differences between various institutions and their respective views on .... Donaghadee, with Lambeck stating an initial decrease in sea levels followed by a.
Identification and Mapping of Local Government Capacity to Adapt to Climate Change
Jessep Douglas Englert A Thesis in Science Submitted to the School of Geography and Archaeology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science
Dr. Kevin Lynch: Faculty Advisor Dr. Aaron Potito: Head of School Geography Discipline
August 26th, 2016
Abstract: Ireland is currently facing the onset of climate change, bringing with it incremental sea rise, coastal implications, and dubious changes in extreme weather patterns. Defective associations amid institutions that fail in planning for environmental, political, and social changes will diminish Ireland’s capacities to adapt and increase its overall vulnerability. Unlike the past, collaborative endeavors from a multi-level, multiactor collective will be utilised in order to proactively respond to the diverse effects of oncoming climate change. The purpose of this thesis is to address the questions of: How do local authority, institutional actors perceive and identify their capacity to adapt to climate change? Can we assess their adaptive capacity based on an adjustment of the Adaptive Capacity Wheel, in and Irish context? Through extensive literature review and an adaptation of the established (ACW) by Gupta et al., (2010), 33 custom questionnaires were distributed to individuals throughout institutions within Ireland. The questions reflected the 22 criteria used to assess the 6 main dimensions of the (ACW). With the addition of standarised scoring for question types, results were easily attainable in a quantitative form. With increased time and personnel the addition of my research with the current ACW may produce firm footing for future study and assessment.
Thesis Disclaimer: The following dissertation was completely researched, compiled, and submitted by the author for the purposes of assessment in the MSc Coastal and Marine Environments 2015-16. All information is the author’s own work, except where it is explicitly acknowledged otherwise through proper referencing of source material. This dissertation is for informative and guidance purposes only. The following document does not represent any formal NUIG, (National University of Ireland, Galway), position on the content. Colleagues are permitted to use any part of this document, provided the source is acknowledged. The author reserves the right alter or otherwise change the document at any time.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my dissertation advisor Dr. Kevin Lynch for his guidance throughout the research process. I would like to thank Dr. Frances Fahy and Dr. Terry Morley for their assistance with interview protocol and structure. I would like to thank each of the respondents from this study for allowing me insight and research into the institutions and norms that they work with every day. I would also like to thank my program colleagues and friends for their tremendous support and encouragement.
Table of Contents Abstract ……………………………… Disclaimer and Acknowledgements ……… List of Figures …………………………………… List of Acronyms ………………………………………
1. Introduction ……………………………………………………….1-2
Research Question …………………………………………
Key Aims and Objectives ………………………………….
Thesis Plan of Development ……………………………….
2. Conceptual Framework …………………………………………3-4 3. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ………………….5 a. Climate Change ………………………………………………5
Sea Level Rise ………………………………………...5-12
Coastal Squeeze and Erosion ………………………...13-17
Storminess Situation …………………………………18-21
Social Context ………………………………………..22-29
b. Adaptation …………………………………………………..30
Vulnerability …………………………………………30-33
Resiliency ……………………………………………34-37
Coastal Defenses ……………………………………..38-41
Planning and Regulation ……………………………..42-47
Problems, Barriers, and Obstacles …………………...48-50
c. Mapping Capacity ………………………………………….51
Why Map Capacity …………………………………..51-54
Example Studies and Methods ………………………54-60
4. Research Design, Methodology, and Analysis …………………...61
Research Design …………………………………………61
Methodology …………………………………………61-62
Analysis ……………………………………………...62-63
5. Results ……………………………………………………………...64
6. Discussion ………………………………………………………64-65 7. Conclusion and Recommendations …………………………...66-67 8. Bibliography ……………………………………………………68-77 9. Appendices ……………………………………………………...78-85
List of Figures: Figures 1-10
Citation and Description
Figures 11-20
Fig. 1
(Devoy, 2008) Relative sea wave heights around Ireland.
Fig. 11
Fig. 2
(Devoy, 2008) Tidal regimes around Ireland.
Fig. 12
Fig. 3
(Lambeck, 1993) The South of Ireland Moraine at last maximum, as well as successive regressive moraines. (Lambeck, 1993) The comparison between glacial extents at 22,000 BP and 14,000 BP. (Lambeck, 1996) Northeast Ireland RSLC.
Fig. 13
Fig. 6
(Lambeck, 1996) Southwest Ireland, estimated RSLC curves for the last 20,000 years.
Fig. 16
Fig. 7
(Lambeck, 1996) RSLC showing increases in a number of Irish regions, ranging from southwest to west to northwest coasts. (Lambeck, 1996) Estimated paleo sea levels relative to present day levels at both 13,000 and 6,000 years BP.
Fig. 17
(Stamski, 2005) The Process of coastal squeeze as the development of housing and armour limits the natural transgression of the beach. 20cm/yr is considered a realistic value on the east coast and other soft-sediment areas. (NCEC, 1992) The managed retreat of coastal railway inland in County Wicklow.
Fig. 19
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 18
Fig. 20
Citation and Description (Farrell, 2007) Increases in precipitation in the west and north of Ireland as the century progresses and increasing drought conditions in the south and east. (Devoy, 2008) The predominant storm tracks over the North Atlantic (Devoy et al., 2000b) Storm tracks of cyclones affecting Ireland and coastal Europe from 1973-1975. (Devoy et al., 2000b) Comparison of storm frequency and periodicity from 1965-1995. (Gupta et al., 2010) The original ACW consisting of 6 dimensions of adaptive capacity, defined by 22 criteria. (Grothmann et al., 2013) Current revision of the ACW consisting of 8 dimensions of adaptive capacity (2 additional), defined by 24 criteria (2 additional). (NCCAF, 2012) The different aspects of overall vulnerability in a human/environmental relationship. (Bettini et al., 2015) The adaptive cycle for understanding resilient and transformative adaptation. A system may maintain resilience by cycling within the limits of its own potential or a system may transform and shift to operate within a new range. (Stamski, 2005) Artificial gunite coastal protection seawall outlined in black.
(Gupta et al., 2010) Scoring rubric.
List of Acronyms: Acronym
Definition
MSL MTL MSLR BBCZMG
Mean Sea Level Mean Tidal Level Mean Sea Level Rise Bannow Bay Coastal Zone Management Group Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change National Coastal Erosion Committee Staff National Climate Change Adaptation Framework Adaptive Capacity Wheel Coastal Zone Management Integrated Coastal Zone Management European Union Environmental Protection Agency Innovative Management for Europe’s Changing Coastal Resource Marine Strategy Framework Directive Marine Law and Ocean Policy Centre Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Institutions Project of the International Human Dimensions Programme County and City Management Association City of Dublin Energy Management Agency
IPCC NCECS NCCAF ACW CZM ICZM EU EPA IMCORE
MSFD MLOPC IDGEC
IPIHDP
CCMA CODEMA
1
Introduction: While the climate change conversation within the scientific community is an ongoing and evolving one, there are still certain areas of the discussion that have not been developed fully. Namely, this has specific impacts on the context of Irish adaptive capacity. The aim of the succeeding research is to analyse the perceptions of decisionmakers within, and the response of the institutions that facilitate the norms that guide the counties of Ireland. The assessment of climate change and subsequent factors within the literature is followed by an in-depth discussion of vulnerability, resiliency, planning, and barriers of adaptation. A thorough description of the research methods used within this study sets the foundation for a series of interviews; the results of which demonstrate the differences between various institutions and their respective views on climate change. Climate change impacts, and specifically the capacity to adapt to coming change, are central to the narrative of this research. The study examines weak links among the institutions, including the failure to plan for changing environmental and policy conditions and risks, which effectively constrain adaptive capacity and increase vulnerability. Given that the impacts of climate change are so diverse, it is a problem that demands collective action and a multi-level response from the institutions and participants. For the use of this research, the Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) (Gupta et al. 2010) was identified as one of the most effective and encompassing methods used to do this. Adaptation can significantly reduce many potentially dangerous impacts of climate change, and reduce the risk of many key vulnerabilities. Yet there exists a lack of key determinants within adaptive capacity (including economic wealth, technology, information, skills and infrastructure), which in turn increases the vulnerability of nations and communities to the various challenges of climate change. Unfortunately, our understanding of adaptive capacity is less developed than our understanding of natural systems. This limits the degree to which social vulnerability can be quantified within the world’s coastal regions, and necessitates further investigation. The technical, financial, and institutional capacity —along with the actual planning and implementation of effective adaptation— is currently quite limited in many regions. Much of the current research has critiqued earlier approaches on adaptive capacity determinants and 1
indicators, arguing that is it more important to understand the dynamics of adaptive capacity in the relationships between common determinants in different contexts. This is an argument that the succeeding research intends to build upon. Coastal research is frequently directed more towards the general understanding of coastal function and in the development of coastal management concepts; yet it is at the local level that the outcomes of generic coastal studies have been applied, and it is time to tackle this on a larger scale. While scientific research into climate change impacts for Ireland has been underway for some time, only now is an understanding of the distribution of changes in temperature, precipitation, sea level, and flood risk beginning to coalesce. This information has become more accessible, and now presents the question of utilising this research in an Irish context. This is a question the following study attempts to answer.
2
Conceptual Framework: A necessary narrative on the discussion of social vulnerability to natural hazards. This builds upon the previous discussion in his work (Tapsell, 2010). Tapsell describes this vulnerability as a way of ‘describing who is likely to be especially at risk to the effects of hazards’, temporarily and spatially; an analysis that enables the specific and special needs of the so-called ‘vulnerable groups.’ (2010). These aspects are to be taken into account as part of the risk assessment, and, more importantly, the risk management planning process in regards to said vulnerability (Dunning, 2009). It is worth noting that this framework is one of many suggestions concerning social vulnerability. An alternative to Tapsell (2010) is presented by Turner et al. (2003), whose vulnerability framework is constructed for the assessment of coupled human-environment systems to comprehensibly assess who or what may be more susceptible to multiple environmental changes. This counterpart to Tapsell (2010) suggests that social vulnerability is unique in that it is not registered by exposure to any specific hazard alone; in fact, vulnerability must be assessed as it resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing said hazards (Turner et al., 2003). This framework—that is, the integration of potential exposures and social resilience— has gained increasing attention and significance in the past few years, specifically in relation to research on natural hazards. This new surge of interest is largely due to the work of Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003). The recognition of Turner et al.’s (2003) framework requires certain revisions and augmentation in the fundamental design of assessments on social vulnerability, including the capacity to treat these paired human-environment systems and those links within the systems that may affect their vulnerability. Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003) uses a conceptual model complementing the aforementioned framework; it is a model of vulnerability that incorporates both biophysical and social indicators to provide users with an all-hazards, overarching assessment of vulnerability specifically at the local level. The frameworks and conceptual models of Turner et al. (2003) and Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003) work so well together due to their shared assumptions of interdependent relations between hazards, resiliency, vulnerability, and sensitivity; concepts that encouragement my own agreement with these works. I assumed these elements as a conceptual framework of my own in my consideration of the ACW, as well as the coupling of biophysical and social 3
factors unique to Turner et al. (2003) and Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003). Tapsell (2010), though not as widespread as his counterparts, did discuss a societal similarity with his Diamond Analogy; a concept that contributed to my own work.
4
Literature Review: Climate Change Sea Level Rise (SLR) More than 50% of Ireland’s population, (approx. 4.7 million as of the 2015 census), lives within 15km (kilometers) of its coastline (Devoy, 2008). Most of these people live in, more or less, isolated metropolitan areas (e.g. Dublin, Cork, Galway, etc.), which leaves large stretches of the near 7,000km of coastline with a contrasting low density populous. The relationship between the two factors indicates that Ireland is seen as having a relatively low vulnerability to the impacts of SLR (sea level rise); however, roughly 30% of Ireland’s coastal wetlands could be forfeited given a standard 1m (meter) SLR scheme (Devoy, 2008). Much of Ireland’s soft coastline, predominantly unconsolidated glacial sediments, rests at a sea level medium of 10m-12m, with deep water waves that can transcend heights of +11m-20m (Devoy, 2008). You can see an example of Ireland’s modeled wave heights in Figure 1, showing a consistent figure of approx. 30m to 35m along the western to northern Irish coasts, but also diminishing significantly along the eastern and southeastern coasts. This coupled with various tidal ranges of Ireland, predominantly mesotidal to macrotidal (Figure 2), adds overall pressure from heightened wave crests during significant storm action (Devoy, 2008). Additional Figure 1 seen right and Figure 2 seen below, both utilised from Devoy, 2008.
5
SLR due to climate change, however small, could also become a cause of a potential increase in irregular large scale perturbations (Carter, 1991a). With this loss of quasiperiodic storm events, the comparison could become an increase in coastal floods and erosion; this sentiment is shared by the MLOPC (2006), who affirms that a, “100 year,” flooding event can be expected to occur approximately every five years. Consequently, the anticipated increases of storms in the Northern Atlantic due to climate change, high wave action in the Irish zone, and overall location of Ireland in existing storm paths, have culminated into a present rate of land loss of roughly 160ha (hectares) per year from around 300 locals in Ireland (Devoy, 2008). The relative sea level for Ireland is rising at an average rate of 1mm (millimeter) per year (Orford, 2006; Devoy, 2008) and while the specifics of this vary notably, climate change scenarios ran in the IPCC (2007) conclude that the anticipated MSL (mean sea level) is said to rise up to 0.59m over the next century, coincidentally about three or four times that of the current eustatic average (Farrell, 2007). The previous figure of 1mm relative sea level change, while seen the most in literature, doesn’t account for all estimations, with the MLOPC (Marine Law and Ocean Policy Centre) predicting 17cm31cm (±15cm) (centimeters) over the next thirty years (2006). A yearly average rise in sea level is also estimated at a lower .2mm, meaning a comparable SLR between 1990 and 2030 of .3m in MLOPC (2006) if the rest of the century were to follow the same logic. SLR is lethargic in the sense that its inertia will continue beyond 2100 for many centuries (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC also conducted scenarios that show breakdowns of the West Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets would make the long-term rise still larger and with the current threshold for breakdown gauged to be approx. (1.1°C) – (3.8°C) above present values, this likely to happen by 2100 under current IPCC schemes (2007). 6
In Northern Ireland, past tidal records were used to estimate MSL (mean sea level) change from two different positions at two different times, those being Malin Head from 1958-1998 and MTL (mean tidal level) at Belfast Harbour from 1918-2002 (Orford, 2006). In this thesis, MSL is considered the calculated average of water levels, taken hourly, over the course of a year, while Orford also uses MTL as a surrogate calculation of the average daily min and max tidal levels over a year (2006). Although both areas exhibit significant deviation throughout the year, both show a relative fall in sea level. The RSLC (relative sea level change) shows -.2mm/yr (±.37mm/yr) in Belfast Harbour and a -.16mm/yr (±.17mm/yr) around Malin Head (Orford, 2006); however the shear amount of variance that is seen in a natural system seems to dictate that these values are seemingly zero. A review of Carter also established that the RSLC rate was essentially zero through the use of tidal gauges in Belfast Harbour (1982). At this point you might be thinking that the literature is indicating that sea level change in Ireland is seemingly stable, perhaps even dropping; however the retreat of ice sheets late in the Quaternary period caused, as Devoy puts it, predominantly emerging coasts in Northern Ireland areas giving way to more stable to submerging coasts to the south (2008). The RSLC encompassing Ireland, during the last 20,000 year period, is predominantly the product of isostatic rebound from glacial retreat along the British Isles and the subsequent change from the melt waters (Lambeck, 1996). However, the significance of global eustatic additions of melt water shouldn’t be over looked in the overall change. The furthest extent of main ice sheets during the time of the last glacial maximum is believed to have been located at the South of Ireland Moraine (Figure 3) at approximately 22,000 years BP (before present) (Lambeck, 1993; 1996), but it stands to reason that ice extended further southwards, albeit at uncertain thicknesses. Figure 3: seen right, shows the South of Ireland Moraine (2) at last maximum, as well as successive regressive moraines. Lambeck, 1993
7
However, by about 17,000 years BP, the main retreat of ice sheets causing the formation of the northern drumlin fields had occurred with the eastern coast of Ireland almost Figure 4: seen left, shows the comparison between glacial extents at 22,000 BP and 14,000 BP. Lambeck, 1993
completely free of the ice sheet, while by 14,000 years BP the initial end extent of the last maximum was estimated to be only just over the current northern coast (Figure 4) (Lambeck, 1993). At approx. 600m thickness, the melting of the South of Ireland Moraine ice sheet and other British Isle ice sheets had ceased around 6,000 years BP (Lambeck, 1996). Examples of this threshold can be seen in the northeast of Ireland, such as Ballycastle and Donaghadee, with Lambeck stating an initial decrease in sea levels followed by a somewhat stationary value at 12,000 years BP and rising thereafter until, “present,” levels at 6,000 year BP (1996). Using Lambeck’s RSLC curves (Figure 5), you can see that in the northeast of Ireland the initial isostatic crustal rebound is extraordinary (curve 1), this is predominantly due to the retreat of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Northern England ice sheets (1996). This is reflected in core and reflectivity readings by Kelly that show a minimum of 50m in isostatic uplift in 800 years, beginning with a high tier sea level of +20m of present, at approx. 14,200 year BP, and ending with a 30m basal low-stand of
-30m below present, at
approx. 13,400 year BP (2006). With the previous measurements the assumption is
Figure 5: seen above, northeast Ireland RSLC. Lambeck, 1996
8
that local sea levels dipped significantly at approx. 6.3cm/yr (Kelly, 2006). At first the crustal rebound rate exceeds that of the eustatic sea level rise (curve 2) and even though global sea level rises quite fast, the magnitude of crustal rebound gives the appearance of relative sea level fall in (curve 3), which is the comparison between the two. At around the 12,000 years BP mark the intensity of the two curves are close to equal and sea level remains relatively constant in the area after 6,000 years BP as stated earlier. The assumption is that this trend will continue until the eustatic change outpaces the uplift Figure 6: seen right, shows southwest Ireland, estimated RSLC curves for the last 20,000 years. Lambeck, 1996
in N. Ireland. A second RSLC curve model, used in Lambeck (1996), can be seen in Figure 6, showing the contrast between the emergent coasts in the north and the stable to submergent coasts in the south of Ireland, this example being Bantry Bay in Cork. Using sea level predictions utilised in Lambeck’s studies, (1993; 1996), (Figure 7) you can see the relative increases in specific localities from Dingle and Limerick in the south up to Donegal in the North. These can be further understood when used in tandem with Figure 8 showing the predicted sea levels in relationship to present day sea levels at 13,000 and 6,000 years BP (Lambeck, 1996). The black curves shown serve as comparison between the estimated isobases and the present day levels, with 13,000 year BP being directly after the predicted retreat of glacial ice beyond the northern coast. Figure 7: seen left, RSLC showing increases in a number of Irish regions, ranging from southwest to west to northwest coasts. Lambeck, 1996
9
Figure 7 also shows indication of relatively significant potential sea level rise in, “some,” localities in the last 6,000 years (Lambeck, 1996).
Figure 8: seen above, estimated paleo sea levels relative to present day levels at both 13,000 and 6,000 years BP. Lambeck, 1996
Directly after 6,000 years BP, “steady,” point, the overall global sea level rise has become almost minute due to the completion of melting ice sheets and the lingering isostatic rebound now overshadows that of the SLR; however, the long incubation period of global processes means that it will become influential in the future. Studies on latitudinal profile of the vertical velocities of crustal movement by Orford, with the use of GPS (global positioning systems), with models for northern Ireland showing rebound of less than .5mm per year (2006). Carter identified RSLC to be essentially zero through tidal gauge data from Belfast, mentioned earlier, and suggests that the crustal rebound effect that had since been influencing N. Ireland is, by present day, considerably lessened (1982). In contrast, a southern example in Ireland would be Figure 6 in Bantry Bay, where the retreat of ice began much sooner than in the northern regions and therefore the isostatic recoil. The rebound in question was only about 10m during the last glacial maximum and only slight amounts, (roughly less than 1.5m used in 10
the model), of rebound arise after approx. 10,000 years BP (Lambeck, 1996). These results coupled with the afore mentioned estimations of 2m SLR at the regional level would give the impression of an overall rise in sea level in most southern areas. The interesting thing is that observations made by Lambeck indicate a gradual rise in sea level over the past 5,000 years without an upper limit, this being supported by trends in Figure 5 that also extend up coast to N. Ireland, albeit the data becomes more uncertain from northern reaches (1996). Potential rise in eustatic sea level is theorized at about 1mm/yr (Orford, 2006; Devoy, 2008), and with Orford gauging the current isostatic rise at only .5mm/yr, even given a fair yield of ±5mm/yr, the current climate warming is beginning to mask the last centuries work of rebound in Northern Ireland (2006). The observations and data put through this research would suggest the trends in sea level change could be growing, meaning that future sea level tendencies may shifting upwards. Although gauge data and other statistics have commensurate uncertainty, the assumption based off what can be figured is that the long-term rebound experienced after the last glacial maximumis now beginning to be shadowed by the current eustatic SLR (Orford, 2006). Assuming that isostatic rates don’t increase or change, which research estimates won’t, then the RSLC for Northern Ireland could begin to increase over the present assumption of nil and this could mean more significant troubles for those in the south who have already experienced a relative SLR already. Notwithstanding limitations of Lambeck’s glacial-isostatic model (Lambeck, 1996), is can be safely assumed that the sea level sequences, both past and present, are a product of isostatic rebound due to the melting of glaciers over Ireland and global sea level change from British Isle ice sheets among others. While various uncertainties lie within northern gauge statistics and Lambeck’s ice model (Lambeck, 1996), the overall prediction of current isostatic rebound rate is inadequate to overwhelm the global eustatic factor. Different regions and locals will be accompanied by their own discrepancies, the big picture is that the rebound of northern regions can only continue to offset the proposed sea level rise for so long. As of the present, there is no preeminent national policy that specifically assists in the management of SLR effects caused by climate change and most literature on the subject is concerned with a sustainable environment, coastal admin, and decision making at different levels of governance. This afore 11
mentioned factors, coupled with climate and storm led SLR, will fundamentally increase current coastal flooding and erosion (Devoy, 2008).
12
Coastal Squeeze and Erosion Much of the Ireland’s approx. 5,000km-7,000km coast remained relatively underdeveloped throughout the last few hundred years; however Devoy acknowledges that an, “island-wide awakening,” was made to the potential of coastal and marine zone resources (2008). Developments such as the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources in 1988 and the establishment of the Marine Institute in 1991, to name a few, fixed the importance of the coastal/marine zone in Irish culture (Devoy, 2008). Literature portrayal and first-hand experience have shown me a deep-rooted, ingrained attachment to the ownership of land in Ireland. This is most of all seen in the coastal communities, where residents are tenacious in their endeavor to keep the sea at bay. Roughly 350,000 citizens are put at risk each year from SLR-led flooding and other associated coastal hazards, prompting an approximate 170 million euro loss in capital per year, and a potential 420 million euros per year in protection or adaptation expenditure (Devoy, 2008). Though the population has declined in the 20th century, in no small part due to the Celtic Tiger, the coastal zone is still responding to the impacts left by the larger populations, which coincidentally have gotten up to 9 million in the past. The trying times of the 1980’s caused the rural populous to flock to urban centres in search of work, with evidence of this generation’s impact on the coastal zone shown in MLOPC with amounts of residential housing increasing by 47% up to 180% in some areas during a three year period 1994-1997 and the amount of industrial land increasing by 16.6% over the period of 1975-1990 (2006). Since the development bubble burst of the 1980’s the coastal population has seen marked increase due to rural emigration, urban expansion, and a rise in tourism. The coastal population (living within 5km of the coastal zone) accounts for 34% of the total and coupled with coastal urban areas jumps to approx. 50% of the total population (Devoy, 2008). To date, coastal research has predominantly been utilised for general research topics, along the lines of coastal functions, structure, and progression; however current concerns revolve around questions of coastal vulnerability, climate change, and anthropogenic forces. The process of coastal erosion and subsequent coastal squeeze has become significantly more pronounced, with one explanation from Carter being that the transfer of, “new,” sediments to most of the coast from offshore, shelf sources has almost 13
ceased (1993). Coastal dune and beach systems are currently under a multitude of different pressures from around the world due to SLR and anthropogenic forces attributing to sand loss, such as construction and leisure activities. Factors such as these promote coastal loss resulting in coastal squeeze. Coastal squeeze (Figure 9) is a process that can best be interpreted as a dune system that is restricted from seaward movement by storm and tidal activity, but is also restricted from propagating inland by coastal development, agriculture, livestock, and anthropogenic forces. This process essentially thins out the beach face or, “squeezes,” it and shortens the length of space (fetch) that sediment needs to flow and accrete into new juvenile dune systems. The development of coastal squeeze can lead to a vicious cycle in which the narrower backshore zone accordingly dissipates less wave energy and therefore increasing the amount of erosion in the area (Williams, 2001). Irish coastal systems are diverse including: cliffs, mudflats, lagoons, dune
Figure 9: seen above, is the process of coastal squeeze as the development of housing and armour limits the natural transgression of the beach. The example of 20cm/yr is considered a realistic value on the east coast and other softsediment areas. Stamski, 2005
systems, beach systems, cobble/gravel, salt marshes, machair habitats, and other wetlands. Ireland has a largely cliff coastline (Carter, 1991), predominantly running from the southwest, up the west side of Ireland to the north; and while there is a fair mix of meso-macrotidal regimes (see Figure 2), Ireland owes its almost 3,000km of rock dominated coastline to the shaping of paleo, geologic controls. The opposite side of Ireland, mainly the east and southeast 14
portions, consist of predominantly glacial till and loose sediment; however these sediment characteristics can be found in some places on the rockier parts of the coast due to glacial carving and fluvial processes (Devoy, 2008). At first glance, the geophysical aspects lend themselves to the assumption that much of Ireland’s coastal environment is liable to absorb much of the impact coming from climate related SLR; however, roughly 30% of the aforementioned coastal systems are at serious threat from SLR and climate led increases in storm magnitude/frequency must be taken into account (Farrell, 2007; Devoy, 2008). The maximum wave heights and wave energies are seen along the west coast of Ireland. These values can climb to significant wave heights of 15-20m and in some cases 30-35m (see Figure 1) (Devoy, 2008). As you progress along the east coast the values decrease significantly, getting down to almost 1.5m to 2m further into the Irish Sea (Carter, 1993). While the eastern coasts do glean some storm influence, Devoy claims that they only draw approx. 20% of the wave energy levels that occur on the Atlantic facing west coast (2008). Although the wave energy on the east coast constitutes a fraction of the west, the inverse is true in regards to erosional rates, with average values of .2-.5m/yr on loose sediment and typically rising to rates of 1-2m/yr on the glacial till of the eastern and southeastern coasts (Devoy, 2008). As of 1991, the total consolidated rates for flooding/erosional land loss in Ireland was calculated at approximately 1.6km²/yr (160ha) concentrated throughout about 300 sites (Carter, 1991a). For perspectives sake, imagine a hectare as being very close to the size of a standard international rugby pitch. The consequences portrayed by predicted changes in North Atlantic storm scenarios are likely to cause Ireland’s coastal wetlands and various loose sedimentary structure to be among the first in Europe to respond to storm-led SLR (Devoy, 2008). Anthropogenic effects such as, agriculture, grazing of livestock, mineral extraction, urbanization/industry, forestry, and both active and passive recreation (Mayer, 1995); can be separated into two designations, in regards to dune systems (Williams, 2001). These designations being temporary effects (e.g. civilian and animal compaction) and permanent effects (e.g. development, infrastructure, crops, etc.) (Williams, 2001). Whereas extreme changes in the environmental status quo will be observed immediately, such as coastal dune system and infrastructure destruction from major storm activity, the 15
observation of miniscule alteration within the coastal matrix can often go overlooked and subvert system resilience over the long-term. The potential phenomenon of accelerated SLR in conjuncture with underlying MSLR (mean sea level rise) of 1.3mm - 2.3mm per annum (Carter, 1991; IPCC, 2007), and current anthropogenic pressure on coastal areas may diminish the natural resistance or resiliency of various coastal types. The capacity of a dune system to be resilient depends on several factors, such as the length, width, height, etc. of the dune system and the larger the overall size of the system and its sediment budget the better the equilibrium between systems which accounts for better resiliency (Williams, 2001). For example, with consistent sediment supply and suitable fetch, a dunes system will revolve as a prograding regressive coastline, with embryo (juvenile) dunes accreting, through windblown sediment being intercepted by vegetation, growing into foredunes and so on (Williams, 2001); however anthropogenic forces or storm systems can cause blow outs lowering the effectiveness of dune accretion and therefore lowering resiliency. Nature provides examples of this process, with coastal barriers (beaches, etc.) becoming squeezed against uplands and hard rock coast, causing a constant reworking of the beach sediments alongshore into other various environments (Devoy, 2008). This process is a key in the regional variance of onshore adjustment and rejuvenation of coastal sediment in response to SLR (Devoy, 2008). While natural processes provide variance the added confusion of anthropogenic effects on coastal beach and dune systems is excessive to say the least; for example, the removal of beach sediment for personal use or the implanting of coastal structures that hamper sediment movement (Carter, 1991; Farrell, 2007). Major incident of anthropogenic effects can be seen in our large marine works such as marinas/ports (County Kerry, Kinsale, Cork, etc.), intertidal reclamation (County Cork, County Derry, etc.), and aquaculture development (Devoy, 2008). In addition, while the literature continuously extols the detriment that certain processes can have on coastal protection systems (Carter, 1991a), there are often strong local bias to maintain their current location, in spite of useable space further inland. Overall, the adaptation to
16
potential climate change effects through accommodation, adjustment, and managed retreat strategies (Figure 10), including shoreline realignment, are viable options (Pethick, 1993). However, as stated earlier, the cultural aspect of Irish land ties are deep-rooted and could potentially negate any perceived advantage. Figure 10: seen right, the managed retreat of coastal railway inland in County Wicklow. NCEC, 1992
17
Storminess Situation In 2007, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) depicted scenarios within their Fourth Assessment Report that reflected MSL (mean sea level) rise, increased storm frequency, potential change in current patterns, and increased rigor of coastal storms (2007; Commission of the European Communities Staff, 2009). While the typical tides and wave action can generate high water levels and flooding (e.g. during spring highs, [Farrel, 2007]), storm driven wave sequences can demolish beach barriers, dunes system, demolish coastal defences, and overwhelm land areas with inundation. Modelling from Devoy (2008) shows and increased likeliness of mild summers and a contrast of winter storms as we move into the 21st century, particularly for the northern and western coasts. Studies also show evidence of greater erosional complications for eastern coasts, in regards to incremental change of easterly wind patterns (Devoy, 2008). The consequences of current climate changes lend themselves to the likelihood that coastal wetlands, among other sedimentary complexes, could be the some of the first in the European region to alter in response to weather induced SLR. An EPA report filed by Fealy et al., (2007), on the Key Meteorological Indicators of Climate Change in Ireland, concludes that not only is Irish average temperature .7°C warmer than it was a century ago, but also that the climate has been warming every decade by .42°C for the last 30 years. The report went on to explain that regions in the north and west of Ireland are experiencing consistently heavier and more frequent rains (Figure 11) and that six of the ten warmest years have occurred within the last 20 years (Fealy et al., 2007). At the present, the foreseen climate outcome for Ireland over the next century is characterised by a rise of approx. 2°C, almost 11% winter rainfall, and a 25%-40% summer rain water deficit (Farrell, 2007). The potential Figure 11: seen left, showing increases in precipitation in the west and north of Ireland as the century progresses and increasing drought conditions in the south and east. Farrell, 2007
ramifications for these changes 18
ranges from drinking water availability and quality to the irrigation of crops and can Figure 12: seen upper left, shows the predominant storm tracks over the North Atlantic Devoy, 2008 Figure 13: seen lower left, storm tracks of cyclones affecting Ireland and coastal Europe from 1973-1975. Devoy et al., 2000b. Figure 14: seen below, comparison of storm frequency and periodicity from 1965-1995. Devoy et al., 2000b
even extend as far as changes in production of hydropower. These potential situations are compounded by the prevalent major storm paths of the Northern Atlantic (Figure 12 & 13), and while Sweeney (2000) acknowledges that all of Ireland’s coasts are in some way affected, Ireland’s eastern, and southeastern coasts only receive roughly 20% of the wave energies that the western and southwestern coasts experience (Devoy, 2008). The shear amount of storm activity that bombards the western regions of the island is best represented in Figure 12 and Figure 13 (Devoy, 2008). Assumptions of the frequencies and periods of storms over the past half century is best exemplified by the noted reduction in periodicity storm situations between the years of 1965-1995 (Figure 14) (Devoy et al., 2000b). The reduction in periodicity is evidenced by the increase in the North Atlantic Oscillation trend (NAO) line that increases over quasidecadal sequence (Devoy et al., 2000b); while the thickened line shows the frequency of storms during the thirty year time period. The effects of SLR may result in further reduced periodicity (Carter, 1991a), with additional climate led SLR potentially producing cumulative impacts when coupled with the already pronounced frequency of current storm system.
19
The aspects that form wave sequences are diverse and therefore the resulting wave conditions that meet the coast are diverse and I believe Coco describes it best as saying, ‘the role of waves can quickly change from accretive, small wave conditions, to erosive storm wave conditions’ (2014). Coastal mechanisms such as the division between the lower energy bay, inlet, and port areas and the higher energy of open water/coastal areas serves as a driving force for coastal operation. In regards to the related issues of coastal impacts, the coastal mechanisms that facilitate various tidal regimes are further influenced by the excessive wave heights of storm activity. Of course, it would be unrealistic to assume that all changes are solely negative and a certain “silver lining” may be found in the climate change phenomenon. For example, Devoy’s study of mudflats and other wetlands, portrayed a possible link between sediment transfer during storm events and annual accretion cycles in coastal systems, which in turn could contribute some resistance or resilience against SLR in the form of wetland creation (2008). Additional studies put forth by Wang et al. (2006) have shown that some shorelines can potentially recover from large scale storm perturbations and that, initially, this process can be quite fast with some coastal areas fully recovering their pre-storm beach face and berm within a 90 day period. Opposite of this, some major storms can limit a beach profile from fully recovering for years, particularly if the backshore dune systems have been damaged in the event (Coco, 2014). This level of potential for a beach to be distressed is a form of ‘vulnerability’ and largely depends, not only on the magnitude of the imminent storm, but also the frequency of successive storms and the possible rate of beach readjustment. For example, if the previously stated beach was to come under duress by a storm and the existing backshore dune system consisted of mostly juvenile or incipient dunes, then the vulnerability of the beach could be higher, seeing as there is a bigger potential for dune system destruction if the system isn’t yet mature. However, while you might expect a degraded beach front to be more prone to storm led erosion, recent work by Coco (2014) indicates that as a beach trends towards an equilibrium the storms tends to pull the beach away from equilibrium and that, logically, the successive storms each begin to become less and less effective at disrupting the beaches stability as it continues to be pulled farther away from stasis. As logic and observation allow us to understand portions of the climactic impacts on the coastal zone, the complications in 20
obtaining satisfactory or pertinent datasets puts real limitations on studies concerning long-term beach morphology and climate driven storm interaction (Zhang et al, 2002).
21
Social Context It is not, at this point, a secret that climate change presents a real problem to our future; many facets of which will potentially be damaged if we do not employ necessary methods for prevention now. And while climate change and adaptive capacity is an international issue, there are some places that face a particular threat due to pre-existing ‘weaknesses’. For Ireland, a nation with its population concentrated on its coastal areas, this is especially true. This brings us to the forefront of climate change in an Irish context, and the strengths and weaknesses local authorities and institutions possess in the face of adaptive capacity. According to Devoy (2008), various approaches by scientists, government, the public, and others has consistently led to an unbalanced implementation of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) measures along coastal authorities. Best practice is seldom embraced, and this, paired with flaws in ‘legislation, availability of coastal data, and awareness of international coastal control measures maintained through the 1990’s, a fragmented national approach in CZM (Devoy, 2008). History and emigration, factors that are quite political in scope, have limited people’s awareness of the fragile coastal environment in Ireland for most of the 20th century (Devoy, 2008). Issues of long-term coastal vulnerability and issues of SLR must be addressed by engaging in the development of society’s response to the institutions governing the Irish coast. Such an approach would motivate and inspire a general awareness of coastal issues, bringing about a sense of responsibility necessary for the use and preservation of coastal environments. It can be argued that the vulnerability of Ireland’s coastal areas lies predominantly with the attitudes of its people than in any specific physical susceptibility in response to climate change; adaptive capacity can only be brought about when the people choose to do so (Devoy, 2008). It comes down to a delicate equation of the physical components of coastal vulnerability under SLR and overall climate change, and the influence of coastal residents. The overall Irish population is estimated to be around 4.7 million people, according to the latest census figures. As a side note, it should be known that for the last 150-200 years the population has been as high as nearly 9 million, with the majority of those in the 19th century living in rural coastal areas (Devoy, 2008). Clearly, the population pressure of the past has had severe repercussions on the use of these coastal 22
lands, ‘sedimentary system changes, reclamation, coastal shape, and the built environment’ (Devoy, 2008); and although there was a significant decline in population throughout the 20th century, coastal systems are still performing under the strains of the earlier (18th-19th century) human impacts. Factors such as the aforementioned tourism, retirement, second/holiday homes, and general urban expansion have been steadily building upon coastal population numbers since the 1980’s (Devoy, 2008). This coastal population, defined by Devoy as living within 5 km of the coast, makes up for about 34% of the total population overall; (a staggering 1.25 million in the Republic of Ireland, and 0.6 million in Northern Ireland [Devoy, 2008].) If the distance was expanded to include those living in the major coastal urban centres (15 km from the coast), then it can be concluded that Ireland’s coastal population is comprised of more than 50% of the total (Devoy, 2008). This percentage of the overall population is unfortunate at best. The number of people affected by coastal impacts can reach 250,000 per year, the number of people at risk from SLR-induced flooding can reach up to 100,000 per year, wetland deficits can reach 800 km2 (making up ‘critical IPCC designated values at 30% of total wetlands [Devoy, 2008]), with the cost of protection and adaptation for the country reaching up to 420 million per year (figures based on IPCC recommended quantification methodology [IPCC, 2007]). Many major settlements in Ireland (+50,000 people) are currently situated within the confines defined as estuaries where, as Devoy (2008) argues, the impact of river floods, particularly where these are paired with marine surges, can create notable ‘flood events.’ This can be seen in the case of Cork (Devoy, 2000a). In some locals the location isn’t the only problem, with continued removal of sand and gravel as a resource for people causing a distinct negative impact upon coastal beach systems, despite a legal prohibition (Devoy, 2008). This is exacerbated by the fact that the coastal populations are so concentrated; outside of main urban areas, the rural coastal population is only 10% of the total (Devoy, 2008). This makes the employment of necessary provisions in an Irish context all the more pressing. According to Devoy (2008), the ‘potential for planned adaptation’ exists most potently through the organisation of both accommodation and retreat-type policies. Currently, the literature portrays the general strategy for adaptive capacity throughout Ireland as a reduced, inactive one, encouraged by the government for dealing with the 23
effects of SLR and coastal change issues. Naturally, this has resulted in the development of overlapping and inefficient administrative policies at both local and national levels. It is a snowball effect that leads to an inevitable lack of awareness and knowledge regarding coastal vulnerability facing various environmental situations (Klein & Nicholls, 1999); a mindset that puts significant restraints on the country’s ability to cope with the oncoming impacts of SLR. Those operating on the coast —ranging from private to commercial to public users— tend to do so in ‘isolation’. For example, ‘in the breaching of coastal barriers to encourage land drainage in the face of environmental opposition, in the dumping of debris as shoreline defenses, or in the removal of beach materials (Devoy, 2008). Coastal authorities experience a tremendous amount of pressure to provide ‘site specific control measures’ dealing with beach erosion, etc. and the costs of such measures (sea walls, for example) can be more than €60,000 and may reach into the millions, not including the cost of maintenance for years to come (Devoy, 2008). The overall lack of education on this subject has not been aided by the media, which tends to emphasise destruction and catastrophe in the name of sensational news, rather than providing informed environmental information for those that need it most. Education is especially important, since humans have the powerful ability to not only respond to their environment but also to alter it (Slovic, 1988). Survival is ‘aided by the ability to codify and learn from past experiences’ (Slovic, 1988), using said experiences to produce change; this ability can both create and reduce risk. Slovic (1988) continues this narrative by stating that new intellectual disciplines that identify, characterise, and quantify risks and risk perception have evolved out of the characteristics of modern environmental hazards. This cause-effect relationship is a powerful one, since it can be employed on a personal or larger scale. Most individuals rely on personal risk perception (hence, survival) instead of measured evaluation and observation analysis (Slovic, 1988). This is a trait that leads to the pessimistic mindset: that we are more at risk today than in the past, and the future will be even worse. While this tends to be construed in a negative light, when wielded positively from an institutional standpoint, it could be argued that this inherent tendency could provoke development of solid preventative policy regarding climate change. Risk perception was initially defined as a simple risk judgment or emotion (Cooper, 2014). Nevertheless, environmental risk 24
awareness is a kind of ‘consciousness’ that can subscribe to sustainable management decision-making, a kind of awareness that alters the social behaviour, pushing it towards a choice of sustainable strategies (Cooper, 2014). This is described as a ‘reach’ to a functional level of awareness, and to do this, a ‘certain influence on the behaviour or at least the behavioural intention must also be evident, otherwise it is a non-functional awareness’ (Cooper, 2014). However, research indicates that initial views of a person are quite resistant to change (Slovic, 1988), even in the case of opposing evidence and defying logic, because this affects how later information is perceived and interpreted. For example, the presence of new evidence only reinforces existing opinions and feels informative only if it already correlates with said existing beliefs. In contrast, when a pre-existing opinion does not exist, the individual is ‘at mercy of the problem/question formulation,’ or the questioner’s previous conceptions (Slovic, 1988). While this might seem like an extreme, even animalistic view of human coping mechanism and learning, it is important to understand the way in which people perceive and respond to risk during an extreme event in order to employ such information for future endeavours. There is power in perception: research has found that the public will accept ‘voluntary potential risk’ that is 1000 times riskier, such as driving a car, than in non-voluntary risk such as nuclear power (Slovic, 1988). Though this is ill-informed, this knowledge can be used in a modern context if the public consider climate change to be a significant threat. Perhaps the notion that we are moving towards a unanimous judgment on the state of climate change is not as whimsical of an idea as initially perceived. In fact, hazard events experienced across the whole of Ireland in the past few years have demonstrated the need for pressing decision-making and policy challenges, clearly spurred on by the damage caused by environmental hazards and climate change (Jeffers, 2015). Indeed, the national government, trade unions, and many other participants have formed social partnership agreements that have become key aspects of Ireland’s national economy and social policy (Jeffers, 2015). Jeffers (2011) discusses, on the other hand, the resultsoriented institutional ‘restructuring’ that has resulted in many single-purpose, third party agencies. The ‘regulatory and decision-making functions’ (Jeffers, 2015) of the Irish
25
government have been relocated to these agencies, making an established culpability for a particular issue a difficult thing, especially in the overwhelming context of managing environmental hazards (Jeffers, 2011). Continuing along this vein, Jeffers (2011) explain that the enactment of the EU Floods Directive, while certainly reshaping flood risk management policies at both local and national levels, will face difficulty in its effectiveness when applied to different geographical and institutional contexts. (The Floods Directive was designed in the very specific context of widespread transnational floods in ‘continental river basins’ [Jeffers, 2015]). Ireland is also unique in the fact that local government is, when compared to other countries, relatively weak. In Ireland, the local authorities possess far less responsibility for policy areas than those in other European countries; and since the abolition of domestic rates in 1978 (Jeffers, 2011), Irish local authorities have been hindered by a restricted ability to raise local funds (Jeffers, 2015). Central government provides nearly 50% of their funding (Tierney, 2003). Furthermore, flood risk management policies lack acknowledgment that some regions in society are far more susceptible (Jeffers, 2015). In the presiding conversation, there has been seldom discussion or reflection on the many ways in which society shapes the economy, simply the acknowledgement that it does. This, of course, raises important questions for research on climate change adaptation on both a grand scale and an Irish one. Up to this point, environmental and social goals have been ‘subservient to development objectives’ (Jeffers, 2015), though adaptation advocates still hope that both social and economic change might result from solid efforts to create a more sustainable future (Jeffers, 2015). The particular Irish case demonstrates a real need for further research, distinctly on the complexity of the relationship between development and adaptation. For example, the ‘economic value of hazards mitigation policies’ that focus on the reduction of social vulnerability and the steps to do so may be less immediate, and therefore less like to successfully ‘pass a costbenefit analysis’ (Jeffers, 2015). From a government standpoint, the focus on cost-benefit presents the decision-making process as a neutral one (Jeffers, 2015; however, this obscures subjective assessment and detailed value associated with particular types of
26
hazard loss. In this case, funding might be afforded during periods of plenty but not times of strain, considering climate change preparation and reaction a ‘discretionary expense’ (Jeffers, 2011). The view of adaptive capacity as an unjustified expense is a prevailing one, a fact that acts as further evidence of limitations, in regards to further progress for climate change adaptation. Assessment of adaptive capacity in climate change research developed from climate impact and vulnerability assessments together (Grothmann, Grecksch, Winges, & Siebenhüner, 2013). ‘Climate impact assessments’ look only at two criteria: exposure and sensitivity to climactic stimuli (for example, changes in precipitation levels or average temperature) (Grothmann et al., 2013). These were used to assess the potential impact of overall climate change. In the second phase of these assessments (first-generation vulnerability assessments), these potential impacts were also evaluated in terms of social relevance (Grothmann et al., 2013). More focus was put on social, demographic, and political factors, which caused a shift from ‘potential to feasible’ adaptation. According to Grothmann et al. (2013), social factors like perception of risk has a particular use for reducing vulnerability and ‘building social capacities’ because they can likely be altered easier and more efficiently than other social factors (i.e. economic, technological, infrastructural development, etc.). Such assessment, then, is crucial to the future of climate change adaptation. If adaptation to increasing flood risk in a coastal locality can be discerned by the behavioural adaptation of its residents, and analysis of social factors limiting these adaptations can be used to single out which barriers must be overcome to increase the social adaptive capacity. For example, the residents adapt by creating measures to stop floodwater from entering buildings; this behaviour can be hampered by a lack of risk perception in the community (Grothmann et al., 2013). Although it’s clear that the importance of social factors (e.g. institutions, perceptions, and social capital for adaptive capacities of social systems) has been demonstrated in several case studies, there is fault in the lack of standardised assessment concepts for said factors (Grothmann et al., 2013). This supports the argument that the ACW lacks a certain amount of social factors, but it may be countered that the psychological and social aspects of various areas differ even more than their physical and
27
adaptive capacities. If there is a lack of adaptation motivation of decision-makers in a social system, its adaptive capacity is reduced due to a lack of political will for adaptation. Adger et al. (2009) argues ‘that social and individual factors limit adaptation action.’ Factors such as perception of risk, habit, social status and age operate at individual decision-making levels while also constraining to collective action (Adger et al., 2009). Therefore more research into the social and psychological side would be needed to develop an ‘ACW’ focused primarily on the social and cognitive side of adaptation as a compliment to the existing ACW (Figure 15); for example, a revision of Tapsell’s (2010) Diamond Analogy. Tapsell’s
In the effort of solidarity, (2010) Diamond Analogy acts
as an
example of a socioeconomic sphere of reference. The framework makes use of eight different facets to conceptualise vulnerability, ranging from the potential loss of indigenous beliefs (‘cultural’) to the susceptibility of loss of economic assets (‘economic’) (Tapsell, 2010). While the amount of facets, the importance of individual facets, and the
Figure 15: seen above, original ACW consisting of 6 dimensions of adaptive capacity, defined by 22 criteria. Gupta et al., 2010
relativity of the framework has been hotly contested, the method is still being refined and researched. It can be argued that the social vulnerability of groups defined at different scales (individuals, communities, social systems) will also differ as any one particular hazard unfolds and as it is generated and impacts upon these social groupings. This is an important consideration in an Irish context, where this has not been a main focus.
