Abstract
A key challenge for effective, ongoing urban climate adaptation is to adapt institutions within urban governance. While an extensive foundation of empirical knowledge on urban climate adaptation has accumulated over the last decade, our image of institutional adaptation continues to be dominated by a focus on planning. Whilst understandable, this can obscure a fuller range of areas in which institutional adaptation to climate change is being pursued. Furthermore, methodological path dependency in large-N analysis via a common focus on analyzing formal planning documents risks a skewed perspective as such documents may only offer a partial view. Building on the rich range of work to date assessing climate adaptation in cities, and notwithstanding continued major gaps such as in small-medium cities, we now need to find ways to examine the diversity of institutional adaptation occurring in practice, and to comparatively draw on the situated interpretive knowledge of case experts within individual cities to do so. With this aim in mind, this paper explores institutional adaptation in a specific domain (urban water) in a sample of 96 major cities across six continents through a survey of 319 case experts, examining the diversity of institutional adaptation across contexts and exploratively probing its drivers. Findings show that multiple forms of institutional adaptation are being jointly pursued in cities across all continents, leaning towards ‘softer’ rather than ‘harder’ forms, but nonetheless revealing a wide range of activity. Patterns in drivers suggest a political explanation for institutional adaptation (e.g. involving change agents and political pressure) rather than a rational one (e.g. involving response to climate-related risks and/or extreme events). Overall, there is a need to combine parsimony with expanded interpretive sensibility in advancing large-N research on institutional adaptation diversity in comparative perspective.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 102279 |
| Pages (from-to) | 1-15 |
| Number of pages | 15 |
| Journal | Global Environmental Change |
| Volume | 68 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - May 2021 |
Bibliographical note
Funding Information:This research received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 659065 (Dr. James Patterson). The author wishes to greatly acknowledge the significant contribution made by all 319 survey respondents in this study, without which this study would not have been possible. The author gratefully acknowledges extended interactions with Prof. Dave Huitema during the research project. Finally, the author also thanks two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful and constructive criticisms which significantly improved the paper.
Funding Information:
This research received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk?odowska-Curie grant agreement No 659065 (Dr. James Patterson). The author wishes to greatly acknowledge the significant contribution made by all 319 survey respondents in this study, without which this study would not have been possible. The author gratefully acknowledges extended interactions with Prof. Dave Huitema during the research project. Finally, the author also thanks two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful and constructive criticisms which significantly improved the paper.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Author
Keywords
- Comparative analysis
- Institutional change
- Large-N
- Survey
- Urban governance