The adequacy of institutional frameworks and practice for climate change adaptation decision making

278 Pages·2015·3.48 MB·English

The adequacy of institutional frameworks and practice
for climate change adaptation decision making

By
Judith Helen Lawrence

A thesis
submitted to the Victoria University of Wellington
in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in Public Policy

Victoria University of Wellington
2015

Abstract
The ability of decision makers to respond to climate change impacts such as sea-level rise
and increased flood frequency is challenged by uncertainty about scale, timing, dynamic
changes that could lead to regime shifts, and by societal changes. Climate change
adaptation decision making needs to be robust and flexible across a range of possible
futures, to provide sufficient certainty for investment decisions in the present, without
creating undue risks and liabilities for the near and long-term futures. A country’s
governance and regulatory institutions set parameters for such decisions. The decision-
making challenge is, therefore, a function of the uncertainty and dynamic characteristics of
climate change, a country’s institutional framework, and the ways in which actual decision-
making practice delivers on the intention of the framework.
My research asks if the current decision-making framework, at national and sub-national
scales, and practices under it are adequate to enable decision makers to make climate
change adaptation decisions that sufficiently address the constraints posed by climate
change uncertainty and dynamic change. The focus is on New Zealand’s multi-scale
governance and institutional framework with its high level of devolution to the local level,
the level assumed as the most appropriate for climate change adaptation decisions.
Empirical information was collected from a sample of agencies and actors, at multiple
governance scales reflecting the range of geographical characteristics, governance types,
organisational functions and actor disciplines. Data were collected using a mix of
workshops, interviews and document analyses. The adequacy of the institutional
framework and practice was examined using 12 criteria derived from the risk-based
concepts of precaution, risk management, adaptive management and transformational
change, with respect to; a) understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate
change; b) governance and regulations; and c) organisations and actors.
The research found that the current decision-making framework has many elements that
could, in principle, address uncertainty and dynamic climate change. It enables long-term
considerations and emphasises precaution and risk-based decision making. However,
adaptive and transformational objectives are largely absent, coordination across multiple
levels of government is constrained and timeframes are inconsistent across statutes.
Practice shows that climate risk has been entrenched by misrepresentation of climate
change characteristics. The resulting ambiguity is compounded at different governance
i
scales, by gaps in the use of national and regional instruments and consequent differences
in judicial decisions. Practitioners rely heavily upon static, time-bound treatments of risk,
which reinforce unrealistic community expectations of ongoing protections, even as the
climate continues to change, and makes it difficult to introduce transformational measures.
Some efforts to reflect changing risk were observed but are, at best, transitional measures.
Some experimentation was found in local government practice and boundary organisations
were used as change-agents. Any potential improvements to both the institutional
framework and to practices that could enable flexible and robust adaptation to climate
change, would require supporting policies and adaptive governance to leverage them and
to sustain decision making through time.
This thesis contributes to understanding how uncertainty and dynamic climate change
characteristics matter for adaptation decision making by examining both a country-level
institutional framework and practice under it. The adequacy analysis offers a new way of
identifying institutional barriers, enablers and entry points for change in the context of
decision making under conditions of uncertainty and dynamic climate change.

ii
Acknowledgements
Undertaking doctoral research is usually something that starts a career. In my case I started
after a career in the public sector and five years of consulting. The seeds of my topic were
sown early, but the opportunity to explore my ideas didn’t present itself until 2009, when I
joined the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute as a research associate. I have
Dr Andy Reisinger and Professor Martin Manning to thank for encouraging me as I
embarked on this journey, for their intellectual support along the way, for providing
opportunities to test my ideas in real-life situations with decision makers, to attend overseas
conferences and publish my research.
My topic is about the adequacy of institutions and the practices that govern decision making
in situations of uncertainty and dynamic climate change. Such a topic suggested a blend of
supervision which I received from Dr Amanda Wolf at the School of Government and Dr
Andy Reisinger, a coordinating lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change Fifth Assessment Report. They came from very different disciplinary traditions—
a social scientist and a physical scientist respectively; as a geographer I sat in the middle.
For the rich experience with tough feedback, nuanced insights, great generosity of time and
for always believing in the value of this research and in me, I am indebted to you both.
Thanks also to Professor Tim Smith at the University of the Sunshine Coast, Australia for
helpful perspectives at the early stages while I was focusing my thesis topic, and for his
ongoing encouragement. I am also indebted to two Victoria University library staff—Janet
Keilar and Tony Quinn for help with literature searches and EndNote. For reading through
the final version of my thesis, my sincere thanks go to my Australian friend and colleague
Rosemary Calder.
This thesis could not have been completed without the many respondents from local and
central government and from the non-climate policy settings—thank-you for your time and
interest. Special thanks must go to Chris Cameron, Graeme Campbell, Gavin Ide, Alison
Lash, Steve Markham, Frances Sullivan, Lisa McGlinchey, Sylvia Allan, Hugh Cowan,
Shonagh Kenderdine and Royden Somerville for the time you all took to discuss my ideas
with me as they developed. Having access to such experience across the many strands of
this thesis has grounded my research in the real world. To two former public servants who
have also undertaken PhD’s—Elizabeth Eppel and Hugh Logan—thanks for being
inspiring completers of the journey.
iii
Thank-you to my colleagues in the School of Government, School of Geography,
Environment and Earth Sciences, New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute and
Antarctic Research Institute who have been a constant source of encouragement to me. The
National Climate Change Research Facility in Australia, undertook timely work which
provided a backdrop into which I could dip and engage, comparing our similarities and
different contexts. This opened up enduring connections with a new generation of
researchers around the world who have made a difference to my thinking while undertaking
this research and will continue to do so. Their body of research gives me great hope that
these complex issues will be addressed before it is too late. To Jan McDonald, Karyn
Bosomworth and Johanna Nalau in Australia, Karianne de Bruin in Norway, Tiago Capela
Lourenco in Portugal and Marjolijn Haasnoot in the Netherland, special thanks for your
collegiality and inclusiveness of me in your research spaces and places. The opportunity to
meet and share ideas with the nascent society for decision making under conditions of deep
uncertainty, has broadened my thinking. Thank-you Nidhi Kalra, Robert Lempert and
Warren Walker for your inclusiveness and intellectual stimulation.
Thanks also go to my friends, who have kept me exercised and culturally and socially
stimulated, throughout the thesis gestation. But above all, thank-you Roger for your
patience and support over this and all the other journeys we have had together. In the end
it will be our children, Roland and Piers, who will judge whether my contribution makes a
difference to the world they are inheriting.
iv
Contents
Abstract ............................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... iii
Contents .............................................................................................................................. v
Figures ................................................................................................................................. x
Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Rationale ............................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Research aims ....................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Location of research ............................................................................................. 6
1.4 Research design and methods ............................................................................... 7
1.5 Structure of thesis ................................................................................................. 8
Chapter 2 The challenge for decision making ............................................................. 11
2.1 The climate is changing ...................................................................................... 11
2.1.1 The climate changes—sea-level rise and increased rainfall frequency
and intensity .................................................................................................... 12
2.1.2 The damages arising from climate change impacts ........................................ 15
2.1.3 Decision-relevant climate change characteristics—uncertainty and
dynamic change ............................................................................................... 20
2.2 How climate change creates a decision-making problem................................... 21
2.3 The New Zealand institutional context ............................................................... 26
2.4 What is known about the role of institutions for addressing the decision-
making challenge? .............................................................................................. 32
2.4.1 Empirical studies ............................................................................................. 33
2.4.2 Adaptive decision-making and institutions ..................................................... 37
2.5 Other relevant literature ...................................................................................... 40
2.5.1 Complex adaptive systems ............................................................................... 41
v
2.5.2 Decision making under uncertainty ................................................................ 42
2.5.3 Organisations .................................................................................................. 43
2.5.4 Human behaviours .......................................................................................... 45
2.6 Conclusions ........................................................................................................ 46
Chapter 3 Research design and process ....................................................................... 49
3.1 Research questions and design rationale ............................................................ 49
3.2 Research process and methods ........................................................................... 51
3.2.1 Examining risk-based concepts to develop adequacy criteria ........................ 51
3.2.2 Assessing the adequacy of the framework ....................................................... 52
3.2.3 Understanding the current practice, its adequacy, enablers and entry
points ............................................................................................................... 52
