IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/enscpo/v57y2016icp60-69.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context

Author

Listed:
  • Gorddard, Russell
  • Colloff, Matthew J.
  • Wise, Russell M.
  • Ware, Dan
  • Dunlop, Michael

Abstract

Responding to global change represents an unprecedented challenge for society. Decision makers tend to address this challenge by framing adaptation as a decision problem, whereby the responses to impacts of change are addressed within existing decision processes centred on defining the decision problem and selecting options. However, this ‘decision-making perspective’ is constrained by societal values and principles, regulations and norms and the state of knowledge. It is therefore unsuitable for addressing complex, contested, cross-scale problems. In this paper we argue that simply broadening the decision-making perspective to account for institutions and values is not enough. We contend the decision-making perspective needs to be connected with a broader ‘decision-context perspective’ that focuses on how the societal system of decision processes affects the manner in which a particular problem is addressed. We describe the decision context as an interconnected system of values, rules and knowledge (vrk). The interaction of systems of vrk both creates and limits the set of practical, permissible decisions; the types of values, rules and knowledge that influence the decision and the capacity for change and transformation in the decision context. We developed a framework to analyse the interactions between values, rules and knowledge and their influence on decision making and decision contexts of adaptation initiatives, and applied it retrospectively to three projects on adaptation to sea-level rise. Our analysis revealed: (1) specific examples of how interactions between vrk systems constrained existing framings of decision making and the development of options for coastal adaptation; (2) limitations in the adaptive management strategies that underpinned the projects and (3) how the linked systems of vrk can allow adaptation practitioners to structure adaptation as a process of co-evolutionary change that enables a broader set of social issues and change processes to be considered. Adaptation projects that focus on the decision context represent a pragmatic alternative to existing decision-focused adaptation. By using the vrk model to diagnose constraints in decision processes, we show how the reframing of adaptation initiatives can reveal new approaches to developing adaptation responses to complex global change problems.

Suggested Citation

  • Gorddard, Russell & Colloff, Matthew J. & Wise, Russell M. & Ware, Dan & Dunlop, Michael, 2016. "Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 60-69.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:57:y:2016:i:c:p:60-69
    DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901115301210
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gabriele Bammer & Michael O’Rourke & Deborah O’Connell & Linda Neuhauser & Gerald Midgley & Julie Thompson Klein & Nicola J. Grigg & Howard Gadlin & Ian R. Elsum & Marcel Bursztyn & Elizabeth A. Fulto, 2020. "Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    2. Wa'el Hadi, 2017. "A New Model for Integrating Phases of Decision-Making and Knowledge Base for Improving Customer Satisfaction," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(03), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Petra Tschakert & Jon Barnett & Neville Ellis & Carmen Lawrence & Nancy Tuana & Mark New & Carmen Elrick‐Barr & Ram Pandit & David Pannell, 2017. "Climate change and loss, as if people mattered: values, places, and experiences," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(5), September.
    4. Ethmadalage Dineth Perera & Magnus Moglia & Stephen Glackin, 2023. "Beyond “Community-Washing”: Effective and Sustained Community Collaboration in Urban Waterways Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-21, March.
    5. Esgalhado, Catarina & Guimarães, Helena & Debolini, Marta & Guiomar, Nuno & Lardon, Sylvie & Ferraz de Oliveira, Isabel, 2020. "A holistic approach to land system dynamics – The Monfurado case in Alentejo, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    6. Darnhofer, Ika & Schermer, Markus & Steinbacher, Melanie & Gabillet, Marine & Daugstad, Karoline, 2017. "Preserving permanent mountain grasslands in Western Europe: Why are promising approaches not implemented more widely?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 306-315.
    7. Gabriel Løvlie, Audun, 2023. "Experts and migrants – A survey experiment on public acceptance of violence and child protection interventions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    8. Maru, Yiheyis & Sparrow, Ashley & Stirzaker, Richard & Davies, Jocelyn, 2018. "Integrated agricultural research for development (IAR4D) from a theory of change perspective," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 310-320.
    9. Radhika Murti & Sarah-Lan Mathez-Stiefel & Stephan Rist, 2020. "A Methodological Orientation for Social Learning Based Adaptation Planning: Lessons from Pilot Interventions in Rural Communities of Burkina Faso, Chile and Senegal," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 409-434, August.
    10. Carmela Mariano & Marsia Marino & Giovanna Pisacane & Gianmaria Sannino, 2021. "Sea Level Rise and Coastal Impacts: Innovation and Improvement of the Local Urban Plan for a Climate-Proof Adaptation Strategy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-21, February.
    11. Drielsma, Michael J. & Love, Jamie & Williams, Kristen J. & Manion, Glenn & Saremi, Hanieh & Harwood, Tom & Robb, Janeen, 2017. "Bridging the gap between climate science and regional-scale biodiversity conservation in south-eastern Australia," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 360(C), pages 343-362.
    12. Nicholas A. Kirk & Nicholas A. Cradock-Henry, 2022. "Land Management Change as Adaptation to Climate and Other Stressors: A Systematic Review of Decision Contexts Using Values-Rules-Knowledge," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-23, May.
    13. Koko Warner & Zinta Zommers & Anita Wreford & Margot Hurlbert & David Viner & Jill Scantlan & Kenna Halsey & Kevin Halsey & Chet Tamang, 2019. "Characteristics of Transformational Adaptation in Climate-Land-Society Interactions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-22, January.
    14. Fedele, Giacomo & Locatelli, Bruno & Djoudi, Houria, 2017. "Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 43-54.
    15. Matthew J. Colloff & Michael D. Doherty & Sandra Lavorel & Michael Dunlop & Russell M. Wise & Suzanne M. Prober, 2016. "Adaptation services and pathways for the management of temperate montane forests under transformational climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 138(1), pages 267-282, September.
    16. Robert Webb & David Rissik & Lisa Petheram & Jie-Lian Beh & Mark Stafford Smith, 2019. "Co-designing adaptation decision support: meeting common and differentiated needs," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 153(4), pages 569-585, April.
    17. Mark Crosweller & Petra Tschakert, 2020. "Climate change and disasters: The ethics of leadership," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), March.
    18. Katrina Brown & Larissa A. Naylor & Tara Quinn, 2017. "Making Space for Proactive Adaptation of Rapidly Changing Coasts: A Windows of Opportunity Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-17, August.
    19. Stanton, Muriel C. Bonjean & Roelich, Katy, 2021. "Decision making under deep uncertainties: A review of the applicability of methods in practice," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    20. Walters, G. & Baruah, M. & Karambiri, M. & Osei-Wusu Adjei, P. & Samb, C. & Barrow, E., 2021. "The power of choice: How institutional selection influences restoration success in Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    21. Iain Brown & Pam Berry, 2022. "National Climate Change Risk Assessments to inform adaptation policy priorities and environmental sustainability outcomes: a knowledge systems perspective," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 175(3), pages 1-24, December.
    22. Claudia Múnera-Roldán & Dirk J. Roux & Matthew J. Colloff & Lorrae van Kerkhoff, 2020. "Beyond Calendars and Maps: Rethinking Time and Space for Effective Knowledge Governance in Protected Areas," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(9), pages 1-21, August.
    23. Binod Prasad Parajuli & Prakash Khadka & Preshika Baskota & Puja Shakya & Wei Liu & Uttam Pudasaini & Roniksh B.C. & Jonathan D. Paul & Wouter Buytaert & Sumit Vij, 2020. "An Open Data and Citizen Science Approach to Building Resilience to Natural Hazards in a Data-Scarce Remote Mountainous Part of Nepal," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-13, November.
    24. Eakin, Hallie & Keele, Svenja & Lueck, Vanessa, 2022. "Uncomfortable knowledge: Mechanisms of urban development in adaptation governance," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:enscpo:v:57:y:2016:i:c:p:60-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/environmental-science-and-policy/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.