Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Principles and Best Practices for Climate Change Adaptation

  • Chapter
The Political Economy of Climate Change Adaptation

  • 1660 Accesses

Abstract

One of the central dilemmas in politics, public policy, and economics is that markets “work” only at distributing certain types of goods. They tend to be efficient at distributing private goods such as bicycles or hamburgers — where property rights can be completely defined and protected, where owners can exclude others from access, and where property rights can be transferred or sold1 — but less effective at common pool resources such as fish in the high seas or grasslands for grazing, which require agreed-upon rules or sanctions. Unfettered economic markets are almost always completely ineffective at distributing these common pool resources. Designing workable, viable management of common pool resources is “tremendously difficult,” since in many cases success depends upon creating an “inverse commons” where material scarcity is not a concern and each additional user increases value rather than diminishes it.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 119.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Ostrom, E. (2000). Collective action and the evolution of social norms. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 14(3), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. McCarthy, J. (2005). Commons as counterhegemonic projects. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 16(1), 9–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912; Ostrom (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. These arguments do draw from (and extend) some of our earlier work, notably Brown, M.A. & Sovacool, B.K. (2011). Climate Change and Global Energy Security: Technology and Policy Options. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;

    Google Scholar 

  5. and Sovacool, B.K. (2011). An international comparison of four polycentric approaches to climate and energy governance. Energy Policy, 39(6), 3832–3844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. These arguments have also been adapted from some of our earlier research on energy justice, especially Sovacool, B.K. & Dworkin, M.H. (2014). Global Energy Justice: Problems, Principles, and Practices. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Sovacool, B.K., Sidortsov, R., & Jones, B. (2014). Energy Security, Equality, and Justice. London, UK: Routledge;

    Google Scholar 

  8. and Sovacool, B.K. (2013). Energy & Ethics: Justice and the Global Energy Challenge. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Shue, H. (1992). The unavoidability of justice. In A. Hurrell & B. Kingsbury (eds), The International Politics of the Environment: Actors, Interests, and Institutions (pp. 373–397). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Beckerman, W. (1999). Sustainable development and our obligations to future generations. In A. Dobson (ed.), Fairness and Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice (pp. 71–92). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Page, E.A. (2007). Intergenerational justice of what: Welfare, resources or capabilities? Environmental Politics, 16(3), 453–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Drawn from Hillman, M. (2004). The importance of environmental justice in stream rehabilitation. Ethics, Place, and Environment, 7(1/2), 2–19;

    Google Scholar 

  13. and Konow, J. (2003). Which is the fairest one of all? A positive analysis of justice theories. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), 1188–1239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. It is based on two sub-principles: countries that have (1) historically significantly contributed to the present atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and associated damages and (2) high financial and technological capacities are given greater responsibility to contribute to the goals of the Convention. United Nations (1992). The Framework Convention on Climate Change. A/AC.237/18 (Part II)/Add.1. New York, NY: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Weston, B.H. (2008). Climate change and intergenerational justice: Foundational reflections. Vermont Journal of Environmental Law, 9, 375–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Rawls, R. (1970). Justice as fairness. In W. Sellars & J. Hospers (eds), Readings in Ethical Theory (pp. 578–595). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Nussbaum, M.C. (2006). Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, pp. 9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice: Revised Edition. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sandel, M. (2009). Justice. What’s The Right Thing To Do? New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux, p. 142.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Brighouse, H. (2004). Justice. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, pp. 52–53.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Walker, G. (2012). Environmental Justice: Concepts, Evidence, and Politics. London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Maslow, A. (1954/1987). Motivation and personality (3rd rev. edn). New York, NY: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Brosnan, S.F. & de Waal, F.B.M. (2003). Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 424(September 18), 297–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Adger, W.N., Paavola, J., & Huq, S. (2006). Toward justice in adaptation to climate change. In W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq, & M.J. Mace (eds), Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;

    Google Scholar 

  25. Barry, B. (1995). Justice as Impartiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  26. Salazar, D.J. & Alper, D.K. (2011). Justice and environmentalisms in the British Columbia and US Pacific Northwest environmental movements. Society & Natural Resources, 24(8), 767–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Weston (2008); see also Weston, B.H. & Bach, T. (2008). Climate Change and Intergenerational Justice: Present Law, Future Law. Royalton, VT: Vermont Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Paavola, J., Adger, W.N., & Huq, S. (2006). Multifaceted justice in adaptation to climate change. In W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq, & M.J. Mace (eds), Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change (pp. 263–277). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dolan, P., Edlin, R., Tsuchiya, A., & Wailoo, A. (2007). It ain’t what you do, it’s the way that you do it: Characteristics of procedural justice and their importance in social decision-making. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 64, 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Haggett, C. (2009). Public engagement in planning for renewable energy. In S. Davoudi, J. Crawford, & A. Mehmood (eds), Planning for Climate Change: Strategies for Mitigation and Adaptation for Spatial Planners (pp. 297–307). London, UK: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gutmann, A. (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  32. Brown, M.B. (2009). Science in Democracy: Expertise, Institutions, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Lövbrand, E., Pielke, R., et al. (2011). A democracy paradox in studies of science and technology. Science, Technology & Human Values, 36(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Parkinson, J. (2003). Legitimacy problems in deliberative democracy. Political Studies, 51(1), 180–196, 181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Dryzek, J. (2001). Legitimacy and economy in deliberative democracy. Political Theory, 29(5), 651–669;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Eckersley, R. (2004). The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  37. André, K., Simonsson, L. et al. (2012). Method development for identifying and analysing stakeholders in climate change adaptation processes. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Cooke, B. & Kothari, U. (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? New York, NY: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Barbour, I.G. (1980). Technology, Environment, and Human Values. Westport, CT: Praegar, p. 204.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lewis, S. (1999). The precautionary principle and corporate disclosure. In C. Raffensperger & J.A. Tickner (eds), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (pp. 241–251). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ostrom, E. (2010). Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Global Environmental Change, 20, 550–557;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sovacool, B.K. (2011). Conceptualizing hard and soft paths for climate change adaptation. Climate Policy, 11(4), 1177–1183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Ostrom, E. (2009a). The governance challenge: Matching institutions to the structure of socio-ecological systems. In S. Levin (ed.), The Princeton Guide to Ecology. Trenton, NJ: Princeton University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ostrom, E. (2009b). A polycentric approach for coping with climate change. Report Prepared for the WDR2010 Core Team, Development and Economics Research Group, World Bank. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  45. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C., & Warren, R. (1961). The organization of government in metropolitan areas. American Political Science Review, 55, 831–842;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ostrom, V. & Ostrom, E. (1977). Public goods and public choices. In E.S. Savas (ed.), Alternatives for Delivering Public Services: Toward Improved Performance (pp. 7–49). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Andersson, K.P. & Ostrom, E. (2008). Analyzing decentralized resource regimes from a polycentric perspective. Policy Sciences, 41(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2003). Unraveling the central state, but how? Types of multi-level governance. American Political Science Review, 97(2), 233–243.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Blomquist, W. (2009). Multi-level governance and natural resource management: The challenges of complexity, diversity, and uncertainty. In V. Beckmann & M. Padmanabhan (eds), Institutions and Sustainability (pp. 109–126). New York, NY: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  50. McGinnis, M. (2005). Beyond individuals and spontaneity. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 57, 167–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Brock, G. (2009). Global Justice: A Cosmopolitan Account. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. International Council on Human Rights Policy. (2008). Climate Change and Human Rights: A Rough Guide. Versoix, Switzerland: ICHRP.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kolstad, I. & Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development, 37(3), 521–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Williams, A. (2011). Shining a light on the resource curse: An empirical analysis of the relationship between natural resources, transparency, and economic growth. World Development, 39(4), 490–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Abaza, H., Bisset, R., & Sadler, B. (2004). Environmental Impact Assessment and Strategic Environmental Assessment: Towards an Integrated Approach. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Program.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Inderberg, T.H., Eriksen, S., O’Brien, K. & Sygna, L. (2015) Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Caney, S. (2005). Cosmopolitan justice, responsibility, and global climate change. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, 747–775;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. see also Neumayer, E. (2000). In defence of historical accountability for greenhouse gas emissions. Ecological Economics, 33, 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. See Kruger, J. & Pizer, B. (2004). Europe Goes to Market: Opportunities and Challenges with a Trail Blazing Trading System (pp. 2–5). Washington, DC: Resources for the Future;

    Google Scholar 

  60. and Mangis, J.K. (1999). The United States sulfur dioxide emissions allowance program: An overview with emphasis of monitoring requirements and procedures. European Environment Agency Technical Report No. 29, November. Copenhagen, Denmark: European Environment Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Langniss, O. & Wiser, R. (2003). The renewables portfolio standard in Texas: An early assessment. Energy Policy, 31(6), 527–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. See Taylor, M., Suckling, K.S., & Rachlinski, R.R. (2005). The effectiveness of the Endangered Species Act: A quantitative analysis. BioScience, 55(4), 360–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. See Kerkvliet, J. & Langpap, C. (2007). Learning from endangered and threatened species recovery programs: A case for using the US Endangered Species Act recovery scores. Ecological Economics, 63(2–3), 499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. See Noecker, R.J. (1998, January). Endangered Species List Revisions: A Summary of Delisting and Downsizing. Preliminary Findings of Analysis of Endangered Species Recovery Plans, January. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service.

    Google Scholar 

  65. See US Government Accountability Office (2006). Preliminary Findings of Analysis of Endangered Species Recovery Plans (GAO-06–463R 2006). Washington, DC: GAO.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Cedillo, C. (2011). Better Access to Remedy in Company-Community Conflicts in the Field of CSR: A Model for Company-based Grievance Mechanisms. The Hague, The Netherlands: Institute for Environmental Security.

    Google Scholar 

  67. See Ruggie, J. (2008). Human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises. Statement Before the 63rd Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, October 27. New York, NY: UN;

    Google Scholar 

  68. Coglianese, C. & Nash, J. (2008). Government clubs: Theory and evidence from voluntary environmental programs. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 50. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University;

    Google Scholar 

  69. Ruggie, J. (2011, March). Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, March. New York, NY: United Nations.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Amnesty International (2014, March). Injustice Incorporated: Corporate Abuses and the Human Right to Remedy, March. London, UK: Amnesty International.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics (2nd edn) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Brown, L.R. (2001). Eco-economy: Building an Economy for the Earth. New York, NY: Norton and Company, pp. 236–237.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Beck, U. (1992). From industrial society to the risk society: Questions of survival, social structure and ecological enlightenment. Theory, Culture & Society, 9, 97–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Smith, Z.A. (2009). The Environmental Policy Paradox (5th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Orr, D.W. (1994). Earth in Mind: On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press, p. 172.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Baer, P., Fieldman, G., Athanasiou, T., & Kartha, S. (2008). Greenhouse development rights: Towards an equitable framework for global climate policy. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21(4), 649–669;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Baer, P., Athanasiou, T., & Kartha, S. (2007). The Right to Development in a Carbon Constrained World: The Greenhouse Development Rights Framework. Heinrich Boll Foundation;

    Google Scholar 

  78. Baer, P., Harthe, J., Haya, B., Herzog, A.V., et al. (2000). Equity and greenhouse gas responsibility. Science, 289(5488), 2287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. See International Council on Human Rights Policy (2008); Harris, P.G. (2011). Introduction: Cosmopolitanism and climate change policy. In P.G. Harris (ed.), Ethics and Global Environmental Policy: Cosmopolitan Conceptions of Climate Change (pp. 1–19). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar;

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  80. Howard, M.W. (2011). Sharing the burdens of climate change: Environmental justice and qualified cosmopolitanism. In P.G. Harris (ed.), Ethics and Global Environmental Policy: Cosmopolitan Conceptions of Climate Change (pp. 108–127). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Linnér, B.-O. & Rayner, S. (2015). Moving climate policy towards an innovation investment agreement. Research Handbook on Climate Governance. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Jones, M.T. & Fleming, P. (2003). Unpacking Complexity Through Critical Stakeholder Analysis: The Case of Globalisation. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Aligica, P.D. (2006). Institutional and stakeholder mapping: Frameworks for policy analysis and institutional change. Public Organizational Review, 6, 79–90;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Simonsson, A.K.L., et al. (2012). Method development for identifying and analysing stakeholders in climate change adaptation processes. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 14(3), 243–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. De Leon, P. & Varda, D.M. (2009). Toward a theory of collaborative policy networks: Identifying structural tendencies. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 59–74;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Dryzek, J.S. & Tucker, A. (2008). Deliberative innovation to different effect: Consensus conferences in Denmark, France and the United States. Public Administration Review, 68(5), 864–876;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Hendriks, C.M. & Carson, L. (2008). Can the market help the forum? Negotiating the commercialization of deliberative democracy. Policy Sciences, 41, 293–313;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Edelenbos, J. & Klijn, E.H. (2005). Managing stakeholder involvement in decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 417–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. Rockloff, S.F. & Lockie, S. (2004). Participatory tools for coastal zone management: Use of stakeholder analysis and social mapping in Australia. Journal of Coastal Conservation, 10, 81–92;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Weible, C,M., Sabatier, P.A., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. The Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Heidrich, O., Harvey, J., & Tollin, N. (2009). Stakeholder analysis for industrial waste management systems. Waste Management, 29, 965–973.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Dunn, W.N. (2008). Public Policy Analysis: An Introduction (4th edn). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Anton, D.K. & Shelton, D.L. (2011). Environmental Protection and Human Rights. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, p. 431.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  94. The Center for People and Forests (2011). Free, prior, and informed consent in REDD+: Principles and approaches for policy and project development, February. Bangkok, Thailand: The Center for People and Forests.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Goodland, R. (2004). Free, prior and informed consent and the World Bank Group. Sustainable Development Law & Policy, 4(2), 66–74;

    Google Scholar 

  96. UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII) (2005). Report of the International Workshop on Methodologies Regarding Free Prior and Informed Consent and Indigenous Peoples. Document E/C.19/2005/3, May 16–17. New York, NY: UNPFII.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Finer, M., Jenkins, C.N., Pimm, S.L., Keane, B., & Ross, C. (2008). Oil and gas projects in the Western Amazon: Threats to wilderness, biodiversity, and indigenous peoples. PLoS One, 3(8), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Cornwell, L. & Costanza, R. (1999). Environmental bonds: Implementing the precautionary principle in environmental policy. In C. Raffensperger & J.A. Tickner (eds), Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle (pp. 220–240). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  99. US Congress (2014). Financial responsibility [law: 33 U.S.C. § 2716(d)]. Washington, DC: US Congress.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Kritz, N.J. (1996). Coming to terms with atrocities: A review of accountability mechanisms for mass violations of human rights. Law and Contemporary Problems, 59(4), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. International Accountability Project. (2012). World Bank Inspection Panel. (Oakland, CA: IAP).NO LONGER ONLINE

    Google Scholar 

  102. Carrasco, E.R. & Guernsey, A.K. (2008). The World Bank’s inspection panel: Promoting true accountability through arbitration. Cornell International Law Journal, 41, 577–626.

    Google Scholar 

  103. See also World Bank (1998). The World Bank Inspection Panel: The First Four Years (1994–1998). Washington, DC: World Bank Group;

    Google Scholar 

  104. and World Bank (2003). Accountability at the World Bank: The Inspection Panel 10 Years On. Washington, DC: World Bank Group.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Cronstedt, C., Chambers, R., Margolis, A., Rönnegard, D., Thompson, R.C., &Tyler, K. (2014). An international arbitration tribunal on business and human rights. London, UK: Business and Human Rights Resource Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Hahn, F. (1982). On some difficulties of the utilitarian economist. In A. Sen &B. Williams (eds), Utilitarianism and Beyond (pp. 187–198). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  107. See Branch, A. (2007). Uganda’s civil war and the politics of ICC intervention. Ethics & International Affairs, 21(2), 179–198;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Glasius, M. (2009). What is global justice and who decides? Civil society and victim responses to the International Criminal Court’s first investigations. Human Rights Quarterly, 31(2), 496–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aarhus University, Denmark

    Benjamin K. Sovacool (Professor of Business and Social Sciences, Professor of Energy Policy)

  2. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, UK

    Benjamin K. Sovacool (Professor of Business and Social Sciences, Professor of Energy Policy)

  3. Linköping University, Sweden

    Björn-Ola Linnér (Professor of Environmental Change, Associate Fellow)

  4. Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, Oxford University, UK

    Björn-Ola Linnér (Professor of Environmental Change, Associate Fellow)

Authors
  1. Benjamin K. Sovacool
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Björn-Ola Linnér
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 Benjamin K. Sovacool and Björn-Ola Linnér

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sovacool, B.K., Linnér, BO. (2016). Principles and Best Practices for Climate Change Adaptation. In: The Political Economy of Climate Change Adaptation. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137496737_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation