Advertisement

Adaptation Politics in Context: Governance and Sustainability

  • Leigh Glover
  • Mikael GranbergEmail author
Chapter
  • 11 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter examines two underlying contextual issues of adaptation politics: Governance and sustainability. Here, the focus is on governance, not just governments. A significant change in context is the change in perception that adaptation is not only a local issue, but now is multi-scalar. Public policy is a central aspect of governance, but the boundary between public and private adaptation is contested, especially regarding funding and support. Insurance is being promoted as an important adaptive measure and this is discussed. Sustainability deals with three topics that underpin environmental politics discourse: utilitarian versus spiritual evaluations, technological change versus behavioral change and rejections of economic growth. These topics provide the subject matter for the prominent political debates in adaptation politics, each of which is informed by a specific theoretical and conceptual foundations.

Keywords

Governance Institutions Market failures Public policy Politics Technocracy Sustainability 

References

  1. ADB (Asian Development Bank). (2014). Technologies to support climate change adaptation in developing Asia. Manilla: ADB.Google Scholar
  2. Adger, W. N. (2003). Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Economic Geography, 79(4), 387–400.Google Scholar
  3. Adger, W. N., & Jordan, A. (Eds.). (2009). Governance for sustainability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Adger, W. N., Arnell, N. W., & Thompkins, E. L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15, 77–86.Google Scholar
  5. Allison, E. A. (2015). The spiritual significance of glaciers in an age of climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 6, 493–508.Google Scholar
  6. Arrow, K., Bolin, B., Costanza, R., Dasgupta, P., Folke, C., Holling, C. S., et al. (1995). Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment. Ecological Economics, 15, 91–95.Google Scholar
  7. Bacchi, C. L., & Goodwin, S. (2016). Poststructural policy analysis: A guide to practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  8. Bailey, I., & Wilson, G. A. (2009). Theorising transitional pathways in response to climate change: Technocentrism, ecocentrism, and the carbon economy. Environment and Planning a: Economy and Space, 41, 2324–2341.Google Scholar
  9. Barnett, J., & O’Neil, S. J. (2010). Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20(2), 211–213.Google Scholar
  10. Barnett, J., & O’Neill, S. J. (2013). Minimising the risk of maladaptation: A framework for analysis. In J. Palutikof, S. L. Boulter, A. J. Ash, M. Stafford Smith, M. L. Parry, M. Waschka, & D. Guitart (Eds.), Climate adaptation futures. Wiley Online Library. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  11. Barry, C., & Kirby, R. (2017). Scepticism about beneficiary pays: a critique. Journal of Applied Philosophy, 34(3), 285–300.Google Scholar
  12. Barry, J. (1999). Rethinking green politics: Nature, virtue and progress. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Bauer, A., Feichtinger, J., & Steurer, R. (2012). The governance of climate change adaptation in 10 OECD countries: Challenges and approaches. Journal of Environmental Planning Policy & Management, 14(3), 297–304.Google Scholar
  14. Blühdorn, I. (2019). Sustainability-post-sustainability-unsustainability. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 259–273). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Boulding, K. E. (1978). Ecodynamics: A new theory of societal evolution. Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. M. (2003). Cities and climate change: Urban sustainability and global environmental governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Carter, N. (2009). The politics of the environment: Ideas-activism-policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Daly, H. E. (1979). On thinking about future energy requirements. In C. T. Unseld, D. L. Sills, D. E. Morrison, & C. P. Wolf (Eds.), Sociopolitical effects of energy use and policy (pp. 232–240). Reports to the Sociopolitical Effects Resource Group, Risk and Impact Panel of the Committee on Nuclear and Alternative Energy Systems. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  19. Daly, H. E. (1990). Toward some operational principles of sustainable development. Ecological Economics, 2(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  20. Daly, H. E. (1996). Beyond growth: The economics of sustainable development. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Daly, H. E. (2007). Ecological economics and sustainable development, selected essays of Herman Daly. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  22. Dewulf, A. (2013). Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation. WIREs Climate Change, 4, 321–330.Google Scholar
  23. Dobson, A. (1992). Green political thought. London: Unwin Hyman.Google Scholar
  24. Dobson, A. (2016). Environmental politics: A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Doherty, B. (2005). Ideas and actions in the green movement. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Dryzek, J. S. (1987). Rational ecology: Environment and political economy. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Dryzek, J. S., Norgaard, R. B., & Sclosberg, D. (2013). Climate change and society: Approaches and responses. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (Paperback ed., pp. 3–17). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Duus-Otterström, G., & Jagers, S. (2011). Why (most) climate insurance schemes are a bad idea. Environmental Politics, 20(3), 322–339.Google Scholar
  29. Eckersley, R. (1992). Environmentalism and political theory: Toward an ecocentric approach. Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  30. Eckersley, R. (2004). The green state: Rethinking democracy and sovereignty. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  31. Fankhauser, S., Smith, J. B., & Tol, R. S. J. (1999). Weathering climate change: Some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecological Economics, 30(1), 67–78.Google Scholar
  32. Farber, D. A. (2013). Issues of scale in climate governance. In J. S. Dryzek, R. B. Norgaard, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of climate change and society (Paperback ed., pp. 479–503). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  34. Fieldman, G. (2011). Neoliberalism, the production of vulnerability and the hobbled state: Systemic barriers to climate adaptation. Climate and Development, 3(2), 159–174.Google Scholar
  35. Fischer, F. (1990). Technocracy and the politics of expertise. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Gabrielson, T., Hall, C., Meyer, J. M., & Schlosberg, D. (Eds.). (2019). The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Georgescu-Roegen, N. (1971). The entropy law and the economic process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Gifford, R., Kormos, C., & McIntyre, A. (2011). Behavioral dimensions of climate change: Drivers, responses, barriers, and interventions. WIREs Climate Change, 2, 801–827.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Granberg, M. (Ed.). (2019). Göteborgsregionen och klimatrisker. Rapport 2019: 1. Karlstad: The Centre for Climate and Safety, Karlstad University.Google Scholar
  40. Granberg, M., & Glover, L. (2014). Adaptation and maladaptation in Australian national climate change policy. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 16(2), 147–159.Google Scholar
  41. Granberg, M., & Nyberg, L. (2018). Climate change adaptation, city competitiveness and urban planning in the city of Karlstad, Sweden. In S. Moloney, H. Fünfgeld, & M. Granberg (Eds.), Local action on climate change: Opportunities and constraints (pp. 111–125). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Granberg, M., Bosomworth, K., Moloney, S., Kristianssen, A.-C., & Fünfgeld, H. (2019). Can regional-scale governance and planning support transformative adaptation? A study of two places. Sustainability, 11(24), 6978.  https://doi.org/10.3390/su11246978.
  43. Grove, R. (1995). Green imperialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Guha, R. (2000). Environmentalism: A global history. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  45. Hulme, M. (2009). Why we disagree about climate change: Understanding controversy, inaction and opportunity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Huseby, R. (2015). Should the beneficiaries pay? Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14(2), 209–225.Google Scholar
  47. IPCC. (2014). Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. 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 Sciences, 45, 123–152.Google Scholar
  49. Lovins, A. B. (1979). A target critics can’t seem to get in their sights. In H. Nash (Ed.), The energy controversy: Soft path questions and answers (pp. 15–34). San Francisco: Friends of the Earth.Google Scholar
  50. Lutz Warren, J. (2006). Aldo Leopold’s odyssey. Washington: Island Press.Google Scholar
  51. Magnan, A., Schipper, E. L. F., Burkett, M., Bharwani, S., Burton, I., Eriksen, S., et al. (2016). Addressing the risk of maladaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 7(5), 646–665.Google Scholar
  52. Marshall, G. R. (2015). Polycentricity, subsidiarity and adaptive efficiency. In Ostrom workshop in political theory and policy analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  53. Martínez-Alier, J., Pascual, U., Vivien, F.-D., & Zaccai, E. (2010). Sustainable de-growth: Mapping the context, criticisms and future prospects of an emergent paradigm. Ecological Economics, 69, 1741–1747.Google Scholar
  54. McGormick, J. (1989). Reclaiming paradise. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2004). The limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  56. Mettler, S., & SoRelle, M. (2014). Policy feedback theory. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (3rd ed., pp. 151–182). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  57. Mills, E. (2005). Insurance in a climate of change. Science, 309(5737), 1040–1044.Google Scholar
  58. Mol, A. P. J. (2016). The environmental nation state in decline. Environmental Politics, 25(1), 48–68.Google Scholar
  59. Moloney, S., & Fünfgeld, H. (2015). Emergent processes of adaptive capacity building: Local government climate change alliances and networks in Melbourne. Urban Climate, 14(1), 30–40.Google Scholar
  60. Moloney, S., Fünfgeld, H., & Granberg, M. (Eds.). (2018a). Local action on climate change: Opportunities and constraints. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Moloney, S., Fünfgeld, H., & Granberg, M. (2018b). Climate change responses the global to local scale: An overview. In S. Moloney, H. Fünfgeld, & M. Granberg (Eds.), Local action on climate change: Opportunities and constraints (pp. 1–16). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Nanda, V.P. (2006). The “good governance” concept revisited. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 603, 269–283.Google Scholar
