Advertisement

Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 7–20 | Cite as

Methodological choices in solution-oriented adaptation research: a diagnostic framework

  • Jochen HinkelEmail author
  • Alexander Bisaro
Original Article

Abstract

While methodological choices are critical for solution-oriented adaptation research, the current debate on these is underdeveloped and characterized by simple dichotomies such as bottom-up and top-down as well as vaguely defined concepts such as vulnerability. Adaptation challenges and approaches for addressing them are more diverse than these labels suggest. This paper addresses this deficit by developing a diagnostic framework that helps to identify approaches suitable for addressing a given adaptation challenge. The framework was developed out of the necessity to discuss diverse approaches from natural science, social science and practice in a set of adaptation case studies conducted within the European funded MEDIATION project. Based on these case studies complemented by the literature, we iteratively abstracted typical adaptation challenges researched, typical approaches taken, and empirical, theoretical and normative criteria applied for choosing a particular approach. Our results refine the methodological debate by distinguishing between the three general adaptation challenges of identifying adaptation needs, identifying adaptation measures and appraising adaptation options. Adaptation challenges are further classified according to private and public interest involved, individual or various types of collective action involved, data/model availability, decision-making time horizon, etc. For each type of challenge and approach, we give examples and discuss salient issues. Our results point to the opportunity to apply institutional and behavioural research to support the identification of measures and possibly avoiding barriers in practice. The diagnostic framework also serves as the basis for the forthcoming guidance for assessing vulnerability, impacts and adaptation to be published by the UNEP programme of research on climate change vulnerability, impacts and adaptation.

Keywords

Climate change Vulnerability Impacts Adaptation Methodology Methodological choices Climate risk Decision analysis Behavioural analysis Institutional analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement No. 244012. The work would not have been possible without the continuous support of all members of the MEDIATION project team. We are particularly thankful for the comments and suggestions provided by Tom Downing, Anthony Patt, Stefan Pfenninger, Erik van Slobbe, Rob Swart, Paul Watkiss and Saskia Werners, as well as two anonymous reviewers.

Supplementary material

10113_2014_682_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (217 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 217 kb)
10113_2014_682_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (101 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 101 kb)

References

  1. Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M, Hulme M, Lorenzoni I, Nelson DR, Wreford A (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change 93(3):335–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayers J, Forsyth T (2009) Community-based adaptation to climate change: strengthening resilience through development. Environment 51(4):22–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett J, O’Neill S (2010) Maladaptation. Glob Environ Change 20(2):211–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkes F, Folke C (1998) Linking social and ecological systems for resilience and sustainability. In: Berkes F, Folke C (eds) Linking social and ecological systems: management practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–24Google Scholar
  5. Berkhout F, Hertin J, Gann DM (2006) Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Clim Change 78:135–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bisaro A, van Ierland E, Zhu X, Khovanskaia M, Hinkel J (2013). Identifying public adaptation challenges in Serbian agriculture: comparing insights from institutional and decision analysis. MEDIATION Deliverable 4.5: Integrated methodology for vulnerability, impacts and adaptation. http://mediation-project.eu/output/downloads/d4.5_final-with-appendix.pdf
  7. Bohle HG, Downing TE, Watts MJ (1994) Climate change and social vulnerability: towards a sociology and geography of food security. Glob Environ Change 4(1):37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brooks N, Adger WN, Kelly PM (2005) The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Glob Environ Change 15:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buchanan JM, Musgrave RA, München U (1999) Public finance and public choice: two contrasting visions of the State. Mit Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. CARE (2009) Climate vulnerability and capacity analysis handbook. CARE international. http://www.careclimatechange.org/cvca/CARE_CVCAHandbook.pdf. Accessed Feb 2014
  11. Carter T, Fronzek S, Inkinen A et al (2014) Characterising vulnerability of the elderly to climate change in the Nordic region. Reg Environ Change Special Issue: Approaches for solution-oriented adaptation research (accepted)Google Scholar
  12. Carter TR, Mäkinen K (2011) Review of existing methods and metrics for assessing and quantifying impacts and vulnerability identifying key shortcomings and suggesting improvements. Mediation DelivGoogle Scholar
  13. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F et al (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100:8086–8091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22(7):953–969CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Crosby N (1995) Citizens juries: one solution for difficult environmental questions. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen participation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, London, pp 157–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cutter LS (1996) Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Prog Hum Geogr 20:529–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Clim Policy 4:107–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke R Jr (2008) Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation? In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien KL (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 64–78Google Scholar
  19. Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert R, Pielke R Jr (2009) Do we need better predictions to adapt to a changing climate? EOS 13:111–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dombrowsky I (2007) Conflict, cooperation, and institutions in international water management: an economic analysis. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Dussaillant A, Benito G, Buytaert W, Carling P, Meier C, Espinoza F (2010) Repeated glacial-lake outburst floods in Patagonia: an increasing hazard? Nat Hazards 54(2):469–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eakin HC, Patt A (2011) Are adaptation studies effective, and what can enhance their practical impact? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change 2(2):141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’donoghue T (2002) Time discounting and time preference: a critical review. J Econ Lit 40(2):351–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Füssel M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain Sci 2:265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Füssel HM, Klein RJT (2006) Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Clim Change 75:301–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gale P, Brouwer A, Ramnial V, Kelly L, Kosmider R, Fooks A, Snary E (2010) Assessing the impact of climate change on vector-borne viruses in the EU through the elicitation of expert opinion. Epidemiol Infect 138(2):214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. SAGE Publications, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Gigerenzer G (2002) Bounded rationality: the adaptive toolbox. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change Part A 15(3):199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gunningham N, Sinclair D (1999) Regulatory pluralism: designing policy mixes for environmental protection. Law Policy 21(1):49–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Haasnoot M, Middelkoop H, Offermans A, Beek E, van Deursen WA (2012) Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in a changing environment. Clim Change 115(3–4):795–819. doi: 10.1007/s10584-012-0444-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hahn BM, Riederer MA, Foster OS (2009) The livelihood vulnerability index: a pragmatic approach to assessing risks from climate variability and change. A case study in Mozambique. Glob Environ Change 19(1):74–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hallegatte S (2009) Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob Environ Change 19(2):240–247. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hinkel J (2011) “Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: towards a clarification of the science policy interface. Glob Environ Change 21:198–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hofmann M, Hinkel J, Wrobel M (2011) Classifying knowledge on climate change impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability in Europe for informing adaptation research and decision-making: a conceptual meta-analysis. Glob Environ Change 21:1106–1116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  37. Howlett M (2011) Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Routledge, Oxon, UK, New York, USA & CanadaGoogle Scholar
  38. Ionescu C, Klein RJT, Hinkel J, Kumar KSK, Klein R (2009) Towards a formal framework of vulnerability to climate change. Environ Modeling Assess 14:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. IPCC (2007) Summary for policy makers. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP et al (eds) Climate change 2007 climate change impacts adaptation vulnerability work. Group II Contribution intergovernmental Panel climate change fourth assessment report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp 7–22Google Scholar
  40. Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2006) Resilience, vulnerability and adaptation: a cross-cutting theme of the international human dimensions programme on global environmental change. Glob Environ Change 16(3):237–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kabat P, Fresco LO, Stive MJ, Veerman CP, van Alphen JS, Parmet BW, Katsman CA (2009) Dutch coasts in transition. Nat Geosci 2(7):450–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econom J Econom Soc 47:263–291Google Scholar
  43. Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Karp L (2005) Global warming and hyperbolic discounting. J Public Econ 89:261–282. doi: 10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.02.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Khabarov N, Krasovskii A, Obersteiner M et al (2014) Forest Fires and Adaptation Options in Europe. Reg Environ Change Special Issue: Approaches for solution-oriented adaptation researchGoogle Scholar
