A Critical Discussion on the Roles of Institutions on Ports’ Adaptation to the Impacts Posed by Climate Change

Part of the Climate Change Management book series (CCM)


Ports are increasingly vulnerable to the negative impacts posed by climate change, and thus port stakeholders have recently been engaged in different adaptation efforts. However, they find it difficult, if not impossible, to move up to the ‘next level’—often staying in the embryonic stage of knowledge sharing and exploration rather than actual planning and implementation of adaptation strategies and measures, and institutions play a significant role on such stagnancy. Understanding such, the article critically reviews the impacts of institutions on the process of climate adaptation planning. It specifically focuses on how institutional embeddedness acts as a significant barrier that hinders ports in progressing through the climate adaptation process. Also, it offers constructive insight on how the institutional structure of planning should be transformed so as to overcome such barriers.


Climate change Adaptation Institutional barriers Theoretical discussion Ports 



The University of Manitoba Transport Institute (UMTI) funds this study. The usual disclaimers apply.


  1. Adger WN, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15(2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amundsen H, Berglund F, Westskog H (2010) Overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation—a question of multilevel governance? Environ Plan C Gov Policy 28(2):276–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Applegate JS (2010) Embracing a precautionary approach to climate change. In: Driesen DM (ed) Economic thought and US climate change policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 171–196Google Scholar
  4. Araral E (2013) A transaction cost approach to climate adaptation: insights from Coase, Ostrom and Williamson and evidence from the 400-year old zangjeras. Environ Sci Policy 25:147–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnett J, Evans L, Gross C, Kiem AS, Kingsford RT, Palutikof JP, Pickering CM, Smithers SG (2015) From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: path dependency and the speed of change. Ecol Soc 20(3):5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Becker A (2016) The state of climate adaptation for ports and the way forward. In: Ng AKY, Becker A, Cahoon S, Chen SL, Earl P, Yang Z (eds) Climate change and adaptation planning for ports. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 265–274Google Scholar
  7. Becker A, Caldwell M (2015) Stakeholder perceptions of seaport resilience strategies: a case study of Gulfport (Mississippi) and providence (Rhode Island). Coast Manag 43(1):1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker A, Inoue S, Fischer M, Schwegler B (2012) Climate change impacts on international seaports: knowledge, perceptions, and planning efforts among port administrators. Clim Change 110(1–2):5–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Becker A, Acciaro M, Asariotis R, Carera E, Cretegny L, Crist P, Esteban M, Mather A, Messner S, Naruse S, Ng AKY, Rahmstorf S, Savonis M, Song D-W, Stenek V, Velegrakis AF (2013) A Note on Climate change adaptation for seaports: a challenge for global ports, a challenge for global society. Clim Change 120(4):683–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Becker AH, Matson P, Fischer M, Mastrandrea MD (2015) Towards seaport resilience for climate change adaptation: stakeholder perceptions of hurricane impacts in Gulfport (MS) and providence (RI). Prog Plan 99:1–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bouriaud L, Marzano M, Lexer M, Nichiforel L, Reyer C, Temperli C, Peltola H, Elkin C, Duduman G, Taylor P, Bathgate S, Borges JG, Clerkx S, Garcia-Gonzalo J, Gracia C, Hengeveld G, Kellomäki S, Kostov G, Maroschek M, Muys B, Nabuurs G-J, Nicoll B, Palahí M, Rammer W, Ray D, Schelhaas M-J, Sing L, Tomé M, Zell J, Hanewinkel M (2015) Institutional factors and opportunities for adapting European forest management to climate change. Reg Environ Change 15(8):1595–1609Google Scholar
  12. Boxer B (1991) Societal contexts of ocean pollution science: cross-national comparisons. Glob Environ Change 1(2):139–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown S, Nicholls RJ, Hanson S, Brundrit G, Dearing JA, Dickson ME, Gallop SL, Gao S, Haigh ID, Hinkel J, Jiménez JA, Klein RJT, Kron W, Lázár AN, Neves CF, Newton A, Pattiaratachi C, Payo A, Pye K, Sánchez-Arcilla A, Siddall M, Shareef A, Tompkins EL, Vafeidis AT, van Maanen B, Ward PJ, Woodroffe CD (2014) Shifting perspectives on coastal impacts and adaptation. Nat Clim Change 4(9):752–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brunner S, Enting K (2014) Climate finance: a transaction cost perspective on the structure of state-to-state transfers. Glob Environ Change 27:138–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buitelaar E, Lagendijk A, Jacobs W (2007) A theory of institutional change: illustrated by Dutch City-Provinces and Dutch Land Policy. Environ Plan A 39:891–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Burch S (2010) Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Glob Environ Change 20(2):287–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chhetri NB, Easterling WE, Terando A, Mearns L (2010) Modeling path dependence in agricultural adaptation to climate variability and change. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(4):894–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. City of Vancouver (2012) Climate change adaptation strategy. City of Vancouver, Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  19. Cullinane K, Song D-W (2002) Port privatization policy and practice. Transp Rev 22(1):55–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denzau AT, North DC (1994) Shared mental models: ideologies and institutions. Kyklos 47(1):3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eisenack K, Moser SC, Hoffmann E, Klein RJT, Oberlack C, Pechan A, Rotter M, Termeer CJAM (2014) Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat Clim Change 4(10):867–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ekstrom JA, Moser SC (2013) Institutions as key element to successful climate adaptation processes: results from the San Francisco Bay Area. In: Moser SC, Boykoff MT (eds) Successful adaptation to climate change—linking science and policy in a rapidly changing world. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 97–113Google Scholar
  23. Ekstrom JA, Moser SC (2014) Identifying and overcoming barriers in urban climate adaptation: case study findings from the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Urban Clim 9:54–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fishman R (ed) (2000) The American planning tradition: culture and policy. The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  25. Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Paterson J (2011) A systematic review of observed climate change adaptation in developed nations. Clim Change 106(2):327–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fuchs M, Scharmanski A (2009) Counteracting path dependencies: rational investment decisions in the globalising commercial property market. Environ PlanA 41(11):2724–2740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garrelts H, Lange H (2011) Path dependencies and path change in complex fields of action: climate adaptation policies in Germany in the realm of flood risk management. Ambio 40(2):200–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glassman J (2004) Transnational hegemony and US labor foreign policy: towards a Gramscian international labour geography. Environ Plan D 22(4):573–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gutmann A, Thompson D (2012) The spirit of compromise. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  30. Hall PA, Taylor RCR (1998) Political science and the three new Institutionalisms. In: Soltan K, Soltan E, Uslaner EM (eds) Institutions and social order. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, pp 14–44Google Scholar
  31. Harvey D (2005) A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Hodgson G (1993) Economics and evolution: bringing life back in economics. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2012) IPCC special report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. IPCC, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Keohane RO, Victor DG (2010) The regime complex for climate change. Discussion paper, Harvard project on international climate agreements, Cambridge, MA (January 2010) (No. 2010-33)Google Scholar
  35. Kingston C, Caballero G (2009) Comparing theories of institutional change. J Inst Econ 5(02):151–180Google Scholar
  36. Klein J (2016) Embeddedness of climate change adaptation: established procedures and contending discourses for flood protection in Espoo, Finland. Local Environ 21(2):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Klein RJ, Nicholls RJ, Ragoonaden S, Capobianco M, Aston J, Buckley EN (2001) Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. J Coast Res 17(3):531–543Google Scholar
  38. Kretsch E, Becker A (2016) Leadership and responsibility for long-term hurricane resilience: port of providence, RI. Paper presented at the transportation research board conference for committee on maritime transportation system (CMTS), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  39. Lawrence J, Sullivan F, Lash A, Ide G, Cameron C, McGlinchey L (2015) Adapting to changing climate risk by local government in New Zealand: institutional practice barriers and enablers. Local Environ 20(3):298–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. March JG, Olsen JP (1989) Rediscovering institutions: the organizational basis of politics. The Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Marshall GR (2013) Transaction costs, collective action and adaptation in managing complex social-ecological systems. Ecol Econ 88:185–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martin R (2000) Institutional approaches in economic geography. In: Sheppard E, Barnes T (eds) A companion to economic geography. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  43. Messner S, Becker A, Ng AKY (2016) Port adaptation for climate change: the role of stakeholders and the planning process. In: Ng AKY, Becker A, Cahoon S, Chen SL, Earl P, Yang Z (eds) Climate change and adaptation planning for ports. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 9–23Google Scholar
  44. Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107(51):22026–22031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ng AKY, Pallis AA (2010) Port governance reforms in diversified institutional frameworks: generic solutions, implementation asymmetries. Environ Plan A 42(9):2147–2167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ng AKY, Liu J (2014) Port-focal logistics and global supply chains. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  47. Ng AKY, Chen SL, Cahoon S, Brooks B, Yang Z (2013) Climate change and the adaptation strategies of ports: the Australian experiences. Res Transp Bus Manag 8:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ng AKY, Becker A, Cahoon S, Chen SL, Earl P, Yang Z (2016) Time to act: the criticality of ports in adapting to the impacts posed by climate change. In: IDEM (eds) Climate change and adaptation planning for ports. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  49. Ng AKY, Wang T, Yang Z, Li KX, Jiang C (forthcoming) How is business adapting to climate change impacts appropriately? Some insight from the commercial port sector. J Bus Ethics (in press). doi: 10.1007/s10551-016-3179-6
  50. North DC (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Notteboom T, de Langen P, Jacobs W (2013) Institutional plasticity and path dependence in seaports: interactions between institutions, port governance reforms and port authority routines. J Transp Geogr 27:26–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. NRC (2010) Adapting to the impacts of climate change. National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Keeffe JM, Cummins V, Devoy RJ, Lyons D, Gault J (2016) Stakeholder awareness of climate adaptation in the commercial seaport sector: a case study from Ireland. Mar Policy 2:29Google Scholar
  54. Osthorst W, Mänz C (2012) Types of cluster adaptation to climate change. lessons from the port and logistics sector of Northwest Germany. Marit Policy Manag 39(2):227–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parris A, Bromirsji P, Burkett V, Cayan D, Culver M, Hall J, Horton R, Knuuti K, Moss R, Obeysekera J, Sallenger AH, Weiss J (2012) Global sealevel rise scenarios for the US national climate assessment. NOAA Technical Report, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 37Google Scholar
  56. Peñalba LM, Elazegui DD, Pulhin JM, Victor O, Cruz R (2012) Social and institutional dimensions of climate change adaptation. Int J Clim Change Strat Manag 4(3):308–322Google Scholar
  57. Preston BL, Westaway RM, Yuen EJ (2011) Climate adaptation planning in practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 4:407–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rahmstorf S (2010) A new view on sea level rise. Nature Rep Clim Change, 44–45Google Scholar
  59. Roberts PW, Greenwood R (1997) Integrating transaction cost and institutional theories: toward a constrained-efficiency framework for understanding organizational design adoption. Acad Manag Rev 22(2):346–373Google Scholar
  60. Sager T (2011) Neo-liberal urban planning policies: a literature survey 1990–2010. Prog Plan 76:147–199Google Scholar
  61. Schaeffer M, Hare W, Rahmstorf S, Vermeerm M (2012) Long-term sea-level rise implied by 1.5 °C and 2 °C warming levels. Nat Clim Change 2:867–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Strambach S (2010) Path dependency, path plasticity and the co-evolution of institutions and innovation: the German business software industry. In: Boschma RA, Martin R (eds) Handbook for evolutionary economic geography. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 406–431Google Scholar
  63. Tongzon JL, Ng AKY, Shou EC (2015) Institutions, transport infrastructure governance, and planning: lessons from the corporatization of port authorities in East Asia. Environ Plan C Gov Policy 33(6):1467–1483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. UNCTAD (2012) Ad hoc expert meeting on climate change impacts and adaptation: a challenge for global ports. Geneva, Palais des Nations, 29–30 September 2011: main outcomes and summary of discussions, Geneva, Switzerland (September 2011)Google Scholar
  65. UNECE (2010) Climate change impacts on international transport networks. Working paper, working party on transport trends and economics, UNECE, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  66. Walker WD, Liebl DS, Gilbert LE, LaGro J, Nowak P, Sullivan J (2010) Adapting to climate change: why adaptation policy is more difficult than we think (and what to do about it). Wisconsin Initiative on Climate Change ImpactsGoogle Scholar
  67. Walker BJ, Adger WN, Russel D (2015) Institutional barriers to climate change adaptation in decentralised governance structures: transport planning in England. Urban Stud 52(12):2250–2266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Waters E, Barnett J, Puleston A (2014) Contrasting perspectives on barriers to adaptation in Australian climate change policy. Clim Change 124(4):691–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Weber M (1922) Economy and society. In: Roth G, Wittich C (eds) (edited version in 1978). University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  70. Wheeler SM (2008) State and municipal climate change plans: the first generation. J Am Plan Assoc 74(4):481–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wheeler SM, Randolph J, London JB (2009) Planning and climate change: an emerging research agenda. Prog Plan 72:210–222Google Scholar
  72. Xiao Y-B, Fu X, Ng AKY, Zhang A (2015) Port investments on coastal and marine disasters prevention: economic modeling and implications. Transp Res B Methodological 78:202–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang H, Ng AKY (2016) Climate change and adaptation planning for ports: a global study. In: Proceedings of the world conference on transport research (WCTR) 2016, Shanghai, China, 10–15 JulyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Asper School of Business, Transport InstituteUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of Supply Chain Management, Asper School of BusinessUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.Department of Marine AffairsUniversity of Rhode IslandKingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations