Perceptions of Risk and Limits to Climate Change Adaptation: Case Studies of Two Swedish Urban Regions

  • Louise SimonssonEmail author
  • Åsa Gerger Swartling
  • Karin André
  • Oskar Wallgren
  • Richard J. T. Klein
Part of the Advances in Global Change Research book series (AGLO, volume 42)


This study analyzes processes of adaptation to climate change through participatory research in Sweden’s two largest cities, Stockholm and Gothenburg. Perceptions of climate risks and constraints to adaptation are discussed. Practitioners from the public and private sector have identified stakeholders who are, and who should be, giving attention to adaptation, including the risks and threats facing the regions and how and which factors hinder the implementation of adaptation. In this study, it is found that those issues where adaptation is considered most difficult are mainly related to response capacity.


Risk perception Stakeholder analysis Participatory methods Adaptation constraints Adaptive capacity Urban regions Sweden Stockholm Gothenburg Climate risk Climate change vulnerability Adaptation 



The authors would like to express their gratitude to all stakeholders who participated in the study. Their help has made a valuable contribution to a better understanding of the process of adaptation to climate change. Thanks are also due to Peter Rudberg and Tom Gill from Stockholm Environment Institute and the two anonymous reviewers for valuable contributions to the text. The research is funded by The Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning (2006-4871-7662-55), and the Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research (Mistra) through the Mistra-SWECIA programme (


  1. Adger WN, Arnell N, Thompkins E (2005) Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15(2):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. André K, Simonsson L (2008) Who has influence on adaptation to climate change and climate risk reduction? Identification and analysis of the stakeholder landscape for the Stockholm region – report for the Mistra-Swecia research programme. Centre for Climate Science and Policy Research, Linköping University, NorrköpingGoogle Scholar
  3. Arctic Climate Impact Assessemt [ACIA], Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme [AMAP], International Arctic Science Committee [IASC] (2005) Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnell NW, Charlton BM (2009) Adapting to the effects of climate change on water supply reliability. In: Adger NW, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien KL (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryniellson H (ed) (2003) På jakt efter en ny regional samhällsordning! Svenska Kommunförbundets FoU-råd, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  6. Climate bill (2008 Prop. /09:162). En sammanhållen klimat- och energipolitik. Klimat. Miljödepartementet, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  7. Conde C, Lonsdale K (2005) Engaging stakeholders in the adaptation process. In: Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E, Burton I et al (eds) Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Eden S (1998) Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertainty and the environment. Prog Hum Geogr 22(3):425–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. European Commission (2003) Common implementation strategy for the water framework directive (2000/60/CE) – guidance document no.8. Cited 19 Jan 2008
  10. Few R, Brown K, Tompkins E (2007) Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Clim Policy 7(1):46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Füssel H-M (2005) Vulnerability in climate change research: a comprehensive conceptual framework – paper 6. University of California International and Area Studies, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  12. Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change 15(3):199–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hågeryd A-C, Viberg L, Lind B (2007) Frekvens av skred i Sverige. Varia 583. Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Linköping [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  14. Keskitalo C (2008) Vulnerability and adaptive capacity in forestry in northern Europe: a Swedish case study. Clim Change 87(1–2):219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Koussidjou SA (2001) Strategies of stakeholder analysis to improve participation and project performance: concepts, fields and techniques. In: Interests groups and organization as stakeholders social development papers – paper no.35. Cited 15 Oct 2007
  16. Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län (2008) Regional risk- och sårbarhetsanalys 2007. Länsstyrelsen i Stockholms län, Räddnings- och säkerhetsavdelningen, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  17. Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, enheten för skydd och säkerhet (2008) Risk- och sårbarhetsanalys 2007. Rapportnr: 2008:22. Länsstyrelsen i Västra Götalands län, enheten för skydd och säkerhet, Göteborg [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  18. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF (2006) Public views on climate change: European and USA perspectives. Clim Change 77(1–2):73–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenzoni I, Pidgeon NF, O’Connor RE (2005) Dangerous climate change: the role for risk research. Risk Anal 25(6):1387–1397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Brien K, Eriksen S, Sygna L et al (2006) Questioning complacency: climate change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. AMBIO J Hum Environ 35(2):50–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP et al (eds) (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. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Petersson O (1998) Statsbyggnad. Den offentliga maktens organisation. SNS förlag, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  23. Regionplane- och trafikkontoret [RTK] (2002) Regional utvecklingsplan 2001 för Stockholmsregionen. Program och förslag 2002. Regionplane- och trafikkontoret, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  24. RTK (2009) Klimatförändringar: dags att anpassa sig? En rapport om anpassning till effekterna av klimatförändringar i Stockholmsregionen. Rapport 4:2009. Regionplane- och trafikkontoret, Stockholms Läns Landsting, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  25. Smit B, Skinner MW (2002) Adaptation options in agriculture to climate change: a typology. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 7(1):85–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SOU 2000:85 (2000) Regionalt folkstyre och statlig länsförvaltning. Finansdepartementet, Den parlamentariska regionkommittén, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  27. SOU 2007:60 (2007) Sweden facing climate change – threats and opportunities. Swedish Government Official Reports, Final report from the Swedish Commission on Climate and Vulnerability, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  28. SOU 2008:24 (2008) Svensk klimatpolitik (Swedish Climate Policy). Miljödepartementet, Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  29. Stockholms läns landsting [SLL] (2010) Regional utvecklingsplan för Stockholmsregionen – RUFS 2010. Stockholm [in Swedish]Google Scholar
  30. Sturgis P, Allum N (2004) Science in society: re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Underst Sci 13(1):55–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Willows RI, Connell RK (eds) (2003) Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty and decision-making. UK Climate Impacts Programme [UKCIP] Technical Report. UKCIP, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louise Simonsson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Åsa Gerger Swartling
    • 2
  • Karin André
    • 1
  • Oskar Wallgren
    • 2
  • Richard J. T. Klein
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Climate Science and Policy ResearchLinköping UniversityNorrköpingSweden
  2. 2.Stockholm Environment InstituteStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations