Box 2: The Concepts of Networks

The structure of a network is comprised of a topology of points, linkages and structural forms. These differ within networks, depending on the type of actors, which actor is the focus, whose perspective is used, and affect social processes such as knowledge transfer, information sharing, flows and exchange of types of capital, consensus building and power relations. Key issues and illustrative examples for climate adaptation are provided below.

Strength of connections. The ‘strength of connections’ refers a) to the proximity of actors to each other and b) the number of links between actors. The closer the actors are to each other and/or the more the links, the stronger the bond. Ties within cohesive subgroups are known as ‘bonding ties’. Adaptation example: an existing research network with strong ties will be more productive than establishing a new network solely dedicated to climate adaptation.

Bridges. Bridging actors link actors and institutions. They may span ‘clusters’ of actors who have specialized knowledge and provide access to new knowledge for others. Links between sub-groups are known as ‘bridging ties’ and are important for innovation and adaptive management. A lack of links to important or influential actors can also be a barrier and an area where ‘boundary-spanning’ actors (Berkes and Folke, 1998) have an important role to play. Example: the Dialogue on Climate and Water bridges two communities of practice.

Clusters. A cluster is where actors have significantly more ties between group members than between members and non-members. The existence of many sub-clusters within a network can be a barrier, as low ‘network cohesion’ can produce ‘us-and-them’ attitudes or keep organizations with different agendas apart. Example: integrated assessment modelling is a technical area that tends to concentrate learning among specialists, with relatively limited access from other disciplines or perspectives.

Centrality. There are several types of centrality: for example, degree centrality (number of ties an actor has) and ‘between-ness’ centrality (the degree to which an actor connects other actors who would not otherwise be connected). Degree centrality can be problematic if there is too much responsibility for one actor. Example: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change creates a central tendency in networks as a singular focus for expertise on climate vulnerability, impacts and adaptation.

Homogeneity versus heterogeneity. Bridging ties can be important in building trust amongst unconnected actors and facilitating information exchange. Bridging ties link clusters of homogeneous actors to other different, yet homogeneous actors. These ties can link different types of actors both vertically and horizontally. Example: participatory processes that engage social entrepreneurs, local decision makers and global experts are vastly heterogeneous and are a challenge to manage as productive adaptation processes.

Goals – conflicts and potential synergies. Moser and Ekstrom (2010) outline that adaptation may be ‘initiated in non-climatic windows of opportunity (e.g. infrastructure replacement, renovating a building) or moments of potentially high human ‘agency’ (Ballard et al., 2012). The differing goals of various actors can create obstacles to adaptation, because institutional goals or values and norms are not aligned, or there is disagreement about the strength of the climate signal (Berkhout et al., 2006). Example: social network analysis in small islands highlights the disparity between the rights of local resource-based livelihoods and the imperative of long term coastal zone management faced with sea level rise.

Influence. The perceived influence of different actors can reveal insights into why overall objectives on climate adaptation are not being met. Outliers are interesting if they are influential and do not possess a large number or ‘bonding’ or ‘bridging’ ties. Insufficient linkages leads to less potential for intervention and capacity building. Example: the shift from ‘impacts’ as an environmental issue to ‘adaptation’ in the allocation of finance is also one of influence between relatively weak ministries and the role of the state in managing the economy.

Box 3. Network analysis and future stakeholder regimes

Institutional scenarios and opportunities. Institutional mapping allows a group (stakeholders or experts) to play out scenarios of different knowledge-action networks. It is often useful for thinking through particular outcomes which may be ‘known’ by stakeholders, or ‘anticipated’ but not readily articulated. Often, building adaptive capacity is seen as adding staff or increasing skills within an organization. However, the real challenges are likely to require new institutional relationships and even new players.

Given a map, participants can take an actor out of the network (or add a new one) and ask ‘what changes? ’Not identifying, and losing, ‘windows of opportunity’ for making decisions is a common impediment to effective and strategic adaptation planning. While such windows may be internal to an institution, often they realign the network as well. Thus, differing agendas and time-horizons for decision-making in different institutional bodies can lead to conflicts in implementing adaptation plans or result in missed opportunities for collaboration or for facilitating the emergence of a demand-led institutional entity.

Building adaptive capacity and avoiding ‘lock-in’. The topology of a network can help to explain how actors and networks behave and some topologies are more likely to foster adaptive capacity and governance than others (Sandström and Rova 2010).

Low density networks with few or weak connections between actors or sub-groups or with strong hierarchies are associated with lower potential adaptability because of the divergence and competition of views, absence of a common understanding and common problem definition, as well as common decision space for the management of natural resources. In this context, it is more difficult to strive for legitimacy of formal management rules (Sandström and Rova 2010, Bodin and Crona 2009).

On the contrary, denser networks or decentralized and less hierarchical networks can facilitate bridges between disparate views and help formulate shared understandings and framings of the problem leading to a more sound management strategy based on collective action. This can be important over time where it is key to remain flexible and adaptive to new information as it arises instead of becoming ‘locked-in’ to a particular pathway because of previous investments.

It has been suggested that a successful management strategy (particularly, in governing natural resources) is one where actors, during periods of stability, develop new relational ties with various other actors and stakeholders which can be drawn upon in times of change (Olsson et al., 2006) and this resonates with the proposition that informal networks or ‘shadow spaces’ are especially useful in times of changes (Pelling et al. 2008).

Adaptive management. Generally speaking, empirical studies support the hypothesis that the higher the network density (i.e. the number of existing ties divided by the number of possible ties), the more potential for collective action due to increased opportunities for communication, and over time, reciprocity and trust (Bodin and Crona, 2009).

This support can facilitate ‘joined-up’ and integrated thinking. If the network is responsive and flexible, this density is also an important aspect of ‘adaptive management’ as it allows the development of knowledge though the exposure to both an increased amount of information and new knowledge through boundary spanning actors who act as vehicles for knowledge transfer. In the absence of these actors, there can be areas for intervention, either by groups coming together in new institutional arrangements, facilitating new connections between actors, or through the creation of other ‘platforms for communication’ such as online communities or the formalisation of ‘networks’.