A policy mixes approach to conceptualizing and measuring climate change adaptation policy
Comparative research on climate change adaptation policy struggles with robust conceptualization and measurement of adaptation policy. Using a policy mixes approach to address this challenge, we characterize adaptation policy based on a general model of how governments govern issues of societal interest. We argue that this approach allows for context-sensitive measurement of adaptation policy, while being both comparable and parsimonious. This approach is tested in a study of adaptation policies adopted by 125 local governments located in Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the UK. Using a systematic data collection protocol, a total of 3328 adaptation policies were identified from local council archives between the periods of January 2010 and May 2017. Results of this analysis suggest that there is structured variation emerging in how local governments govern climate change adaptation, which justifies calls for comparative adaptation research to use measurements that capture the totality of adaptation policies being adopted by governments rather than focusing on specific types of adaptation policy. We conclude with a discussion of key issues for further developing of this approach.
Many thanks to Malcolm Araos, Geneva List, Mathijs Veenkant, and Florian Dorner for their assistance with data collection, and to two anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions on previous versions of the manuscript.
This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
- Howlett M (2000) Managing the ‘hollow state’: procedural policy instruments and modern governance. Can Public Adm 43(4):412–431. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-7121.2000.tb01152.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Howlett M (2019) Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Taylor and Francis LtdGoogle Scholar
- Howlett M, Cashore B (2009) The dependent variable problem in the study of policy change: understanding policy change as a methodological problem. J Comp Policy Anal: Res Pract 11(1):33–46Google Scholar
- Howlett M, Rayner J. Patching vs Packaging in Policy Formulation: Assessing Policy Portfolio Design. Polit Gov. 2013;1(2):170–82.Google Scholar
- Keskitalo E, Juhola S, Baron N, Fyhn H, Klein J (2016) Implementing local climate change adaptation and mitigation actions: the role of various policy instruments in a multi-level governance context. Climate 4(7):1–11Google Scholar
- Macintosh A, McDonald J, Foerster A (2015) Designing spatial adaptation planning instruments. In: Palutikof JP, Boulter SL, Barnett J, Rissik D (eds) Applied studies in climate adaptation. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp 34–42Google Scholar
- Reckien D, Salvia M, Heidrich O, Church JM, Pietrapertosa F, De Gregorio-Hurtado S, D’Alonzo V et al (2018) How are cities planning to respond to climate change? Assessment of local climate plans from 885 cities in the EU-28. J Clean Prod 191(1):207–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bmcl.2009.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Schmidt T, Sewerin S (2018) Measuring the temporal dynamics of policy mixes—an empirical analysis of renewable energy policy mixes’ balance and design features in nine countries. Res Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.012
- UNFCCC (2011) The Cancun Agreements: outcome of the work of the ad hoc working group on long-term cooperative action under the convention. BonnGoogle Scholar
- UNFCCC (2015) Paris Agreement. Vol. FCCC/CP/20. BonnGoogle Scholar