If private actors are not adapting although they have the resources, that is, the potential capacity, to do so, this is a clear indication that cognitive and institutional barriers are present. The subsequent decision node for the public actor to consider concerns whether adaptation would conflict with private interests.

If adaptation conflicts with private interests, then identifying relevant adaptation measures to influence private action must consider the relative costs of action. This informs the choice of type of policy instruments, which can be appraised through various methods (see the Pathfinder's section on Appraising adaptation options). Conversely, if adaptation does not conflict with private interest, behavioural analysis should be undertaken in order to understand this why adaptation is not taking place, and identify the relevant cognitive and institutional barriers. Analysis here addresses whether lack of action is due to a lack of available information, or whether it is due to more complex barriers internal to the individual (cognitive) or in the governance system (institutional) (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010). In the former case, it may be assumed that awareness raising may be sufficient, while in the latter case risk communication supported by behavioural or institutional analysis may be necessary.

It must be noted that in this case, it is more difficult to give definitive guidance about which path to take because the assumption about whether actors are aware or not implies breaking down the problem of addressing cognitive and institutional barriers into those that can be addressed by awareness raising, i.e. information campaigns, and those that require more sophisticated communication methods. This choice depends to a significant degree on the resources available. Undertaking behavioral analysis, for example, to understand the cognitive barriers preventing an elderly person with ample resources from taking adaptive action against heat waves may be require careful study over several years, while the next impact event can be expected on an annual basis. In this case, it may be more appropriate for the public actor to launch an awareness raising campaign through, for example, television advertisements, even without a full understanding of the cognitive barriers that may be present. This may be so, even if the communication strategy will be more effective following more in-depth study.

This situation is also discussed in the barriers literature (Moser and Ekstrom 2010). Lack of recognition of a variable climate signal due to misinterpretation, distraction by other priorities or due to time constraints, distance to the issue, or due to a mental/cultural frame of reference which blocks it out are some of the cognitive and institutional barriers which may be identified through deeper analysis (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010, Berkhout 2006). Moser and Ekstrom (2010) note that a signal of vulnerability and impacts may not be adequately communicated or there may be a failure to reach individuals, if it does not reach the appropriate governance networks or there may be dysfunctional networks in place with respect to the issue. Analysis of governance and institutional arrangements is thus a critical task in this situation, as it aims to understand barriers to actual capacity. By better understanding a barrier, measures can be selected at a subsequent stage of the adaptation process in order to overcome them.