  63. O’Riordan, T. (1976). Environmentalism. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  64. O’Riordan, T. (1999). Ecocentrism and technocentrism. In M. J. Smith (Ed.), Thinking through the environment: A reader (pp. 32–40). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  65. Olsson, D. (2018). Conditions of ‘sustainability’: The case of climate change adaptation in Sweden. Karlstad: Karlstad University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Page, E. A. (2012). Give it up for climate change: A defence of the beneficiary pays principle. International Theory, 4(2), 300–330.Google Scholar
  67. Parr, A. (2019). Capital, environmental degradation, and economic externalization. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M. Meyer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 445–459). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Patterson, J. J. (2018). Adaptive cities? Institutional innovation under climate change: A global survey of 96 cities. Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), VU University Amsterdam, and Open University of The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  69. Pelling, M. (2011). Adaptation to climate change: From resilience to transformation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  70. Pepper, D. (1999). Modern environmentalism: An introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  71. Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Ponting, C. (1992). A green history of the world. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  74. Renn, O. (2008). Risk governance: Coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  75. Richardson, D., & Rootes, C. (Eds.). (1995). The green challenge: The development of green parties in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  76. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.Google Scholar
  77. Sartori, G. (1987). The theory of democracy revisited. Chatham: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  78. Schäfer, L., Kreft, S., & Warner, K. (2019) Exploring and managing adaptation frontiers with climate risk insurance. In R. Mechler, L. M. Bouwer, T. Schinko, S. Surminski, & J. Linnerooth-Bayer (Eds.), Loss and damage from climate change: Concepts, methods and policy options (pp 317–341). Cham: Springer Nature.Google Scholar
  79. Scoones, I. (2016). The politics of sustainability and development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 293–319.Google Scholar
  80. Scoones, I., Leach, M., & Newell, P. (Eds.). (2015). The politics of green transformations. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  81. Sovacool, B. K. (2011). Hard and soft paths for climate change adaptation. Climate Policy, 11(4), 1177–1183.Google Scholar
  82. Sovacool, B. K., & Brown, M. A. (2017). Scaling the policy response to climate change. Policy and Society, 27, 317–328.Google Scholar
  83. Sovacool, B. K., & Linnér, B.-O. (2016). The political economy of climate change adaptation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  84. Surminski, S., Bouwer, L. M., & Linnerooth-Bayer, J. (2016). How insurance can support climate resilience. Nature Climate Change, 6, 333–334.Google Scholar
  85. Surminski, S., & Eldridge, J. (2017). Flood insurance in England—An assessment of the current and newly proposed insurance scheme in the context of rising flood risk. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 10, 415–435.Google Scholar
  86. Taylor, B. (2001). Earth and nature-based spirituality (Part I): From deep ecology to radical environmentalism. Religion, 31, 175–193.Google Scholar
  87. Tompkins, E. L., Adger, W. N., Boyd, E., Nicholson-Cole, S. A., Weatherhead, E. K., & Arnell, N. W. (2010). Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transition to a well-adapting society. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 627–635.Google Scholar
  88. Tschakert, P., Ellis, N. R., Anderson, C., Kelly, A., & Obeng, J. (2019). One thousand ways to experience loss: A systematic analysis of climate-related intangible harm from around the world. Global Environmental Change, 55, 58–72.Google Scholar
  89. Turnbull, N., & Hoppe, R. (2019). Problematizing ‘wickedness’: A critique of the wicked problems concept, from philosophy to practice. Policy and Society, 38(2), 315–337.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1488796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. UNFCCC. (2006). Technologies for adaptation to climate change. Bonn: UNFCCC Secretariat.Google Scholar
  91. Unwin, K., & Jordan, A. (2008). Does public policy support or undermine climate change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of governance. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 180–191.Google Scholar
  92. Wackernagel, M., Schulz, N. B., Deumling, D., Callejas Linares, A., Jenkins, M., Kapos, V., et al. (2002). Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 99(14), 9266–9271.Google Scholar
  93. WCED. (1987). Our common future. New York: The United Nations.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Centre for Societal Risk ResearchKarlstad UniversityKarlstadSweden
  2. 2.The Centre for Natural Hazards and Disaster Science (CNDS)Uppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations