ASSESSING AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

PERSPECTIVES ON ADAPTATION PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY FROM COPENHAGEN, DENMARK

by

Katie Ersbak

Area of Concentration Paper

SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING AT THE

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIʻI AT MANOA

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

MASTERS DEGREE

IN

URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

JUNE 2011

2

ASSESSING AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH

PERSPECTIVES ON ADAPTATION PLANNING AND CLIMATE CHANGE

POLICY FROM COPENHAGEN, DENMARK Abstract

Given that climate change will be one of the most pressing issues faced by cities over the next

century, it is imperative that planners, policy-makers, and the public begin to critically assess the

strategies employed in different regions around the world. Denmark is one country that has been

actively pursuing plans for adaptation. As of today, Denmark has formulated a national

adaptation strategy and is urging the development of a variety of municipal initiatives, including

a climate adaptation plan from the City of Copenhagen. While governing institutions in

Denmark are committed to achieving a more resilient and adaptable society, there is no

established pathway for adaptation. There are significant barriers to adaptation that include

technological, financial, cognitive, behavioral, social and cultural constraints. In addition, there

is varying understanding of the needs, priorities and mechanisms for adaptation among

government agencies and within the broader community. This paper will briefly discuss the

concept of adaptation and introduce efforts currently underway at the national and municipal

scale in Copenhagen, Denmark. It will describe the challenges of adaptation and reflect on the

difficulties that are bound to arise when planning for uncertainty. Given the challenges, the

research will present an alternative approach to adaptation and investigate the mechanisms

responsible for strengthening local adaptation and the process of decision-making. It will argue

that measures grounded in community-based input and action can be instrumental in formulating

local coping and adaptation strategies, and should be viewed as part of a wider system approach

to climate change adaptation. This research recognizes community action as an important step in

the policy-making process and seeks to understand how the methods used to boost adaptive

capacity within communities can link to larger efforts by state and municipal governments. By

championing a process of inclusive decision-making in which participatory interaction and

collective problem solving can be used to boost adaptive capacity, inform policy decisions, and

create more resilient societies, this research may better illustrate how cities and communities can

start thinking about adaptation and the options available to decision-makers.

Keywords:

Climate change, adaptation, capacity building, multi-level governance, participatory planning,

collective decision-making, adaptive management

Committee Members:

Dolores Foley, Committee Chair

Karl Kim, Committee Member

Priyam Das, Committee Member

3

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 4

METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................................. 6

THE CONCEPT OF ADAPTATION ................................................................................................................. 7

CONTEMPORARY POLICY APPROACHES TO CLIMATE CHANGE .......................................... 10 GLOBAL GOVERNANCE ..................................................................................................................................................... 10 MUNICIPAL PLANNING ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

ADAPTATION PLANNING AND POLICY IN DENMARK................................................................... 14 THE DANISH STRATEGY FOR ADAPTATION TO A CHANGING CLIMATE ........................................................... 14 THE CITY OF COPENHAGEN‘S CLIMATE ADAPTION PLAN .................................................................................... 17

TABLE 1 .................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................................................. 21

THE CHALLENGES OF ADAPTATION PLANNING AND POLICY ................................................ 22 TACKLING THE ―BIG‖ ISSUE ............................................................................................................................................ 22 CLIMATE SCIENCE NOT EASILY TRANSLATED INTO ACTION ................................................................................. 24 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 26 WHO PAYS? .......................................................................................................................................................................... 30 POLITICAL WILL .................................................................................................................................................................. 33 COLLABORATION AMONG SECTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS .................................................................................... 35

GIVEN THE CHALLENGES…WHAT’S NEXT? ..................................................................................... 36

ASSESSING THE ALTERNATIVE: MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE AND COLLECTIVE

DECISION-MAKING ......................................................................................................................................... 39 MAKING THE CASE FOR A MULTI-LEVEL APPROACH TO ADAPTATION .............................................................. 41

HOW TO BUILD ADAPTIVE CAPACITY INTO A FRAMEWORK OF MULTI-LEVEL

GOVERNANCE AND COLLECTIVE DECISION-MAKING ................................................................ 44 STEP 1) DECENTRALIZE THE PROCESS ......................................................................................................................... 44 STEP 2) PROMOTE INCLUSIVE DECISION MAKING THROUGH PARTICIPATORY PLANNING ........................... 45 STEP 3) FOSTER ACTION THROUGH EDUCATION AND AWARENESS .................................................................... 50 STEP 4) PRIORITIZE INVESTMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 56 STEP 5) INCENTIVIZE ACTION ......................................................................................................................................... 58 STEP 6) SET UP A SYSTEM OF CONTINUOUS ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT ............................................................. 61

THE FEASIBILITY OF MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE AND COLLECTIVE DECISION-

MAKING IN DENMARK .................................................................................................................................. 64

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 66

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 70

APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 74

4

Introduction

According to recent reports by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change),

rising sea levels, increased storms, drought, flooding, and other climate-related impacts are likely

to increase during the next century (IPCC, 2007). As a result, cities are starting to see climate

change as a viable and potentially disastrous threat to the urban environment. Over the last

decade, cities around the world have begun developing climate policy and implementing climate

action plans in an effort to maintain more livable and resilient societies (Tang et al. 2010).

Adaptation, or the process of dealing with the impacts wrought from a changing climate, is

considered by many cities to be a crucial and necessary next step in the municipal planning

process. However, there are few examples of cities that have begun to implement adaptation

measures on the national and regional scale. In fact, ―while many types of adaptation have been

distinguished, there is less scholarship on actual adaptation processes‖ (Smit et al. 2000). As

such, it is imperative that planners and policy-makers begin to critically assess and evaluate the

plans and strategies employed in different regions around the world to better understand how

cities and communities can start thinking about adaptation and the options available to decision-

makers.

Planners and policy-makers play a key role in determining the solutions and devising

policy that will help lessen climate-related impacts to the urban environment. Some scholars

make the case that ―planning plays an essential role in guiding communities toward a more

resilient and sustainable world‖ (Saavedra & Budd, 2009). Thus, the potential role for planners

in analyzing the processes by which communities or regions cope with climate-related hazards

and manage risks is huge. Yet many cities are only beginning to understand the complex

processes involved in devising and implementing adaptation measures. Currently, there is a

5

growing need to explore the mechanisms necessary to encourage both ―autonomous‖ adaptation

which involves changes in behavior in response to climate change, and ―planned‖ adaptations

which are tactical and strategic actions undertaken by governments. Not only is adapting to

climate variability and change an important issue to city planners, it is also a critical component

of policy development that can be used to advise and prescribe present and future adaptations

(Smit et al. 2000). An understanding of ‗what is adaptation‘ is necessary for both the estimation

of likely adaptations and the evaluation of adaptations in policy development.

This paper will discuss the concept of adaptation from a national and municipal

perspective using the case of Copenhagen, Denmark. It will give a brief overview of

contemporary planning and policy approaches to climate change, including a critique of the

global approach to climate change and mitigation policy, prior to discussing the specific case of

adaptation planning and policy in Denmark. Using scholarly publications, academic journals,

and semi-structured interviews with academics, researchers, non-government workers, and city

Ministry officials in Copenhagen, this research will explore the inherent challenges of planning

for climate change when the impacts and degree of severity are largely unknown. While there is

a growing need to adapt rather than mitigate, there is difficulty in devising policy and planning

measures that specifically address the topic of adaptation. This research will attempt to relate

why this is, and the mechanisms needed to enhance adaptive capacity. More explicitly it will

look at multi-level governance and community-based management as a viable method for

dealing with climate change and informing policy decisions.

In the end, it is reasoned that a greater awareness of the current challenges in building

adaptive capacity will lead to new perspectives on how planners and policy-makers think about

the issue of adaptation. By identifying the challenges inherent to adaptation planning and policy,

6

planners and policy-makers, both in Denmark and abroad, will be better equipped to make

informed decisions because they will understand the conditions under which adaptations are

more likely to occur. Discussing the mechanisms likely needed to facilitate greater adaptive

capacity among governments and individual citizens, this research will propose a conceptual

framework for understanding adaptation by advocating for a more decentralized approach in

which planned adaptive measures and the process of adaptation is guided by community input

and participation. By evaluating the case of adaptation planning and policy in Denmark,

pinpointing the challenges and barriers to adaptation, and assessing the potential for a

community-based approach to climate change, this research may suggest an alternative strategy

for adaptation and evaluate the merit of various opportunities for adaptation at the local scale.

Methodology

In researching adaptation and the case study of Denmark, the research explores the

underlying issues and challenges faced by Danish municipalities in implementing climate change

adaptation plans. In addition to scholarly articles and academic journals, a portion of the

research also includes interview data collected between 24 March and 9 April 2011 in

Copenhagen, Denmark. The data is comprised of 14 separate interviews, which included

representatives and individuals from the Danish Government‘s Ministry of Climate and Energy,

the City of Copenhagen, non-profit organizations, and faculty and staff at the University of

Copenhagen. Interviewees were asked a series of semi-structured interview questions (see

example in Appendix). Interviews and meetings were arranged prior to travel to Copenhagen

and targeted a range of people from a variety of disciplines and professions related to climate

change and adaptation. Those interviewed tended to be involved in some aspect of climate

7

change adaptation planning or research and were briefed on the proposed discussion questions

prior to the interview. Common themes included a review of the climate-related impacts

currently affecting Denmark (E.g. heavier rainfall and increased incidents of flooding) and the

actions presently being undertaken by various agencies in Copenhagen. Discussion with the

various participants reiterated the importance of multi-level cooperation and the need for a

coordinated effort between actors. What‘s more, the interviews reported on the present state of

adaptation planning in Denmark and often reflected on the challenges associated with adaptation

planning and policy. Interview data helped give an overall picture of adaptation plans and policy

in Denmark and helped create the basis for further inquiries into the barriers to adaptation—a

finding that was not anticipated or significantly addressed in the initial research proposal.

The concept of adaptation

Before investigating the impediments linked to climate change adaptation plans and the

specific barriers facing municipalities in Denmark, it is important to define the concept of

adaptation. Adaptation is generally thought of as the process of adjusting to changes in the

natural environment, or more specifically how societies actively deal with the impacts of a

changing climate. Such coping mechanisms are described as ―adjustments in ecological, social,

economic systems in response to actual or expected climate change and their impacts‖

(Richardson et al. 2011). Other academics have described it as ―the decision-making process

about the set of actions to be undertaken based upon present and future climate change

information‖ (Kennedy, Stocker, Burke, 2010). Climate change adaptation can be understood as

both the process and product of adapting to real or expected changes in climate. Yet, the impacts

wrought from a changing climate are global in scale and inherently unpredictable. Today,

8

scholars are re-conceptualizing their definition of adaptation, recognizing that it is not only about

actively addressing climate-related impacts, but also about learning how to deal with variability

and uncertainty (Smit et al. 2000).

While the adaptation framework accepts climate change as an inevitable certainty, it does

not explicitly explain how cities can or should adapt. As a result, there are a number of cities

with adaptation plans, but few who have gone beyond a rough sketch of objectives and goals.

The long-term effects are not well known and there seems to be insufficient understanding of

what climate change really means for society. At the moment, adaptation frameworks rarely

consider how adaptations will be implemented, by whom, and why (O‘Brien et al. 2006). This

gives the impression that while the need for adaptation is largely understood, the process of

implementation is less well defined. Importantly, there is no agreed upon framework for

adaptation. In fact, ―the diversity of adaptation contexts implies there is no single approach for

assessing, planning, and implementing adaptation measures‖ (Fussel, 2007). Thus, there are

different institutional interpretations of what it means to ―adapt.‖

As a relatively new concept, adaptation plans tend to incorporate both mitigation and

adaptation measures. Common strategies not only look at reducing CO2 emissions and

increasing the use of energy efficient alternatives, but also ways to encourage changes in

individual behavior—which according to Crane and Landis (2010) is of the greatest interest to

planners. In the United States, FEMA defines hazard mitigation as sustained action taken to

reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and their property from hazards, including threats

posed by natural hazards like climate change. Generally speaking, mitigation is considered to be

a response to the broad issue, involving reducing or stabilizing greenhouse gas levels, in order to

mitigate changes in climate (Smit et al. 2000). Alternatively, adaptation moves beyond

9

mitigation and ―includes all adjustments in behavior or economic structures that reduce the

vulnerability of society to changes in the climate system‖ (Smit et al. 2000). There is a link

between disaster preparedness, hazard mitigation, risk reduction and the concept of adaptation.

In fact, mitigation is an important first step in reducing risk to long-term threats. That being said,

it is important to note that where mitigation cannot be effective, the next logical steps are to

prepare, respond and recover” (Freitag, 2007). This concept of preparedness permeates the field

of emergency management and is at the heart of actions on adaptation. In effect, ―just as we

prepare for other disasters, natural and manmade, we should be able to prepare for the impact of

climate change‖ (Schneider, 2011). While certain aspects of preparedness can include mitigation

approaches and policy instruments like cap-and-trade, there is a socio-cultural aspect to the

concept of adaptation. It is not only an issue of altering the physical environment through

infrastructure improvements, but also an issue of how to encourage more sustainable ways of

living, including adjustments by individuals and to the collective behavior of the socio-economic

system (Smit et al. 2000). Adaptation thus requires changes to the built environment, along with

changes to individual behavior, social norms, and how communities, planners and policy-makers

interpret the issue.

Notably, the concept and application of adaptation is diverse and varied. As ―both a

process and a condition, adaptation is a relative term…it requires specification of who or what

adapts, the stimulus for which the adaptation is undertaken, and the process and form it takes‖

(Smit & Pilifosova, 2003). Adaptation is rooted in circumstance and is highly contextual. Thus,

adaptations can be planned or autonomous; passive, reactive, or anticipatory; and will depend on

differences in scope, application and interpretation of the term (Smit et al. 2000). Because

adaptation is decidedly context-specific, any attempt to understand adaptation must begin by

10

assessing the concept from the perspective of the local region, city, community or neighborhood.

While there is no set standard for adaptation, the process can be facilitated by specifying

adaptation in what, and to what. In a study by Barry Smit (2000) on the ―Anatomy of

Adaptation,‖ the researchers describe the three core elements of adaption as adaptation to what,

specifying who or what adapts, and how does adaptation occur (Smit et al. 2000). At the

broadest scale adaptations can relate to anything and everything that needs adjusting. Yet, the

ultimate success of adaptations is compounded by regional characteristics, including a city or

community‘s ability to build sufficient capacity in the face of many uncertainties.

Contemporary policy approaches to climate change

Global governance

Climate change is a global issue. As a result, the contemporary approach to climate

change has tended toward more globally based initiatives. Over the last decade, thousands of

representatives from more than 150 countries have assembled annually to negotiate the details of

a global accord on climate change. However, there is increasing concern that these ―Conference

of the Parties,‖ otherwise known as COP, have failed to produce substantial results. The intent

of these meetings is to produce firm resolutions on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet

some critics believe that ―climate change is so global, so vague yet all-encompassing that the

‗broad church‘ approach can only depoliticize, appealing to a lowest common denominator to the

point of blandness‖ (Dimitrov, 2010). Indeed, the major weakness of global climate policy is its

expansive base, which demands clear solutions to a problem that is increasingly multi-

dimensional. Over the last decade, the international approach to climate change has been

―dominated by the top-down thinking derived from the original characterization of the issue as a

11

global environmental pollution problem‖ encompassing actions primarily directed at reducing

greenhouse emissions (Aalst, Cannon, Burton, 2008). However, as the effects of climate change

become more prevalent every year, these so-called ―climate talks‖ are being scrutinized for their

effectiveness and capacity to curtail emissions back down to 1990 levels. Today there is

widespread belief that such thinking has been deficient in its ability to achieve international

agreement and that the goals of mitigation are long passed due. Additionally, international

meetings have not sufficiently addressed the issue of adaptation. The 2010 United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) discusses the importance of adaptation

and ―invites all Parties to enhance action on adaptation‖ but does not explicitly articulate what

this means or how nations should address the issue. Essentially, international frameworks lack

the ability to verbalize or mandate individual adaptation measures. The UNFCCC reports use

words like ―requests‖ or ―invites‖ as a means of introducing the topic of adaptation, without

conveying a clear sense of what it means or the urgency with which it needs to take place.

In general, international climate policy has done little in the way of producing tangible

commitments to action, let alone shaping effective policy on mitigation or adaptation. There is a

need to move away from a global climate agenda to a more regional approach based on local

needs, local agendas, and local priorities. Ultimately, global agreements will fail to establish

effective targets or develop innovative solutions to climate change unless everyone can agree on

the terms (Dimitrov, 2010). But for a variety of reasons, aggregate climate policy has proven to

be far less effective, due in part to the broad scope of the issue and the inherent challenges of

articulating what party, or country, is at fault. Stakeholders ―have substantially different

worldviews, and different frames for understanding the problem‖ (Crane & Landis, 2010).

Furthermore, ―local, national, regional and global polities and economies are festooned with

12

competing interests and informed by worldviews that are often diverse and conflictive‖

(Pendergraft, 1998). Particularly in a world made up of a variety of cultures and nation states

with divergent social, environmental, and economic interests, finding consensus and agreeing on

the terms of a global climate accord may not be entirely feasible. Again because the impacts are

wide-ranging and the ―polluter pays‖ principle is open to debate, approaching climate change

from a purely global perspective is flawed. Efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and

initiate the process of adaptation have not proven practical at the international scale—an

alternative approach to climate change is needed.

Municipal planning

A more regional approach to climate change is taking place at the municipal level. Over

the last several years, cities are attempting to tackle the climate issue by devising their own set of

agendas and goals. According to a report by Randall Crane and John Landis (2010), 30 U.S.

states and over 1,000 municipalities have prepared climate action plans. These plans can range

in size and scope from a few pages to an extremely detailed list of initiatives. In some cases,

―the plans [are] stand-alone documents focused on the goal of achieving CO2 reductions; others,

however, were chapters on climate change integrated into comprehensive plans as part of a

broader sustainability plan‖ (Bassett & Shandas, 2010). Today the majority of municipal plans

have paid little attention to the issue of adaptation and ―the planning literature contains little

discussion of the potentials and pitfalls of this emergent type of planning‖ (Bassett & Shandas,

2010). Undoubtedly, local climate action planning is an emerging field and adaptation planning

is in its infancy. Today the majority of plans remain broad in scope with relatively few examples

of action strategies that have moved into the implementation phase. Additionally, because it is

13

such a new concept, ―no empirical model has measured local climate change action plan quality‖

(Tang et al. 2010). Therefore, the range of plans and action measures is quite diverse and varied.

Around the world there are locally based initiatives that differ from place to place. Notably,

―adaptation to climate change is highly context-specific, because it depends on the climatic,

environmental, social, and political conditions in the target region and sector‖ (Fussel, 2007).

Therefore, municipal plans are subjective to situation and setting, which makes it difficult to

capture and quantify the real meaning of adaptation.

Importantly, climate action plans are an amalgamation of mitigation and adaptation

efforts. Many employ an emissions reduction strategy, while also advocating for planned

adaptation measures such as an increase in energy efficient alternatives (i.e. wind, solar, wave)

and improvements in infrastructure (i.e. building more bike lanes and expanding sewer systems).

One of the major findings of the Tang et al. study (2010) is that current local climate change

action plans focus predominantly on mitigation measures to the built environment (e.g. energy,

transportation, waste, etc.) and pays little attention to implementation and long-term adaptation

strategies. Similar sentiments are echoed in Denmark where ―the greater part of research efforts

up until now have aimed at understanding and describing the altered climate conditions,

including the possibilities of limiting anthropogenic climate change, and have only to a limited

extent focused on the challenges associated with adapting [society] to future climate change‖

(Danish Government, 2008). Today, the main dimensions of climate action plans tend to focus

on how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote energy efficient alternatives rather than

devising policy for adaptive management. However, the ―growing recognition of unavoidable

changes in global climate…is shifting the parameters of the climate change debate towards

policies and practices of adaptation‖ (Kennedy, Stocker, Burke, 2010). While recent climate-

14

related policy has been approached through the lens of mitigation, ―adaptation to climate change

is thus now considered essential‖ (Richardson et al. 2011).

Adaptation planning and policy in Denmark

As climate-related impacts become more apparent to policy-makers and planners, the

focus has shifted away from mitigation to planned approaches for adaptation. This is also true of

Denmark, which has recently initiated national and municipal plans for adaptation. As a

relatively small country of nearly 6 million people, Denmark has been at the forefront of

environmental policies since 1973 when it was the first country in the world to established an

environmental law (O'Brien and Høj, 2001). Since then, Denmark has continued to adopt and

pursue progressive environmental programs and policies, including its more recent plans for

adaptation, which are described below. Yet even in Denmark where plans for adaptation are

well underway, officials recognize that ―any plan for pursuing a vision of an ideal society is

unconvincing if it ignores politics…the key question then becomes, What sort of politics would

serve sustainability best?‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). This is the key question for local leaders in

Denmark, who are concurrently pursuing two adaptation strategies at the national and municipal

scale. The national strategy, devised in 2008 by the Danish Energy Agency or what is today the

Ministry of Climate and Energy, supports an approach to adaptation that is both autonomous and

planned. In addition, the City of Copenhagen has published a Climate Adaption Plan as part of

their larger goal of becoming the world‘s first carbon neutral city by 2025. Both efforts employ

different approaches to adaptation, but are seen as mutually inclusive.

The Danish Strategy for Adaptation to a Changing Climate

15

Published in 2008 by the Danish government and the Ministry of Climate and Energy, the

―Danish Strategy for Adaptation to a Changing Climate‖ promotes a bilateral approach to

adaptation. The plan recognizes and supports two different methods—autonomous and planned

responses to climate change. ―Autonomous adaptation‖ is defined as action undertaken

―whereby authorities, businesses and private citizens react to the consequences of climate change

on their own initiative in a timely manner‖ (Danish Government, 2008). Alternatively, ―planned

adaptation,‖ which is interpreted as the result of a deliberate policy decision, is seen as a

secondary response measure, which should only be pursued when ―there may be a need to

initiate politically planned adaptation measures‖ (Danish Government, 2008). Stated another

way, the National Strategy suggests that if the autonomous approach does not produce optimal

results, then municipalities should enact a new set of deliberate policies aimed at encouraging

more adaptive forms of behavior. Notably, the government believes that an autonomous

approach to adaptation should be the first step in tackling the issue of climate change. While

planned adaptation measures are not entirely overlooked in the adaptive framework laid out by

the Ministry, they are nonetheless understood as a secondary response.

In an effort to bolster a more autonomous approach to adaptation, the ―Danish Strategy‖

begins by outlining what the future climate will look like and identifying the challenges to

individual sectors including, agriculture, fisheries, land use planning, health, water, energy, and

more. Because the impacts are predicted to be so widespread and sector-specific, the national

strategy also acknowledges the ―need for strengthened efforts with respect to coordination and

knowledge-sharing‖ (Danish Government, 2008). In lieu of this, the government has established

a Coordination Forum on Adaptation, which serves as the coordinating body for research on

climate-related activities. In addition, coordination and cross-collaboration is fostered via a Web

16

portal for climate change adaptation, known in Danish as ―Klimatilpasning.‖ The Web portal

gives municipalities and the public access to a range of resources and information on climate

change, including models, maps, climate data, and tools for scenario planning. This unique

avenue for coordination is intended to guide and support the autonomous approach to adaptation

by providing planners, policy-makers, politicians, and civilians with the tools needed to make

informed decisions (M. Blanner, D. Holse & L. Grøndahl, personal communication, 2011).

With the focus on adaptation, rather than promoting mitigation measures, the National

Strategy considers adaptation a necessary next step. As stated in the document, there is the

underlying belief that autonomous action, coupled with planned adaptive measures can work to

build a more resilient and adaptable society. The scenarios and climate data posted to the Web

portal provide a general idea of what the projected impacts will be on Danish society and alert

municipalities to the types of adaptive measures they can undertake. Such baseline projections

describe how the expected climate changes could affect the region, while also informing and

encouraging the municipalities to take action in a number of key areas. The ―Danish Strategy for

Adaptation‖ is seen as a platform for understanding the impacts of climate change, but does not

explicitly state how municipalities should choose to adapt (M. Blanner, D. Holse & L. Grøndahl,

personal communication, 2011). By describing the expected changes (i.e. heavier rainfall and

increased flooding), the strategy provides a frame of reference, which ―allows for consideration

of whether, if so, how and when public authorities, businesses and citizens should take climate

change into account and adapt‖ (Danish Government, 2008). However, it does not mandate that

they do so. Until recently, climate change was not addressed in the planning law at all. Now

however, municipalities are ―free to address it‖ (V. Nellemann, personal communication, 2011).

17

The City of Copenhagen’s Climate Adaption Plan

The City of Copenhagen‘s ―Climate Adaption Plan‖ was released in February 2011 and is

part of the City‘s larger ―Copenhagen Climate Plan,‖ which was published in 2009. Copenhagen

is one of 98 municipalities in Denmark and is considered to have one of the most progressive

climate plans in the country with the goal of becoming the first carbon neutral capital in the

world by 2025 (V. Nellemann, personal communication, 2011). The Adaption Plan (2011) is

intended to help supplement the City‘s ongoing efforts to achieve carbon neutrality and is one of

six ―action areas‖ specified in the 2009 ―Climate Plan.‖ It introduces three basic levels of

climate adaptation and provides a brief overview of what the City hopes to achieve over the next

decade. Overall, the Adaption Plan looks to address adaptation in the context of immediate

concerns, or what Copenhagen and the rest of the country are experiencing today. Over the last

few years this has included heavier rainfall and increased flooding, which has led to the overflow

of sewers in many parts of Copenhagen. Thus, the adaptations specified in the Plan incorporate

the building of dykes, the expansion of sewers to manage the flow of increased rainwater

(expected to be anywhere between 30 and 40% more), and building higher above sea level.

Other ―levels‖ of adaptation discuss the importance of establishing waterproof cellars, adapting

areas such as parks where rainwater can be stored, and the more general aim of reducing

vulnerability (see Table 1 below). In general, heavier rainfall is having the most significant

impact and has become the primary concern for City officials1.

1 In August 2010 a major highway into the City was flooded due to an unseasonal increase in

precipitation. This event, coupled with other episodes of severe flooding has served as the major

impetus to the 2011 City of Copenhagen Adaption Plan.

18

TABLE 1

Adaptation Strategies for the City of Copenhagen

Impact

Coping Strategy

Level

Action Taken

Heavier rainfall

Underground basins

and new drainage

techniques

Level 2

SUDS (Sustainable

Urban Drainage

Systems)

Urban landscaping

(E.g. using parks and

other ―green‖ spaces

to manage the flow of

water)

Flooding

Pumping stations,

building of dykes,

building higher above

sea level

Level 3

N/A2

Overflow of sewers

Expand/enlarge

sewers

Level 1

In progress

Damage to buildings,

private property etc.

Autonomous action3

Level 3

Rebate programs

A key component of Copenhagen‘s ―Adaption Plan‖ is to channel adaptive measures so

they are in line with the City‘s ―green growth‖ strategy, which seeks to ―generate new

2 Copenhagen is in the process of completing a fourth phase to the City‘s Metro line called the

Cityringen, which is expected to open in 2018. While construction on the Cityringen began prior

to the release of the ―Copenhagen Climate Adaption Plan,‖ engineers and Metro officials have

been working in conjunction with the City to ensure that the new Metro line considers climate

change and sea level rise in its plans.

3 Total damage costs from climate change are expected to cost the City between 15-20 billion

DKK over the next century. Therefore, the Plan recognizes the importance of securing private

property and other sensitive infrastructure by encouraging private citizens and businesses to

install back flow blockers and modify downspouts, as a protection against flooded basements.

19

knowledge and new professions…making Copenhagen an attractive partner and creating

opportunities to position the city internationally‖ (City of Copenhagen, 2011). According to

representatives at the City, there is a desire to combine efforts toward economic growth with the

larger goals of adaptation (M. Anderson & J. Rasmussen, personal communication, 2011).

Green growth and quality of life are the two main elements in Copenhagen‘s vision for the

future. As such, adaptation is seen not only as an opportunity to create a ―greener‖ more resilient

city, but also as an opportunity to bolster the economy through job creation. The ―Adaption

Plan‖ seeks to promote Copenhagen as a leading green lab for sustainable urban solutions and

hopes to attract investment and new enterprise by working in cooperation with private partners

and research institutions. The City recognizes that their plans for adaptation and carbon

neutrality will require significant investments, but there are concerns that budget constraints may

limit the municipality‘s ability to implement its plans for adaptation (M. Anderson & J.

Rasmussen, personal communication, 2011). There is ongoing discussion about how to finance

the adaptive measures needed over the next century and a need to develop partnerships between

private and public actors to help take care of the financing. The City acknowledges that they

cannot do it alone and that adaptation will be the result of a combined effort.4 Consequently, the

City‘s ―green growth‖ strategy has become a focal point of the ―Adaptation Plan‖ as the financial

capacity to adapt dictates the course of adaptation.

Overall Copenhagen‘s ―Adaption Plan‖ favors a direct course of action, but recognizes

that the initiatives outlined are an initial step in the long-term process of adaptation. The Plan is

a ―starting point for incorporating the necessary climate adaptation into our thinking in all areas

4 On March 28, 2011 the City of Copenhagen held a public workshop on adaptation.

Approximately 100 people attended the workshop that included professionals, politicians,

scientists, academics, and representatives from various public agencies and private households.

It was one of the first public hearings on Copenhagen‘s ―Adaption Plan.‖

20

of the city‘s development‖ (City of Copenhagen, 2011). There are many uncertainties associated

with climate change in addition to the time it takes to put into action the various strategies.

While workshops connecting professionals, politicians, scientists, academics, and homeowners

have taken place as recently as March 2011, there are concerns about how to relate the scientific

projections produced at the Ministry of Climate and Energy to efforts at the City (M. Anderson

& J. Rasmussen, personal communication, 2011). In addition, the two agencies have different

perspectives on the approach to adaptation, with the Ministry promoting a more autonomous

approach and the City calling for planned adaptive measures. Copenhagen‘s ―Adaption Plan‖ is

seen as a starting point to address the concerns of adaptation, but is in no way the definitive

solution. Unlike the City‘s ―Climate Plan‖ (2009), which establishes baseline target measures

for success, the ―Adaption Plan‖ has no such set of evaluative measures. When evaluating

success it is important to keep in mind that “there are many different kinds of plans that may be

assessed by many different kinds of criteria, and several different ways in which plans can work”

(Couclelis, 2005). Adaptation, unlike carbon neutrality, is governed by a different and diverse

set of success measures, many of which cannot be quantified or numerically tracked. There is

reason to believe that such measures will eventually be included in future reiterations of the Plan,

but because the “Adaption Plan” is less than six months old, the strategies remain rather broad

and indefinite. In the context of adaptation and climate change this broad-based approach may

work in the City’s favor since strategies for adaptation are likely to change over the next decade.

However, there is also a need to clearly state what success will look like. Ultimately, the current

state of Copenhagen’s strategy for adaptation is more or less seen as a means of achieving a

more resilient and adaptable society, albeit it does not identify a single set of measures that will

lead to success.

21

Findings In addition to peer-reviewed journal articles and scholarly texts, the research findings

grew out of interview data collected in Copenhagen, Denmark between 24 March and 9 April,

2011. While the initial intent of the interviews was to ascertain a better understanding of

adaptation planning in Denmark, the final outcome was somewhat different. Many of the people

interviewed expressed concerns over the future course of adaptation, specifically as it relates to

budgetary issues, fiscal constraints, and the limited capacity of government to enact and

implement various plans for adaptation. Some of the other challenges identified in the

interviews included imprecise data, unpredictable forecasting, and the challenges associated with

planning for uncertainty. Most of the interviewees acknowledged uncertainty and fiscal

restrictions as being significant barriers to the future success of adaptation. Conversations with

representatives at the Ministry of Climate and Energy and the City of Copenhagen recounted the

existing state of plans and proposals, while also providing insight into the impediments to

adaptation currently being faced by municipalities throughout the region. There was a sense that

adaptation was a relatively new concept that had not yet moved into the implementation phase

and was still in the process of being substantiated. While Denmark and municipalities like

Copenhagen have made significant strides in their plans for climate change, the mechanisms

through which adaptations must take place is less well understood and only beginning to break

ground. In some cases, interviewees acknowledged the disconnect between planning and action,

in addition to the need to more effectively communicate and incentivize the need for adaptation.

The sentiments expressed during the interview process helped shape the scope of the research

agenda by reframing the research objectives and prompting further investigation into the

22

challenges of adaptation planning and policy as a precursor to future proposals and

recommendations for adaptation and fostering adaptive capacity.

The challenges of adaptation planning and policy

Tackling the “big” issue

Even as the topic of adaptation has become more prevalent in the fields of planning and

policy, municipalities with the greatest degree of adaptive capacity have failed to implement

stringent adaptation measures (O‘Brien et al. 2006). In certain places, there is complacency on

the part of government to move beyond conversation to start implementing goals for adaptation.

In fact, despite mounting evidence of the perils to life and property from floods and other

climate-related impacts, there are governments that seem reluctant to enforce adaptation policies

and plans (Godschalk, Brody, Burby, 2003). In some cases, the scope and scale of climate

change tends to market itself as an issue ―too big‖ for governments to solve. Certainly, climate

change is an issue that ―crosses multiple domains and resists concise formulation‖ (Crane &

Landis, 2010). Thus, when it comes to policy, municipal governments may not know exactly

how to respond. In most cases, ―it is very difficult to get confident predictions for local

risks…the main messages are that hazards are likely to become more frequent, and extremes to

have a greater magnitude, and that uncertainty about the extremes will increase‖ (Aalst, Cannon,

Burton, 2008). Such vague and unclear notions about climate change (i.e. how to plan and what

to plan for) can stall government action or lead to plans that are ―all talk but no teeth.‖ To date,

more than 1,000 U.S. communities have devised climate action plans, but few have actually

started to deliver on their pledges (Crane & Landis, 2010).

23

Disengagement due to the extreme magnitude of the issue has created situations in which

climate change fails to be a top priority for governments and among certain government

agencies. Sometimes it is ―considered as an additional external factor, often interacting with

existing stressors‖ (Richardson et al. 2011). In other words, governments may feel that climate

change compounds already existing issues, but it is never addressed as the main culprit. In some

studies, adaptation options have usually been discussed as add-on features, with little

consideration to their feasibility in a societal context and little understanding of the processes

through which adaptation occurs‖ (O‘Brien et al. 2006). In essence, governments have accepted

the science of climate change, but lack sufficient understanding of how to carry out the process

of adaptation. In many instances, ―local jurisdictions may feel that climate change is a global

issue and this creates an inability or reluctance to integrate global scientific input into local

action plans‖ (Tang et al. 2010). Apprehension on the part of governments to devise and

implement plans for adaptation has pushed the issue of climate change off the to-do list and back

on the list of future policy initiatives. Ultimately, tackling the ―big‖ issue of climate change

represents a significant challenge to adaptation planning and policy at the global, national, and

municipal scale.

Additionally, it is hard to engage communities and political elites in discussions around

the abstract concepts that underpin climate change (Ensor & Berger, 2009). The lack of

information about how to tackle and how to adapt to climate change establishes a tendency

toward complacency. Adaptation measures often get adopted only in response to specific local

or regional natural disasters (Bulkeley, 2010). Godschalk, Brody, and Burby (2003) came to a

similar conclusion stating that climate adaptation only becomes a pressing local concern when

climate-related impacts (e.g. flooding) are experienced first-hand. The same is true in Denmark,

24

where local governments, including the City of Copenhagen, intensified efforts to retrofit sewer

systems after a main highway into the City was flooded in the summer of 2010 (V. Nellemann,

personal communication, 2011). Arguably, personally experiencing the impacts of climate

change is one way to move the process of adaptation forward. But because many climate-related

impacts (e.g. sea level rise) won‘t be experienced for some time, the importance of direct

adaptation is not always apparent. It is suggested by Stern (2000) that efforts to activate or

deactivate people‘s environmental norms need to highlight the environmental conditions that

threaten things the individual values. In Denmark, ―if they don‘t feel the impacts of climate

change, if they don‘t think it‘s a worthwhile thing to do…they will vote for politicians who think

it‘s not important‖ (A. Thorhauge, personal communication, 2011). Therefore, linking climate

change to personal values is an important first step in bringing the big issue down to the local

level.

Climate science not easily translated into action

Adaptation requires foresight and the capacity to deal explicitly with uncertainty (Crane

& Landis, 2010). Unfortunately, there appears to be a gap between scientific knowledge and

understanding, which ultimately confounds the act of adaptation. According to some scholars,

―the linear model of linking science with policy—scientists producing scientific knowledge that

is then transmitted to the policy world—is not appropriate for adaptation‖ (Richardson et al.

2011). Not only is the science sometimes difficult to comprehend, it is also more than likely to

change over the next few decades as climate models get updated and new science comes to light.

Even when making recommendations for particular sectors, the Danish government

acknowledges that there is ―great uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the expected effects

25

of climate change on the interplay between [different sectors] and the environment‖ (Danish

Government, 2008). This means that adaptation frameworks are sometimes the result of

educated guesswork in which policy-makers and planners try to devise policy based on various

climate scenarios—none of which are guaranteed. Essentially, adaptation at the national and

municipal scale ―involves making assumptions and estimates about likelihood and consequences

of impacts from very limited data or experience‖ (Kennedy, Stocker, Burke, 2010). This fact

alone challenges cities and governments to devise and implement plans and policies that deal

explicitly with an uncertain future.

For purposes of adaptation, it is important to know ―the conditions under which

[adaptations] are expected to occur‖ yet ―climate conditions are inherently variable from year to

year, decade to decade, century to century and beyond‖ (Smit et al. 2000). Where adaptation is

concerned, policy-makers tend to use climate data to instruct the course of adaptations.

However, ―model predictions remain either too contradictory or too broad to provide sufficient

detail for a purely impacts-driven approach to adaptation‖ (Ensor & Berger, 2009). When it

comes to climate change, the science is not assured, and the projections are never guaranteed.

Importantly, ―no mathematical model, however well developed, can perfectly replicate the

dynamics of a complex and adaptable system such as climate‖ (Crane & Landis, 2010). Thus,

cities cannot base their policy decisions on science alone. Adaptation policy must accommodate

complexities and uncertainties. Counter to this need, however, there are some governments that

rely exclusively on the science and fail to recognize that ―climate scenarios provide only a very

simplified characterization of the full array of significant climate variables‖ (Aalst, Cannon,

Burton, 2008).

26

Issues of time scale, complexity, and the extent of unforeseen events also bog down

climate data. Indeed, ―global climate change encompasses a complex array of interactions

between a large number of humans and natural systems across vast spatial and temporal scales,

which in turn challenges scientific assessments and policy efforts that aim to identify and

manage these changes‖ (Corfee-Morlot et al. 2010). Natural events like flooding, when coupled

with climate change, can become even more variable and erratic. Each year it becomes

increasingly difficult to statistically predict when major flood events will occur or how severe

they will be. For climate scientists ―the methodology is simple, static and linear, utilizing a

reductionist paradigm which does not accommodate the complexity and uncertainties of dynamic

systems‖ (Kennedy, Stocker, Burke, 2010). Unfortunately, adaptations cannot rely on science

alone. The range of unknowns and external effects significantly hinders scientific projections

and the reduces the likelihood of accurate readings. The threat of climate change makes clear the

underlying issue—that things will change—but the question is when, and to what extent.

Ultimately, it is this inability to predict the future that limits an agency‘s capacity to adapt using

climate models alone, which has led some municipalities to take limited action on the issue of

adaptation.

Socio-economic analysis

According to the ―Danish Strategy‖ (2008), socio-economic analysis is a necessary step

in the adaptation and policy identification process. In a June 2010 study by the Danish Energy

Agency on the socio-economic impacts of climate change, it is predicted that adaptation will

involve large capital investments in new construction projects and major renovations to existing

infrastructure, including sewers (―Socio-economic Screening,‖ 2010). Efforts at the national and

27

municipal scale in Denmark ―emphasize the socio-economic context in which adaptation must

occur‖ and stress that ―effective adaptation probably depends less on the projected impacts of

climate change…and more on the knowledge, communication and understanding of local socio-

economic processes‖ (Richardson et al. 2011). More often than not, policies for adaptation are

assessed according to the degree to which they fit the other social and economic concerns of the

city. Adaptations are thus not only determined by their climatic stimuli, but also with respect to

other, non-climate states, including socio-economic conditions. Today, one of the most

important features of adaptation planning is in estimating the costs and benefits of proposed

projects (Smit et al. 2000). ―Appropriateness‖ of a particular adaptation option is often assessed

against the backdrop of current and future socio-economic conditions. In fact, ―local power

structures often favor economic, rather than environmental or adaptation-related considerations

when making strategic decisions‖ (O‘Brien et al. 2006). This is partly because ―risk‖ and

―vulnerability‖ are more easily measured within an economic framework where foreseeable

impacts can be articulated through cost-benefit analysis (―Socio-economic Screening,‖ 2010).

However, this approach to adaptation is extremely flawed.

Socio-economic analysis faces many challenges in the context of climate change because

no one can say with certainty what will happen to the climate or what the impacts will be on

society. The range of predictions and projected impacts are extensive and wide-ranging, which

makes the costs associated with any particular adaptation measure largely unknown. In line with

the challenges mentioned above, socio-economic analysis is also burdened by long time horizons

and imprecise scientific data. Often, there is a lack of consensus about when impacts will occur

and how big an effect they will have. Calculations are made for very long time horizons, but

because there is substantial uncertainty linked to the future effects, the methods are under

28

continuous debate (―Socio-economic Screening,‖ 2010). Uncertainty about the future can make

it extremely difficult to accurately state who, what, and how to adapt. Not only are policy-

makers tasked with ensuring that the calculations are correct, they must also relate the analysis to

future generations who may or may not have the financial capital to deal with the problems (P.

Andersen, personal communication, 2011). Weighing the costs and benefits of adaptation can

become a guessing game, especially when policy-makers ―cannot be sure that what is optimal in

the analysis of a measure is also optimal in general‖ (―Socio-economic Screening,‖ 2010).

At the national scale, the Danish government views autonomous adaptation as the first

step in responding to climate change. In accordance with this strategy, the National government

asks ―authorities, businesses and private citizens to react to the consequences of climate change

on their own initiative in a timely manner‖ (Danish Government, 2008). In other words, it

requests that municipalities adopt and implement their own strategic agenda for climate

adaptation. What at face value looks like a convenient way to excuse the Ministry from being

financially liable, is actually a planned response wrought from a particular set of socio-economic

conditions—most notably a lack of money. Representatives from the Ministry of Climate and

Energy said ―it was more of a compromise to use that term because we didn‘t have any means

from the government to actually implement any plans within the municipalities‖ (M. Blanner, D.

Holse & L. Grøndahl, personal communication, 2011). By not pursuing national level adaptation

policy and encouraging local governing bodies to implement their own adaptive measures, the

National government is excused from having to front the cost for adaptation. Interestingly, ―cost

estimation for autonomous adaptations is not only important for impact assessment; it also is a

necessary ingredient in the ―base case,‖ ―reference scenario,‖ or ―do-nothing option‖ for

evaluations of policy initiatives‖ (Smit & Pilifosova, 2003). Accordingly, the Danish

29

government‘s hands-off approach is seen as a viable alternative to deliberate policy decisions,

which may require a significant share of financial investment. Similarly, representatives from

the City of Copenhagen are concerned about how to finance their various adaptation measures,

which is the main rationale in the push for a ―green growth‖ strategy (M. Anderson & J.

Rasmussen, personal communication, 2011).

Regardless of what the projected impacts will be, governments and cities appear to be

more inclined to adopt and implement adaptation measures that fit nicely with socio-economic

conditions. Researchers have found that local government is more willing to ―adapt‖ when hard

numbers, generated from risk-management tools, quantify the range of risks and impacts

(Kennedy, Stocker, Burke, 2010). An economic efficiency framework in which adaptation

actions are considered justified only works when ―the additional costs of the adaptation are lower

than the additional benefits from the associated reduced damages‖ (Smit et al. 2000). Thus, it

seems that programs and policies for adaptation are more often undertaken when they are seen as

feasible or cost-effective options. At the national and municipal scale in Denmark it‘s not a

question of will, but rather a question of financing. According to the National Adaptation

Strategy, public sewer renovation now costs the Danish government $1 billion DKK annually

(Danish Government, 2008). Adaptation is thus not without its cost and undoubtedly will require

large amounts of financial capital. Yet, without the money to enact and implement the range of

measures needed to successfully adapt, the response from the Danish government has been to

choose a more self-directed approach and one that does not require huge start-up costs. When all

is said and done, ―the adaptive capacity of communities is determined by their socioeconomic

characteristics‖ (Smit & Pilifosova, 2003).

30

Who pays?

While economic analysis can assist in calculating the value for society in investing in

different adaptation measures, it does not answer the question of who pays to implement the

various adaptive strategies. In addition to the challenges of planning for an uncertain future,

many agencies, including local municipal governments lack the resources to meet their

responsibilities and are often left with very limited capacities to invest in adaptations (Bulkeley,

2010). Deciding which adaptation strategy or policy approach to support has also become a

budgetary issue, where the money spent on adaptation is limited or nonexistent. Furthermore,

because the scientific data on climate change is likely to change over the next few decades, there

will never be accurate predictions for the future. As such, policy-makers must enact resolutions,

prior to establishing consensus on the projected impacts. Remarkably, ―in many cases the costs

associated with adaptation are not included in the analysis at all‖ (Tol, 1998). This is in part due

to climate change‘s inherent unpredictability and the likelihood of change, which means there is

no way to say for certain what investments are needed and the degree to which investments

should take place. Fiscal constraints put huge pressure on local municipalities who must decide

where to invest taxpayer money and how to spend limited funds. According to Crane and Landis

(2010), ―severe financial constraints [are] preventing [cities] from taking more aggressive actions

such as retrofitting additional civic buildings and making their vehicle fleets more fuel efficient.‖

Statements like this underscore the cost barriers associated with adaptation planning and policy

and showcase budgetary constraints as a significant challenge for municipalities, albeit much less

studied.

In most cases, governments are hesitant to invest in adaptation strategies, and even more

hesitant to assign responsibility (Crane & Landis, 2010). In the case of Denmark, much of the

31

region, including the City of Copenhagen is experiencing heavier rainfall, which has led to

increased incidents of flooding. Homeowners who have their homes flooded as a result of the

heavier rainfall see it as the responsibility of the City to make the necessary retrofits to the sewer

system. But there is also a push from the City to encourage homeowners to invest their own

capital in precautionary measures5. While the impacts of a changing climate are indeed affecting

individual residents, the general belief among the Danish public is that they shouldn‘t have to

pay to prevent their homes from being flooded and that it is the job of the municipality to avoid

further and future damage (V. Nellemann, personal communication, 2011). Unfortunately,

without the fiscal capacity to flood-proof every home in a potential inundation zone, the

municipality must encourage homeowners to act autonomously on their own behalf. But few

homeowners are willing to invest in home improvements when the need is not immediate and the

potential payoff questionable. In these cases, ―if the costs of protecting property from sea level

rise are greater than the depreciated value of the land, the property owner is assumed not to

invest in the protection measure‖ (Tol, 1998). In Copenhagen, many people recognize the

problem of flooded streets, but don‘t consider the long-term or future gains from making

adjustments to their sewer systems, especially if those adjustments require them to make initial

investments on their own. Unfortunately, because the costs of adaptation are not pronounced,

there is little incentive for homeowners to invest money in public infrastructure improvements,

especially when the costs outweigh the perceived benefit.

5 In Copenhagen, residents are being encouraged to assist with the management of storm water

runoff by investing in adaptations that can direct the flow of water and supplement the role of

sewer systems. Such landscape-based strategies and ―local disconnections‖ from the main sewer

line are estimated to cost less than if the City itself were to invest in expanding the existing sewer

system. However, the rebates attached to such initiatives may not be sufficient over the long-

term, especially as the retrofits undertaken by households may require more money to maintain

and investments into the future (T. Treue & M. Jensen, personal communication, 2011).

32

It is evident that the range of climate scenarios creates problems for policy-makers and

government leaders who must identify not only which adaptation measures are the most sound,

but also which adaptation measures are the most fiscally appropriate. Importantly,

―understanding expected adaptations is essential to impact and vulnerability assessment and

hence is fundamental to estimating the costs or risks of climate change‖ (Smit & Pilifosova,

2003). Yet the costs are much more difficult to estimate when the range of scenarios is so vast.

At the national level, the Ministry of Climate and Energy has attempted to assist the local

municipalities in determining the best adaptation strategy by providing them with three climate

scenarios. However, concerns over budget constraints have created a situation in which the

municipalities say they cannot afford to adapt to three different scenarios. As such, they would

prefer that the Ministry recommend just one scenario. Representatives at the Ministry believe

that ―it‘s difficult to just point at one scenario and say this is the one you have to adapt to… if we

say that it is this scenario and they adapt to it and something changes, then who pays the bill for

not adapting correctly?‖ (M. Blanner, D. Holse & L. Grøndahl, personal communication, 2011).

With so many unknowns, policies for adaptation are increasingly contingent upon a

municipality‘s budgetary allowance. Even then, the scope of the problem likely means that there

will need to be multiple adaptations at any given time. In Denmark, the municipalities are trying

to overcome some of these barriers by pushing some of the cost onto the households, but this

approach has its own set of challenges. Adaptation is thus not about the willingness of the

municipality to take action, but rather a question of cost and resources.

33

Political will

Ironically, political will and strong local leadership are both chief drivers and major

obstacles of adaptation policy and planning. Studies echoing a similar viewpoint state that there

is ―the importance of political leadership both to the impulse to plan and to the energy and

excitement behind the planning process‖ (Bassett & Shandas, 2010). While climate adaptation

plans may be undertaken for a variety of reasons, studies suggest that their initial and future

success may rest in the hands of charismatic government officials. Other scholars believe ―it is

the urban political economies of climate change that matter most in enabling and constraining

effective action‖ (Bulkeley, 2010). Similarly, when it comes to climate and adaptation,

―someone taking the lead and saying ‗this is important‘ can create a synergy effect‖ (S. Berthou,

personal communication, 2011). Often what gets flagged as ―important,‖ is the product of

people in local leadership positions demanding that their constituents take notice and commit to

local action. Adaptation and the urgency with which it needs to take place is intrinsically tied to

local leadership and strong political will. This is reiterated in a statement made by one

researcher at the University of Copenhagen who thinks, ―[climate adaptation policy] will

come...but it‘s not because people want it, it‘s because of the push from the City‖ (A. Thorhauge,

personal communication, 2011). From this it is assumed that much of the success of adaptation

rests in getting government officials involved from the get go.

However, strong local leadership can also damage efforts toward climate adaptation.

Particularly if climate change is not seen as a key local issue, efforts to engage citizens and

policy-makers can fall short. According to some faculty at the University of Copenhagen,

certain municipalities might be more proactive in implementing adaptation measures if they have

a particular political party in power (V. Nellemann, personal communication, 2011). This point

34

is reiterated in a study by Tang et al. that states ―localities committed to alternative forms of

transportation will be more likely to be concerned over the climate change problem and adopt

policies that reduce GHG emissions‖ (Tang et al. 2010). Thus, while tying climate adaptation to

other community concerns such as transportation, agriculture, or public health is likely to ease

the transition to active adaptive management, strong local leadership is key to making this

connection known. In fact, without climate conscious politicians in positions of power,

adaptation policy may be quite difficult to implement. Similarly, if a city and its local leaders

are not engaged with the topic of climate change they may be less inclined to devise climate-

friendly policy. Along with financial constraints discussed above, political will also influences

the choice to adopt adaptation plans and align them with current and future policy agendas.

Moreover, responses to adaptation can ―vary according to the system in which they

occur, who undertakes them, the climatic stimuli that prompts them, and their timing, functions,

forms, and effects‖ (Smit & Pilifosova, 2003). Adaptation policy is thus an issue of timing as

well as the type of people in power, the socio-economic conditions, and the current impacts of

climate change on the local region. In Denmark for example, ―you can‘t say there‘s only one

way of doing it —it depends very much on the natural geography of the municipality, the threats

they face, and the political climate‖ (V. Nellemann, personal communication, 2011). It is the

impression of some researchers at the University of Copenhagen that the reasons why municipal

governments are involved in climate adaptation planning vary throughout the country, depends

on the political composition of the region, and also the circumstances in which they have found

themselves over the last few years. Last year for example, certain areas of Copenhagen were

severely impacted by heavier rainfall, which caused flooding and closed one of the main

highways into the City. Some municipalities have been forced to react with very short notice by

35

changing their policy on storm water runoff and enlarging their sewer systems (V. Nellemann,

personal communication, 2011). However, actions undertaken by local leaders to address the

impacts of climate change are more often wrought out of necessity rather than long-term efforts

at planned adaptation.

Collaboration among sectors and stakeholders

The sheer scope of climate change adaptation presents governments, policy-makers,

planners, and public and private actors with a unique challenge. In particular, it is challenging to

ensure that efforts are not duplicated among the various parties and that the strategies and

adaptation frameworks are properly integrated. Success is largely determined by the capacity of

various agencies, organizations and institutions to work together, yet often on separate or

autonomous levels. In Denmark this is definitely the case, as evidenced by the various agencies

currently weighing in on issues of climate change and adaptation. Regrettably, in many cases

―stakeholders have substantially different worldviews, and different frames for understanding the

problem‖ (Crane & Landis, 2010). In other places this has led to the creation of plans that seek

to combine anything and everything without employing a critical eye for the most relevant and

important issues. According to Bassett and Shandas (2010), traditional planning departments

have not been consistently involved in climate action planning. Research has found that

expertise on climate change remains concentrated in the environmental department and

sustainability bureaus that tend to spearhead most plans (Bulkeley, 2010). This is beginning to

change and in the future, government agencies will have to assume a greater role in formulating

appropriate responses by acknowledging that ―increasing collaboration across structural holes

(e.g., across sectors) will increase the likelihood of successful adaptation‖ (Corfee-Morlot et al.

36

2009). Additionally, there is an opportunity here for planners to enact a participatory process

that channels outreach and brings in people from the community to champion efforts at the top.

It seems that the capacity to adapt to climate change is also tied to political structures and

the interpersonal relationships among individuals, agencies and institutions. Arguably, adaptive

capacity is more likely to be fostered when the national, regional and local governments and civil

society work in unison. Thus, collaboration between civil society and the state is of the utmost

importance. In Denmark, there‘s no doubt that ―it needs to be a collaboration between public

authorities and private companies and private landowners—you can‘t just solve this problem by

technical installations, it‘s much more sensible to have a mixture‖ (V. Nellemann, personal

communication, 2011). However, the challenge for cities is to manage the adaption strategies of

each sector in a way that promotes cohesion and collaboration. Eventually, it needs to be such

that ―different processes and actors are involved at different levels, requiring participatory

approaches to define common priority issues and values, stimulate dialogue, explore

management options, and coordinate decisions of mutually interacting actors‖ (Richardson et al.

2011). Due to the large pool of stakeholders, the potential range of strategies is immense. Yet

the challenge requires that cities employ an array of frameworks that target individual sectors

while also remaining tied to a collective vision—a vision that incorporates the ideas, values, and

suggestions of individuals as well as elected officials.

Given the challenges…what’s next?

The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change enumerates

expected impacts from climate change including extensive sea level rise, increased coastal and

seasonal flooding, reduced supply of fresh water, reduced agricultural yields from higher

37

temperatures, reduced biodiversity, increased vulnerability to water-borne diseases, major

changes in land cover type and habitat, exacerbated heat island effects in urban areas, along with

increased vulnerability to invasive species and more (Solomon et al. 2007). This extensive list of

impacts is justification for immediate action. However, due to the diverse range of effects on

different regions around the world, ―there is no established path for approaching climate action

planning‖ (Bassett & Shandas, 2010). Thus, while the concept of adaptation is gaining ground in

many planning and academic circles, it still remains a rather vague and ambiguous idea. In

learning how to deal with the impacts of a changing climate, some cities, including some of the

major municipalities in Denmark, believe that there needs to be a more generalized approach.

Yet, because the scope of forecasted impacts is so great, ―there is rarely only one adaptation

option available to decision-makers‖ (Smit & Pilifosova, 2003).

By far, the biggest challenge to adaptation is the question of how we, as planners, policy-

makers and everyday citizens, deal with uncertainty. For government, ―such uncertainties and

discrepancies make it difficult to identify specific impacts and adaptations at regional and local

levels‖ (O‘Brien et al. 2006). At any one time, multiple actions may be needed. The questions

are: ―how much of each action is called for now, and how should this mix of actions change as

the problem develops, new knowledge emerges, and society evolves?‖ (Lane et al. 2009).

Arguably, even with the fiscal capabilities to finance all the necessary measures, the process of

adaptation—or more specifically, the implementation process itself—is unclear. Without the

ability to predict with some certainty how severe the impacts will be, adaptation remains more of

a concept rather than a hardened action strategy. For the majority of municipalities in Denmark,

they know they have to address the impacts of climate change, but they are less sure of how to do

it. Conceptualizing the issue is one thing, but settling on a strategy given the challenges is very

38

difficult. There is ―the need to design policy instruments for real world conditions rather than

trying to make the existing world conform to a particular policy‖ (Tang et al. 2010), but in the

case of climate change the real world conditions are constantly in flux. Consequently, it is

because of the inherent uncertainty surrounding climate-related impacts that there will never be a

single approach to adaptation.

Furthermore, ―the adaptation challenge is strongly context-specific, and varies from

location to location, even within the same country or province‖ (Richardson et al. 2011). In

Denmark, the City of Copenhagen is likely to be more susceptible to flooding partly due to its

high concentration of impermeable surfaces, whereas the western region of Jutland could see

significant impacts to farming and agricultural. Importantly, no two places will be impacted in

exactly the same way. Therefore, no two places can adapt in exactly the same way. While the

science, albeit inexact at times, can provide policy-makers and planners with a rough idea of

what the future will look like, adaptation frameworks need to be assessed according to space and

context as well. Adaptations ―vary not only with respect to their climatic stimuli but also with

respect to other, non-climate conditions‖ (Smit et al. 2000). Furthermore, ―actual adaptation is

dependent on a number of institutional, economic, social, and cultural conditions‖ (O‘Brien et al.

2006). Thus, it will be necessary to devise different adaptation strategies that fit a variety of

contexts. When it comes to planning for climate change, governments are limited in their

capacity to act. Furthermore, there is no single catchall approach—adaptation strategies are

diverse and varied, and almost always location-specific. That being said, and in addition to the

challenges presented above, it seems that an alternative approach to adaptation is needed.

39

Assessing the alternative: multi-level governance and

collective decision-making

Arguably, adaptation at the international scale does not work. Additionally, national and

municipal governments face significant challenges that can hinder efforts toward adaptation.

While action at the top has helped set in motion a range of climate-related planning and policy

initiatives, adaptation is still a relatively new concept. Importantly, adaptation is not a static

concept, but rather a process shaped and managed by a host of external factors. In fact, even

though ―climate change vulnerability studies now usually consider adaptation, they rarely go

beyond identifying adaptation options that might be possible [and] there is little research on the

dynamics of adaptation in human systems, the processes of adaptation decision-making,

conditions that stimulate or constrain adaptation, and the role of non-climatic factors‖ (Smit &

Pilifosova, 2003). Consequently, there is no prescriptive practice for adaptation. Cities and

municipal governments must devise their own set of strategies and plans for adaptive

management. Yet as the case of Denmark clearly shows, there are a number of challenges that

can discourage governing agencies from developing and implementing their adaptation agendas.

Fiscal constraints are a major obstacle that can prohibit governing institutions from

addressing the wide range of climate scenarios. In addition, governments are faced with the

challenge of devising effective measures when the degree and severity of forecasted impacts are

mostly unknown. Typical analysis of adaptation processes tend to start with the system of

interest, then assess its sensitivity and adaptability to climate and other stimuli (e.g. socio-

economic conditions) (Smit et al. 2000). However, relying on impact models alone to estimate

the risks and costs of adaptation is an imperfect approach, especially when the calculations are

derived from imprecise and unpredictable data. In many cases the costs associated with

40

adaptation are scarcely studied, and even less is known about the benefits of these measures (Tol

et al. 1998). Based on conversations with representatives at the City of Copenhagen, the

Ministry of Climate and Energy, and academics at the University of Copenhagen, it seems that

quite a number of municipal governments in Denmark are somewhat limited in their capacity to

pursue large-scale adaptation measures, particularly adaptations requiring sizeable investments in

infrastructure and changes to the built environment. The challenges mentioned here may place

huge limits on a government‘s ability to execute adaptive strategies and institute adaptation

policy in a timely and suitable manner. Therefore, adaptation measures are seen as requiring

some degree of autonomous action.

Today, there is a growing need to assess an alternative method to the current top-down

approach—one that promotes community-based action in combination with state-led ―planned‖

initiatives for adaptation. The next part of the paper will look into the mechanisms needed to

support collaboration between the state and civil society, arguing that adaptation to climate

change can be assisted by a bottom-up and community-led approach. The research makes the

case for a participatory decision-making process involving members of the local community, that

will assist municipal governments in enacting better adaptation strategies, boost adaptive

capacity, and overcome some of the challenges currently being faced by governing bodies. Here

the focus is on ―governance‖ rather than ―government‖ since members of the community can

generate ―good understanding of local contextual factors that will matter to decisions about how

to manage climate change‖ (Corfee-Morlot et al. 2009). Understandably, climate change is a

global issue, but it is one that cannot be addressed on a global scale or solved by national and

municipal governments alone— it will also require focused pockets of action on the part of

communities and individuals. ―If there is one mandatory, generic feature of all successful

41

adaptation approaches—regardless of sector or developing or developed status—it is building,

nurturing and maintaining sufficient capacity; individual [and] social‖ (Richardson et al. 2011).

Harnessing the capacity to act, adapt, and cope with the impacts of climate change, is an issue for

communities, as well as governments. Therefore, adaptation, and the mechanisms used to

promote a more adaptable society need to occur at all levels—including interaction between the

state and civil society.

Ultimately, the paper will advocate for a more decentralized approach to adaptation and

suggest ways to increase adaptive capacity among municipal agencies and individual citizens.

Arguably, communities can help shape policy by making political actors aware of local issues

and risks. A new framework for adaptation will involve both autonomous actions on the part of

civil society and planned interventions by the state. The following sections will begin to assess

the role of multi-level governance in identifying adaptation options and convey how municipal

governments can engage with communities to develop a more workable approach to adaptation.

In addition, the research will discuss the mechanisms needed to boost adaptive capacity within

the public sphere, including the role of participatory planning and education in devising,

disseminating, and implementing adaptation strategies. Local adaptation options will be

strengthened by identifying what governments can do to build capacity within their own agencies

and among communities, leading to more robust and resilient societies.

Making the case for a multi-level approach to adaptation

―Adaptation is not just a climate change issue‖ (Smit et al. 2000). It is also an issue about

governance and the role of communities in fostering more adaptable cities and societies. Most

importantly, adaptation will be realized via a collective decision-making process in which

42

planned policy decisions are informed by the knowledge and capacities of people in the local

community. From a methodological standpoint, adaptation is a process that needs to be situated

within the larger context of social, cultural, economic and political structures. While government

decisions provide one avenue for adaptive response, the increasing difficulty in managing

adaptation with a top-down scenario-driven approach has led to the search for adaptation

methods relevant at the local scale and for ways to work from the bottom-up (Aalst, Cannon,

Burton, 2008). Similar viewpoints are shared in the academic literature related to community-

based adaptation, including a study by Lubell, Zahran, and Vedlitz (2007) in which the

researchers argue that a community-led approach to adaptation, coupled with collective action,

―are found to be directly, and positively, related to support of government policies and personal

behaviors that affect [climate change].‖ Furthermore, community-based adaptation is ―likely to

be most effective when viewed as key elements in much wider processes of disaster prevention,

sustainable development planning and institution-building‖ (Allen, 2006). Thus, there is

evidence to suggest that the community plays a critical role in devising, developing and

implementing practices related to adaptation.

Today, cities are beginning to recognize the need to think globally, act locally and

acknowledge that ―directed sustainability will come about in neighborhoods‖ where ―the politics

of communities‘ and nations‘ efforts to address their sustainability problems is much more

important than any technical expertise they can muster‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). Undeniably, climate

change adaptation is a complex issue that will require innovative solutions, but these won‘t be

built on technology alone. A new framework for understanding adaptation processes needs to be

shaped by the idea that adaptations ―require a new social context: community‖ (Murphy, 2008)

and that ―communities are the primary locus of responsibility for creating a sustainable world‖

43

(Prugh et al. 2000). Importantly, government directed adaptation policy needs to be interlaced

with the belief that the cumulative impact of individual actors acting as an autonomous whole

may help achieve meaningful outcomes and solutions to climate change. If Smit (2010) is

correct in stating that adaptations can be ―socially constructed,‖ then it can be reasoned that

adaptability is both directed and reinforced through activities at the local scale. Neighborhoods

are settings in which ―place and relationships, social bonds are strong and individuals participate

without the need for a large government with great powers, vast budgets and large numbers of

bureaucrats and experts‖ (Murphy, 2008). Therefore, it can be argued that the capacity to adapt

is best fostered within communities where behavioral norms, attitudes, and beliefs are socially

influenced and constructed over time and the socio-economic pressures that inhibit governing

institutions from actively dealing with the impacts of climate change are less likely to deter the

process of adaptation.

Adaptation needs to involve civil society and the state. Both autonomous (spontaneous

actions by individual citizens) and planned adaptations (strategic policy decisions by

governments) play a role in developing and executing a comprehensive adaptation framework.

There is an institutional and human dimension to climate change adaptation in which ―smart

governments seeking to make real progress on the environment will build constituencies for

change, involve local people, and invest in partnerships‖ (Pendergraft, 1998). This statement

reiterates the need for a more holistic approach to adaptation in which governments and

communities work in conjunction with one another to achieve successful response. If we accept

that adaptation to climate change ―will be achieved, not by engineers, agronomists, economists,

and bio-technicians but by citizens‖ (Prugh et al. 2000), then evaluating the potential for

community-based processes to act as a conduit to encourage, support, and sustain planned

44

adaptation efforts at the national and municipal scale is a valid and legitimate endeavor. By

assessing the mechanisms needed to boost community response and adaptive capacity, municipal

and national governments can discover the potential for local level adaptations in the larger

context of climate change adaptation planning and policy.

How to build adaptive capacity into a framework of multi-

level governance and collective decision-making

Step 1) Decentralize the process

The first step in achieving a multi-level response to climate change is to reframe the

process of decision-making. Frequently understood as the responsibility of state and local

governing agencies, a new framework for adaptation will consider the community‘s role in

policy-making and the involvement of stakeholders and citizen interests in managing the

adaptation process. Importantly, community-based adaptation ―approaches have the potential to

make significant and long-lasting contribution to reducing local vulnerability and strengthening

adaptive capacities‖ (Allen, 2006). In Denmark, the Danish government recognizes that climate

change is not just a problem for governments to solve, but also an issue for which ―all sectors of

society need to take up the challenge‖ (―Danish Strategy,‖ 2008). This includes not only

municipal governments and elected officials, but public citizens as well. A multi-level approach

challenges the conventional notion of state-led action and supports collective-decision making.

It argues that collective action and policy support for adaptation is best achieved through a

citizen-government relationship that involves local stakeholder groups in the decision-making

process (Lubell, Zahran, Vedlitz, 2007).

45

Realistically, climate adaptation planning will engage in dual activism in which action at

the top is facilitated by action from below. A decentralized and multi-level approach to climate

adaptation, also known as adaptive governance, will value the input of citizens and communities

in devising local strategies for adaptation. In fact, citizen involvement is said to be ―remarkably

effective in changing public policies in the direction of greater environmental justice‖ (Oskamp,

2000). Similarly, other scholars theorize that ―citizen assemblies‖ at the neighborhood level can

be networked in such a way that the community can inject citizen input directly into the

policymaking process (Prugh et al. 2000). In this way, citizens become actively involved in the

policies that affect their lives and can begin to take on a more active role in the determination

and implementation of policies for adaptation. While adaptations have largely been directed by

national and municipal agencies in Denmark, the government understands that ―an engaged

citizenry is strongly correlated with the effectiveness and responsiveness in government that is a

prerequisite to addressing sustainability problems‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). Thus, in order for

adaptation to be successful, multi-level governance and collaboration between the state and

members of civil society is essential.

Step 2) Promote inclusive decision making through participatory planning

Participatory planning is an important step in local capacity building and adaptation. Not

only does a participatory process create opportunities for sharing information and advice, it also

facilitates dialogue between stakeholder groups inclusive of communities and the state. Such

forums for open discussion help inform the process of adaptation by creating an arena in which

adaptation is discussed and debated through various channels and at various levels to help

structure municipal responses to climate change and create the foundations for sensible policy

46

decisions. Most importantly, participatory planning allows for the ―ongoing deliberation of

issues that clarifies the issues themselves and the values that the community brings to bear on

them‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). Using citizen input to direct the course of adaptation can serve as a

powerful tool in the policy-making process. Mainly, participatory planning helps create a

―process where a variety of actors mediate across different types of scientific, expert and local

knowledge to inform public policy decisions‖ (Corfee-Morlot et al. 2010). The creation of

social networks also ―provide an opportunity for sharing experiences and therefore are well

placed to be effective in promoting learning, influencing changes to behaviour and stimulating

collaborative innovation processes‖ (Ensor & Berger, 2009). The diversity of voices not only

helps identify the most appropriate measures for adaptation, it also allows decisions to be made

outside the vacuum of high politics, ensuring that community view points are taken into

consideration.

Three things can result from participatory planning. First, decentralizing decision-

making can foster a renewed sense of empowerment and shared ownership over the process.

Propagating the power of human agency in decision-making is an important part of participatory

processes and the pursuit of adaptation. Indeed, ―when their decisions matter, people are more

inclined to get involved and stay involved‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). Therefore, in order for members

of the community to feel part of the political process, they must first believe in their own

capacity to add value to the conversation. If governments want adaptation to work, they must

engage with communities from the start to ensure the long-term success of their measures.

Without the support and backing of the community, strategies for adaptation will not be

embraced by the public and could become side-lined by more pressing concerns. Additionally,

for ownership and empowerment to take shape, members of the community must not only feel

47

that they have the capacity to respond to climate change, but that the decisions they make at the

local level will have some bearing on national and municipal policy. According to Lubell,

Zahran, and Vedlitz (2007), ―people who believe they have an ability to influence the political

system have higher levels of environmental concern.‖ As such, trust in the individual‘s capacity

to positively contribute to conversations about adaptation has the potential to inspire

communities to take action on future initiatives related climate change planning and policy.

Accordingly, thoughts and ideas on adaptation need to be openly expressed and shared.

In this way, the participatory process has the potential to not only empower individuals, but also

give rise to the creation of networks of concerned citizens that can inform and influence future

political decisions. Public forums are one means of facilitating notions of empowerment. As

other studies suggest, participatory processes ―have the potential to empower individuals and

groups within the community by providing access to a forum for public discussion of local

concerns, priorities and possible solutions to local problems‖ (Allen, 2006). In addition, town

hall meetings and other round-table discussions allow people to ―explore and create

commonalities‖ by ―creating a shared experience‖ that can work as ―a means of developing and

expressing affiliation‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). When you involve people in the process of decision-

making they become directly involved in the resolution of conflicts and are able to determine for

themselves what is at stake and how it affects their lives. Identity is a key part of the

participatory process that can mobilize people around alternative solutions to common problems.

Public participation can foster a shared sense of collective identity that ―will have the people‘s

‗ownership‘ and participation, be based on trust and therefore have more chance of success‖

(Aalst, Cannon, Burton, 2008). Therefore, if governments want to see their adaptive measures

48

succeed, they must provide people with the opportunity to collaborate, participate, and engage in

the process.

A secondary product of participatory planning is the notion that open forums that

encourage the sharing of knowledge and ideas can result in a shift in mindsets and may

contribute to more informed policy decisions. Talk inevitably leads to discussion, which can

result in the transfer of knowledge, changes in behavior, and the adoption of more sustainably

based practices for adaptation. Not only does participatory planning generate new knowledge

and thoughts, it also ―aims to take the learner beyond past assumptions and traditions and other

factors that contribute to unsustainable mind-sets to facilitate sustainable mind-sets that are

capable of dealing with contemporary complexities and uncertainties‖ (Kennedy, Stocker, Burke,

2010). That being said, the distribution of knowledge can lead to a new understanding of the

impacts surrounding climate change and potential solutions to the problem. Some researchers

even argue that networks that link diverse agents across disciplines and worldviews have the

effect of improving problem-solving capacity (Adger, 2003). Knowledge sharing is thus an

important part of the adaptation process, allowing both sides to collaborate on issues of mutual

concern and potentially result in new ideas and solutions. Interestingly, ―in the process of

continually deliberating, discussing, and relating to each other, members find their thoughts and

opinions mingling and colliding with those of others, leading to a reexamination of convictions

and either their revision or their confirmation‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). Thus, the process of

collaboration mixed with conversation and debate can lead to new perspectives about the

potential answers to adaptation—perhaps even some that had not been formally considered.

In this respect, participatory processes at the local level ―assist the flow of information

between individuals and groups to oil the wheels of decision making‖ (Adger, 2003). Through a

49

process of open conversation and learning, constituents can recommend specific adaptation

measures that are relevant to the local scale and context. In these cases, governments can tap

citizen knowledge to discover citizen preferences for adaptation and develop policies that meet

the needs and desires of the local community. More places are starting to agree with this line of

thinking, attesting that a participatory process that leads to more informed citizens, can also

result in the voting in of public officials who are more likely to implement ―green‖ initiatives.

In Denmark, there are those who believe that communities with active and engaged citizens will

vote for politicians who support new measures like the production of windmills (A. Thorhauge,

personal communication, 2011). What‘s more, without the proper insight and consideration of

local conditions, including an understanding of the processes that shape vulnerability at the local

level, maladaptations are more likely to occur (O‘Brien et al. 2006). It is therefore increasingly

important to understand the local context in which adaptations must take place. Workshops,

meetings, and hearings that engage people in an open forum for honest discussion can lead to a

common understanding of the current issue, permitting members, and outsiders alike, to know

what they think and why they think it. Likewise, if governments don‘t understand the local

context in which adaptations are likely to occur, they are limited in their capacity to enact

measures that will lead to effective adaptation. This is one reason why a civil society-state

partnership is so vital. Not only can it expose barriers and opportunities for adaptation, it is also

likely to inform governments about how to integrate adaptation measures with existing planning

and policy goals.

Visioning is the third component of the participatory process that can be used to identify

community-led strategies for adaptation. Talk not only engages people in discussion, it can also

serve to produce and direct a common vision of the future. While planning for adaptation may

50

need to address specific immediate issues, like the flooding of streets and sewers, it may also

need to envision a whole new method for addressing the challenges of climate change

adaptation. Studies on climate adaptation report, ―constructing scenarios for a range of possible

futures…is one of the most powerful ways to develop effective adaptation strategies‖

(Richardson et al. 2011). Thus, a model that involves the visioning of alternative futures during

the participatory process is an important part of adaptation planning and policy. The public

forums made available through participatory planning provide a means of articulating the

community‘s vision and how they hope to address the issue of climate change. Such visioning

exercises can assist policy-makers in creating policies, which build upon the community‘s vision

of the future and tell planners and politicians about the local preferences for adaptation.

Developing a roadmap for adaptation not only allows citizens and policy-makers to visualize

what their cities might look like in 50 years, it can also ―allow the public to pause, reflect, and

see where their community is headed in the future‖ (Godschalk, Brody, Burby, 2003).

Additionally, insights from the community are important starting points for envisioning a future

impacted by climate change. In fact, research into the social aspects of climate change suggest

that ―a community‘s ability to cope with threats is maximized when it maintains a high degree of

consensus about what the world is like, what it ought to be like, and how to get from here to

there‖ (Pendergradt, 1998). Thus, constructing climate futures through visioning workshops is

incredibly important in establishing consensus on ways to tackle the process of adaptation.

Step 3) Foster action through education and awareness

While participatory planning represents once avenue for fostering and facilitating

adaptive response, education represents another. Arguably, adaptation will only succeed if

51

citizens support and are willing to implement adaptive measures by engaging in recommended

adaptive behaviors. Thus, a multi-level approach to adaptation must also consider the role of

education in boosting adaptive response. In her research on the process of adaptation, Kristie

Edi (2010) identifies five prerequisites for instigating action. These include, awareness that a

problem exists, understanding of the causes, and a sense that the problem matters. Education is

thus an important precursor to generating adaptive response. Moreover, ―an awareness and

understanding of climate change issues is an important foundation for adopting specific actions

to address the problem‖ (Tang et al. 2010). Thus, it can be reasoned that education has the

potential to not only raise awareness, but also affect individual behavior, and influence the

direction of policy decisions. Logically, people are more likely to adopt adaptive measures if

they see a direct correlation between the issue of climate change and its associated impacts. In

other words, when framed as a local problem, people are more compelled to do something about

it. Yet, while it is reasonable to conclude that residents will take precautionary measures against

climate change if their basements are listed as flood-prone, there is no guarantee that the

government telling them to do so will lead households to take action. It is one thing is to be

impacted by floods, but another thing to make the link to climate change. Some people need to

be told that they have flooded basements because of climate change (A. Thorhauge, personal

communication, 2011). Education thus represents a powerful policy tool in the understanding,

management and implementation of adaptation agendas. Some level of understanding about

climate change and its impacts is essential if households, communities, and political leaders are

going to engage in the process of adaptation.

Of the numerous studies on adaptation policy, researchers have found education to be an

important step in cultivating response. According to Tang et al. (2010), nearly 85% of municipal

52

climate action plans in the U.S. identify policies for public awareness, education, and outreach.

However, there continues to be a lack of awareness and understanding about issues of climate,

including ongoing debate surrounding the validity of climate projections and impact scenarios.

In many cases, there is a level of awareness that instigates feelings of moderate concern, but

overall very few communities take the issue of climate change seriously (Randall & Landis,

2010). For a number of communities in Denmark, the majority of issues associated with climate

change are undertaken with the help of government (V. Nellemann, personal communication,

2011). Autonomous action on the part of individuals is less common, especially in cases where

members of the community feel powerless to ameliorate policies on climate change. Even in a

country like Denmark, which played host to the 2009 COP-15, local communities remain

relatively disconnected from the adaptation process (A. Thorhauge, personal communication,

2011). One ethnographic researcher at the University of Copenhagen explained that residents of

a neighborhood just outside the City are reluctant to consider climate change in their community

plans (A. Thorhauge, personal communication, 2011). According to Thorhauge (2011), the City

is trying to push mitigation projects into the community, but it‘s a push from above, which has a

hard time catching the interests of the citizens actually living in this neighborhood.

Unfortunately, there are people who ―do not see [climate change] as a crisis‖ (Bassett &

Shandas, 2010) and citizens who do not place strategies for adaptation high on the list of

priorities. The City of Copenhagen has given this particular community $80 million DKK to

refurbish their neighborhood in the hope that they will enact small measures to combat climate

change, but the residents are hesitant to campaign for climate-related programs over more

pressing daily concerns like healthcare, education, and social welfare. For them ―priority is

given to everyday problems, including many that are related to the maintenance of livelihoods‖

53

(Aalst, Cannon, Burton, 2008). As a result, they are hesitant to incorporate climate change

policy into their community plans.

Judging by the experiences of researchers working with neighborhood groups, it seems

that inciting the interest of local citizens can be challenging when climate change is seen as

peripheral issue. As a result, national and municipal governments are finding it difficult to

attract attention to issues of adaptation. In addition to the failure to prioritize adaptation over

other more immediate concerns, adaptation agendas also face challenges of time scale—

including the belief that climate change won‘t happen within an individual‘s lifetime. Although

communities acknowledge the issue, there is a lack of concern among members of the public and

a failure on the part of citizens to recognize the impact climate change will have on their

everyday lives (Bassett & Shandas, 2010). According to them, climate change is not something

that‘s going to affect them and if it affects anything it‘s going to be the lives of their

grandchildren, ―so there‘s this sense that it‘s not urgent, that it‘s not going to do anything here

and now‖ (A. Thorhauge, personal communication, 2011). Similar sentiments are shared by

other academics at the University of Copenhagen that cite, ―people are not clamoring for a new

sewer system. They are clamoring for the health system, for schools …the here and now‖ (K.

Richardson, personal communication, 2011). Concerns voiced by the public are not based on

future projections and scenarios, but deal more directly with the issues of today. So, if civil

society is indeed a key driver in the provision of adaptation programs and policies, then in order

for adaptation to become a compelling local problem, it needs to be communicated in a way that

fits with present local concerns.

Localizing the issue of climate change is one way to strengthen individual efforts toward

adaptation and can involve campaigns directly targeting education and awareness.

54

Understanding the impacts of climate change on communities and individual households ―is

essential if climate information is to be translated into meaningful parameters for decision-

makers, policy-makers and the general public‖ (Aalst, Cannon, Burton, 2008). At the national

level, the Danish Government has created a Climate Change Adaptation Portal that includes

climate data and modeling tools designed to assist local leaders and the general public in making

more informed decisions about adaptation. However, this technological medium for education

and awareness is ineffective unless it can adequately articulate how the maps and models relate

to the individual person. This type of approach, albeit a vital component of education and

awareness, reflects the gap between rather complex scientific inputs and the type of discussions

happening at the community level (Aalst, Cannon, Burton, 2008). To be effective, strategies for

adaptation need to be framed by technical measures in addition to being place-based and relevant

to individuals and their communities. Research suggests that noting how climate change will

impact the lives of people living in communities can instill people with a shared sense of

responsibility. In a study by Prugh et al. (2000), the researchers suggest that issues that hit close

to home are more likely to spark the interest of communities. Thus, if climate adaptation is

going to become part of local agendas it is important to ―connect the issues concerning

livelihoods and everyday survival with the risks from extreme events‖ (Aalst, Cannon, Burton,

2008).

With regards to initiatives for education, planners and policy-makers must also

understand the underlying motivations behind adaptive response. Values play a key role in

determining an individual‘s propensity to act. All behavior, from the everyday choices of

individual citizens to the political decisions of government leaders are aligned with a certain set

of values, judgments, and personal convictions. As such, education policy aimed at reframing

55

the notion of how individual citizens relate to climate change may serve as a valuable tool to

drive sustainable behavior and adaptation. Adaptation is thus not only a matter of reconfiguring

urban space, but also an issue of reconfiguring viewpoints and ways of seeing the world.

According to Pendergraft (1998), there is a unique human dimension to adaptation—one that

must explore the cosmologies, or worldviews, that inform cultures, and thus underlie attitudes

relevant to coping with climate change. From this, it is reasonable to conclude that values,

beliefs, and epistemologies, or ways of seeing the world play a significant role in shaping

adaptive responses to climate change. In fact, ―divergent views on whether climate change will

seriously affect society and what society can do about it can be traced, in part, to divergent views

on these characteristics of systems‖ (Reilly & Schimmelpfennig, 2000). Consequently,

education serves as an important means of shifting divergent viewpoints and creating a culture of

shared understanding and mutual concern.

Ultimately, epistemologies will affect involvement and investment with the issue and its

solutions. Not only do values and beliefs inform the political decision-making process, they also

structure the course of adaptation. In fact, ―cultural concepts‖ are decisive factors in

understanding how people generate and manage climate change (KU Faculty of Humanities).

Understandably, the ―climate‖ of our communities can either spark or hinder chances for

adaptation. Today there is a divergence in definitions and approaches, which ultimately affects

how the issue gets framed and what solutions get brought to the table (Allen, 2006). Thus, it is

important that adaptation measures target variables that are the most relevant in managing

epistemological viewpoints and challenge conventional frameworks through a process of

education and awareness. Above all else, ―achieving a sustainable society will require basic

changes in everybody‘s behavior and in our basic values‖ (Oskamp, 2000). Community

56

workshops not only raise awareness of local hazard risks and the causes of vulnerability, but may

also redefine what it means to adapt and what is attainable through individual action. In

addition, education programs can increase interest in adaptation by pointing out the risks of

potential hazard threats (Godschalk, Brody, Burby, 2003). Education may serve in ―shaping the

context in which choices are made that directly cause environmental change‖ (Stern, 2000). In

this way, public forums for education and awareness can direct values so they are in line with a

particular set of desired actions and behaviors (i.e. retrofitting homes to manage floods and

heavier rainfall). Education and outreach performs an important role in adaptive management by

changing mindsets and inciting action.

Step 4) Prioritize investments

Because climate futures are not easy to predict, any strategy for adaptation must go

beyond immediate present-day concerns to consider the long-term interests of society.

Investments in infrastructure and development, while undoubtedly needed, are a initial fix to a

much larger problem. Adaptation activities must also include efforts to increase awareness.

According to Ensor and Berger (2009), if adaptive capacity embodies an individual or

community‘s ability to engage with and make decisions about processes of change, then some

level of understanding of climate change is essential. At the municipal level, the City of

Copenhagen has sought new investments in education to assist in nurturing a new generation of

climate-wise Copenhageners. As part of their Climate Plan (2009), the City aims to train 1,500

students to become ―Climate Ambassadors‖ in their schools and communities. In this case,

educating youth to be aware of the problem, both its causes and effects, is seen as an important

part of building local capacity and increasing resilience. For that reason, adaptation frameworks

57

should sponsor measures targeted at educating what Ensor and Berger (2009) call ―first

generation‖ citizens, in addition to the school-aged adolescents. While technological fixes such

as expanded sewers and flood control devices are needed, the ultimate success of adaptation will

be defined by strategies that can manage and sustain response into the future.

It is said that the right combination of adaptation measures will combine improvements to

the built environment in addition to investments in education and outreach (Corfee-Morlot et al.

2010). Especially when it comes to protecting ―critical assets,‖ a more reasonable approach to

adaptation may want to consider alternative investments that are not related to the built

environment. Investments in vulnerable infrastructure such as roads, buildings, and sewers are

what are commonly prioritized. However, there are additional assets that may be even more

relevant to the long-term success of adaptation, including efforts to increase capacity among

members of the community. Policies directed at promoting environmental education not only

have the potential to raise awareness, they also have the potential to ensure adaptation remains

on the agenda of politicians and communities into the future. Representatives at the City of

Copenhagen agree, stating that getting people to start thinking about how to do things differently

forms the basis of acceptance when it comes to tough decisions about how best to structure cities

and how to pay for it (M. Anderson & J. Rasmussen, personal communication, 2011). They

believe that if you inform people from the outset about climate change and get them to see the

value in investing in particular solutions, it will be easier to enact adaptation policies and evade

possible pushback. Along with theories on adaptive behavior, people are more likely to adopt

and support sustainable practices if they are educated about the risks and threats of climate

change (Tang et al. 2010). Thus, education that leads to a greater awareness of the problem can

be used to drive the priorities of adaptation.

58

Arguably, there are other avenues for investment that do not require huge sums of money

and can be used to safeguard critical assets and drive lasting adaptation. Different investments in

education can assist in nurturing a new climate generation and provide greater awareness within

business, industry and the public. Ultimately, sustained action may come from incremental

change—the small actions undertaken by members of the community that create solutions for

long-term problems. Unlike the pavement on roads, knowledge does not expire. In fact,

knowledge and ideas have the unique capacity to evolve and adapt over time. Similarly, when

given the facts, an educated public has the ability to react to changing conditions and

unpredictable and uncertain situations. Infrastructure on the other hand is static, requiring huge

sums of money to reform and bring up to date. While it is important to invest in infrastructure

that can better manage the impacts of a changing climate, planners and policy-makers must

concurrently assess the value of education in fostering sustainable behavior. Urban

environments and communities themselves will need to evolve to handle new pressures, but there

is debate concerning the most appropriate means to this end. Particularly when municipal

governments are struggling to find ways to finance all types of adaptive measures, awareness

campaigns and education programs may be a less costly alternative.

Step 5) Incentivize action

According to Elinor Ostrom (1998), collective action is threatened when individuals fail

to see the benefit in contributing to common pool resources—in this case, the provision of

adaptation measures to cope with the effects of climate change. In these situations, ―cooperation

is made difficult if not impossible due to asymmetry between who bears the costs of action and

who benefits from action‖ (Corfee-Morlot et al. 2010). Similarly, ―the strategic nature of the

59

situation implies that it is not rational to contribute to a collective endeavor when others will not

reciprocate‖ (Lubell, Zahran, Vedlitz, 2007). Ultimately, public citizens are less willing to invest

in adaptation measures unless they believe that others will do the same. In Copenhagen, nobody

wants to be the only person who invested in landscape-based adaptations and retrofitting their

downspouts—people want to know that others are working toward the same common goal (T.

Treue, personal communication, 2011). Collective adaptive response to climate change is

dependent on what that individual views as the common good. But because climate change is

largely perceived as a global problem in which everyone suffers, there is the temptation to ―free

ride‖ under the assumption that someone else (i.e. government) will shoulder the responsibility

(T. Treue, personal communication, 2011). Issues of common pool problems like climate

change create a disincentive on the part of individuals to invest and wrongly imply that

governments will take care of the problem. Thus, governing agencies must incentivize action by

instituting policy that rewards people for taking part in adaptive measures.

Unlike community groups, governing agencies have the authority to enact policies that

align with motivations for personal change. For purposes of policy, the motivation to pursue

adaptation measures is much more likely in situations where actions don‘t require hefty

investments in personal capital (Lubell, Zahran, and Vedlitz, 2007). From this it is assumed that

people will have more motivation to participate in adaptation activities when they result in,

rather than distract from, a direct economic benefit. Ultimately there is little incentive to invest

unless the payoff is substantial enough to warrant the expense. Yet, situations in which climate

change poses a significant threat to lives, livelihoods, and human welfare can also prompt

citizens to support policies or take action designed to reduce those risks (Lubell, Zahran, Vedlitz,

1997). Risk and vulnerability are considered key drivers in adaptive response. But where

60

climate scenarios and impact models provide one means of articulating risk by showing

communities how they may be impacted by climate change (e.g. sea-level rise and flooding),

these are not enough to garner widespread adoption. In order for people to take action on climate

change they need to have measures that reflect actual risk. One option proposed in Denmark is

the expression of risk through higher insurance rates because ―if insurance premiums better

reflect actual risks, then the individual will have more incentive to adapt to climate change‖

(―Socio-economic Screening,‖ 2010). In truth, pricing risk and identifying the economic

motivations behind adaptation are incredibly important to the goals of a city or state in

responding to climate change. Governments play a critical role in facilitating the process of

adaptation by pursuing policies that incentivize action and reward people for taking part. Indeed,

―most efforts to mobilize and move communities toward collective goals rely on combinations of

carrot and stick‖ (Pendergraft, 1998). For that reason, planned policy decisions that both reward

and penalize certain behaviors to address risk can serve to instruct autonomous actions and lead

to greater adaptive capacity.

The problem is that even with the right type of policy and incentives, governments are

restricted from implementing new measures without approval from the state. Today, the City of

Copenhagen has proposed reducing carbon emissions by making it more expensive to drive a car

into the City. However, national legislation does not permit the use of financial measures in

regulating the flow of traffic (M. Anderson & J. Rasmussen, personal communication, 2011).

The City‘s aggressive targets on carbon emissions require that certain laws be amended in order

for Copenhagen to meet its 2025 carbon-neutral goal, but the State is less inclined to bend the

rules. According to representatives at the City, there are plans to increase the number of

windmills in Copenhagen and across the North and Baltic Sea in places like Norway and

61

Sweden. Yet, the financial backing needed to construct a pipeline is not supported by the State.

In addition, some Danish municipalities are encouraging citizens to disconnect from the main

sewer system and invest in landscape-based strategies to accommodate heavier rainfall and

facilitate the flow of water in other directions. However, the lump sum reward for households

that disconnect from the main sewer line is a ―one off‖ payment estimated at around $21,000

DKK. At the moment there is no incentive for residents to take advantage of the offer to

disconnect when the cost of reinstallation could be more than $40,000 DKK in 20 years time (T.

Treue & M. Jensen, personal communication, 2011). Therefore, while incentives can assist

policy-makers in instigating action, the policies themselves must make sense to households and

the public.

Step 6) Set up a system of continuous adaptive management

From these examples it is evident that long-standing national and municipal policies can

present a challenge for communities in achieving their adaptation goals. To be sure, the choice

to pursue adaptive measures at the household level can be enabled or constrained by policy

decisions at the top. As a result, there is growing debate concerning whether or not the solutions

to climate change require a complete revision of public law (T. Treue, personal communication,

2011). While such revisions are not likely to take place in the immediate future, there is a need

to develop policies that compliment existing rules and regulations. In truth, adaptation will

require society to side with much more flexible approaches to policy and governance. Policies

not only need to be infused with incentives, they must also be adaptable. Adaptive management

recognizes that ―adaptation is not a matter of a single adjustment to a new stable climate, but of

continued adjustments to a continuously changing climate‖ (Tol et al. 1998). The same can be

62

said of planning and policy in which strategies and actions are designed to cope with

uncertainties and manage change on a continuous basis. As the examples above show, policies,

whether intended for adaptation or not, must be in line with the larger goals of adaptation. If

governments fail to see the importance of continuous adaptive management, both in policy and

the way they administer and manage the process, then adaptation will not succeed.

Furthermore, climate change is commonly associated with a range of possible scenarios

and projected impacts. Thus, adaptation and any attitudes about it must be flexible to changes in

time, context, and circumstance. The process of adaptation is not static, but ever evolving in its

approach and dimensions. Adaptation is multi-layered and multi-faceted, existing at various

levels of government and within various frameworks. Additionally, adaptation is not only a

process of identifying coping mechanisms for climate change—the solutions themselves must

also be flexible. While communities can assist local governments in identifying the most

appropriate measures and tools for adaptive response, governments must keep in mind that any

approach to adaptation will—and should be—diverse, varied and adaptable to changing

circumstances. There is no catchall approach to adaptation, and the needed solutions will vary

according to the situation. Ultimately, ―if we wish to pursue sustainability, the prudent response

to these risks is to systematically treat what we do to the world as an experiment and take careful

note of what happens‖ (Prugh et al. 2000).

At the moment, the Danish municipalities are presented with a unique challenge—to

enact policy that fits a range of scenarios and possible futures. This will require continuous

adjustments made over time and an ongoing dialogue with the communities that these policies

are intended to serve. Fortunately the Danish municipalities are starting to see that strategies for

adaptation will need to be amended frequently to account for changes in climate and socio-

63

political settings. They recognize that adaptation strategies must be amendable and respond to

stimuli of all kinds, including shifts in social, economic, and ecological systems (Smit et al.

2000). As with sea level rise, adaptation is not a straight line—there will be fluctuations within

systems, including the agencies responsible for change. Therefore, certain Danish academics see

adaptation as a learning process in which the municipal agencies need to experience the response

before they can refine their strategy (M. Jensen, personal communication, 2011). Additionally,

state agencies must be willing to make compromises to national legislation so local level

initiatives can succeed. For multi-level governance to work and for the community to take on a

more active role in adopting adaptive measures, regulatory frameworks must support rather than

inhibit the desired outcome (i.e. encouraging residents to disconnect downspouts to manage the

flow of water into sewers). Undoubtedly, there are bound to be challenges when implementing

urban climate strategies in different government frameworks. Understandably, governments

want to make recommendations that fit within current regulatory structures. However,

regulations may also have to be amended in order to promote and facilitate the process of

adaptation. Adaptations can no longer rely on scientific data alone since there is no way to

accurately predict what the future will look like. Part of the challenge of adaptive management

is in changing the ways cities conceptualize the process of planning for climate change—one that

relies less on the science and more on the human dimensions of capacity building.

Adaptation requires a flexible approach and is both the process and the product of

adaptive management ―involving periodic shocks to ideologies and paradigms…such that these

external shocks are conduits of social learning and adaptation‖ (Adger, 2003). Researchers in

Denmark believe that adaptive management is ―particularly appropriate for adaptation to climate

change, where uncertainties abound, and the design of policy and management will rarely ‗get it

64

right‘‖—at least not the first time (Richardson et al. 2011). Notably, adaptation will require

continuous adaptive learning in which the mistakes of today provide insight into how to structure

policies in the future. According to Ensor and Berger (2009) it is the ability to experiment or

innovate that carries with it the capacity to learn. As such, adaptation is undertaken as an

experiment in both approach and the way policies are formulated, with no guarantee of success.

By definition adaptation implies that ―its structure cannot be precisely defined for every

community or for all time. It must evolve with experience; it must be reinvented from moment

to moment‖ (Prugh et al. 2000). This process of reinvention is key to sustained efforts toward

adaptation. In fact, the effectiveness of decisions can only be made in retrospect (Crane &

Landis, 2010). Arguably, there are no perfect solutions to climate change and the strategies

employed will likely need to be amended and changed over time. However, if government and

civil society view the practice of adaptation as a social learning process in which both parties

adopt adaptable behavior, it is likely that they will be better equipped to deal with the unforeseen

consequences of climate change.

The feasibility of multi-level governance and collective

decision-making in Denmark

As previously stated, values are important in the determination of roles, responsibilities,

and actions for adaptation. Many studies propose that values are ascertained through culture and

that ―our actions only have meaning to us because they are identified as having significance by

our culture‖ (Ensor & Berger, 2009). From this it is suggested that the social forms that make up

culture often define opportunities for adaptation, implying that for success, adaptations should be

rooted in or build on local culture (Ensor & Berger, 2009). If culture does indeed play a role in

65

the success of adaptations, then there is reason to believe that a system of multi-level governance

in which collective-decision making is affected by community input, may be more feasible in a

country like Denmark. A question asked of all of my interviewees was if Danes are more likely

to adopt adaptive forms of behavior in connection with climate change and if this reflects a

greater environmental ethic (see Question 8 in Appendix). While the majority of respondents

dismissed this assumption, it seems that there are certain features and characteristics of Danish

society that may make adaptation more reasonable to achieve.

For one, Denmark is a social democracy, which means that its perception of the public

good is somewhat skewed from places like the U.S. In Denmark, the public good infiltrates all

levels of decision-making and policy and the environment is considered a common good that

everyone must work to protect (M. Anderson & J. Rasmussen, personal communication, 2011).

According to conversations with academics, professionals, and municipal workers, in Denmark

―there is a philosophy of joint ownership and joint responsibility [in which] people take

responsibility for the activities and facilities of the community‖ (Murphy, 2008). Similarly, there

is the sentiment that because Denmark is such a small country, the impacts wrought from

careless behavior (an example given by one researcher was ―trash on the sidewalk‖) will be more

visible. Thus, there is this sense that ―if I don‘t pick up the trash I throw behind me, then

someone else will have to do it‖ (S. Berthou, personal communication, 2011). This shared sense

of communal responsibility may make the challenges of adaptation slightly easier to overcome

because to some extent everyone believes that they play a role in addressing common concerns,

including climate change. Indeed, even with the temptation to free ride, it is in dealing with

common problems that reinforces the Danes willingness to work together in pursuit of something

for the common good (T. Treue, personal communication, 2011).

66

Secondly, ―the extent to which different strategies for fostering adaptation are useful

depends on the characteristics of the system that must adapt‖ (Reilly & Schimmelpfennig, 2000).

As mentioned previously, context plays a key role in the success or failure of adaptation.

Similarly, the structure of institutions can work to affect how society thinks about and acts on

adaptation. Such structures compound a society‘s definition of climate change and adaptation,

which could suggest that certain societies may be better, equipped socially, politically, and

culturally to implement the various strategies needed to build adaptive capacity and implement

actions for adaptation. In Denmark, the social welfare state implies the idea of equality and

communal wellbeing (S. Berthou, personal communication, 2011). Thus, if ―a shift in

worldview, away from individual toward collective interest, is seen as a necessary precursor to

creating ‗special arrangements or circumstances‘ to facilitate optimal collective responses to the

threat of climate change‖ (Pendergraft, 1998), then Denmark may be more amenable to adaptive

response. In effect, for adaptation to take root in communities, it is imperative that citizens

recognize their capacity to affect change and work in conjunction with the state and local

governing institutions. Thus, the collective ideal promised in Denmark has the potential to

influence adaptive measures and increase the role of the community in collective decision-

making. Moreover, in Denmark, ―acts and experiences of mutual aid generate strong feelings of

familiarity and support [because] members clearly understand that their own welfare depends on

how well the local society functions‖ (Murphy, 2008). Thus, the ―community‖ ideal manifested

in Danish culture and lifestyle could make collective action much easier to achieve leading to a

more adaptable and resilient society.

Conclusion

67

This paper argues for a more decentralized approach to governance and adaptation. It

contends, ―the governing of climate change in the city [should be taking] place through an

alternative geography of authority and resources that operates around (and some would say at the

margins of) existing state practices‖ (Bulkeley, 2010). In essence, it is making the case for a

community-based approach to policy-making and adaptive response in which action undertaken

at the community level can be used to instruct the goals and processes of adaptation. However,

―while climate change impacts will be reduced in a fully adapted society, the process of reaching

this level could be costly and success may depend on adequate planning and suitable policy

measures‖ (Tol, 1998). Notably, there are limits to adaptive capacity. The process of adaptation

is not well documented and there are very few cities that have started the implementation phase.

Here the research has outlined several of the major obstacles confronting adaptation planning

and policy in Denmark. While these challenges are not unique and likely to affect communities

throughout the world, the Danish case does provide insight into the complicated and often

arduous task of learning how to adapt to a problem that is constantly evolving and unpredictable.

The research has concluded that there are many pathways to adaptation and no singular

catchall approach. Furthermore, there is a need to move away from the conventional form of

policy instruction and address the lack of capacity among government agencies to carry out

adaptations. The paper has assessed the alternative from a social science perspective in which

adaptation seeks to adjust the collective behavior of socio-economic systems in an effort to build

capacity and support the ability to cope with changes in climate. Climate change is multi-

dimensional problem that will require multi-dimensional solutions, involving both planned and

autonomous actions, but should not be limited to scientific understanding alone. Importantly,

adaptation, both in Denmark and elsewhere around the world, will require changes in how state

68

and civil society manage and interpret the issue. In addition, climate change adaptation planning

must strive for a more reflexive, engaged, and participatory ideal. It must acknowledge that

policies for adaptation are useless without the people to support them, a greater awareness of the

issue, and a belief in their capacity to do something about it. One of the key arguments made in

this paper is that community-based approaches to adaptation can be scaled up to form part of the

municipal climate action strategy and can be of great value in national and local policy making

(Aalst, Cannon, Burton, 2008).

Additionally, adaptation is a process that ―cannot be understood without recourse to the

broader processes affecting urban and regional governance‖ (Bulkeley, 2010). From the

challenges mentioned previously, to the recommended list of alternative solutions presented

here, climate change adaptation is a practice intrinsically linked to the state-civil society

relationship. Whether top-down, or bottom-up, it is important to note that either approach has its

benefits. But the approach likely to create the biggest impact on adaptation planning and policy

is one that involves both state and community actors. That being said, ―success will see the

chosen approach to adaptation become a shared community value or attitude‖ (Ensor & Berger,

2009). This can be structured using education, awareness raising, and participatory planning,

which all have the potential to shift values and change epistemologies. While community-based

activities such as these are a critical component of any adaptation framework, it is not a

sufficient solution on its own. Reaching the point of success also ―requires an enabling

environment – a political, social and cultural environment that encourages freedom of thought

and expression, and stimulates inquiry and debate‖ (Ensor & Berger, 2009). Adaptation must

also involve the configuration of multi-level decision-making to identify locally appropriate

solutions and to help build capacity. It too must call for strategic partnerships between civil

69

society and the state, including the municipal agencies responsible for implementing planning

and policy.

Finally, for adaptation to remain on future agendas, its strategies will need to place-based

and rooted in local conditions. It is important to keep in mind that adaptation to climate change

is a place-based construct, springing and evolving from a variety of regional characteristics and

context-specific realities. Indeed, ―adaptation planning cannot proceed without first

understanding what climate change means in a particular location‖ (Ensor & Berger, 2009).

Furthermore, ―vulnerability and adaptation are dynamic characteristics that can (and will) change

over time as the result of the interaction between socio-economic, political, and physical

processes‖ (O‘Brien et al. 2006). Context in many ways shapes the process and product of

adaptations. As such, ―policies need to be evaluated with respect to economic viability,

environmental sustainability, public acceptability and behavioral flexibility‖ (Smit et al. 2000).

There is no agreed upon framework for adaptation and the challenges in dealing with an

inherently unpredictable system are unavoidable. However, while climate change is indeed a

global problem, it is not insurmountable. There are new avenues to consider, and new

approaches to assess. The greatest challenge it seems exists not in a city‘s understanding of the

problem, but in its willingness and capacity to do something about it.

70

References

A. Thorhauge, personal communication, March 31, 2011.

Aalst, Maarten van, Terry Cannon, and Ian Burton. ―Community level adaptation to

climate change: The potential role of participatory community risk assessment.‖ Global

Environmental Change, Vol. 18 (2008) 165-179.

Adger, Neil W. ―Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change.‖

Economic Geography, 79(4): 387-404, 2003.

Allen, Katrina M. ―Community-based disaster preparedness and climate adaptation: local

capacity-building in the Philippines.‖ Overseas Development Institute, 2006, 30(1): 81-

101.

Bassett, Ellen and Vivek Shandas. ―Innovation and Climate Action Planning:

Perspectives From Municipal Plans.‖ Journal of the American Planning Association,

Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No. 4.

Bulkeley, Harriet. ―Cities and the Governing of Climate Change.‖ Annual Review of

Environment and Resources. 2010. 35:229-53.

Bullard, Robert D. and Glenn S. Johnson. ―Environmental Justice: Grassroots Activism and Its

Impact on Public Policy Decision Making.‖ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3,

2000, pp. 555-578.

City of Copenhagen (2009). Copenhagen Climate Plan (shortened English version).

City of Copenhagen. (2011). Copenhagen Climate Adaption Plan.

Corfee-Morlot, Jan, Ian Cochran, Stéphane Hallgatte, Pierre-Jonathan Teasdale. ―Multi-level risk

governance and urban adaptation policy.‖ Climate Change (2011) 104:169-197.

Crane, Randall and John Landis. ―Planning for Climate Change: Assessing Progress and

Challenges.‖ Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2010, Vol. 76, No.

4.

Couclelis, Helen. “Where has the future gone?” Rethinking the role of integrated land-use

models in spatial planning.” Environment and Planning (2005). 37(8): 1351:1371.

Danish Commission on Climate Change Policy (Klimakommissionen). Green energy – the road

to a Danish energy system without fossil fuels. September 28, 2010.

Danish Government. (2008). Danish Strategy for Adaptation to a Changing Climate. Danish

Ministry of Climate and Energy.

71

Dimitrov, Radoslav S. ―Inside Copenhagen: The State of Climate Governance.‖ Global

Environmental Politics, Volume 10, Number 2, May 2010.

Ebi, Kristie. ―Cross-Cutting Issues In Adaptation: Lessons Learned from Public Health on the

Process of Adaptation.‖ Facilitating Climate Change Responses: A Report of Two

Workshops on Insights from the Social and Behavioral Science (2010)

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12996.html

Ensor, Jonathan and Rachel Berger. ―Understanding Climate Change Adaptation: Lessons from

Community-Based Approaches.‖ Practical Action Publishing: UK, 2009.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning.

http://www.fema.gov/plan/mitplanning/index.shtm.

Freitag, Bob. ―How can emergency managers address our warming climate?‖ Journal of

Emergency Management. June 2007.

Fussel, H.M. ―Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and

key lessons.‖ Sustain Sci (2007) 2:265–275.

Godschalk, David, Samuel Brody, and Raymond Burby. ―Public Participation in Natural Hazard

Mitigation Policy Formulation: Challenges for Comprehensive Planning.‖ Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management, 46(5), 733-754, September 2003.

K. Richardson, personal communication, April 1, 2011.

Kasperson, Roger. ―Cross-Cutting Issues In Adaptation: Priorities From Practitioners For Social

and Behavioral Research.‖ Facilitating Climate Change Responses: A Report of Two

Workshops on Insights from the Social and Behavioral Science (2010)

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12996.html

Kennedy, D. L. Stocker and G. Burke. ―Australian local government action on climate change

adaptation: some critical reflections to assist decision-making.‖ Local Environment, Vol.

15, 805-816, 2010.

Lane, Lee, J. Eric Bickel, Isabel Galiana, Chris Green, and Valentina Bosetti. ―Copenhagen

Consensus on Climate Change, Advice for Policymakers.‖ Copenhagen Consensus

Center, 2009.

Lubell, Mark, Sammy Zahran, and Arnold Vedlitz. ―Collective Action and Citizen Responses to

Global Warming.‖ Political Behavior, Vol. 29, No. 3 (Sep., 2007), pp. 391-413.

M. Anderson and J. Rasmussen, personal communication, March 29, 2011.

M. Blanner, D. Holse and L. Grøndahl, personal communication, March 30, 2011

72

Miles, Malcolm. ―Strategies for the Convivial City: A New Agenda for Education for the Built

Environment.‖ NSEAD, 1998.

Murphy, Pat. ―Plan C: Community Survival Strategies for Peak Oil and Climate Change.‖ New

Society Publishers: British Columbia, 2008.

O‘Brien, Karen, Siri Eriksen, Linda Sygna, and Lars Otto Naess. ―Questioning Complacency:

Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation in Norway.‖ A Journal of the

Human Environment, 35(2):50-56, 2006.

O'Brien, P. and J. Høj (2001), ―Encouraging Environmentally Sustainable Growth in Denmark‖,

OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 277, OECD Publishing. doi:

10.1787/616447850757.

Oskamp, Stuart. ―Psychological Contributions to Achieving an Ecologically Sustainable Future

for Humanity.‖ Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2000, pp. 373–390.

Ostrom, Elinor. ―A Behavioral Approach to the Rational Choice Theory of Collective Action.‖

American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 1, 2008.

P. Andersen, personal communication, March 30, 2011.

Pendergraft, Curtis A. ―Human Dimensions of Climate Change: Cultural Theory and Collective

Action.‖ Climate Change, 39: 643-666, 1998.

Prugh, Thomas, Robert Costanza, and Herman Daly. ―The Local Politics of Global

Sustainability.‖ Island Press: Washington D.C. 2000.

Richardson, Katherine, Will Steffen and Diana Liverman et al. ―Climate Change: Global Risks,

Challenges and Decisions.‖ Published by Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Reilly, John and David Schimmelpfennig. ―Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Learning: Portraits

of Adaptation to Long-Term Climate Change.‖ Climate Change, 45: 253-278, 2000.

S. Berthou, personal communication, March 28, 2011.

Saavedra, Casilda and William W. Budd. ―Climate change and environmental planning: Working

to build community resilience and adaptive capacity in Washington State, USA.‖ Habitat

International, 33 (2009) 246-252.

Saran, Shyam. ―Global Governance and Climate Change.‖ Global Governance 15 (2009). 457-

460.

Schneider, Robert O. ―Climate change: an emergency management perspective.‖ Disaster

Prevention and Management. Vol. 20 No. 1, 2011. 53-62.

73

Smit, Barry, Ian Burton, Richard J.T. Klein, and J. Wandel. ―An Anatomy of Adaptation to

Climate Change and Variability.‖ Climate Change. 45: 223-251, 2000.

Smit, Barry and Olga Pilifosova. ―Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable

Development and Equity.‖ Sustainable Development. 2003.

―Socio-economic Screening of Climate Change Adaptation.‖ (June 2010). Published by the

Danish Energy Agency.

Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L.

Miller (eds.). Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Stern, Paul C. ―Toward a Coherent Theory of Environmentally Significant Behavior.‖ Journal

of Social Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2000, pp. 407–424.

T. Treue and M. Jensen, personal communication, March 28, 2011.

Tang, Zhenghong, Samuel D. Brody, Courtney Quinn, Liang Chang and Ting Wei. ―Moving

from agenda to action: evaluating local climate change action plans.‖ Journal of

Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2010, 41-62.

Tol, Richard S. J. Samuel Fankhauser and Joel B. Smith. ―The scope for adaptation to climate

change: what can we learn from the impact literature?‖ Global Environmental Change,

Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 109—123, 1998.

University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Humanities website. Accessed 08 November, 2010.

http://www.humanities.ku.dk/research/crossdisciplinary/climatechange/.

V. Nellemann, personal communication, March 24, 2011.

Zelezny, Lynnette C. and P. Wesley Schultz. ―Promoting Environmentalism.‖ Journal of Social

Issues, Vol. 56, No. 3, 2000, pp. 365–371.

74

Appendix

Sample interview questions

City of Copenhagen

1) What motivated the City to take action on climate change? How did it come about and

who was involved in the process?

2) Who was responsible for determining the strategies identified in the plan? Did you

review climate action plans from other cities prior?

3) The Plan stresses the importance of collaboration. What other agencies and organizations

are you working with to ensure a coordinated climate effort?

4) Many of the strategies focus on reducing CO2 emissions and making Copenhagen the

first carbon neutral city by 2025. Can you tell me a little more about what progress

you've made and what challenges you‘ve faced?

5) One of your goals is to ―create a new generation of climate-wise Copenhageners.‖ What

are you doing to encourage awareness?

6) The Plan talks a lot about mitigation (i.e. reducing CO2 emissions). I understand you are

currently working on an Adaptation Plan (i.e. how communities deal with the impacts)?

Tell me more about Copenhagen‘s Adaptation Plan and what came out of yesterday‘s

workshop.

7) The National Strategy for climate change adaptation discusses the role of "autonomous

adaptation" in combating climate change.

What are you‘re your thoughts on this approach - can sustainable behavior be fostered at

the individual (i.e. "autonomous") level or are planned interventions essential?

8) Denmark is often credited with being an environmentally conscious country - how would

you rate the Danes in terms of being an environmentally conscious group of people?

What do you think led to this? Does it have something to do with culture?

9) Based on current progress, what is the next stage of adaptation planning in Copenhagen?

Please explain.