  46. Kleindorfer PR, Kunreuther HG, Schoemaker PJ (1993) Decision sciences: an integrative perspective. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Koerth J, Vafeidis A, Hinkel J, Sterr H (2013) What motivates coastal households to adapt pro-actively to sea-level rise and increasing flood risk? Reg Environ Change 13:897–909Google Scholar
  48. Kueffer C, Underwood E, Hadorn GH, Holderegger R, Lehning M, Pohl C, Wuelser G (2012) Enabling effective problem-oriented research for sustainable development. Ecol Soc 17(4):8Google Scholar
  49. Laibson D (1997) Golden eggs and hyperbolic discounting. Q J Econ 112(2):443–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27(4):1009–1026Google Scholar
  51. Lempert RJ, Schlesinger ME (2000) Robust strategies for abating climate change. Clim Change 45(3):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lempert R, Schlesinger ME (2001) Climate-change strategy needs to be robust. Nature 412(6845):375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lenton MT, Held H, Kriegler E et al (2008) Tipping elements in the Earth′s climate system. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:1786–1786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lonsdale KG, Gawith MJ, Johnstone K, Street RB, West CC, Brown AD (2010) Attributes of well-adapting organisations A report prepared by UK Climate Impacts Programme for the Adaptation Sub-Committee. UK Climate Impacts ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  55. Lowe JA, Howard TP, Pardaens A, Tinker J, Holt J, Wakelin S, Bradley S (2009) Marine and coastal projections UK Climate Projections science report. Met Office Hadley Centre and Exeter, UKGoogle Scholar
  56. McGray H, Hamill A, Bradley R, Schipper EL (2007) Weathering the Storm: options for framing adaptation and development World Resources Institute Report. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. Minkler M, Wallerstein N (2011) Community-based participatory research for health: from process to outcomes. Jossey-Bass, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  58. Moser SC, Ekstrom J (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(51):22026–22031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mustafa D, Ahmed S, Saroch E, Bell H (2011) Pinning down vulnerability: from narratives to numbers. Disasters 35(1):62–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Schjolden A, Nygaard LP (2007) Why different interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Clim Policy 7(1):73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  62. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (2007) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on climate change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Patt A, Suarez P, Gwata C (2005) Effects of seasonal climate forecasts and participatory workshops among subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102(35):12623–12628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Penning-Rowsell EC, Haigh N, Lavery S, McFadden L (2012) A threatened world city: the benefits of protecting London from the sea. Nat Hazards. doi: 10.1007/s11069-011-0075-3
  65. Raadgever GT, Mostert E (2005) NeWater deliverable: review of participatory approaches in water management NEWATER Project Google Scholar
  66. Reid H, Alam M, Berger R, Cannon T, Huq S, Milligan A (2009) Community-based adaptation to climate change. In: Reid H, Alam M, Berger R, Cannon T, Huq S, Milligan A (eds) Participatory learning and action, vol 60. Russell Press, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  67. Renn O (2008) Risk governance. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  68. Ribot JC, Magalhães AR, Panagides S (2005) Climate variability, climate change and social vulnerability in the semi-arid tropics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  69. Rosenzweig C, Solecki WD, Blake R, Bowman M, Faris C, Gornitz V, Leichenko R (2011) Developing coastal adaptation to climate change in the New York City infrastructure-shed: process, approach, tools, and strategies. Clim Change 106(1):93–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R et al (2005) Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe. Science 310:1333–1337. doi: 10.1126/science.1115233
  71. Scoones I (1998) Sustainable rural livelihoods: a framework for analysis. Institute of Development Studies, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  72. Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Change 16(3):282–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tainio A, Heikkinen RK, Heliölä J et al (2014) Conservation of grassland butterflies in Finland under a changing climate. Reg Environ Change Special Issue: Approaches for solution-oriented adaptation research (accepted)Google Scholar
  74. Tompkins EL, Eakin H (2012) Managing private and public adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change 22(1):3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.09.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Trombi G, Moriondo M, Bindi M et al (2011) The impacts of the climate change on Tuscan viticulture: qualities, areas and landscapes. In: Proceedings of the first European conference on wine and food tourism volterra (Pisa) Italy, April 13–15 2011Google Scholar
  76. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1973) Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognit Psychol 5(2):207–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. van Aalst MK, Cannon T, Burton I (2008) Community level adaptation to climate change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Glob Environ Change 18(1):165–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Slobbe E, Werners SE, Riquelme Solar M et al (2014) The future of the Rhine: stranded ships and no more salmon? Reg Environ Change Special Issue: Approaches for solution-oriented adaptation researchGoogle Scholar
  79. Varela-Ortega C, Blanco I, Esteve P et al (2014) How can irrigation agriculture adapt to climate change? Insights from the Guadiana basin in Spain. Reg Environ Change Special Issue: Approaches for solution-oriented adaptation research (accepted)Google Scholar
  80. Vincent K (2007) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and the importance of scale. Glob Environ Change 17(1):12–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walters C (1986) Adaptive management of renewable resources. MacMillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. Walters C (1997) Challenges in adaptive management of riparian and coastal ecosystems. Conserv Ecol 1(2):1Google Scholar
  83. Weber EU, Hilton DJ (1990) Contextual effects in the interpretations of probability words: perceived base rate and severity of events. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 16(4):781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Werners SE, van Loon J, Oost AP (2014) Application of the diagnostic framework to adaptation decision-making in the Delta Programme for the Dutch Wadden region. Reg Environ Change Special Issue: Approaches for solution-oriented adaptation researchGoogle Scholar
  85. Wilby RL, Dessai S (2010) Robust adaptation to climate change. Weather 65:180–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Wilk J, Andersson L, Warburton M (2013) Adaptation to climate change and other stressors among commercial and small-scale South African farmers. Reg Environ Change 13:273–286. doi: 10.1007/s10113-012-0323-4
  87. Wolf S, Hinkel J, Hallier M, Bisaro A, Lincke D, Ionescu C, Klein RJ (2013) Clarifying vulnerability definitions and assessments using formalisation. Int J Clim Change Strat Manag 5(1):54–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. World Meteorological Organization (2011) Climate Knowledge for action: a global framework for climate services. Empowering the most vulnerable. World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Adaptation and Social LearningGlobal Climate Forum (GCF)BerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations