A new paper in Environmental Science and Policy looks at three different case studies from the perspective of how climate change adaptation research is conducted. The researchers, from the Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Environment Canada, Brock University and the Swedish Defence Research Agency examined projects in Sweden, Indonesia and Canada and concluded that “the choices made regarding different sense-making perspectives and research methods have more than academic interest; in fact, they significantly shape how the research projects inform policy and change processes.” Using a method to map project trajectories can inform the research project, not only from within the project itself, but also allow for cross-case study comparison.
A framework for facilitating dialogue between policy planners and local climate change adaptation professionals: Cases from Sweden, Canada and Indonesia
Authors: Rasmus Kløcker Larsen, Asa Gerger Swartling, Neil Powell, Brad May, Ryan Plummer, Louise Simonsson, Maria Osbeck
Abstract
The dominant approach to mainstreaming climate adaptation into sectoral policies relies on an ‘upscaling’ model in which it is envisaged to extract lessons from local change processes to inspire generic sub-national and national policies. One of the central methodological questions, which remain unanswered in climate change adaptation research, is exactly how public policy can learn from highly contextual experiences of community-based adaptation and what role should be played by case study research. In this paper we undertake a comparison between three large research projects in Sweden, Canada and Indonesia, which aim to study and/or foster local adaptation in selected case studies through a process of social learning. We present a novel framework based on mapping of ‘sense-making perspectives’, which enables analysis of the multiple ways case study research can support local climate adaptation and link such efforts to higher level public policy. The analysis demonstrates how methodological choices shape how case study research works at the interface between planned (steered/regulatory policy) and self-organised adaptation of stakeholders (non-coercive policy). In this regard, there is a need for a high degree of transparency from the research community to enable local professionals to decide on their stakes and interests when inviting researchers into their grounded activities. We conclude that case study research can achieve new significance if viewed as a platform to leverage stakeholder competencies when informing existing social structures and enable the implementation of political objectives, but equally driving the very reinvention and improvement of these institutions.