A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation

Adaptation has a long and multidisciplinary history of investigation. As a result, meanings of the term differ by field and in practice (14). For the purposes of this article, we select a generic, but inclusive, definition reflecting common usage in the climate change field. We deviate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) definition of adaptation in recognizing that adaptation must consider, but may not be justified by, climate change alone and may be initiated or undertaken in the context of nonclimatic windows of opportunity (e.g., land-use plan updates, infrastructure replacement, renovating a building). The IPCC definition also implicitly assumes effectiveness in outcome that we believe is premature. Whether harm will be moderated and beneficial opportunities exploited is contingent on many factors, not just on the adaptive action itself. Some adaptive actions may turn out maladaptive later. Finally, the IPCC distinguishes natural and human systems whereas we are most interested in social-ecological systems. Thus, we define adaption as follows:

Our primary focus here is on the intentional, planned adaptation process without presuming a particular set of actors, level of planning, or involvement of government; rather, we attempt to account for the complexity of a deliberate and more involved process. We are also not a priori normative about what the right scale or scope of adaptation should be, i.e., assuming that actions taken in pursuit of shorter-term and maybe shallower goals are necessarily less worthy. Success in the near term may well turn out to be maladaptive in the long run, and vice versa. We do suggest, however, that choosing a particular scope and scale of adaptation has significant implications for the number and types of barriers activated and encountered by choosing different adaptation actions or pathways. System transformations will require different and likely more challenging barriers to be overcome than planning or implementing immediate measures to cope with a climate-driven disaster (Fig. 1).

Researchers often use the concepts of barriers and limits together, even interchangeably, whereas others distinguish between them. Here, as is consistent with the IPCC (1), we refer to limits as obstacles that tend to be absolute in a real sense: they constitute thresholds beyond which existing activities, land uses, ecosystems, species, sustenance, or system states cannot be maintained, not even in a modified fashion (19–21). Beyond such limits looms irreversible loss (and the adjustment to living with that loss) and/or radical system shifts, including innovation and novelty (22, 23). Limits are common in physical and ecological systems in their natural state, but, in some instances, physical and ecological limits have been stretched or overcome with technological innovations (e.g., genetic modification of crops to increase heat tolerance). Those seeming limits that can be overcome, we would view as barriers.

Barriers are defined here as obstacles that can be overcome with concerted effort, creative management, change of thinking, prioritization, and related shifts in resources, land uses, institutions, etc. As Adger et al. (8) argue, many seeming limits, especially social ones, are in fact malleable barriers; they can be overcome with sufficient political will, social support, resources, and effort. However, many barriers will make adaptation less efficient or less effective or may require costly changes that lead to missed opportunities or higher costs. In many instances, the barrier may appear as de facto limits (e.g., a law). Not questioning the changeability of such barriers (however difficult to overcome) may itself be an obstacle to progressing in the adaptation process.

Importantly, we take a descriptive rather than a normative approach in which barriers are simply impediments that can stop, delay, or divert the adaptation process. Overcoming all barriers does not necessarily lead to a successful outcome (however defined and by whom). Thus, a hypothetical smooth, barrier-free process is not a sufficient condition to guarantee adaptation success. In turn, not even the best-run process should be expected to be free of barriers, and its outcomes may still require adjustments in the next iteration. However, ignoring certain best practices throughout the process (such as effective stakeholder involvement, consensus or broad agreement if and when it is required, adequate information, considering both biophysical and social dimensions of the problem, or adequate funding) could lead to maladaptation.

Given the pervasive influence of climate change and the many climate-sensitive systems and decisions that will be made in regard to it, a diagnostic framework that is applicable to a wide range of adaptation cases must be principled but not overly confining. The “architecture” of our framework is guided by four principles. It aims to be (i) socially focused but ecologically constrained; (ii) actor-centric but context-aware; (iii) process-focused but action/outcome-oriented; and (iv) iterative and messy but linear for convenience (14).

Three key components underlie the diagnostic framework. First, an idealized depiction of a rational approach to adaptation decision-making makes up the process component. Second, a set of interconnected structural elements include the actors, the larger context in which they act (e.g., governance), and the object on which they act (the system of concern that is exposed to climate change). Third, to overcome identified barriers, a simple matrix helps map the source of the barrier relative to the actor's influence over it.

The purpose of our diagnostic framework is to systematize the identification of barriers that may impede the adaptation process. In Results, we answered two fundamental questions: (i) what could thwart the process and (ii) how do the actor, context, and the system of concern contribute to the barrier. We also noted how the sources of these barriers vary across temporal and spatial/jurisdictional scales, and thus identified the locus of control over them.

Together, the nature of the barrier, its source, and the location of influence over the barrier provide a “road map” to design strategies to circumvent, remove, or lower the barriers. Leadership, strategic thinking, resourcefulness, creativity, collaboration, and effective communication will all be required in overcoming them. Frequently, this effort of overcoming barriers is in fact the primary target and focus of the initial adaptation effort (3, 37).

As adaptation initiatives progress, accruing experience may reveal that understanding adaptation and its associated barriers will not lead to a fixed prescription for how to adapt or to a one-size-fits-all way to overcome barriers. Rather, we expect feasible strategies to be highly context-sensitive (i.e., actor-, governance-, and system-specific), which is why a systematic diagnostic framework may be more useful than a prescriptive list of necessary conditions, capacities, or steps to overcome barriers. We do, however, suggest that the generalized call for “building adaptive capacity” may be too simplistic an answer to deal with the range of adaptation barriers. Although the list we developed here may be viewed as an elaboration on the inverse qualities of adaptive capacity, overcoming barriers is not as straightforward as building adaptive capacity. To truly understand the relevance of, say, “more resources” is to ask when these resources are needed, by whom, and for what aspects of the adaptation process. Differently put, more resources just for science but not for implementation or for monitoring does not result in a greater likelihood of adaptation actions being implemented on the ground. Thus, one question for future research is whether “performance” at each of the stages could become a more useful and tangible measure of adaptive capacity. Different dimensions of adaptive capacity may also partially compensate for each other. For example, a good leader may be able to compensate to some extent for inadequate time and money because she has great connections or can facilitate potentially difficult processes efficiently and find creative financing solutions without additional resources. Future research must explore the range of pathways actors have found to overcome the specific adaptation barriers they encountered.

In this article, we have introduced a framework for identifying and organizing barriers to adaptation. Rather than propose a normative approach to making “good” adaptation decisions, we offer a comprehensive, systematic approach to detecting barriers in each stage of an idealized adaptation process, along with diagnostic questions that help ascertain how actors, context, and the system of concern contribute to the existence of the barriers.

Our diagnostic framework requires testing and refinement if it is to aid decision-making. For example, the framework could be used as a foundation to examine whether and how barriers differ by the type of system of concern, sector, scale of governance, problem definition, and the depth of the adaptation or transformation sought. Patterns may emerge from such comparative investigations showing where the biggest barriers lie.

A refined ability to identify where the most challenging barriers might lie affords the opportunity to better allocate resources and strategically design processes to overcome them. Similarly, we may learn much about adaptive capacity and ultimate adaptation success by exploring the implications of actors’ skipping certain stages—and the associated barriers—in real-world decision-making. Thus, the framework presented here provides a starting point for answering critical questions that can ultimately inform and benefit climate change adaptation at all levels of decision-making.

We thank Margaret Torn for comments on a longer version of this paper, Oran Young and two anonymous reviewers for criticism of an earlier draft of this paper, and the California Energy Commission for financial support (to J.A.E.) through CEC Contract 500-07-043.