28
Grothmann et al. (2013) suggests that individual and social characteristics (in particular, perception of risk) ‘interact with underlying values to form subjective and mutable limits to adaptation that currently hinder society’s ability to act’. A slightly revised version of the ACW (Figure 16) involved adaptation motivation and adaptation belief; therefore two of the many psychological factors with the ability to influence adaptive capacity of a social system were selected (Grothmann et al., 2013). These factors are, for the sake of Grothmann et al.’s (2013) study, considered to be empirically evidenced and necessary factors for adaptation; but they are not considered to be sufficient in overcoming the large number of potential psychological barriers to adaptation. The results of the former study provide merit to the concept of including psychological and subjective
Figure 16: seen above, current revision of the ACW consisting of 8dimensions of adaptive capacity (2 additional), defined by 24 criteria (2 additional). Grothmann et al., 2013
dimensions to adaptation motivation and adaptation belief in an expanded ACW (Grothmann et al., 2013). In an Irish context, further revisions and investment into longterm restructuring of the current social concepts and institutional norms could yield unexpected and beneficial results.
29
Adaptation Vulnerability The vulnerability of a system, regardless of scale, is most commonly referred to in climate change literature, as the product of exposure in a particular system to threats and the abilities of that system to endure or adapt to resultant effects (Adger, 2006; Brown et al., 2010); or as the degree to which geophysical, biological and socio-economic systems are deemed unable to cope with potential impacts (Füssel and Klein, 2006; IPCC, 2007; Tapsell, 2010). While there has been a relatively large rise in adaptive capacity literature in the past decade (Gupta et al., 2010), present literature surrounding subjects such as climate change, vulnerability, and adaptation, is still decidedly less developed than existing literature on the function and responses of the environmental systems. This has, unfortunately, set limitations to the extent that we can quantify societies’ vulnerabilities in the face of global climate change (IPCC, 2007). Coastal vulnerability is inherent as populations continue to grow along coastal margins, both increasing the value of socio-economic vulnerabilities and also lowering the coastal system’s innate resilience. As populations grow and directly affect the resilience of a natural system, it can be safely assumed that the highest instances of vulnerability can be identified with not only high exposure areas and low levels of adaptive practice, but also areas with the highest levels of human influence and stresses on environmental systems (IPCC, 2007). The potential effects of increased susceptibility, in regards to vulnerability and exposures, is often exacerbated through the settlement patterns and locations of humans (Wheeler, 2011). While we have historically settled along the fringes of potentially hazardous zones (e.g. coastal margins, etc.), the rapid expansion of these settlement patterns has often outran the rate at which we are able to properly adapt (Wheeler, 2011). Examples of everyday anthropogenic stresses can be seen in the cut off of sediment supply by damns, navigational channels, flood protection developments, and subsequent changes in tidal flows (IPCC, 2007); all adding additional socio-economic pressures and altering the natural sensitivity of the system in the face of compounding climate change (Figure 17). Risk reduction, disaster preparedness, and
30
Figure 17: seen above, the different aspects of overall vulnerability in a human/environmental relationship. NCCAF, 2012
overall climate change adjustment requires that we accurately assess the
various vulnerabilities, economy, resources, and institutions of our society (Tapsell, 2010). While physical exposures can cause significant complications within human and environmental systems, a lack in adaptive capacities is one of the more important variables that can affect societal systems, reflecting the focus of this study. The application of the magnitude of a specific impact coupled with the potential that it will occur is the main concept of risk, whereas the underlying aspects of climate change, individual and collective impacts, sensitivity, and adaptation capacity serve to cloud the overall issue. Many of the impacts, sensitivities, and vulnerabilities are afforded distinct attention from potential policy-makers, seeing as the characteristics of these aspects might make them key in overall adaptive capability (IPCC, 2007). Primarily climate change affiliated researchers have begun to immerse themselves in the aspects of vulnerability, especially in regards to adaptive capacities and adaptation as a whole. However, some researchers such as Birkmann et al., (2009), have argued that, ‘climate change research has stronger emphasis on gradual and creeping change, such as sea level rise,’ and that those who predominantly align with the disaster risk affinity primarily focus on hazards of a sudden nature. Now, while the main aspect of this ideal may have been accurate in research long past, this has been recently contradicted by the current outset of research into climate lead increases in oceanic storm magnitudes and frequencies. However, one of the primary difficulties currently limiting the study of climate change adaptation is the disjointing of applicable societal vulnerability factors and the main body of climate change scientific research.
31
Vulnerability to climate change differs considerably across socio-economic groups, thus raising important questions about equity (Tapsell, 2010). While, in reality, all people that live in potentially hazardous areas are considered vulnerable in one form or another; those who are the least prepared, retain a minority of available resources, and haven’t the benefit of heightened experiences or knowledge, feel the impacts of hazardous events disproportionately to the rest of the community. For example, multiple coastal communities may rely on marine sources as their primary food source, this placing them in a vulnerable positions of public health and regional economy, in regards to climate change and associated health risks from marine biological temperature changes (IPCC, 2007). As a result, vulnerability is quite dependent on the potential human interest or effects; for instance, the change of a preexisting ecosystem may be labeled as significant if there are certain amounts of rare species, etc. (IPCC, 2007). However, if the priorities of the human occupants are aligned with another similar system for any reason, the later system will be deemed more important, and therefore more vulnerable in the face of climate change. These scenarios, coupled with ‘social norms and customs, international, national, private and public law’ can vastly differentiate various outlooks on vulnerability in separate regions (Parker et al., 2009). Previous information aside, the aspect of vulnerability is not only a subject of discussion at the regional to local level, but also at national to international scales. Research schemes presented by Wheeler (2011), demonstrate that the success of a particular countries economic strategies are almost interdependent of their level of vulnerability to climate change over time, with those having more successful economic strategies being considered less vulnerable and vice versa. In contrast, the political and social desire to assist the more socially vulnerable may be apparent and only the deficit of financial and other resources establishing limitations (IPCC, 2007). Vulnerability indicators will undoubtedly vary between those countries that are developing vulnerability assessment and adaptation frameworks, with those who have already established plans by no means being exempt from potential climate change events. While the aim of this research is to analyse the perceptions and suggestions of potential decision makers within currently established institutions of Ireland, an all-
32
inclusive assessment of sensitivity, adaptive capacity, exposure, and subsequent vulnerability, must be considered to offset the inevitable variation of different coastal types and social scales (IPCC, 2007). The former evaluation concludes that vulnerability, resiliency, and adaptive capacity, are closely linked approaches (Gupta et al., 2010) that provision for information needed in the process of hazard mitigation (Tapsell, 2010).
33
Resiliency Adaptive capacity is widely held as a key property of resilient and adaptable social-ecological systems. This is important because it views adaptive capacity as a formative ingredient for dealing with specific challenges in regards to composing complicated systems (both social, and ecological), including those revolving around intervention, decision-making, and uncertainty (Bettini et al., 2015). With the certainty of change now solidly acknowledged throughout the coming years, the adaptation to climate change has become an urgent policy priority. It should, of course, represent pro-active and preemptive action, ideally preventing the worst risks that climate change can bring about in our society (Gray, 2012). The development of an adaptation strategy cannot be done without first understanding how well an institution can adjust in the face of current weather extremes and trends (Gray, 2012). The hope is that, in doing so, adaptive capacity will encourage short-term coping, and therefore buy valuable time to segue into an adaptive policy that possesses greater resilience when presented with future climate change impact. Another unclear concept is found in understanding the relationship between adaptive capacity and two separate outcomes of adaptation: resilience and transformation (Bettini et al., 2015). A resilient system ‘absorbs shocks and perturbations without significant loss of results’ (Walker et al., 2004). On the other hand, a system of transformation is altered to meet different objectives (Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al., 2005). While many researchers argue that the two are merely aspects of one another; but without clarity on the distinction between the two, it can be difficult to separate the respective processes and determine the overall contribution of adaptive capacity (Bettini et al., 2015). In this context and for the purpose of this thesis, I adhere to the distinction that resilience resists change by maintaining system objectives through restructuring; while transformation pursues change by exploring new objectives and altering the system to achieve them. The distinction between the structure and potential or functional purpose of a system demonstrates necessary facets to understanding how adaptive capacity can produce resilience or transformation within said system (Bettini et al., 2015).
34
According to Gunderson & Holling (2002), resilience can be maintained by rotating within a system’s potential, ‘as represented by the bottom trajectory; or [the system] may transform by shifting to operate within a new potential, represented by the top trajectory’, (Figure 18). But in reality, resilience (or transformation, for that matter) is unlikely to be found on a direct path. Generalised phases of adaptation can be achieved through the ‘adaptive cycle’ (Bettini et al., 2015), while also maintaining that systems may remain resilient throughout the cycle. In regards to coastal vulnerability, the role of resilience factors to SLR and coastal changes has been used to provide a common ground for quantitative measurement (Devoy, 2008). The establishment of general terms and concepts has been crucial to the identification of vulnerability issues and risk assessment. Figure 18: seen above, the adaptive cycle for understanding resilient and transformative adaptation. A system may maintain resilience by cycling within the limits of its own potential or a system may transform and shift to operate within a new range (top rotation). Bettini et al., 2015
However, this formalised definition places emphasis on the detection of individual components of vulnerability; namely, resilience.
These definitions may downplay the important responses among certain components; ‘accelerated SLR, together with renewed human pressures on coastal land use’ (Devoy, 2008), can reduce the former, natural resilience as the coastal environments become more sensitive to change. It may also be important to recognise which groups of people are more susceptible to climate change impacts and why. This knowledge may facilitate targeted strategies, and create a window for effective mitigation and future social capacity and resilience (Tapsell, 2010). Climate change policy has historically focused on the issue of mitigation, and must continue to do so. For example, in the effort to restrict new emission 35
of greenhouse gasses (GHG) and enhance carbon sinks (Gray, 2012). Now, there is the emerging realisation that hazard prevention and mitigation must address economic, social, and political factors that influence wider society. This will also enable more targeted strategies, and acknowledge vulnerability to hazards as a detector of the susceptibilities of the system (both physical and social) (Tapsell, 2010). According to Gray (2012), climate change adaptation does not need to be more complex than any other local governance. Relevant adaptation options are already in use at the local level, which requires little change in order to orient existing efforts towards greater climate resilience (Gray, 2012). In regards to vulnerability, a deeper level of investigation is necessary in order to mitigate hazards. The term itself is defined by ‘identifying natural risks’ among national and local institutions, instead of being viewed as an existing social structure that could be mitigated in order to reduce climate change impacts (Tapsell, 2010). Instead, vulnerability should be defined as ‘the state of a system before an event triggers disaster’ (Tapsell, 2010), or at the very least, considered in terms of the likelihood of loss. This understanding is valuable in terms of resilience, since two distinct relationships between vulnerability and resilience are often pursued by researchers (Galderisi et al., 2010). They are either treated as opposites (the ‘flip-side’ approach), or the relationship is seen as more complex. The former views an indirect relationship between vulnerability and resilience (high vulnerability implies low resilience, etc.) and is increasingly challenged by research; whether this is true or not, it is clear that an integral relationship does exist between the two (Galderisi et al., 2010). The relationships between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity are also called into question. Pelling (2003) argues that the concept of vulnerability is broadened to highlight further components of exposure; together with resistance and resilience, this defines vulnerability itself. A desire to emphasise the positive has also resulted in the concept of resilience: for example, the enhancement of resilience meaning reduction in vulnerability (Klein, 2003). This continues to view vulnerability as part and parcel to resilience; that vulnerability is not simple defined by the hazards experiences, but must exist within the sensitivity and resilience of the respective system (Klein, 2003). Many
36
concepts can be deemed resilience factors in that they affect management capacity within a community (e.g. resource availability, cultural attitudes, access to services); social vulnerability is only one part of disaster risk assessment (Tapsell, 2010). While certainly crucial to implementing hazard and mitigation assessment, the solution is just as complex as the resilience-vulnerability relationship. The ability to adapt is similar to resiliency and coping capacity; the characteristics of vulnerable populations are important to the confrontation of multiple sets of problems. The needs and solutions that risk managers will confront and the range of measures necessary to the consideration of effective mitigation strategies are subject to resiliency factors (Tapsell, 2010).
37
Coastal Defences Coastal defences, including those of coastal sediment and flood defence, are a major management issue, and are certain to become even more complicated in regards to current climate changes. Most often, three choices arise when faced with the situation of adaptation to climate change; they being coastal protection, accommodation, or managed retreat (Klein et al., 2001). The attitudes of Irish citizens are more commonly aligned with the aspect of coastal protection measures due to their deep-rooted attachment to land ownership (Devoy, 2008). Protection is best described as the avoidance of potential impacts from ever being encountered. Coastal protection is virtually always used in the context of use of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sea and river defences (Few, 2007; Stamski, 2005). Also known as ‘grey’ adaptation or coastal armour, this option often utilises technical or engineering skill sets to combat the effects of oncoming climate change. Protection options vary in material used, engineering extent, and overall success rates (Stamski, 2005); however one of the primary aspects of coastal protection works is the relative ease in which you can quantify their use, in regards to project cost and anticipated returns (Gray, 2012). Seawalls and semi-consolidated riprap are often the coastal armour structures used in Irish protection works, with temporary, ‘soft,’ structures such as sand bags or beach nourishment schemes also utilised; however, to a lesser extent. Riprap, also called rock armour, is defined by Stamski as any rock used for coastal protection that is at least one to six tonnes (2005); while seawalls are homogenous, fixed structures that stand vertically on coasts to deflect incoming wave action and sometimes have concaved faces or slight overhangs to discourage wave overtopping. Gray (2012) offers alternative forms of ‘grey’ adaptation in the face of other climate change effects such as drought, where traditional sprinkler or other irrigations systems can be replaced with an engineered dripfeed irrigation system. As these sorts of protection options are derived from the engineering and technological sectors, their benefits are easier to corroborate and defend, while their limitations are also more simply disseminated (Gray, 2012); this is often needed as the high investment costs warrant scrutiny. While (hard/grey/soft) coastal protection options are relatively simple to understand and implement, multiple negative aspects accompany the use of these works. 38
For example, placement losses, negative visual effects, potential loss of sediment, biological community harm, extreme costs, and passive/active erosion (Stamski, 2005). Protection structures are often regarded as unsightly and have been an ongoing cause of debate between local authorities need for protection and coastal recreation. Other negative aspects such as placement loss, the portion of beach in front of coastal development that is unavoidably covered up with protection works; and the potential loss of sediment, basically being the sediment that is essentially locked in behind protection works, causing potential erosion down-coast due to sediment source loss (Stamski, 2005). Both of these negative side effects are also hotly debated, says Stamski (2005), due to the contrast between the ease of use in impact statement implementation and public/private property loss. The unfavorable biological aspect comes about from potential invasive species being attracted to newly placed substrate (Stamski, 2005) or outright death of biota during construction. One of the more recent popular practices has been beach nourishment, involving the addition of sediment along the seaward side of the beach providing extra buffer space. As costs are typically very high and the long-term benefits are often left up for debate Leonard et al., (1990), a recent survey of nourishment projects established that only about 27% of projects survived 5 years and 18% lasted less than a year (Leonard et al., 1990). Passive and active erosion are some of the last examples given and are actually some of the most misunderstood of the potential protection works impacts. Passive erosion occurs when coastal structure is implanted in front of development the coast behind is basically trapped there causing the ongoing erosion to circumvent it (see Figure 9), while active erosion is a direct result of interaction between the waves and coastal armour (Stamski, 2005). The misunderstanding between the two is that passive erosion transpired regardless of the protection type or without any protection at all and active erosion is a direct result of the implemented works. While in the past, emergency coastal armour has been implanted without any real care for aesthetic or other impacts, new technologies are allowing rock faces of different materials, such as gunite or shotcrete (Figure 19), that can be tailored to assimilate the native rock type and look (Stamski, 2005).
39
The second option, accommodation, is comprised of reducing of anthropogenic sensitivities to the potential impacts (Few, 2007). Examples of accommodation usually utilise coping mechanisms to anticipated impacts of events, such as the use of stilts on coastal property or optimising infrastructure drainage. Figure 19: seen above, artificial gunite coastal protection seawall outlined in black. Stamski, 2005
Sometimes synonymously used with ‘soft’ adaptation - accommodation in the form of
alterations in human behaviour, altered regulation or management, and the overall sense of working more with the environment than against it - are inclined to be more flexible and inexpensive in the face of potential changes (Gray, 2012). Regularly seen as a stepping stone, examples include: altered building standards for development and infrastructure, increased scientific research in the area, and public education programmes. While accommodation and other soft adaptation works are easy to initially implement, they have a tendency to undergo difficulties in relation to long-term support mechanisms and enforcement of implemented policy (Gray, 2012). . The last choice comprises of the least favored among Irish citizens, it being managed retreat. The concept of managed retreat involves the transfer of homes and infrastructure away from areas prone to hazardous impact and potential changes in land use. The option of retreat is also accompanied by conditions needed for realistic implementation, such as local authority or central government acquisitions of land or funding plans to assist citizen in relocation (Few, 2007). A prime example of this is the managed retreat of a coastal railroad located in Co. Wicklow (see Figure 10), where the formation of natural dunes systems has been encouraged as sustainable coastal defence (National Coastal Erosion Committee Staff, 1992). Retreat is known to be a poor option, at least in an Irish context, although they should be given careful consideration as genuine solutions over the long-term. 40
Small site schemes of riprap, seawall construction, beach nourishment, and groyne implementation occur extensively over Ireland (NCECS, 1992); however, the costs of current schemes can exceed €60,000 and may reach the millions independent of future maintenance costs (Devoy, 2008). Coastal defences and other infrastructure are often old, and ‘less than 4% of the coastline is protected by shoreline defences’ (Carter, 1991a; Devoy, 2008). In much of Ireland’s rural area, the coastal protection structures currently in use were originally property walls or stone rows separating fields and have been altered or modified in a haphazard fashion on an as-needed basis (Devoy, 2008). The assumption is that these structures are not only being used for purposes not meant for them, but that future climate changes such as SLR will be more than they can handle. The cost of ‘essential’ repairs to coastal protection was estimated to be about €159 million in 1991 (NCECS, 1992), with the first allocation of funding to local authorities (a realtively small €44 million) only happening in the year 2000. The implication of these factors seem to indicate that the provision of resources for the needs of local authorities is lacking in the extreme.
41
Planning and Regulation From a logistical standpoint, the methodology and structure of adaptive capacity and the policies revolving the concept are not being implemented as ardently as they need to be. In an Irish context, planning to adapt to climate change should be incorporated to varying degrees in all statewide planning efforts (as well as regional and local planning efforts) (Innovative Management for Europe’s Changing Coastal Resource (IMCORE), 2011). Although there is certainly growing awareness and the documentation at the national level is beginning to reflect concerns for adaptation, this process has been slow (Barton, 2013). It is important to note that the relevant instruments for spatial planning include regional development strategies, municipal regulatory plans, metropolitan regulatory plans, municipal development plans, and coastal zone plans; these are all crucial to consider when implementing such plans in a (reasonably) new system such as Ireland (Barton, 2013). However as an institution chooses to move forward, the ultimate goal is, according to IMCORE (2011), to create ‘coastal states and communities that are organized to take action, have the tools to take action, and are taking action to plan for and adapt to the impacts of climate change.’ There are a variety of potential adaptive responses available to our societies in general, ranging from technological, behavioural (e.g. altered food and recreational choices), to managerial, and to policy adaptation (e.g. planning regulations) (IPCC, 2007). IMCORE’s (2011) guidelines are particularly prevalent here; the authors state that sectoral technological advances are certainly made, but they are of limited use because they are not integrated with other needs (such as those mentioned above). A lack of resources and integration of policies allows the general public to ignore local regulation; and, while it may seem helpful, property owners take certain coastal protection measures into their own hands. Due to a lack of education and a wealth of misinformation, this can be more damaging in the long run (IMCORE, 2011). New planning processes are attempting to overcome these barriers at local, regional and national levels in both developing and developed countries (IPCC, 2007). But regulation and ‘on-the ground’ management is limited, and these institutions do not make the best use of the limited resources they have (IMCORE, 2011). In fact, there is very little sharing between institutions, which negates the amount of good data available and results
42
in duplicated research. Coastal and marine risk assessments are undertaken by these individual agencies and are not regulated by overarching policies (IMCORE, 2011). According to the NCCAF (2012), the ‘White Paper on Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action (published by the European Commission, April 2009) entered the conversation with the aim of increasing a resilience to climate change in a variety of sectors. This included health and social policy; biodiversity, ecosystems and water; coastal and marine; and production systems and physical infrastructure. In short, it was an attempt at a far-reaching and comprehensive regulatory policy (NCCAF, 2012). One method of increasing adaptive capacity can be conceived by introducing the consideration of climate change impacts in development planning. For example, by implementing adaptation measures in the design of infrastructure and land-use planning, and including measures to reduce vulnerability in existing disaster-prone, risk reduction strategies (IPCC, 2007). The 2009 ‘White Paper’ makes a point to recognise that close cooperation among relevant institutions within the EU and at various national levels is necessary in order to be successful in implementing mainstream climate adaptive policy within European and Member States (NCCAF, 2012). Of course, there are likely to be a number of policies, regulations and legislation originating from the EU, the Oireachtas, or the Authority itself that have each influenced the discussion on climate impacts in the past, and which will continue to do so into the foreseeable future (Gray, 2012). Specific legislative details tend to slow the process of implementation, and are only hindered by the lack of communication between municipalities. This legislation includes specific thresholds or targets, who is responsible for their planning and implementation, any measures or plans in place to counteract climate change, and the estimated lifespan of the management measures (Gray, 2012). Optimistically, new planning processes are attempting to overcome these barriers at all levels in both developing and developed countries (IPCC, 2007). This is necessary for many countries so that institutions can then enforce said processes for clearer coastal regulation, and to improve systems of coastal planning and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2007). According to Gray (2012), the key task in preparing an adaptive baseline for legislation is to map the landscape surrounding the climate impacts. This becomes a sort
43
of specialised policy; for example, in the event of problems with consistent water shortages, the Water Framework Directive would have the most influence over the recent management of water supplies, and would hypothetically continue to manage such things in the years to come. Internal organisational and committee structures within local authorities also vary significantly between States and between individual authorities. These factors can influence integration in degree and type, and coordination between sectors and their departments (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In Ireland, the responsibility for roads, planning, and environmental protection falls under local authorities, and in doing so this has resulted in specific coastal functions falling in the gap between these segments, and has led to little communication between the respective authorities (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In fact, the modern coastal zone was only considered a specific policy area for the first time in 1993 in the National Development Plan for Ireland 1994-99 (Government Publications Office, 1993). In 1997, multiple governmental departments (including the Department of Marine and Natural Resources; the Department of Environment and Local Government; and the Department for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht, and the Islands) worked together to commission a coastal zone management policy for Ireland (Martin, 1997). This was a necessary sign of communication between sectors, an attempt to avoid earlier examples of miscommunication. Coastal erosion is one such example: this fell under the responsibility of the ‘roads’ segment rather than environment or planning (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In Cork County Council, the Planning Policy Unit was ignorant of the Council Committee on Coastal Erosion and vice versa, even though both bodies were housed in the same building, and as such, held responsibilities for the same coastal areas (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Comprehensive, unified legislation such as the National Development Plan for Ireland, however flawed in scope, are a step in the right direction. Though there have been clear efforts to define coastal zone in its denotation and limits, it simply cannot be slipped neatly into pre-existing administration (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). It is an inherently dynamic system, an ‘area of infinitely variable function and condition’ (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). There are no formal legal systems for integration of the various departments and sub-departments whose responsibility it is to manage such a legally abstract area, but in the majority of cases there is cooperation 44
when dealing with large-scale developments (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). Further issues can be found in the Harbours Act 1946, a collection of legislation giving jurisdiction of harbour authority that overlaps with the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources, as well as general planning authorities (Harbours Act, 1946-1996). This widesweeping legislation gives each county council considerable input into the management of all commercial harbours in contact with the county. While a change to the legislation in 1992 did switch from public to private ownership, it is still unclear how development on the foreshore will be carried out, as there are ‘no statutory guidelines as to how these overlapping jurisdictions relate to each other’ (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). In Ireland, there is a definite lack of national programme objectives for both urban and rural coastal areas alike; this means that government institutions and local authorities have a habit of pushing coastal management to the wayside (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Coastal management is viewed as a voluntary activity that has no access to stable financial or human resources. While it can be said that the individual local authorities may recognise how important it is to better manage coastal zones in their area, the relevant administrations inhibit them because those above them do not attribute any gains to coastal management (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This is unfortunate, as strict planning controls will be required to reduce the impact of climate-change effects (Devoy, 2008). In the context of integrated land management and environmental policy, certain steps must be taken to ensure environmental health, sustainable adaptation, and integration of planning of the coastal zone (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In Ireland, the process has been slow, but continues nonetheless. The Department of Marine and Natural Resources began to administer and promote a national policy in 1988; working with Forbairt (now Enterprise Ireland), the policy dealt with coastal infrastructure and shoreline protection (Devoy, 2008). The Department of the Environment (1989-1990) commissioned a report to examine the Irish impact of major changes in sea level (Carter, 1991a), which provided a review of environmental issues linked to sea-level changes, ‘including approaches to coastal vulnerability and resilience, coastal data, and coastal management (Carter, 1991a). Devoy (2008) provides a concise narrative of the following movements towards legal, comprehensive climate change adaptation. A national Marine Institute was formed in 1991 to deal with acquiring and handling marine and coastal data, 45
as well as research promotion and related commercial activities. 1995 brought with it the initiation of a public debate to determine Irish marine policy through the Marine Institute. Ongoing digital aerial photographic coverage of the coastline began in 1997, implementing the elements of a National Coastal Survey, which led to the continuation of many independent studies on coastal issues and national funding. A national Coastal Protection Programme was approved in 2000, bringing with it limited but necessary funding. Clearly, a steady drafting of legislation was underway. In Northern Ireland, administration is quiet concentrated within the Department of the Environment and the National Trust (Devoy, 2008). In contrast, primary control in the Republic of Ireland is split among several agencies. These include the Department of the Environment and Local Government; the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources; Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands; and the Environmental Protection Agency (Devoy, 2008). This continues upon their commission of CZM policy in 1997. In the European Unit, there is a need for ‘greater grassroots public participation in coastal decision making’ (Commission of the European Communities Staff, 1992), as in Agenda 21. EU project initiatives and funding are spearheading the Strategic Environmental Assessment for environmental sustainability (Devoy, 2008). In Ireland, while no national ICZM policy exists, legislation and policy at national and European level may help to boost future discussion (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Unfortunately, national priorities in Ireland resulted in little funding available to help research and assess coastal issues (Devoy, 2008). Yet the potential marine and coastal resources (at approx. 900,000 km2 [Devoy, 2008]) is massive. This has historically hindered coastal action; the relationship between the large coast and formerly hard-up economy have discouraged national-scale work and made the concept of shoreline protection an inaccessible one (Devoy, 2008). What’s more, decision-making powers are frequently delegated to the lowest level of recommendation, consistent with the extent of the issue (Kay & Adler, 1999). The higher powers of government further limit the action that can be taken within such a framework (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In Ireland, these consequences mean that a local authority can be used as a matter of convenience for the use of the administration: either for a series of separate service, or as an elected body charged with many purposes (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This leads to 46
a situation in which said authorities administer over existing policy, yet have limited abilities in a wider sense. Most coastal authorities are not even geared towards coping with the public debate on CZM matters (Devoy, 2008). They are under-resourced and under-staffed to deal with the already arising issues of coastal and climate change; this will become especially prudent in the future, under accelerated SLR and climate warming on a larger scale (Devoy, 2008). This acts as a clear example of the consequences that exist when no national coastal policy is put into place. Of course, there is certainly a light at the end of the tunnel. Changes proposed in the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill aim to bring about greater consistence between varying policies; this is accompanied by a Climate Change Bill that is underway (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Here exists a basis for potential integration of policies at both the national and local level. The concept of bringing this legislation into the mainstream is already underway; it exists in the context of the River Basin District planning under the Water Framework Directive (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). And while local authorities do have significant independence when it comes to their respective duties, coastal management has always sat someone uneasily with this. The main cause of this, in an Irish context, has been from the discrepancies surrounding local jurisdiction (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Legislation has certainly attempted to alleviate the current issues, but these measures are only in regards to development (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). The term ‘coastal management’ is, at a national level, poorly defined; the beginning remedy to this exists in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive of 2008 (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Unfortunately, lack of clarity is still very prevalent.
47
Problems, Barriers, and Obstacles Since climate change legislation and adaptation has shown itself to be a painfully slow process throughout history, it should be no secret that there arise many issues across the board. Barriers that impede the process of adaptation are far-reaching, and are often exacerbated by the institutions/participants, context, and the particular country or relevant locality (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010). The assessment of such barriers or limitations (terms often used interchangeably by researchers [Moser & Ekstrom, 2010]) is often linked to social factors such as ‘social capital, social networks, values, perceptions, interests, customs and traditions’, which strongly determine the ability to adapt to risks related to climate change (Adger et al., 2007). According to the IPCC (2007), limits are obstacles that are absolute and cannot be maintained; in contrast, barriers can be overcome with effort and cooperation among policy makers, etc. For the sake of encouraging progress, the optimistic take on barriers as a mountain which can be overcome is the direction most researchers choose to take (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010). In Northern Ireland, for example, a key feature in development of local authority has been ‘trust relations’ within its members; dialogue has broken down barriers of mistrust among members, mostly between the community and councils but also private sectors (Scott, 2004). There is an increasing sense of shared commitment and camaraderie among the members, a feeling that they share a goal, and this increases their ability to work efficiently amongst one another (Scott, 2004). This process demonstrates, on a larger scale, the need for an interdependence between working partners. The absence of social/professional networks, the presence of abnormal ones, or the absence of strong leadership can prompt an unwillingness to make adaptation decisions (Tribbia & Moser, 2008). Moser & Ekstrom (2010) hypothesis that, should the members of institutions not reach a ‘minimum threshold of concern’ over a specific issue, the adaptation process will be halted. For example, if a private institution and a government agency are both developing adaptation plans, their options and methods will likely differ because of various factors (jurisdiction, political interests, funding, etc.), resulting in mistrust (Renn, 2008). Not questioning the flexibility of these barriers may itself be an obstacle in the adaptation process. They may hinder progress between the various stages of the process, 48
or skip certain stages altogether (a plight all too familiar for those involved in real-world decision-making), resulting in later consequences down the line (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010). For example, early barriers (in a general sense) may be filtered out as irrelevant; this can lead to such obstacles as the inability to agree on goals, inaccessibility of data, and ownership of responsibility (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010). In the same way, barriers can, and often do, arise in the areas of understanding, planning, and management. Nevertheless, there are negative aspects to acknowledging certain barriers to adaptation. Grothman et al. (2013) argues that social factors, such as risk perception, demonstrate a particular ability to reduce vulnerability and build social capacities because they can be altered more quickly than economic, technological, or infrastructural development. These factors need more time to be successfully altered. Indeed, the challenges posed by coastal decision-making highlight significant problems with scale; temporally, ‘time horizons of coastal planning are generally too short to mandate consideration of climate change impacts’ (Wilbanks and Kates, 1999; Wilbanks, 2002). While different sectors, participants, regions, and levels of decision-making respond differently to climate change impacts, so too must the adaptive capacities among them vary (Grothman et al., 2011). If ‘agents systematically underestimate their own ability to adapt’, they serve as a negative example for climate change adaptation (Grothmann & Patt, 2005). Even if the climate change problem is the same, however, the causes, the barriers, and the motivators of adaptive capacity seem to vary between the different social systems (Grothmann et al., 2013). Temporal as well as spatial scales exhibit unique barriers in that they expose discrepancies between strategic planning and the narrower spatial scale of decision-making on coastal management in the UK (Few et al., 2007). It stands to reason that these barriers would be similar in an Irish context. The barriers are particularly evident at the local decision-making scale in a political, financial, and technical context (Few et al., 2007), and inhibit preemptive response capacity of the relevant institutions. According to Inderberg (2011), explanations of adaptive capacity that reside in solely ‘formal factors’ tend to miss important barriers to the adaptive capacity. The findings in a Norwegian context indicate that the capacity to adapt is influenced and altered by the changes in both formal structure, and cultural norms (Inderberg, 2011). 49
The institutional and cultural perspective of climate change focuses on the legitimacy of adaptation measures existing within relevant values; barriers to adaptation will exist where the values of institutions do not supply a basis for implementing respective policies (Inderberg, 2011). The positive side of this is the slowly shifting cultural factors that will lead to a secure environment for identity and overall performance; and yet this could still act as a barrier to adaptation, ‘especially if the corporative economic culture wins terrain’ (Inderberg, 2011). Time might seem to be on our side in the preparation for climate change impacts, since the normative view is that these impacts are largely long-term; but the enormity of the potential impacts suggest in themselves that adaptation legislation will require quite lengthy processes of technical and social change (Few et al., 2007). The response to climate change impacts by the relevant agencies will most certainly be affected by issues such as available resources, funding, conflicting policy priorities, and public support; all of which can be viewed as barriers to adaptive capacity in their own right.
50
Mapping Capacity Why Map Capacity? Climate change is, of course, a very poignant and relevant topic of discussion; a topic that has been building, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, for a very long time. Now, judging by the amount of studies currently underway and the number of scientists vehemently moving forward with climate change strategies (Adger, 2000), this field of research is a marketable one to say the least. Geographers and anthropologists have identified many ways in which ‘traditional practices allow for greater adaptive capacity’ (Grothmann & Patt, 2005), and how interruptions within the social unity of our communities can reduce the resilience of adaptive capacity, causing potential breakdown due to stress (Adger, 2000). So while traditional practices and structures may be a boon to the adaptive capacity of a society, these structures may also impede the ability to create more permanent adjustments in the wake of any ‘events’, or ‘threats, of long-term environmental change (Adler, 2000); a most significant phenomenon at the present (Grothman & Patt, 2005). This clearly implies a need for more effective, less fragile systems to be put in place. In contrast, adaptation can occur all across the board, from a local to international scale, addressing particular issues related to that specific level and making use of the available facilities (Grothman & Patt, 2005). Unfortunately, the primary determinants of adaptive capacity have been financial, technical, and institutional constraints, brought about in part because of a failure to consider empirical research on the science of decision-making (Grothman & Patt, 2005). Adaptation does not unfold this way, but comes about after a ‘risk perception process’ and only starts ‘if a specific threshold of threat appraisal is exceeded’ (Grothman & Patt, 2005). In short, there most often must already be clear, tangible evidence of a threat or concern before people will begin contemplating the benefits of change. Clearly, this is not a sustainable solution. Studies on the outcomes of risk and adaptation appraisal processes demonstrate that a person responds, in one of two ways, when faced with an immediate threat: adaptation and ‘maladaptation’ (Grothman & Patt, 2005). Adaptive responses are preventative; taken if the perceived threat and capacity for adaptation are high. Maladaptive responses include avoidant behaviour and ‘inverse’ actions (Grothman & Patt, 2005) that, in the long term, actually work to increase climate change damage not unlike a self-fulfilling prophecy. 51
Of course, the solution is not simple or clean cut. The Marine Law and Ocean Policy Centre (MLOPC, 2006) drafted ‘EU legislation and policies with implications for coastal management’, part of the Corepoint Project; a policy intended to provide cohesion to an otherwise wildly unregulated debate. The literature attempts to assess European policy in an effort to gauge how coastal management will evolve and develop. The results, however thorough, demonstrate that sustainable practices will not automatically occur when a common legal or policy framework is adopted (MLOPC, 2006). It takes proactive response to initiate the necessary change. Climate change is not only a local issue. It is a large scale, international dilemma that will result in a range of differing impacts across a number of locales that are very likely to worsen any preexisting problems (NCCAF, 2012). Adaptive responses will be required to avoid the negative effects of impending climate change; in the NCCAF (2012), this is presented as inarguable fact. In an Irish context, it is important to not only avoid the adverse impacts but also to build on positive opportunities that may present themselves. This is necessary in order to respond effectively to prepare for longer-term consequences (NCCAF, 2012). Many things are uncertain, and that is a natural caveat of future events and climate change is no exception. The rate at which climate change will and is occurring is unclear, but the underlying progression is evident and will continue, presenting a strong case for preparation. For this, we must continue to build on the current research and put in place a cohesive, comprehensive policy framework for adaptation planning in order to respond to the inevitable challenges (NCCAF, 2012). In turn, we must also incorporate measures to manage the impact on natural and human systems as they continue to evolve for the foreseeable future; to manage both the harmful significance and taking advantage of opportunities (NCCAF, 2012). To do this, the debate on whether or not such policies are necessary must be suspended, and instead we must begin the discussion on how to implement said policies in the most effective way. The NCCAF (2012) identifies six main building blocks, the second of which includes an assessment of adaptive capacity: ‘socio-economic and institutional capacity and willingness to adapt’. This is a base representation of my paper’s objective in an Irish context. The NCCAF (2012), partially informed by the National Adaptive Capacity assessment framework from the years 2007-2013, and proposed by the World Resource 52
Institute, exists as a solid framework of adaptive suggestions. However, its use primarily only extends to the sectors identified in Ireland’s economy while the ACW can be utilized in different institutions of different main sectors, and the review does not determine the extent to which integration is actually occurring. Therefore, it is clear more research in this context is required if previous discrepancies and inadequacies are to be avoided. Of the few studies that do exist pertaining to climate adaptation in an Irish context, Falaleeva et al. (2011) provides a narrative on stability. In Ireland, actions are consistent across different time scales, and personnel are able to rely on the normative governance frameworks regardless of political change or otherwise (Falaleeva et al., 2011). The study argues that the capacity of the existing governance exists to address different timelines throughout the decision-making process; most pressingly in the event of possessing enough intel to support continuation of said policies at various levels. The focus on ICZM (Integrated Coastal Zone Management) is a positive one, hindered, however, by the lack of organisation within governing bodies and a fragmented sense of responsibility for coastal zones (Falaleeva et al., 2011). It is here, once again, where we demonstrate a need for improvement. Simply put, climate change potentially brings continuous and unpredictable changes in our weather patterns. This in itself should be enough to initiate an adaptive response. In this case, climate change calls for the governing bodies that promote adaptive capacity and allow society to modify policies at a similar rate to that of environmental change (Gupta, et al., 2010). Institutions that are traditionally maladaptive in that they are ‘conservative and reactive’ in their actions will need to support participants to respond proactively; either through planned processes and deliberate steps, but also through ‘cherishing and encouraging spontaneous and autonomous change’ (Gupta et al., 2010). The sciences are improving in predicting the future environmental impacts, and in the case of climate change, said institutions must be able to rise to the challenge of incorporating new intel and becoming proactive and progressive. This is a mindset that must be encouraged from within, or the resilience of adaptive capacity will be adversely affected (Gupta et al., 2010). Gupta et al. (2010) continues by arguing that
53
society at large will have to be ready to anticipate and respond to changes that may occur; and because climate change is inherently unpredictable, it calls for institutions with the necessary resources to be prepared and encourage adaptive capacity within the community. There is certainly a sense that we are moving towards this level of preparation, due in part to the ‘explosion’ of literature on climate change adaptation in the last ten years (Gupta et al., 2010). This has mostly dealt with the impacts of climate change, vulnerability to the impacts (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2006), its criteria and indicators (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2006), and adaptation to the impacts of climate change (IPCC, 2007). The IPIHOP defines institutions as: ‘‘systems of rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that give rise to social practices, assign roles to the participants in these practices, and guide interactions among the occupants of the relevant roles’’ (IDGEC, 1999), and perhaps this definition is necessary to understand the potential of outlining climate change adaptation policy. In ordinary speech, the word ‘institutions’ is seen as synonymous with ‘organisations’. Although organisations can be seen as formalised patterns of rules and decision-making, institutions are not equivalent to organisations, as institutions also refer to underlying ideological values and norms (IDGEC, 1999). Institutions are agreements following long debate, and inherently predisposed to conservatism as if these hard-won institutions would not survive until the next day, there would be little point in creating them. Moreover, institutions carry the bias of previous interactions, views and power relations (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2006). For example, the traditional ideal that men in a relationship need be tough and the primary bread-winner is an institutionalised concept and isn’t easily changed. Hence, all institutions embed a degree of robustness and resistance to change. This can be used to benefit the future of climate change if the concept of preparation and adaptability is imbued with this same sense of permanence. It is a mindset, after all, that will urge us in the direction we must go.
Method Examples A singular founding methodology for the succeeding narrative and for my own research can be found in the work of Gupta et al. (2010), an article detailing the Adaptive 54
Capacity Wheel, appropriately and simply named ‘A method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society’. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) does exactly that. The method was used to assess the adaptive performance of institutions in the Dutch urbanised municipalities of Delft and Zaandam, with special consideration for sharing responsibilities for factors such as rainfall and ground water management between the government and residents alike (Gupta et al., 2010). The study collected data through an intensive interview process (inspiring my own survey-based responses) with nineteen stakeholders involved in the local water management of the municipalities’. A scoring system, where different scores were assigned to criteria based on information in the interviews, defined the data analysis process (Gupta et al., 2010). This system clarified the underlying arguments that formed the basis of the article, thoroughly discussing the capacity of adaptation of the institutions, though limited in scope. As the data was collected, the conductors of the study began an interpretation process where they construed the scores on criteria in the context of both specific municipalities (Gupta et al., 2010). The study used traffic light colours to communicate the data to relevant policymakers and to discuss and test the results; a technique Gupta et al. (2010) have applied in an assessment of the formal Dutch institutions’ ability to magnify and build upon the adaptive capacity of society (this specifically applies to their governmental policies and regulations). The study honed in on policies that specifically address or were believed to be relevant to climate change adaptation; and held a narrow focus on four sectors: nature, water, agriculture and spatial planning. Gupta et al. (2010) continues collecting data on each criterion by thoroughly reading through relevant policy documents and conducting a content analysis. In the analysis of this data, in order to avoid any bias from those closest to the study, the content analysis was double checked in three separate rounds by three different researchers; first independently, then together (Gupta et al., 2010). Records were kept on why criteria was scored a certain way in order to clarify future arguments; these scores were assigned, then tallied to arrive at a single value for each institution. Interpretation consisted of comparing scores of said institutions to evaluate relative capacity of adaptation. The ACW has, by merit of the aforementioned study, become a crucial and integral part of the
55
process for my own work, and even my initial interest in this topic, and has been very relevant as a comparison for adaptive capacity in an Irish context. The shaping and honing of the interview process takes much deliberation, and that can clearly be seen in Pittman et al., (2015)’s climate change study conducted in a Caribbean coastal-marine context. The methodology behind the study is qualitative and case-study based, an approach used to examine the complexity of the relationships between climate change government and institutional adaptive capacity. Data was collected using thirty-six semi-structured interviews with essential informants involved with coastal-marine governance, conducted during July and August of 2012 over five weeks of intensive field work (Pittman et al., 2015). These interviews were conducted over 30-90 minutes and usually took place in the respective respondents’ office. The procedure includes more input than Gupta et al. (2010), in that interviews were more extensive and far-reaching, yet less focused in their purpose. Respondents for this study were selected using the ‘snowball sampling technique’: each respondent was asked to provide contact information of other potential respondents for use within the study (Pittman et al., 2015). This technique was used multiple times to reduce any bias in the final sample, and initial respondents were chosen through interaction with local experts on the research team during field work, or through review of ‘grey literature and online materials’ (Pittman et al., 2015). Pittman et al. (2015)’s interview guide consisted of open-ended questions that were used as a guide or framework for my own surveys; that is, the open-ended aspect allows participants to provide information of their own volition, instead of being led by the questions. These were intended to deal with the main factors in relation to ‘institutional adaptive capacity, institutional variety, nesting and networks, analytic deliberation, and gather information related to governance fit’ (Pittman et al., 2015). A similar study to the aforementioned Caribbean-contextualised article is one focused on the environmental aspects of Cameroon, focusing not only on adaptive capacity but on overall climate change response as well (Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010). The conductors of this study argue that this focus stems from the fact that the Congo Basin Forest in the Republic of Cameroon is an essential part of the country’s economy and
56
livelihood for the local population; an area that has been historically exploited (Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010). Of course, this means that there are many different levels of institutions that could have contributed to this study; in an effort to make the results more concise, Brown, H.C.P. et al. (2010) focused on formal institutions at the national, regional, and international level because of ‘their decision-making role in climate change or forest issues or because of the impact climate change might have on them in the future’. Various government ministries and institutions were represented within the private sector and civil society; these included a wide variety of non-governmental organisations and practitioners awaiting certification for sustainable forest management. This wide scope of representation was found necessary due to the unique and varied geographical and political landscape of the Congo Basic Forest (Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010). Of course, this does not accurately represent the scale at which I have organised my own survey of Ireland, but can be encouraged during later and more thorough versions of this study. Much like Pittman et al. (2015)’s study, Brown, H.C.P. et al. (2010) used twenty-seven semi-structured, open-ended interviews, conducted during September and October of 2008. The use of this structure was justified due to the broad range of participants, allowing the interviewer to use a guide of similar questions with all representatives, but with the added ‘flexibility needed to pursue further questioning in order to elucidate the subject’ (Patton, 2002). This method, while comprehensive, is not an option on a smaller scale, as time constraints would make conducting intensive interviews as an individual very difficult. However, Patton (2002) makes an excellent point that could be pursued in later developments, and that was executed concisely in Brown, H.C.P. et al. (2010)’s process. The data collected from interviews was supplemented with ‘relevant documents, strategies, press releases and government statements related to the key themes’ (Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010). This is a strategy employed, to a lesser degree, in my own research. The previous study attempted to explore institutional strategic priorities related to climate change and any perceptions of Cameroon’s capacity to adapt at the final stage.
57
Example Studies It is only in the past few years that many countries and the government agencies among them have begun to proactively engage with the scientific literature revolving around climate change and the consequences this may have for us. This is certainly an encouraging development, a sign that this research is now part of an in-demand, emerging field of study; and highlighting the absolute necessity of drafting cohesive, diligent provisions for adapting to the phenomenon that is climate change. The County and City Managers Association (CCMA) have very clearly recognised the need for climate change response, and the key role local authorities play in implementing this. Fulfilling that role requires a certain amount of adaptation to be embedded in key functions such as the ‘planning process, the provision of local infrastructure, the implementation of building control and the co-ordination of emergency planning’ (NCCAF, 2012). Actions already taken by local authorities such as the Climate Change Strategy for Dublin City 2008-2012 produced by Dublin City Council serve as further evidence of the growing field (NCCAF, 2012). Serving to build on the encouraging steps of others, this particular Adaptation Framework aims to bring a ‘consistent and coherent approach to adaptation planning at a local level’ (NCCAF, 2012), a precedent that surely led to more recent examples. These include the Mayo County Development Plan 20142020 and Galway County Development Plan 2015-2021, among others, both with focus on adaptive capacity and environmental concerns (NCCAF, 2012). The need for local authority is clearly outlined in the NCCAF (2012), seemingly existing as the catalyst for further research into the value and execution of adaptive capacity. Not all examples are positive ones, however. Bettini et al., (2015) explored water governance adaptation in Australia, with particular reference to Perth and Adelaide, and found less than favorable results. Perth, for example, was dominated by ‘maintenance dynamic’, due in part to the prescriptive governance setting. This segregated water management responsibilities and the main performance management mechanism became regulation, leading to no allowance for cross sectional benefit (Bettini et al., 2015). The influence this has is extensive. The maintaining of resilience throughout the drought in Perth would have benefitted from the use of more integrated capacity, if only to find an approach that did not rob drinking water from their future selves by extracting 58
groundwater at a higher rate than natural recharge (Bettini et al., 2015). Therefore, the case analysis conducted by Bettini et al., (2015) displayed ‘an institutional setting displaying cognitive, normative, and regulative maintaining mechanisms, locking the city into traditional practice by confining the urban water sector to its current configuration.’ In contrast, the study reports that the impression of Adelaide’s institutional dynamics is chiefly creative and disrupting, typically less traditional than Perth’s system (Bettini et al., 2015). Fewer maintenance of beliefs and traditional professional practices exist, and this seems to have been outweighed by other influences on beliefs and cognitive frames, as well as creative inter/intra-organizational relationships. Pittman et al. (2015), while existing as a valid framework for methods for similar studies, also serves as a valid example. With in-depth institutional capacity study, consideration and inclusion of marine to terrestrial zone fragmentation, and socioenvironmental local authority implementation recommendations; the above study paints a very similar picture to the obstacles Ireland is currently attempting to alleviate. Continuing on that train of thought brings us to the (BBCZMG), a local voluntary initiative set up in Bannow Bay, Co. Waterford on Ireland’s south east coast in 1996 (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This group formed on the basis of encouragement and assistance in regards to a coastal management plan being developed due to local concerns about growing pressures and sub-par management of the Bay (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This group formed on the basis of encouragement and assistance in regards to a coastal management plan being developed due o local concerns about growing pressures and sub-par management of the Bay (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Preceeding this, a report was produced to assist with the formation of a ‘future use strategy’ in the Management Group (Behan & O’Malley, 1999). The Management Group, comprised of representatives from voluntary, social and community groups, as well as representatives from governing bodies, was, following a series of public meetings, urged to form (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). However, integration was not something these representatives intended to do; they preferred to work independently of one another, and so the public did not feel a sense of responsibility towards their own environment (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This undermined the overall plan of the BBCZMG, and
59
while this particular scheme was a failure, it exists as an example of the first steps towards culpability and organisation, and encourages future studies and potential attempts. Finally, the ACW acts as a framework and the basis of this study, and so it would be remiss not to mention the relevance of the research as an example of mapping capacity. Used to assess the performance of institutions in two Dutch municipalities, specifically the shared responsibility of rainfall/ground water management, the ACW is a long term scheme for adaptive change (Gupta et al., 2010). The authors of the study examined the institutions’ ability and proficiency in regards to adaptive capacity; this was mainly concerned with ‘the division of municipal and individual responsibility in local water management’ (Gupta et al., 2010). The study applied the ACW in an assessment of Dutch governmental policies and regulations, and the ability to enhance the overall capacity of society (Gupta et al., 2010), inarguably a loft goal. The study honed in on policies that specifically address climate change adaptation, as well as four sectors (see Mapping Capacity Methods), and demonstrate a range of adjustment across said sectors. This analysis demonstrates that there might exist a tension with regulating responsibilities between participants and ‘adopting a multi-level, collaborative management approach’ (Gupta et al., 2010). The assessment of these institutions in the Dutch municipalities and the assessment national institutions are ‘qualitative in the sense that researchers interpret data (interviews and policy documents) to ‘score’ criteria’ (Gupta et al., 2010); this is a comprehensive technique due to its allowance of further explanation by the researchers, and a policy analysis presented quantitatively by comparison. As a case study, the research implies a distinction between adaptive capacity in nature, and water, for example, where the institutions scored better (Gupta et al., 2010), and encourages the use of certain strategies to amplify change and cooperation.
60
Research Design, Methodology and Analysis: Research Design This project was designed around the application of the ACW to assist in identifying and mapping of institutional capacities, in an Irish context. The overall research design is primarily based of the initial process of Gupta et al., (2010) with influences of Grothmann et al., (2013) in relation to administration in a specific context. The individual respondents were chosen by judgment of experience and particular relevance to the topic of climate change, from institutions among the 32 counties within Ireland; including CODEMA (City of Dublin Energy Management Agency). Methodology As a new addition to the current research, I have attempted to standarise the questions types with score values from Figure 20. The standarisation criteria of the questions are as follows: yes/no questions were assigned the values of 2 and -2 respectively; gauged questions (e.g. pick from 1-5) were assigned in a linear fashion with 1 being assigned the value of -2, 2 = -1, 3 = 0, 4 = 1, and 5 = 2; multiple choice questions, where one option is most representative, are assigned -1 for the least positive option and 1 for the most positive, while either choice in between are given values of 0; multiple choice questions were more than one option exists, are assigned a value of 2 if one or more options are marked, a value of 1 if at least one option is marked, and a value of 0 if simply none are marked or the option (none of these) is marked; a value of zero for any unanswered questions; any other questions were used for context. The methodologies of the thesis are primarily derived from the research protocols of Gupta et al., (2010, 465-466), with five established steps tailored with specific context include: 1. Preparation for the research: this mainly consisted of the identification of institutional individuals within each of Ireland’s counties. This was accomplished through correspondence with relevant professionals with experience in climate change, to better determine relevant respondents. 2. Collecting the data: the creation and application of questionnaires was, essentially ground-up, customising 36 questions that reflected the 22
61
criteria and subsequent 6 main dimensions of the ACW. The questions went through a review of two pilot studies and multiple revisions to limit leading questions, implied perceptions, and bias; this coupled with a varied structure allowed for a fundamentally neutral response. 3. Analyzing the data: consists of the discussion and recording of the differences in opinion, if any, on a specific criterion. This helps to explain why certain values were assigned to specific institutional criteria and fosters transparency. This section reflects the additional research in standardising question types with scores, put forth by myself. Respondents were placed under generic descriptor of their institutional area (e.g. coastal/urban) to preserve the anonymity of particular individuals. Subsequent rounds of review were completed by a singular examiner, due to time and personnel constraints, which may lead to limitations within this particular study. 4. Interpreting the data: includes the development story that helps explain the specific strengths or weaknesses within an institution. The ‘scores’ are interpreted in order to understand their meaning in context. For example, what does a ‘+1’ score on entrepreneurial leadership mean for a particular institution. 5. Presenting the data: primarily the presentation of resulting scores using a communicative colour scheme (traffic: red, yellow, green), that allow for simplified understanding within the examples in the thesis. Analysis Respondent questionnaires were ‘graded’ on a five-level scale, interpretative institutional scale
62
Figure 20: seen above, scoring rubric as outlined by Gupta et al., 2010.
(e.g. negative = -2, slightly negative = -1, no effect = 0, slightly positive = 1, and positive = 2), adopted from Gupta et al., (2010) (Figure 20); with a more intuitive variation of labeling (e.g. very low = -2, low = -1, medium = 0, high = 1, and very high = 2), adopted from Grothmann et al., (2013, 11). Site specific weights were not applied in an attempt to limit bias and offset innate limitations, in regards to the singular examiner rounds of review from time and personnel constraints. A mixture of yes/no, multiple choice, gauged questions (e.g. pick from 1-5), one or the other, and variations of semi-open-ended questions, were used to limit survey fatigue and facilitate explanation without excessive interpretation. Averaging and using the scores of each criterion, dividing by the number or criterion per dimension, and then dividing by the number of criterion per dimension, the scores are able be aggregated for the 6 dimensions and overall capacity (Gupta et al., 2010). This provides an aggregated score that, while simpler to explain under current time constraints, doesn’t allow for certain intricacies in interpretation.
63
Results: Seven responses were collected out of the initial 33 that were distributed after initial, follow-up, and reminder correspondence rotations. Through the use of an anonymity identifier used at the beginning of the questionnaire (Appendix B), respondents were categorised as follows: one inland/urban/rural, one inland/rural, three coastal/rural, and two urban/rural. Out of the seven institutional respondents, five were aggregately graded at .01 to 1.0, meaning a slightly positive effect or high value. Two outliers were identified, with one at (-.3) offering a slightly negative effect (-.01 to -1) or low value; and the other response graded at (1.2) offering a postitive effect (1.01 to 2.0) or very high value.
Discussion: Current literature is largely pessimistic in the field of adaptive capacity, to the point that it was not unusual to enter this study with negative expectations. In regards to the seven respondents, the participants that resulted in a seemingly average range (5) came as a surprise. While only 7 out of 33 institutions were included in the assessment of this research, I believe in constitutes a solid and refreshing start for future research. Through careful scrutiny of the questionnaires, certain parallels were distinguished. Two key similarities were found: a majority of the institutions claim to be influenced by the Climate Change and Low Carbon Development Act of 2015, and there is clear acknowledgement of the extreme lack of funding that, while several of the ACW dimensions reflected this, was most often seen in the Authority Resources criterion. Only two of the respondents reported any type of emergency action plans, and one institution even cut the pay of employees who demonstrated sub-par execution in over 3 different performance reviews. While the negatives of institutional capacity were abundant, so too were the positives. Two of the questioned institutions reported that a continuous professional development programme is currently in use to keep track of the most recent literature; one of these institutions even goes so far as to have a certain percentage of their 64
personnel partake in EPA training. Social equity programmes and policy seem to be on the rise, as opposed to the current outlook in some of the more prevalent research, and all respondents state that a trend of increased environmental awareness is evident in their peers and institutional norms. One of the respondents confessed that their institutional area has little to no input on climate change adaptation or implementation, a statement I find astonishing. This clearly points to the necessary formulation of explicit and comprehensive adaptive policy, if only to designate authority to specific institutions. Despite this, the outlook, even from a relatively small pool of information, is a better than expected. However, if extrapolated across the entirety of county institutions in Ireland, the aggregates would most likely reflect the exact opposite.
65
Conclusion: Climate change, while not a new discussion within the scientific community, is certainly an evolving one. As evidence by the previous discussion and evaluation of relevant research, the climate change conversation has largely been one of general effects and overall impact. Now, as this conversation narrows and the implications become clear, both in terms of adaptive capacity and the policies and institutions that accompany it, it is time to view climate change within varying contexts. In conclusion, the focus of climate change adaptation within Ireland and the Irish government attempts to examine the efforts currently being made within these governing bodies. It is very clear that many underlying factors affect the capacity and immediacy with which any institution may put adaptation policies into action. This being said, those localities where adaptive capacity policy is put into place demonstrate the necessity of doing so elsewhere, as well as the research needed to further understand the best method of implementation and strategy. Those institutions that fail to plan environmental, political, and social changes will most certainly hinder Ireland’s capacities to adapt to climate change, and this is something researchers hope to avoid. But exploring the most effective systems, paired with empirical evidence on the consequences of increasing vulnerability and decreasing resistance, it is the hope that future institutions and their governing bodies will choose to initiate proactive policy changes. Throughout the body of this thesis, the perception of local authority and institutional members on their own ability to adapt to climate change was consistently brought into question; both in review of previous literature and the resulting study. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) (Gupta et al., 2010) was essential to the development of the following findings. While the relatively small pool of respondents may lead to the assumption that there is a positive capacity to adapt to climate change in Ireland, the context of previous literature and personal accounts from respondents would lead me to believe otherwise. Further research and more time would contribute to the testing of this hypothesis, and to better compare the wide range of institutions across Ireland in a more in-depth and intensive way. Collaboration amongst fellow researchers would improve upon the results 66
of this study, much like communication between the governing bodies of climate change adaptation would improve future policy.
67
Bibliography: Adger, W.N., 2000. Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under transition in Vietnam. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90 (4), 738 758.
Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281.
Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., Naess, L. O., Wolf, J., Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93, 335–354.
Adger, W. N., et al., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity, in: Climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., Hanson, C. E., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp717–743.
Ballinger, R. Cardiff University., 2008. Report: Spatial Planning and ICZM in North West Europe, Corepoint Project.
Barton, J. R., 2013. Climate Change Adaptive Capacity in Santiago de Chile: Creating a Governance Regime for Sustainability Planning. Int J Urban Reg Res International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), 1916-1933. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12033
Behan A, O’Malley M., 1999. Towards a vision for Bannow Bay. Cork, Ireland.
Bettini, Y., Brown, R. R., & Haan, F. J., 2015. Exploring institutional adaptive capacity in practice: Examining water governance adaptation in Australia. Ecology and Society E&S, 20(1). doi:10.5751/es-07291-200147
Birkmann, J. von Teichman, K., 2009. Addressing the Challenge: Recommendations and Quality Criteria for Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change. Bonn., DKKV Publication Series 38.
68
Boyer-Villemaire, U. et al., 2014. Quantifying community's functional awareness of coastal changes and hazards from citizen perception analysis in Canada, UK and Spain. Ocean & Coastal Management, 93, pp.106–120.
Brown, H. C., 2009. Climate change and Ontario forests: Prospects for building institutional adaptive capacity. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 14(6), 513-536. doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9183-8.
Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010. Institutional adaptive capacity and climate change response in the Congo Basin forests of Cameroon. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(3), pp.263–282.
Carter, R.W.G., 1991. Climate Change: Studies on the Implications for Ireland. Dublin, Ireland: Department of the Environment, pp. 125–171.
Carter, R.W.G., 1991a. Sea-level changes. In: Climate Change: Studies on the Implications for Ireland. Mcwilliams, B.E., Dublin, Ireland: Department of the Environment, pp. 125– 171.
Carter, R.W.G., 1991b. Shifting Sands: A Study of the Northern Ireland Coast from Magilligan to Larne. Belfast, United Kingdom: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
Carter, R.W.G.; Mckenna, J.; Orford, J.D., and Devoy, R.J.N., 1993. The Irish Sea coast of Ireland: a brief review of coastal processes, erosion and management. In: The Irish Sea Forum Staff, The Irish Sea. Liverpool, United Kingdom: Liverpool University Press, pp. 3–23.
CapHaz-Net, November 2007. Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards, Tapsell, S., McCarthy, S., Faulkner, H., & Alexander, M., Flood Hazard Research Centre (FHRC), Middlesex University, pp. 3-92.
Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015. Government Publications, Published by the Stationary Office, Dublin.
Coco, G., 2014. Beach response to a sequence of extreme storms. Geomorphology, 204, pp.493– 501. 69
Commission of the European Communities Staff, 1992. Towards Sustainability: A European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the Environment and Sustainable Development. COM, 92, Volume 2. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.
Commission of the European Communities., 2009. Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European Framework for Action. Climate Change and Water, Coasts and Marine Issues, Commission Staff Working Document.
Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, L.W., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84 (2). 242–261.
Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J.T. Scott, M.S., 2000. Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of American Geographers. 90 (4). 713-737.
Department of the Environment and Coastal Government, May 2001. Coastal Zone Management, Spatial Planning Unit, pp. 5-66.
Devoy, R.J.N., 2000. Implications of accelerated sea-level rise for Ireland. In: European Vulnerability and Adaptation to Impacts of Accelerated Sea-Level Rise. De Le VegaLeinert, A.C., Nicholls, R.J., and Tol, R.S.J., Proceedings of SURVAS Expert Workshop, ZMK, University of Hamburg. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University, United Kingdom, pp. 33–46.
Devoy, R.J.N., 2008. Coastal Vulnerability and the Implications of Sea-Level Rise for Ireland. Journal of Coastal Research, 242, pp.325–341.
Devoy, R.J.N.; Lozano, I.; Hickey, K.; Chaoimh, U., Tobin, D., 2000. Final report of the work undertaken by the Coastal Resources Centre, University College Cork. In: Storminess and Environmentally Sensitive Atlantic Coastal Areas of the European Union. Smith, D., Commission of the European Communities, Research Contract Publication, Contract ENV4-CT97–0488. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of European Communities, 320p.
Dunning, M.C., 2009. Social Vulnerability Analysis Methods for Corps Planning. Draft report, conducted 29 October, 2009. 70
Falaleeva, M. et al., 2008. Coastal Climate Adaptation in Ireland: Assessing current conditions and enhancing the capacity for climate resilience in local coastal management. EPA Climate Change Research Programme 2007–2013, pp.1-98
Falaleeva, M. et al., 2011. Towards climate adaptation and coastal governance in Ireland: Integrated architecture for effective management? Marine Policy, 35(6), pp.784–793.
Farrell, G. J., 2007. Ireland at Risk. The Irish Academy of Engineering, 7-35. doi:1898012-93-8
Fealy, R., J. Sweeney., 2007. Climate Scenarios for Ireland, International Journal of Climatology. Published online: 29 May 2007, DOI:10.1002/joc.1506, In: Climate Change: Refining the Impacts, Sweeney, J. et al. (ed), Environmental Protection Agency, Ireland, Government Publications, in press.
Few, R., Brown, K. & Tompkins, E.L., 2007. Climate Change and Coastal Management Decisions: Insights from Christchurch Bay, UK. Coastal Management, 35(2-3), pp.255– 270.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, J. Norberg, 2005. Adaptive governance of social– ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. Doi: 30.050504.144511
Füssel, H.-M., R.J.T. Klein, 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75, 301-329.
Galderisi, A., Ceudech, A., Ferrara, F. F., Profice, A. S., 2010. Integration of different vulnerabilities vs. natural and Na-tech hazards. Deliverable 2.2., ENSURE Project.
Government Publications Office, 1993. National development plan for Ireland 1994–99. Dublin: Government Publications Office.
Gray, S., 2012. Local Authority Adaptation Strategy Development Guideline. EPA Climate Change Research Programme 2014-2020, University College Cork, pp. 1-48
71
Grothmann, T., Daschkeit, A., Felgentreff, C., Görg, C., Horstmann, B., Scholz, I., Tekken, V., 2011. Anpassung an den Klimawandel – Potenziale sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung in Deutschland. GAIA, vol20, pp84–90.
Grothmann, T., Grecksch, K., Winges, M., & Siebenhüner, B., 2013. Assessing institutional capacities to adapt to climate change: Integrating psychological dimensions in the Adaptive Capacity Wheel. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Natural Hazards and Earth System Science, 13(12), 3369-3384. doi:10.5194/nhess-13-3369-2013
Grothmann, T., & Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15(3), 199213. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002.
Gunderson, L., 2008. Adaptive Management and Integrative Assessments. Encyclopedia of Ecology, pp.55–59.
Gunderson, L. H., C. C. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations In Human and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.
Gupta, J. et al., 2010. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13(6), pp.459–471.
Harbours Acts. 1946–1996. Government of Ireland, Dublin.
IDGEC Scientific Planning Committee, 1999. Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change. Bonn., IHDP Report No. 9.
Inderberg, T. H., 2011. Institutional constraints to adaptive capacity: Adaptability to climate change in the Norwegian electricity sector. Local Environment, 16(4), 303-317. doi:10.1080/13549839.2011.569538
Innovative Management for Europe’s Changing Coastal Resource (IMCORE), September 2011. Guide for the Development of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies: A Guide to the methodology used for the IMCORE Pilot Areas in NW Europe, pp. 2-24 72
IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 976.
Jeffers, J. M,, 2011. The Cork City flood of November 2009: lessons for flood risk management and climate change adaptation at the urban scale. Irish Geography, 44(1 pp 61–80.
Jeffers, J.M., 2013. Double exposures and decision making: adaptation policy and planning in Ireland’s coastal cities during a boom–bust cycle. Environ. Plann. A Environment and Planning A, 45(6), pp.1436–1454.
Kay R, Alder J., 1999. Coastal planning and management. London: E and FN Spon.
Kelley, J.T. et al., 2006. Sea-level change and inner shelf stratigraphy off Northern Ireland. Marine Geology, 232(1-2), pp.1–15.
Klein, R., 2003. Environmental Vulnerability Assessment, Pottsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
Klein, R.T., Nicholls, R.J., 1999. Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change. Ambio, 28(2), 182–187.
Klein, R., R. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, J. Aston, E. Buckley, 2001. Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. Journal of coastal Research 17:531– 543.
Klijn, E.H., Koppenjan, J.F.M., 2006. Governing policy networks: a network perspective on decision making in network society. In: Handbook of Decision-Making. Morcol, G., CRC Press, New York, pp. 169–187.
Kopke, K., & O'mahony, C., 2011. Preparedness of key coastal and marine sectors in Ireland to adapt to climate change. Marine Policy, 35(6), 800-809. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.008 73
Lambeck, K., 1993. Glacial rebound of the British Isles-II. A high-resolution, highprecision model. Geophysical Journal International, 115(3), pp.960–990.
Lambeck, K., 1996. Glaciation and sea-level change for Ireland and the Irish Sea since Late Devensian/Midlandian time. Journal of the Geological Society, 153(6), pp.853–872.
Leonard, L., K. Dixon, O. Pilkey, 1990. A comparison of beach replenishment on the U.S. Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue(6): 127-140.
Lynch, Kevin., 2016. Climate Change Adaptation —Planning For The Soft Coast. [Presentation.] School of Geography and Archaeology. [Accessed 2 August, 2016.]
Marine Law and Ocean Policy Centre. Feb 2006 [Revised April 2007]. EU Legislation and Policies with Implications for Coastal Management, Corepoint Project. Opinion of the CPMR Political Bureau. June 2011. From Land to Sea, for a consistent, flexible and simple European Approach to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and Integrated Coastal Zone Management(ICZM). pp.1-4
Marine Scotland, March 2015. Scotland’s National Marine Plan: A Single Framework for Managing Our Seas, The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, pp. 8-144.
Martin, B.S., 1997. Coastal Zone Management—A Draft Policy for Ireland. Main Report, Government of Ireland, Dublin.
Mayer, A., 1995. Comparative study of the coastal vegetation of Sardinia (Italy) and Crete (Greece) with respect to the effects of human influence, In: Libri Botanici, IHW-Verlag, p15.
Metcalf, G., F. Chambers, A. Charlesworth, V. Forrest, J. Hunt, L. McEwen, K. Russell, S. Schofield, 2003. Warming to the idea: technical report. South West Region Climate Change Impacts Scoping Study, received from http://www.oursouthwest.com/climate/scopingstudy.htm
Met Éireann, 2014. Winter 2013/2014 Report, The Irish Meteorological Service, pp. 1-5. 74
Moser, S. C., & Ekstrom, J. A., 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(51), 22026-22031. doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107
National Climate Change Adaptation Framework: Building Resilience to Climate Change. Dec 2012. Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government.
National Coastal Erosion Committee Staff, 1992. Coastal Management: A Case for Action, Volumes 1 and 2. Dublin, Ireland: EOLAS, 30p and 87p.
O'Hagan, A., Cooper, J.A., 2001. Extant Legal and Jurisdictional Constraints on Irish Coastal Management. Coastal Management, 29(2), pp.73–90.
O’Hagan, A., & Ballinger, R., 2010. Implementing Integrated Coastal Zone Management in a national policy vacuum: Local case studies from Ireland. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53(12), 750-759. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.014
O’Hagan, A. & Lewis, A., 2011. The existing law and policy framework for ocean energy development in Ireland. Marine Policy, 35(6), pp.772–783.
Orford, J.D., Murdy, J. & Freel, R., 2006. Developing constraints on the relative sea-level curve for the northeast of Ireland from the mid-Holocene to the present day. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 364(1841), pp.857–866.
Parker, D. Tapsell, S. et al., 2009. Relations between different types of social and economic vulnerability. Deliverable 2.1, Final draft report submitted to EU project ‘Enhancing resilience of communities and territories facing natural and na-tech hazards’ (ENSURE).
Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Pelling, M., 2003. The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience. Earthscan: London, England. 75
Pethick, J., 1993. Shoreline adjustment and coastal management: physical and biological processes under accelerated sea-level rise. Geographical Journal, 159, 162–168.
Pittman, J., Armitage, D., Alexander, S., Campbell, D., & Alleyne, M., 2015. Governance fit for climate change in a Caribbean coastal-marine context. Marine Policy, 51, 486-498. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.08.009 .
Renn, O., 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan, London, England.
Scott, M., 2004. Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1), pp.49–59.
Slovic, P., 1988. Risk Perception. Carcinogen Risk Assessment, pp.171–181.
Stamski, R., 2005. The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California’s Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-05-3, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine Sanctuaries Division, Silver Spring, MD. pp. 5-26.
Sweeney, J. 2000. A three-century storm climatology of Dublin. Irish Geography, 33, 1–14.
Tierney, J., 2003. Process: how the system operates, In: Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out. Callanan, M., Keogan, J. F., Institute of Public Administration, Dublin, pp 143–164.
Tribbia J., Moser S.C., 2008. More than information: What coastal managers need to plan for climate change. Environmental Science Policy, 11, 315–328.
Turner II, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L., Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A., Schiller, A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science. PNAS, 100 (14): 8074-8079.
76
UK Climate Impacts Programme, April 2007. Identifying Adaptation Options, pp. 1-34
Upton, C., 2012. Adaptive capacity and institutional evolution in contemporary pastoral societies. Applied Geography, 33, 135-141. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.008
Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9 (2), pp5.
Wang, P., Kirby, J.H., Haber, J.D., Horwitz, M.H., Knorr, P.O., Krock, J.R., 2006. Morphological and sedimentological impacts of hurricane Ivan and immediate post-storm beach recovery along the Northwestern Florida barrier-island coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, 6, 1382–1402.
Wheeler, D., 2011. Quantifying Vulnerability to Climate Change: Implications for Adaptation Assistance. SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal. Doi:10.2139/ssrn.182461.
Wilbanks, T. 2002. Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessments of climate change. Integrated Assessment, 3, pp100–114.
Wilbanks, T., R. Kates. 1999. Global change in local places: how scale matters. Climatic Change, 43, 601–628.
Williams, A. et al., 2001. Integrated coastal dune management: checklists. Continental Shelf Research, 21(18-19), pp.1937–1960.
Zhang, K., Douglas, B.C., Leatherman, S.P., 2002. Do storms cause long-term beach erosion along the US East Barrier Coast? Geology, 110, 493–502.
77
Appendix A:
Appendix A: seen above, a completed ACW example of a coastal/rural respondent during this study.
78
Appendix B: Adaptive Capacity Questionnaire created for this thesis research: Englert J, 2016
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