3.2.4 Scope for institutional framework and practice improvements ...................... 57
3.3 Limitations of the research design ...................................................................... 59
Chapter 4 How can adequacy be gauged? ................................................................... 61
4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 61
4.2 The precautionary principle ................................................................................ 62
4.2.1 What is the precautionary principle? .............................................................. 62
4.2.2 Does the precautionary principle address uncertainty and dynamic
change? ........................................................................................................... 64
4.3 Risk management ............................................................................................... 66
4.3.1 What is risk management? .............................................................................. 66
4.3.2 Does risk management address uncertainty and dynamic change? ............... 68
4.4 Adaptive management ........................................................................................ 69
4.4.1 What is adaptive management? ....................................................................... 69
4.4.2 Does adaptive management address uncertainty and dynamic change? ........ 70
4.5 Transformational change .................................................................................... 71
4.5.1 What is transformation? .................................................................................. 71
4.5.2 Does transformational change address uncertainty and dynamic
change? ........................................................................................................... 72
vi
4.6 Transitions and resilience ................................................................................... 74
4.6.1 What are transitions? ...................................................................................... 74
4.6.2 What is resilience? .......................................................................................... 76
4.7 How far do the four risk-based concepts take decision making that
addresses uncertainty and dynamic climate change?.......................................... 77
4.8 Adequacy criteria ................................................................................................ 78
4.8.1 Understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate
change characteristics ..................................................................................... 79
4.8.2 Governance and regulation ............................................................................. 80
4.8.3 Organisations and the actors .......................................................................... 82
Chapter 5 The institutional framework and its adequacy ......................................... 85
5.1 The institutional framework ............................................................................... 85
5.1.1 The governance and regulatory design ........................................................... 86
5.1.2 Institutional design weaknesses ...................................................................... 94
5.2 Does the institutional framework embody the four risk-based concepts? .......... 95
5.2.1 Precautionary principle .................................................................................. 95
5.2.2 Risk management ............................................................................................. 99
5.2.3 Adaptive management ................................................................................... 101
5.2.4 Transformational change .............................................................................. 101
5.3 The adequacy of the framework ....................................................................... 104
5.3.1 Understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate
change characteristics ................................................................................... 104
5.3.2 Governance and regulation ........................................................................... 107
5.3.3 Organisations and the actors ........................................................................ 110
5.4 Conclusions ...................................................................................................... 113
Chapter 6 The practice and its adequacy .................................................................. 115
6.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 115
6.2 The practice evidence ....................................................................................... 117
6.2.1 Understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate
change—the practice ..................................................................................... 117
vii
6.2.2 Governance and regulation—the practice .................................................... 125
6.2.3 Organisations and actors—the practice ....................................................... 146
6.3 The practice adequacy ...................................................................................... 161
6.3.1 Understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate
change characteristics ................................................................................... 161
6.3.2 Governance and regulation—the adequacy ...................................................... 165
6.3.3 Organisations and actors—the adequacy ..................................................... 170
6.4 Summary of the adequacy of practice .............................................................. 172
6.4.1 Understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic
characteristics of climate change .................................................................. 172
6.4.2 Governance and regulation ........................................................................... 172
6.4.3 Organisations and actors .............................................................................. 173
6.5 Concluding comment ........................................................................................ 173
Chapter 7 Space for change ........................................................................................ 175
7.1 Policy constraints on improved framework and practice ................................. 175
7.2 Framework and practice barriers ...................................................................... 178
7.2.1 Understanding and representing uncertainty and dynamic climate
change characteristics ................................................................................... 180
7.2.2 Governance and regulation ........................................................................... 180
7.2.3 Organisations and actors .............................................................................. 181
7.2.4 Contextual barriers ....................................................................................... 181
7.3 Suggested incremental legislative improvements and success factors ............. 185
7.4 What can be learnt from analogous non-climate decision settings? ................. 187
7.4.1 Institutional analogues that respond to sudden threats ................................ 188
7.4.2 Institutional analogues that respond to known progressive and changing
risks ............................................................................................................... 188
7.4.3 Summary of analogue learning ..................................................................... 192
7.5 Institutional enablers and entry points .............................................................. 195
7.5.1 The institutional space and interconnections ................................................ 195
viii