Empirical criteria for choosing salient approaches
1. Stages of the adaptation process
The top-most empirical criterion for choosing salient approaches is the stage of the adaptation
process at which the adapting actor presently is.
In the literature, there is wide agreement that this process in an iterative learning process
involving a number of stages from the definition of the adaptation challenge to monitoring
and evaluating adaptation progress. See the climate adaptation framework of the UK Climate
Impacts Programme (UKCIP, 2003) and the Adaptation Support Tool of the European
Commission and the European Environment Agency (EEA, 2013) to name just two prominent
examples. For a discussion of other prominent conceptualisations of this iterative learning
cycle see Section 5. Here we name the stages as follows:
- Identifying adaptation needs. The goal at this stage is to gain
more knowledge about the risks and opportunities faced in the adaptation challenge.
Which impacts may be expected under climate change? Are the vulnerable actors
aware of the threat? What are the major decisions that need to be addressed.
- Identifying adaptation measures. The goal of this stage is to identify adaptation
measures.
- Appraising adaptation options. The goal of this stage is to decide between
alternative adaptation options.
- Planning and implementing adaptation actions. The goal of this stage is to
implement the options.
- Monitoring and evaluation of adaptation. The goal at this stage is to monitor the
implementation process and the outcomes achieved, to evaluate what was done and to
learn from the experiences gained.
These stages provide the primary entry points for choosing salient approaches in this
guidance. An analyst who is, for example, confronted with a challenge of developing a crosssectoral
adaptation plan would enter adaptation at the stage of "assessing vulnerability and
impacts", while an analyst who is confronted with a particular decision, such as deciding on
raising a dike, would enter at the stage "Appraising adaptation options".
Figure 1.1: The adaptation learning cycle
2. Types of adaptation situations
The second
empirical criterion we use for distinguishing adaptation challenges is
actor configuration (Hinkel and Bisaro, 2013b), based on
which we distinguish between the
following four types of
basic adaptation situations (AS):
- Private
individual
- Private collective
- Public
influencing individual action
- Public influencing
collective action
Private individual AS
are those in a private individual takes action in her own interest.
Private actors take adaptation action if they perceive to be affected by a
climate threat or if they perceive a benefit from this
action. Examples would be a farmers adapting his cropping patterns,
or a coastal dweller flood proofing her house.
Private
collective AS are those in which a group of individuals
takes action in
their own interest.
Collective
action means that there is
interdependence
between the adapting actors in the sense
that actions of one private actor will lead to (negative) consequences
for another private actor. Typical examples of collective
action situations involve interdependence arising from
common-pool resource use, such as in the case of a farmer using
groundwater from a common aquifer for
irrigation. The use of water by one farmer limits its use for others.
Another
example of this situation would be a community adapting to increased
occurrences of floods or a firm or company adapting to
increased temperatures.
Public AS are those
in which a
public actor takes action with a fiduciary duty to act in the public
interest. A public actor is anyone acting in a group or collective
interest, and trying to influence or co-ordinate the actions
of that group. Public actors are, for example, local authorities,
government ministries, public water boards, etc. Public adaptation
situations may be further distinguished into
public
individual AS, where the public actor influences the
adaptation
of individual action and
public
collective AS, where the public actor
influences collective action.
A public actor may
take
physical action,
that is act upon the physical environment that the vulnerable
individuals are situated in. An example would be to build
infrastructure such as a dike to protect vulnerable actors
from flooding. A public actor may also take
influencing action.
That is, a public actor may try to influence the vulnerable actors so
they adapt themselves. Various ways of influencing the
vulnerable actors are possible. First, the public actor may
provide information
to raise the awareness of the vulnerable actors. An
example would be a government that launches a campaign to
raise the awareness of people settling in high risk areas
such as floodplains or steep hills prone to landslides. Second, the
public actor may provide
economic
incentives to influence
the vulnerable actors to take actions they would otherwise
find not attractive. Finally, the public actor may pass
regulations.
Examples are building standards or compulsory insurance
coverage.
Further types of AS may be
distinguished, but will
not be considered in this pathfinder. For example, advocates
acting on behalf of interest groups (environmental organizations,
industry associations, etc.) may take action to influence
other private actors and public actors. Another type of AS
would be decision support, where, for example, a researcher aims at
supporting a private or public actor in making an adaptation
decision. Acknowledging that these types of AS may play an
important role in AS, we disregard these here in favor of focusing on
methodological
aspects of both private and public adaptation.
3. Other empirical criteria
Three other sets of empirical criteria are relevant for choosing approaches. The first relates
to characteristics of the climate hazards involved. Table 1.1 lists the relevant characteristics
used in this guideline.
Table 1.1: Characteristics of the climate hazard.
| Empirical criteria
| Description
| Value
| Indication on salient approaches
|
| Current variability
| Are risks due to current climate
variability?
| Yes/no
(ie., extreme event
or slow-onset)1
| If extreme events are considered,
decisions may take into account
current climate.
|
| Observed trend Has a past trend been
observed?
| Unknown, not
knowable, clear
direction, no
direction.
| If a past trend has been
observed, then it is easier to
motivate the affected actors to
adapt.
| If the trend is unknown,
collecting data is indicated.
|
| Future impacts
| Given a scenario, can
I compute impacts (or
outcomes)?
| Yes/no
| If future impacts (or outcomes)
can be computed, decision
making methods on future
outcomes are appropriate.
|
The second set of further empirical criteria relates to the vulnerable or affected actor. When
a public actor aims to influence a vulnerable actor, it is important to understand how the
vulnerable actor perceives the climate hazard and what her concerns, interests and capacities
are (Bisaro and Hinkel, 2013). Table 1.2 summarises some of the relevant criteria and their
indication on what approaches are salient.
Table 1.2: Characteristics of the affected actors.
| Empirical criteria
| Description
| Value
| Indication on salient approaches
|
| Awareness of
current risks
| Actors perception of risks
from current variability and
extremes.
| High/low
| If low and risks for current
variability are present,
risk communication and
awareness raising are
indicated.
|
| Potential capacity
| Actors ability to take
adaptation action, includes
financial, human, and social
capital.
| High/low
| If low, incentives may be
considered to influence
adaptation
|
| Actual capacity
| Actors actual capacity to act
in situation, given possible
cognitive and institutional
barriers. This is reflected in
the observed adaptation of an
actor.
| High/low
| If actors have low actual
capacity, institutional or
behavioural analysis to
identify cognitive and
institutional barriers to
action are indicated.
|
A third set of empirical criteria for choosing salient approaches, in particular for appraising
adaptation options, relates to the available adaptation options. These are listed in Table 1.3.
Table 1.3: Characteristics of the adaptation options.
| Empirical criteria
| Description
| Value
| Indication on salient approaches
|
| Relative costs
| Investment costs relative to
actors annual income and capital
stock
| High/low
| If costs are high, the
appropriateness of
experimenting and learning
(through ex-post evaluation)
is reduced.
|
| Investment horizon
| Time interval over which
outcomes can be attributed to an
option and must be considered.
| Short/long
| If the horizon is long, then it
is desirable to assess impacts
and include impacts in
decision making.
|
| Flexibility
| An option is flexible if it
allows to switch to other
options that might be
preferable in the future once
more is known about the
changing climate.
| Yes/No
| If option can be adjusted
easily, than adaptive
management may be
appropriate.
|
| Conflict
| Degree to which individual
preferences and social welfare
are in conflict.
| High/low
| If conflict is high, then
institutional analysis may be
necessary.
|
1 Current climate variability may give rise to extreme event risks, but not to slow-onset risks.
