks effective and democratic through metagovernance. Public Adm 87(2):234–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson WB, Greenberg D (2000) Agency and social networks: strategies of action in a social structure of position, opposition, and opportunity. Adm Sci Q 45(4):651–678

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart J (2006) Value conflict and policy change. Rev Policy Res 23(1):183–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: five propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(155):17–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone D (2001) Policy paradox: the art of political decision making (2nd revised ed.). Central Book House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Storbjörk S (2007) Governing climate adaptation in the local arena: challenges of risk management and planning in Sweden. Local Environ 12(5):457–469

    Google Scholar 

  • Storbjörk S, Hedrén J (2011) Institutional capacity-building for targeting sea-level rise in the climate adaptation of Swedish coastal zone management. Lessons from Coastby. Ocean Coast Manag 54(3):265–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Swart RJ, Biesbroek GR, Binnerup S, Carter TR, Henrichs T, Loquen S, et al. (2009) Europe Adapts to Climate change: Comparing National Adaptation Strategies (No. 01/2009). Helsinki: Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

  • Teisman GR (2000) Models for research into decision-making processes phases, streams and decision-making rounds. Public Adm 78(4):936–956

    Google Scholar 

  • Teisman GR, Klijn EH (2008) Complexity theory and public management. Public Manag Rev 10(3):287–297

    Google Scholar 

  • Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A (2012) Towards theoretical multiplicity for the governance of transitions: the energy-producing greenhouse case. Int J Sustain Dev 15(1–2):37–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Termeer CJAM, Kessener B (2007) Revitalizing stagnated policy processes: using the configuration approach for research and interventions. J Appl Behav Sci 43(2):256–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Termeer CJAM, Biesbroek GR, van den Brink M (2012) Institutions for adaptation to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. Eur Polit Sci 11(1):41–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Thacher D, Rein M (2004) Managing value conflict in public policy. Governance 17(4):457–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing J, Peters BG, Pierre J, Sorensen E (2012) Interactive governance: advancing the paradigm. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tryhorn LM, Lynch AH (2010) Climate change adaptation in the Alpine Shire of Australia: a decision process appraisal. Policy Sci 43(2):105–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(4481):453–458

    Google Scholar 

  • Uittenbroek CJ, Janssen-Jansen LB, Runhaar HAC (online first) Mainstreaming climate adaptation into urban planning: overcoming barriers, seizing opportunities and evaluating the results in two Dutch case studies. Reg Environ Chang 1–13. doi:10.1007/s10113-012-0348-8

  • van Buuren A, Gerrits L (2008) Decisions as dynamic equilibriums in erratic policy processes. Public Manag Rev 10(3):381–399

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg M, Coenen F (2012) Integrating climate change adaptation into Dutch local policies and the role of contextual factors. Local Environ 17(4):441–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Vink MJ, Boezeman D, Dewulf A, Termeer CJAM (online first) Changing climate, changing frames: Dutch water policy frame developments in the context of a rise and fall of attention to climate change. Environ Sci Pol 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.010

  • Von Storch H, Stehr N (1997) Climate research: the case for the social sciences. Ambio 26(1):66–71

    Google Scholar 

  • VROM (2007a) Maak Ruimte voor Klimaat! Nationale Adaptatie Strategie. De beleidsnotitie. (Make Space for Climate! National Adaptation Strategy. The policy document, in Dutch). The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM); Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water management (V&W); Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV); Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ); Inter provincial cooperation (IPO); Association of Dutch municipalities (VNG); Union of Water Boards (UvW)

  • VROM (2007b) Maak Ruimte voor Klimaat! Nationale Adaptatie Strategie. De interbestuurlijke notitie. (Make Space for Climate! National Adaptation Strategy. The interdepartmental document, in Dutch). The Hague: Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment (VROM); Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water management (V&W); Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (LNV); Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ); Inter provincial cooperation (IPO); Association of Dutch municipalities (VNG); Union of Water Boards (UvW)

  • Weber EP (2008) Facing and managing climate change: assumptions, science, and governance responses. Polit Sci 60(1):133–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber EP, Khademian AM (2008) Wicked problems, knowledge challenges, and collaborative capacity builders in network settings. Public Adm Rev 68(2):334–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Weible CM, Sabatier PA, McQueen K (2009) Themes and variations: taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Stud J 37(1):121–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1999) Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: tradeoffs in the 90s. Acad Manag Rev 24(4):797–806

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Barriers to Adaptation to Climate Change Workshop (18–21 September 2012, Berlin, Germany). We are grateful for the funding provided by the Dutch national Climate Changes Spatial Planning research programme and the Strategic Knowledge Development Programme of Wageningen UR on Climate Change (Kennisbasis 2 thema Klimaatverandering) financed by the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture, and Innovation. We thank the interviewees for providing us with valuable data for the case analysis. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and any errors or omissions remain our own responsibility.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earth System Science group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Droevendaalsesteeg 3a, 6708 PB, Wageningen, The Netherlands

    G. Robbert Biesbroek & Pavel Kabat

  2. Public Administration and Policy group, Wageningen University and Research Centre, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    G. Robbert Biesbroek & Catrien J. A. M. Termeer

  3. Alterra, Wageningen, the Netherlands

    Judith E. M. Klostermann

  4. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Pavel Kabat

Authors
  1. G. Robbert Biesbroek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Catrien J. A. M. Termeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Judith E. M. Klostermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Pavel Kabat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G. Robbert Biesbroek.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Biesbroek, G.R., Termeer, C.J.A.M., Klostermann, J.E.M. et al. Analytical lenses on barriers in the governance of climate change adaptation. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 19, 1011–1032 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9457-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-013-9457-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation