Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England

ENVSCI-1268; No. of Pages 12

Embedding climate change adaptation inbiodiversity conservation: A case study of England

Sarah Burch a,*, Pam Berry b, Michele Sanders c

aDepartment of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Waterloo, 200 University Avenue West,

Waterloo, ON N2L 3G1, CanadabEnvironmental Change Institute, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX13QY, UKcZoology Department, University of Oxford, Tinbergen Building, South Parks Road, OX1 3PS, UK

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) x x x – x x x

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 1 June 2012

Received in revised form

2 July 2013

Accepted 25 August 2013

Available online xxx

Keywords:

Climate change

Adaptation

Biodiversity

Mainstreaming

Barriers

a b s t r a c t

While mitigation has been the dominant policy response to climate change in the global

community, practitioners and scholars have argued that significant climate change will

occur even in the event of dramatic emissions reductions in the near term, thus adaptation

is vital to address these impacts and to maintain or restore ecosystem resilience to multiple

stresses. Increasingly the need to mainstream this adaptation into development planning,

sectoral decision-making and policy making is being recognised. This paper explores the

challenges faced in trying to mainstream climate change adaptation policy in the context of

other priorities, specifically biodiversity conservation. By investigating the case study of

recent efforts by Defra and the England Biodiversity Group to embed climate change

adaptation principles into their biodiversity conservation work and the insights gained

into the barriers faced, we propose specific strategies that may be employed to overcome

these barriers and speculate about the transferability of the lessons into other policy

contexts. Key barriers include uncertainty about the future of funding and climate change

as a policy priority, organisational silos leading to insufficient communication of the

relevance of adaptation to conservation, and legacy of policies that deliver sub-optimal

outcomes in the event of a changing climate. Ecosystem-based climate change adaptation

and mitigation may serve to overcome some of these barriers by delivering on multiple

priorities simultaneously, and embedding adaptation in job descriptions/standard operat-

ing procedures may help to build new modes of practice.

# 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

1. Introduction

Both adaptation and mitigation are considered necessary to

reduce the impacts of projected climate change on human and

natural systems. Since mitigation addresses the causes and

adaptation seeks to protect against the effects of climate

change, these two types of responses are often viewed as

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 519 888 4567x31932.E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]

[email protected] (M. Sanders).

Please cite this article in press as: Burch, S. et al., Embedding climate chaEnviron. Sci. Policy (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reservedhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

complementary (Mata and Budhooram, 2007; Yohe and

Strzepek, 2007). Significant impacts of climate change on

biodiversity have been observed already (Mitchell et al., 2007;

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009) and

future potential changes in climate will adversely affect

species and habitats (Maclean and Wilson, 2011; Pereira

et al., 2010). It is now widely recognised that climate change

will occur even if global emissions are dramatically reduced in

(S. Burch), [email protected] (P. Berry),

nge adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England,

.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

mailto:[email protected]





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/14629011


e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) x x x – x x x2


the near term (Biesbroek et al., 2010; CEC, 2009), thus

adaptation is vital to address these impacts and to maintain

or restore ecosystem resilience to multiple stresses (Conven-

tion on Biological Diversity, 2005).

Increasingly the need to mainstream this adaptation into

development planning, sectoral decision-making and policy

making is being recognised (Klein et al., 2007). Mainstreaming

can be defined as a ‘‘means to integrating climate concerns

and adaptation responses into relevant policies, plans,

programmes, and projects at the national, sub-national, and

local scales.’’ (USAID, 2009, p. 47). This needs to be undertaken

for key sectors (Olhoff and Schaer, 2010) and in the EU,

following the publication of the White Paper, ‘Adapting to

climate change: Towards a European framework for action’

(CEC, 2009), there is an emphasis on mainstreaming adapta-

tion measures into EU sectoral policies, including agriculture,

forestry, health, biodiversity, ecosystems and water. This

commitment to mainstream adaptation into EU policies and

programmes has been reaffirmed in the EU Strategy on

adaptation to climate change (CEC, 2013), which points out

that adaptation is now mainstreamed into legislation (e.g.

marine and transport), with further legislative mainstreaming

planned for sectors including agriculture, forestry, health and

environment. This mainstreaming can increase the effective-

ness of climate policy, but for it to be successful it will require

operationalisation at a practical level (Kok and de Coninck,

2007). While there are examples of successful integration,

particularly of climate change, much still needs to be done to

embed adaptation into practice.

In the case of biodiversity, this embedding of adaptation

into conservation policy and practice presents both opportu-

nities and challenges. There are a number of adaptation

options for biodiversity and possibilities to address both

mitigation and adaptation through ecosystem-based adapta-

tion (Vignola et al., 2009), thus achieving win–win–

win situations (Paterson et al., 2008; Secretariat of the

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). Examples include

the creation of wetlands to filter storm water or address rising

sea levels, while also serving as critical habitats and

sequestering carbon. Often, however, there are challenges

to implementing these and to embedding adaptation into

established practice and policy priorities. Often these barriers

are not technical or economic in origin, but rather represent

powerful sources of path dependency, or inertia, that reinforce

customary institutional and individual behaviours (Burch,

2010a, b; Pierson, 2000). In other contexts, examples of barriers

have included isolated organisational units, antagonistic

organisational ethos, outdated or restrictive policy and

regulatory tools, limited or conflicting jurisdictions, and a

host of others (Burch, 2010a, b; Swart and Raes, 2007). These

barriers may interact with and reinforce one another:

ecosystem-based adaptation, for instance, requires a particu-

lar variety of technical and cross-sector knowledge, the

collaboration of a wide range of practitioners and stake-

holders, and potentially longer-term definitions of returns on

investment.

This paper explores the challenges faced in trying to

mainstream climate change adaptation policy in the context

of other priorities. We then present the case study of recent

efforts by the United Kingdom’s Department of Environment,


Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the England Biodiversity

Group to embed climate change adaptation principles into

their biodiversity conservation work, the insights gained into

the barriers faced, specific strategies that may be employed to

overcome them and the transferability of the lessons into

other policy contexts.

2. Embedding climate change adaptation inbiodiversity work

2.1. Mainstreaming climate change

A number of guidance documents have been developed on

measures to support the integration of climate change

adaptation into biodiversity planning by governmental envi-

ronment agencies (e.g. Vonk et al., 2010), non-governmental

biodiversity conservation organisations (RSPB, 2007) and

multilateral environmental agreements, including the Con-

vention on Biological Diversity (Secretariat of the Convention

on Biological Diversity, 2009) and Ramsar (e.g. Ramsar

Resolution VIII.3, 2002). The European Commission has also

recognised the importance of adaptation and in addition to the

White Paper it has stated the need for Member State action on

developing Adaptation Strategies. It has also stressed the

importance of an ‘‘integrated impact assessment approach

and a comprehensive adaptation strategy at the EU level by

2013’’ (Biesbroek et al., 2010). While some member states are

actively seeking to mainstream climate change, others are at

an earlier stage and often barriers are encountered, both at the

national and more local level. These barriers relate both to the

initial development of climate change policy, as well as the

integration of this policy with other environmental, social, and

economic priorities. The section that follows will address

these barriers in greater detail.

2.2. Barriers to climate change policy development

The disciplines of social psychology and political science have

given rise to important insights into the human context within

which climate change and biodiversity policy grow and are put

into practice. The ‘new institutionalism’ in political science,

for instance, offers an interpretation of politics and gover-

nance that highlights the influence of habits and norms on the

logic of action and individual (and ultimately institutional)

behaviour (March and Olsen, 2006; Olsen and March, 1989).

This fundamentally diverges from a more rationalist view of

institutions as systems of rules and incentives that structure

the behaviour of utility-maximizing individuals (Rhodes et al.,

2006). If these insights are applied to the challenge of

embedding climate change adaptation within biodiversity

work, we see that there may be more effective methods for

guiding behaviour than, for instance, articulating the proba-

bility of climate change impacts or the costs of inaction.

Rather, a case could be made for building an organisational

culture of innovation and embedding climate change concerns

in standard operating procedures (cf. Jasanoff, 2005; O‘Riordan

et al., 1998).

Running alongside this trend in political science is a

parallel set of insights in social psychology: while individuals



e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) x x x – x x x 3


are certainly capable of making careful, reasoned, calcula-

tions, this cognitive process is slower and less intuitive than

emotional, intuitive decisions or judgements that occur

Category of barrier/enabler Description and biodiversity example Sample of relevant research

Cultural/behavioural: Influence of customs, values, beliefs, interests and personalities

of individuals in critical positions within a group.

Example: Territoriality or competitiveness between depart-

ments or organisations that address climate change, energy,

and biodiversity (which may all be inter-related).

(Kaiser and Wolfing, 1999; Kollmuss and

Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 2000; Stern and

Dietz, 1994; Stern et al., 1999)

Structural/operational Obstacles posed by the characteristic structures and procedures

of institutions and organisations. These procedures shape the

way these groups function and how they identify and achieve

their goals, and thus can influence against new initiatives.

Example: No organisational mechanism by which planners/

engineers focused on extreme weather events and emergency

management can collaborate with biodiversity conservation

experts

(Lee and Perl, 2003; Schipper and Pelling,

2006; Young, 2002)

Regulatory/legislative Hurdles related to jurisdiction, regulatory and policy tools at the

disposal of the agency or community.

Example: Absence of regional or ‘landscape’ planning authority

to address the challenge of ecosystems that cross boundaries

(such as local or municipal jurisdiction).

(Adger and Vincent, 2005; Immergut, 1992;

Kok et al., 2000)

Contextual External forces to which a government or organisation is

subject and the priorities to which it must respond. These

include public awareness and broader political/economic

trends.

Example: Broader economic crises, such as the global recession

beginning in 2008, shifting focus away from environmental

priorities.

(Baber, 2004; Leiserowitz, 2006; Lorenzoni

et al., 2007)

Capacity The lack of resources, namely technical, human, financial, or

other, that can bring difficulties in the integration of a new

initiative into a group’s strategy.

Example: Limited expertise in the complex field of ecosystem-

based adaptation, and lack of funds necessary to support

significant up-front costs with longer-term payback periods.

(Brooks et al., 2005; Burch and Robinson,

2007; Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Haddad,

2005; Tompkins and Adger, 2003; Yohe,

2001)

almost instantaneously (Kahneman, 2011; Peters and Slovic,

1996; Powell and DiMaggio, 1991; Slovic et al., 2007). Thus,

emotional or intuitive responses may either inhibit or

facilitate responses to climate change, but will most

certainly affect decisions that may have been thought to

be solely based on a careful calculation of costs and benefits

(Burch, 2010a, b). For individuals, attitudes, worldviews, and

social context are also critical precursors of behaviour (see

for example: Kaiser and Wolfing, 1999; Kollmuss and

Agyeman, 2002; Stern, 1992, 2000), and thus may either

inhibit or facilitate responses to climate change (Burch,

2010a).

Building on these insights, Burch (Burch, 2010a, b) devel-

oped and applied a framework for exploring the institutional

and behavioural barriers to climate change policy develop-

ment and implementation. This framework, having been

applied in a variety of empirical contexts (see Burch, 2010a, b;

Burch et al., 2010), was adapted and applied in the case that is

the subject of this paper: namely, the success with which

climate change adaptation has been embedded in biodiversity


conservation planning in England. The following table out-

lines the core elements of this framework, which are utilised

in the analysis that follows.

In the face of these barriers, the dual challenges of climate

change and biodiversity conservation suggest the need for

strategies that unite disparate organisational units, and plant

the seeds for new, more sustainable modes of practice.

Many of the barriers described above have a critical

characteristic in common: legislative tools, institutional

structures, and even organisational culture tend to reinforce

themselves over time, recreating similar conditions, often out

of expediency, and delivering similar outcomes. In various

fields, this has been referred to as path dependency, or the

institutionalisation of a set of practices which makes

previously likely alternatives progressively less likely (Maho-

ney, 2000; Pierson, 2004; Thelen, 2003). Conservation organi-

sations and national governments (including, in the UK, Defra

as well as the Department of Energy and Climate Change)

deeply influence the context within which responses to

climate change are designed and implemented, because they

are part of the path-dependent structures that have been

shown to limit the options of actors (Burch, 2010b; Thelen,

2003). This may be particularly crucial with regard to



4 http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm80/8082/8082.pdf.

5 The SIGs covered by interviews included: Marine, ClimateChange Adaptation, Local/Regional, Agriculture, Woodlands,



embedding climate change adaptation within existing biodi-

versity plans and practices; as new climate science emerges

and the landscape of biodiversity shifts, a system with fewer

path dependencies may be able to more efficiently respond

(Burch, 2010b; O’Riordan and Jordan, 1999).

3. Case study: embedding climate changeadaptation in biodiversity conservation inEngland

3.1. Case background

The impacts of climate change have been increasingly

embedded into UK biodiversity strategy, for example, as part

of the revision of the Biodiversity Action Plans. Attention has

now turned to adaptation, which is needed to reduce the

projected potential impacts of climate change (DEFRA, 2006;

Huntley, 2007; Walmsley et al., 2007). Several of the policy

options for UK nature conservation identified as part of a

recent priority setting exercise are also relevant to adaptation,

including enhancing protected areas, no net loss of biodiver-

sity and measures to develop and maintain ecologically

coherent networks (Sutherland et al., 2010).

Defra has been engaged with climate change adaptation for

a number of years, with the review of the first four years of

implementation of the England Biodiversity Strategy (EBS)

recommending that one of the outcomes for the climate

adaptation work programme be the initial integration of

adaptation actions into all EBS workstreams and processes by

2010 (DEFRA, 2006). Thus Defra and its delivery partners have

sought to embed climate change adaptation principles into all

activities coordinated by the Strategy Implementation Groups

(SIGs) or workstreams of the EBS. Also, the Government’s

Adapting to Climate Change Programme required each

Department to produce Adaptation Plans and it acknowledged

the importance of the natural environment in adaptation1,2.

A further context is provided by the Government’s

Structural Reform Plan for Defra3, which identified three

key priorities, all of which are relevant to climate change and

biodiversity, but one of which is particularly focussed on

biodiversity – to ‘‘enhance and protect the natural environ-

ment, including biodiversity and the marine environment, by

reducing pollution and preventing habitat loss and degrada-

tion’’. Two of the underlying supporting actions identified

under the heading of ‘helping communities and wildlife adapt

to climate change’ are to:

� Assess the scope for actions to offset the impact of

development on biodiversity.

� Publish a Natural Environment White Paper, setting out

measures to protect wildlife and promote green spaces and

wildlife corridors.

1 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/documents/taking-action.pdf.

2 http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climate/documents/natural-environment-adaptation.pdf.

3 http://ww2.defra.gov.uk/about/our-priorities/.


It is clear from this that the protection of biodiversity is

deemed to be important at the structural reform level. The

Natural Environment White Paper4 lays out proposals for

improving the quality and increasing the value of the natural

environment, and both this and the Structural Reform Plan are

seen to offer further opportunities to take account of climate

change adaptation.

Throughout the Defra Biodiversity SPs and England

Biodiversity SIGs, actions are already being taken that

contribute to climate change adaptation. A clear example is

the prioritisation exercise carried out by the Marine SIG to

identify which adaptation actions are most relevant to their

workstream deliverables and most pressing in terms of the

climate change agenda. Another example is the work done by

the Water and Wetlands SIG to assess the impacts of climate

change, and the adaptation options available, in the context of

the creation of a wetland vision (a key deliverable in 2006). This

last example demonstrates that some adaptive actions may

have been taken in advance of the circulation of the

adaptation principles, but contribute to climate change

responses nonetheless.

Despite these successes, interviewees reported a variety of

institutional and behavioural barriers to embedding adapta-

tion. The sections that follow address these barriers, before

suggesting ways to move forward.

3.2. Methods

Three core methods were used to gather data: document

analysis, short electronic questionnaires, and semi-structured

interviews. The purpose of the questionnaire was to reach a

broader audience than was possible through interviews,

thereby obtaining greater coverage of the individuals responsi-

ble for developing and implementing the England Biodiversity

Strategy. The focus of the document analysis and both surveys

was specific progress on each of the adaptation principles and

associated actions and these data are presented and analysed

elsewhere (Berry et al., 2010). The interviews, in contrast,

allowed key individuals within Defra and the England Biodiver-

sity Group the opportunity to provide a more nuanced

description of perceived barriers and strategies for overcoming

them. It is on these data that the following sections will focus.

Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with the

chairs of each SIG, the leads of each Defra biodiversity sub-

programme, and some additional delivery partners as sug-

gested by members of the steering committee5. These

interviewees were chosen based on their knowledge and

experience (Cresswell, 2003; Denscombe, 2007) of the Defra

Towns and Cities, Coastal, Education, and Economics. SPs coveredby interviews included: Climate Change, International Biodiversi-ty, Developing the Evidence Base, Wildlife Protection and Man-agement, Invasive Species, Enthusing People, EmbeddingBiodiversity, and Protected Areas. Individuals were also inter-viewed from the Ministry of Defense, the National Trust, theoverarching England Biodiversity Group, and the Association ofLocal Government Ecologists.


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-2020-a-strategy-for-england-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services








6 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/biodiversity-2020-a-strategy-for-england-s-wildlife-and-ecosystem-services.



Biodiversity Programme and the England Biodiversity

Strategy. Key contact individuals within Defra sent out

requests for interviews. In total 27 interviews were

administered. The interviews allowed for private, extend-

ed, and comprehensive conversations to take place, giving

participants a safe space in which to reveal their under-

standing of adaptation principles and the barriers they have

faced in implementing them. Given time pressures, all

interviews were held over the phone rather than in person.

While this was an efficient method of data gathering, it

prevented the development of a strong rapport between the

interviewer and interviewee. Occasional technical difficul-

ties and distractions may have similarly diminished the

quality of the interviews.

All interviews were informal and of varying duration, but

most lasted between 30 and 60 min. They were started in a

conversational manner so that interviewees were made to feel

that they should speak freely and not give short yes/no

answers. Questions were open-ended to enable people to

provide more detailed answers. In order to enable respondents

to open up, confidentiality was guaranteed by informing

interviewees that their individual answers would be combined

with those given by others.

Each interview was recorded and transcribed, and the

contents of each interview were then analysed in order to

focus on:

� Awareness of the adaptation principles and their associated

actions;

� Evaluation of relevance of principles to respondent’s work

programme;

� Barriers encountered while attempting to embed the

principles;

� Key strategies for overcoming these barriers.

3.3. Findings: barriers to embedding adaptation

Interviews suggested that, while members of the SIGs and SPs

are generally aware of the climate change adaptation

principles, significant steps have often not been taken to

explicitly and systematically embed them in ongoing biodi-

versity work. The existing literature on both collective (i.e.

organisational) and individual behaviour change suggests that

individual psychological and contextual or collective factors

play critical roles in shaping our behaviour (see above). This

literature was used as a lens through which to view the

responses gathered through interviews with SIG and SP

members. It is unhelpful to assume that a lack of behaviour

change is only due to an individual’s unwillingness to act

differently, nor is it accurate to claim that actions so

determined by the organisations within which individuals

work that they are out of their control.

This research showed that significant barriers may be

preventing SIGs and SPs from embedding climate change

adaptation principles in their deliverables and objectives.

These barriers vary depending on the organisation that is

tasked with different aspects of delivery, and the specific

principle and associated actions that are being embedded. The

sections that follow present evidence, gathered through

interviews, regarding the specific nature of barriers to


embedding climate change adaptation principles in the

biodiversity work of both Defra and the larger England

Biodiversity Group.

3.3.1. Governance and leadershipThe current circumstances created by a change in government

and shifting priorities were raised by many interviewees as

potential challenges to new action on adaptation for the

conservation of biodiversity. While most interviewees felt that

climate change remained a key priority for the current

government, many indicated deep uncertainty and anxiety

about the future of funding for adaptation initiatives and the

likelihood that troubling economic times have superseded

concerns over climate change. For many, this led to a

hesitancy (or lack of opportunity) to dramatically alter

deliverables or objectives, especially given perceived uncer-

tainty about the science of climate change impacts (i.e. timing,

scale, severity, and location of impacts). Similarly, this

contributes to a hesitancy to adopt approaches that are

completely new and untested. Even in the presence of clear

government priorities, however, underlying issues (such as

the perception that good conservation work is sufficient for

adaptation, and the lack of a clear directive to implement an

ongoing process of embedding adaptation; all discussed in

greater detail below) may be the true barriers to new action.

While there is commitment to address climate change (e.g. the

UK Biodiversity 2020 Strategy6), it is likely that fears about

future funding have been realised given budget cuts across

almost all Government departments. Some of the perceived

uncertainty on impacts may have been addressed through the

publication of a biodiversity and climate change report card

(Morecroft and Speakman, 2013).

Even so, a manifestation of the uncertain terrain resulting

from a shift in government is the ‘localism’ agenda, or the shift

towards empowering local authorities and away from regional

planning. Two interviewees specifically stated that transfer-

ring additional responsibilities to local authorities and

organisations, whilst removing incentives for regional collab-

oration and planning, directly contradicts the imperative to

develop landscape-scale biodiversity plans and accommodate

potential shifts in habitats that may occur as a result of

climate change.

While most respondents felt that the climate change

principles were generally robust and valid, the majority of

them cited a lack of a firm high-level directive to embed the

adaptation principles as the reason why few changes had been

made. Three interviewees suggested that, while the message

had been sent that climate change adaptation is broadly

important, no specific instructions (paired with incentives and

reporting requirements) had been given by either the England

Biodiversity Group or Defra to undertake a systematic review

of objectives and deliverables in light of the principles. As

such, most respondents felt that a general consideration of the

principles was sufficient, especially given the fact that many

thought that good conservation work would typically tackle

most of the principles implicitly.







3.3.2. Organisational structureThe organisational structure of the England Biodiversity

Group, Defra, and DECC was raised by many interviewees

as a challenge to embedding new information on adaptation in

their biodiversity actions. While it was generally accepted that

climate change and energy issues are complex and pressing

enough to warrant their own department, the separation of

DECC from Defra, both organisationally and physically, may

lead to silos between biodiversity and climate change policy.

A related communication issue concerns the availability of

mechanisms for communication between closely related EBG

workstreams, but a dearth of opportunities to work closely

with the Defra SPs. For organisations participating only

peripherally in the EBG, there was very little knowledge of

the activities of Defra, and of progress made towards

integrating adaptation into biodiversity work. Natural Eng-

land, however, which is tasked with implementing much of

Defra’s Biodiversity Programme, demonstrated higher levels

of understanding of the work of the Defra Biodiversity SPs and

the adaptation principles more specifically.

The relatively low levels of momentum behind embedding

adaptation in biodiversity may be in part the result of these

organisational issues, as well as the leadership challenges

discussed above.

3.3.3. Legislative/policy history

All biodiversity partners must function within particular

legislative and policy contexts, which have been extremely

labour-intensive to produce and may be very difficult to shift.

This is a specific manifestation of ‘path dependency’, or

inertia behind policy practices and patterns of behaviour. An

example of this is the pressure to maintain a particular mix of

species and habitats in a protected area (whether because of

legislative edict or strong local cultural preferences for a

landscape to appear and function in a certain way), rather

than allowing habitats and species to shift as climate

changes. This suggests that the adaptation principle ‘accom-

modate change’ may be especially challenging to implement

in practice. Five interviewees suggested that this legislative

legacy may also be leading to uncoordinated landscape scale

action, yielding inefficient resource deployment and lower

quality biodiversity outcomes especially with regard to

priority species and habitats. Similarly, two interviewees

indicated that key exclusions from the existing Marine Bill

created difficulties for the effective planning and develop-

ment of proposals to manage marine species, including

where to draw the line between marine ‘wildlife’ and

‘fisheries’ species.

According to the Lawton Review, ‘‘the impact of policy on

land-use is particularly clear in agriculture, where govern-

ment policy drove the intensification of land-use for much of

the twentieth century, while the EU Common Agricultural

Policy has had a strong influence on how agricultural land is

used and managed in recent decades. The directions set by

future EU policy and those arising from the complex and

multilayered system of governance in England will have a

profound influence on how land is used in the future’’ (Lawton

et al., 2010). This statement demonstrates the inter-woven

nature of legislative and governance barriers, as well as

conflicting priorities.


An associated issue is simply the timing of SIG/sub

programme deliverable development in relation to the

dissemination of the adaptation principles. In some cases,

commitments had been made to deliverables prior to any

systematic attempt to embed the adaptation principles.

Many interviewees communicated a reluctance to revisit

these, given the costs (both financial and human) involved in

doing so.

Added to the English legislative context, of course, is the

international context within which many of the Defra sub-

programmes and EBS SIGs must function. Reliance on the

support and actions within other countries, as well as a

plethora of international initiatives simultaneously strength-

ens and complicates efforts within the UK. Furthermore, as

indicated by one interviewee, the EU strategy on invasive

species (for instance) may not fully account for climate change

adaptation, and thus may not be fully consistent with

approaches that are being developed in the UK.

While, in England, significant efforts are being made to

embed climate change adaptation in biodiversity planning,

biodiversity does not frequently play such a critical role in

climate change policies. The Climate Change SP recognised

that while biodiversity was been included in a chapter of the

statutory National Climate Change Risk Assessment, it was a

problematic area in which to assess risk. Climate change itself,

is still a relatively new issue for most Departments and climate

change risks are not being ‘‘managed strategically and

consistently throughout any Department’’ (NAO, 2009). Defra

itself does not have an overarching strategy for its work on

adaptation (NAO, 2009), but current efforts to embed adapta-

tion represent the beginnings of such work.

3.3.4. RelevanceInterviewees consistently suggested that many SIGs and SPs

do not consider all of the principles and associated actions to

be of direct relevance to their work. While the broad principles

were widely regarded as valuable and accurate, the relevance

and practical implications of the specific actions associated

with the principle were much less clear. In some cases this

may be because the principles are in fact irrelevant to the day-

to-day work of the SIG or SPs (for instance actions associated

with aiding gene flow or controlling invasive species would not

fall under the remit of the Economics and Funding SIG). In

others, there may have been an incorrect assumption that the

principles were irrelevant, highlighting the need for strategies

which strongly encourage SIGs and SPs to creatively consider

the ways in which their practices could be adjusted to account

for climate change adaptation.

In addition, this finding suggests the need to specify

audience when communicating relevance: the public should

be carefully segmented according to focus as awareness-

raising campaigns are developed, and initiatives directed at

the SIGs, sub-programmes and delivery partners should

consider whether the audience has a policy versus implemen-

tation focus. Similarly, rather than a centralised effort

initiated by Defra, SIGs and SPs would benefit from carefully

considering the relevance of the principles to their own work,

thus revealing priority actions. This is particularly important

for building (and maintaining) momentum behind the

integration of adaptation and biodiversity.





3.3.5. CapacityThe first element of capacity that many interviewees indicated

is absent in some cases is technical information. The majority

of interviewees commented that the significant uncertainty

surrounding the timing and severity of impacts of climate

change on biodiversity inhibits dramatic changes in biodiver-

sity policy. The precise ecological requirements of some

species and habitats also remain unclear, as well as the

management techniques that will be most effective in

conserving them. Furthermore, some interviewees felt that

many of the outcomes of adaptation with regard to biodiver-

sity may not be evident for 30–50 years, creating challenges for

raising public awareness and building momentum for new

actions that may entail considerable costs. Similarly, ‘‘the

ability of Departments to manage the delivery of their

objectives in the long term will depend on their ability to

identify, assess and manage the risks that arise from the

impacts of future climate change’’ (NAO, 2009) – no simple task

given rapidly evolving climate science and uncertain emis-

sions trajectories.

Scarce financial and human resources were also raised as

important barriers to integrating climate change adaptation

with biodiversity. SIG and SP documents suggest that a lack of

staff resources is a more critical issue than the absence of

funding, but the latter is made more acute by both the current

economic climate and the change in government. A specific

example of this is the fall in timber prices, which has ‘‘reduced

the economic viability of most forestry enterprises, and

thereby reduced their ability to fund management activity

for biodiversity’’ (DEFRA, 2002). Available resources from

across the Defra network should be harnessed in order to

coordinate across programmes. There is also a need to work

across departments e.g. DfT and BIS, as the implementation of

the adaptation principles could be affected by their mitigation

and adaptation actions and cost-effective synergies may be

able to be achieved, or required trade-offs identified (Berry,

2009; Paterson et al., 2008).

3.3.6. Conflicting prioritiesWhile many organisational and behavioural barriers may

inhibit the application of adaptation principles to biodiver-

sity at the policy level, additional challenges are faced during

actual implementation. Chief among these is often conflict-

ing priorities. For instance, the Water and Wetlands SIG has

developed a range of initiatives which aim to help meet the

objectives of the UK BAP for wetlands, but these risk

conflicting with competing interests. Both the Great Fen

and Wicken Fen projects are subject to local criticism due to

perceived need for land for agricultural production, and this

is the subject of wider national debate. Indeed, according to

the 2010 Climate Change Plan, agriculture covers 75% of

England’s total land area and plays a critical role in the

country’s economy. This dominance of agriculture high-

lights the need to adapt the food system to simultaneously

adapt to climatic shifts and support biodiversity. The EBS,

however, identifies a number of risks and uncertainties (such

as financial limitations on government spending and shifting

agricultural trade policy) that may affect progress towards a

vision of a mutually supportive relationship between

conservation and agriculture (DEFRA, 2002). As such, public


education and awareness-building campaigns must build

understanding of the importance of ecosystem service

provision by the natural world.

The population of England has risen from 46.4 million in

1971, to 51.5 million in 2008 (Office of National Statistics, 2009).

This increase, combined with more people choosing to live

alone, has had a profound effect on demand for housing and

infrastructure. Figures from the Office for National Statistics

estimate England’s population could increase to 60.7 million

by 2033, with an increase of 18% in the proportion of people

living in single occupancy houses. This suggests a growing

pressure on biodiversity from the human-centred priorities of

food production and housing.

3.3.7. Reluctance to change

Education-based behaviour change campaigns often assume

that individuals make rational decisions on the basis of

available information, that individuals’ stated preferences are

their true preferences, and that actions follow verbal

commitments. As significant evidence has shown, however,

individuals often display a reluctance to shift habitual modes

of practice even in the face of clear signals that benefits might

be accrued (Kollmuss and Agyeman, 2002). This reluctance can

be driven by a number of factors, including a lack of

motivation, fear, a lack of knowledge about how to change,

and a lack of opportunities or incentives to act differently.

Ingrained attitudes and behaviour based on what has worked

in the past are particular challenges in the face of a changing

climate, when past precedent may not be the most helpful

guide for the future. For example, while abiding by what is

currently understood to be excellent conservation practice

may well contribute to climate change adaptation, it is very

likely that the scale and severity of future climate change

impacts will require a significant alteration to conservation

practices. Thus, respondents’ frequent perception that ‘good’

conservation work will implicitly address climate change may

be misguided.

Critically, many decisions that individuals make are based

on what is viewed to be appropriate – in other words,

behaviour is strongly driven by social norms, as described

above. Interviewees communicated the presence of strong

norms in favour of adapting to climate change, but did not feel

pressure to explicitly embed adaptation nor to dramatically

alter current or planned conservation practices.

Individuals may not change their behaviour simply

because they do not know what they could be doing

differently. Interviewees, for instance, suggested that (as

mentioned previously) the deep uncertainty associated with

both the timing of climate change impacts and the most

effective response options is a very real barrier to action.

Similarly, the legislative options and organisational realities of

policy development and implementation represent the en-

abling context that is critical for behaviour change.

James and Wrigley (2007) explain that although we tend to

assume that once a capacity-building event has taken place,

planning to change is different from actually changing. We

may fail to implement what we have learned because we are

not presented with opportunities to practice what we have

learned. It can be difficult to make time for reflection when day

to day issues are pressing (Smit, 2007). Capacity-building



Fig. 1 – Multiple interwoven barriers influencing the success with which climate change adaptation principles and actions

are embedded in biodiversity conservation practice.



should, therefore, not be a one-off event, but an ongoing

participatory process (James, 2002). It should be designed so

that it reflects the specific context and society for which it is

meant (Lipson, 2003). This will, however, only be successful

where there is individual motivation and organisational

support to change (Deans et al., 2007).

3.3.8. Interwoven barriersThe success with which adaptation principles are embedded

in biodiversity conservation practice is shaped by the

confluence of a number of barriers. As described above, one

strategy is to alter job descriptions and standard operating

procedures so that responsibility for climate change adapta-

tion is distributed rather than centralised. Leadership is

required to drive this process forward however, as are

sufficient human resources (both quantity and quality) and

an organisational structure that supports this embedding

process. Conflicting priorities, similarly, are linked in part to

the legislative legacy or path dependency, and lack of

communication amongst units and agencies (which itself

may grow out of the organisational structure). Thus, multiple

barriers act to reinforce one another, creating sub-optimal

outcomes.

Fig. 1 illustrates a sample of the barriers encountered in this

study, and demonstrates how they may reinforce one another.

This figure suggests that particular levers, such as enhancing

communication or decentralising responsibility for climate

change action, may have cascading effects on other barriers,

yielding amplified positive (or negative) outcomes.

3.4. Strategies for overcoming barriers

The data collected suggest that, while the adaptation principles

are generally considered to be robust and relevant, and a range

of actions have been taken, there needs to be a step change if

they are to be systematically embedded in the biodiversity work

of Defra and the EBG. Barriers are faced during the integration of


the climate change adaptation principles at the policy, as well as

implementation levels. Some principles are relatively simple to

apply, while others face a significant dearth of data, political

will, and understanding. Keeping in mind that not all principles

are relevant to all of the work of all workstreams, nor are all

workstreams equally equipped or empowered to implement

significant policy shifts as a result of adaptation priorities, the

following section summarises suggestions that can be tailored

to enhance the capacity of the SIGs and SPs to embed adaptation

in biodiversity work.

Proactive and effective responses to climate change may be

facilitated by a clear high-level mandate, political and

technical leadership that creates opportunities for innovation,

and the assimilation of climate change by standard operating

procedures (Burch, 2010b). Furthermore, ‘‘addressing a lack of

technical, financial, or human resources is often less a matter

of creating more capacity than of facilitating the effective use

of existing resources’’ (Burch, 2010b). Such a directive will help

contribute to the ongoing efforts to adapt the work of the Defra

Biodiversity Programme and the EBG to the shifting biophysi-

cal and socioeconomic futures that result from climate

change, and may also strengthen the sustainability dimen-

sions of long range strategic planning.

Burch (2010b) suggests transforming barriers into enablers

requires:

1) identification of sources of path dependency (described

above as the inertia that increasingly builds behind

common modes of practice) and habitual behaviours that

may be unsustainable in a changing climate;

2) strategically challenging aspects of biodiversity pro-

grammes that do not contribute to adaptation priorities;

and

3) supporting and reinforcing desirable patterns of action.

Based on both the existing literature surrounding

the ‘mainstreaming’ of climate change within broader





sustainability or biodiversity initiatives, as well as the data

gathered through this project, the following strategies may

serve to overcome the barriers faced by the SIGs and SPs.

These fall under three general themes: (1) leadership and

governance; (2) communication and relevance; (3) embedding

and reinforcing action. The table that follows gathers these

potential solutions together and links them to the associated

barriers.

Barriers Strategies for overcoming barriers

Governance and leadership

� Uncertainty about future funding and climate change adaptation

as government priority.

� Clear policies articulating priority status, co-developed and well

communicated.

� Embedding of climate change adaptation within standard operating

procedures and job descriptions throughout government rather than

centralising responsibility.

� Policy inconsistency or incongruence i.e. removal of incentives

for regional collaboration but move towards landscape-scale

biodiversity plans.

� Effective conservation and climate change adaptation requires

planning beyond the local scale. Maintenance (or creation) of

incentives to collaboratively manage landscapes is a crucial ingre-

dient of ecosystem and species resilience.

Organisational structure

� Separation of DECC, Defra, and the England Biodiversity Group. � Responsibility for climate change within DECC implicitly suggests

that responsibility does not lie with other agencies or departments.

Reframe responsibility of DECC as facilitator of climate change action

rather than owner.

Legislative/policy history

� Legislative legacy (path dependency) leading to uncoordinated

landscape-scale action and cultural/policy preferences for parti-

cular mix of species.

� Develop robust monitoring, reporting, and communication practices

that indicate when/if a particular mix of species is no longer feasible

given climatic shifts; build incentives for landscape-scale collabora-

tion (see above)

Relevance

� Perceived or actual irrelevance of climate change adaptation

principles and actions to workplans of individuals in SIGs, SPs etc.

� Alter job descriptions of individuals within SIGs and SPs to build in

responsibility for climate change adaptation; enhance efforts to

communicate importance of principles and overcome gaps in knowl-

edge.

Capacity

� Lack of technical information about the impact of climate change

on biodiversity, and lack of financial and human resources to

incentivise and implement new actions.

� Establishment of clear political priorities and embedding these in

job descriptions/day-to-day practice (see above) may ensure sufficient

devotion/creation of capacity. Greater collaboration and cooperation

supports sharing of expertise and more efficient allocation of

resources.

Conflicting priorities

� Achievement of climate change adaptation or biodiversity goals

implies tradeoffs with housing, infrastructure, jobs, or other

priorities.

� Communication and cross-sectoral collaboration increases the

possibility of designing win/win strategies. Ecosystem-based ap-

proaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation hold particular

promise.

Reluctance to change

� Powerfully habitual modes of behaviour and definitions of good

conservation practice conflict with new reality of a changing

climate.

� See solutions related to capacity and organisational structure above.

Design strategies aimed at building new habits (i.e. a climate change

adaptation ‘filter’ or checklist through which all new development

and other proposals must pass). Both political and bureaucratic

leadership are also responsible for fostering organisational cultures of

innovation and adaptability.

The data suggest that the process of embedding adaptation

could be driven more forcefully through a strong high-level

mandate. Similarly, it may be necessary to preserve a

centralised authority on climate change adaptation until such

time as individual branches of an organisation are sufficiently

equipped and incentivised to maintain momentum behind

adaptation work. Practitioners should be equipped with

specific guidance on what actions could be undertaken at

the local level and provide opportunities for regional and cross


regional or cross-organisational collaboration (including pro-

moting heterogeneity and ecological connectivity). Regular

opportunities or requirements to review, report, and update

adaptation actions may serve to sustain and enhance the

momentum built through these leadership and governance

strategies.

While many participants in this study were eager to do

more to support climate change adaptation in their

biodiversity work, there was often a lack of understanding

about where to start. In the early stages of this process, best

practices from the around the world should be disseminated

to stimulate creative thinking about new steps that could be

taken here in England. Similarly, it is necessary to make clear

and celebrate actions that contribute to the implementation of

the adaptation principles. Celebrating these actions will

contribute to a sense of progress, and help avoid a feeling of

being overwhelmed by a long list of new actions.





Perhaps most central to the long-term deepening of

climate change responses are efforts to make embedding

climate change habitual, and part of routine activities.

Human behaviour is deeply rooted in habits, and what we

feel is socially appropriate. We tend to react emotively rather

than make a rational assessment of the costs and benefits

associated with our behaviour. Organisations help to define

what biodiversity conservation practices are viewed as

appropriate, and thus shape where we focus our attention

and what actions become habitual. For this reason, behaviour

change is rarely so simple as providing more and better

information, but rather requires a supportive context in

which the new behaviour becomes automatic and efficient

(Burch, 2010b). This often requires systems of coaching,

monitoring and reporting in a way that facilitates adaptive

management (learning as we go, and reviewing our strategies

accordingly).

While the broad principles were widely regarded as

valuable and accurate, the relevance and practical implica-

tions of the specific actions associated with the principle were

much less clear. Thus, climate change must be made relevant

to the day-to-day actions and objectives of a wide variety of

practitioners and organisations. In some cases, some of the

principles are in fact irrelevant to the day-to-day work of the

organisation. In others, there may have been an incorrect

assumption that the principles were irrelevant, highlighting

the need for strategies that strongly encourage organisations

to systematically and creatively consider the ways in which

their practices could be adjusted to account for climate change

adaptation.

The foundation of all of these strategies, however, is a

systematic evaluation of objectives in light of climate change

impacts and adaptation. This first step in embedding climate

change adaptation in England’s biodiversity work has already

begun, but could be strengthened and transformed into an

iterative and ongoing process. This will help practitioners

understand what they’re already doing and what more they

could be doing. It will also provide ongoing opportunities for

incorporating new data on climate change impacts and

adaptation options, and refining and moving our understand-

ing from what constitutes good biodiversity conservation

practice to that which is good biodiversity practice in a

changing climate.

Specific actions that may serve to enable successful

integration of biodiversity with climate change include:

1. Improve landscape permeability and habitat connectivity

through the restoration or recreation of habitats polewards

from the sites(s) of interest;

2. Enhance population resilience through increasing patch

sizes and/or habitat quality, or indirectly through improv-

ing connectivity (1 above) (e.g. Lawson et al., 2012);

3. Increase site habitat heterogeneity through the incorpo-

ration of a greater range of elevations, aspects and

management regimes.

The above represent a range of complementary actions

that could be taken to address the shortfall in embedding

climate change adaptation. In addition to these, it is also

important to identify the best way to promote behavioural


change within those responsible for embedding the climate

change adaptation principles.

4. Conclusions and future directions

The review of outputs and products of the EBS workstreams

and climate change adaptation related documents showed

that specific evidence of actions on the climate change

adaptation principles was often lacking. Thus the assessment

of the extent of their embedding of the principles had to be

inferential and may partly reflect document objectives and

language, rather than actual actions. Nevertheless, interviews

mostly supported this view, as while they showed that many

respondents had heard of or understood the adaptation

principles, the number of actions being undertaken was often

limited. This can be partly a function of only a subset of the

principles being applicable, but does also reflect a certain lack

of their application.

Interviews with key individuals within SIGs and SPs

indicated that some actions were indeed being taken in the

interests of climate change adaptation that had not necessar-

ily been captured by available documentation. These include

actions taken by the Marine SIG and Water and Wetlands SIG.

The latter example demonstrates that some adaptive actions

may have been taken in advance of the circulation of the

adaptation principles, but contribute to climate change

responses nonetheless.

The reviews and interviews identified a number of barriers to

embedding adaptation in biodiversity conservation in England.

These data suggest that, rather than a marginal adjustment to

procedures, a transformative change in conservation may be

needed. This transformative change may encompass the

provision of significant new incentives, opportunity for the

dissemination of best practices, and a thorough integration of

adaptation principles in the day-to-day work of a wide variety of

practitioners. Individuals should also be empowered through

the provision of the necessary knowledge on the need for

change and awareness of the potential positive outcomes of

adaptation actions. Communication amongst SIGs and SPs

should be strengthened in order to share best practices and

practical examples of opportunities to embed adaptation.

Support should be provided to SIGs and SPs as they evaluate

which of the principles and associated actions are most relevant

to their work, and prioritise the near- and mid-term adaptation

actions that can be implemented.

This paper has made a series of suggestions, which are

intended to address some of the gaps identified in the

embedding of the climate change adaptation principles. These

fall under four broad categories: communication and rele-

vance, leadership and governance, institutionalisation, and

capacity. Some, such as the circulation of a strong and focused

statement on the necessity of systematically evaluating

workstream deliverables in light of adaptation principles,

can be implemented fairly quickly and with little cost in time

or money. Others, such as reducing the uncertainty associated

with climate change, its impacts and effectiveness of adapta-

tion options will need more preparation and commitment of

resources, which may be difficult in the current economic

climate.





Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Department for Agriculture

Food and Rural Affairs EMBEDS (Embedding Climate Change

Adaptation Principles) project, contract number CR0488, but

the views in the article are entirely those of the authors and do

not in any way reflect those of Defra. We would like to thank all

those who participated in the questionnaires and interviews.

r e f e r e n c e s

Adger, W.N., Vincent, K., 2005. Uncertainty in adaptive capacity.Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337, 399–410.

Baber, W.F., 2004. Ecology and democratic governance: toward adeliberative model of environmental politics. Social ScienceJournal 41, 331–346.

Berry, P., 2009. Biodiversity in the Balance–Mitigation andAdaptation Conflicts and Synergies. Pensoft Publishers,Sofia, Bulgaria.

Berry, P., Burch, S., Sanders, M., 2010. EMBEDS: EmbeddingBiodiversity Adaptation Principles. Final Report Prepared forUnited Kingdom Department of Environment. Food andRural Affairs. UK Defra, London, UK.

Biesbroek, G.R., Swart, R.J., Carter, T.R., Cowan, C., Henrichs, T.,Mela, H., Morecroft, M.D., Rey, D., 2010. Europe adapts toclimate change: comparing National Adaptation Strategies.Global Environment Change 20, 440–450.

Brooks, N., Adger, W.N., Kelly, P.M., 2005. The determinants ofvulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level andthe implications for adaptation. Global EnvironmentalChange 15, 151–163.

Burch, S., 2010a. In pursuit of resilient, low-carboncommunities: an examination of barriers to action in threeCanadian cities. Energy Policy 38, 7575–7585.

Burch, S., 2010b. Transforming barriers into enablers of actionon climate change: insights from three case studies in BritishColumbia, Canada. Global Environment Change 20,287–297.

Burch, S., Robinson, J., 2007. A framework for explaining thelinks between capacity and action in response to globalclimate change. Climate Policy 7, 304–316.

Burch, S., Sheppard, S., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., 2010. Addressingmunicipal barriers to policy action on climate change:participatory integrated assessment of climate changefutures and the use of 3D visualizations as decision supporttools. Journal of Flood Risk Management 3, 126–139.

CEC, 2009. White Paper–Adapting to Climate Change: Towards aEuropean Framework for Action (COM(2009) 147 final).Commission of the European Community, Brussels.

CEC, 2013. An EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change(COM(2013) 216 final). Commission of the EuropeanCommunity, Brussels.

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2005. Report of the Meetingof The Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity andAdaptation to Climate Change. , NEP/CBD/SBSTTA/11/INF/5.

Cresswell, J.W., 2003. Research design: qualitative, quantitative,and mixed method approaches, 2nd ed. Sage, London.

Deans, F., Oakley, L., James, R., Wrightley, R., 2007. Coachingand mentoring for leadership development in civil society.INTRAC, Oxford.

DEFRA, 2002. Working With the Grain of Nature–Taking itForward: Volume I Full Report on Progress Under theEngland Biodiversity Strategy 2002–2006. UK Department ofEnvironment, Food, and Rural Affairs, London, UK.


DEFRA, 2006. Working With the Grain of Nature–Taking it Forward:Volume II Measuring Progress on the England BiodiversityStrategy: 2006 Assessment. United Kingdom Department ofEnvironment, Food, and Rural Affairs, London, UK.

Denscombe, M., 2007. The Good Research Guide for Small-ScaleSocial Research Projects. Open University Press,Maidenhead.

Grothmann, T., Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and humancognition: the process of individual adaptation to climatechange. Global Environment Change 15, 199–213.

Haddad, B., 2005. Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations toclimate change when socio-political goals are explicit. GlobalEnvironmental Change 15, 165–176.

Huntley, B., 2007. Climatic Change and The Conservation ofEuropean biodiversity: Towards the Development ofAdaptation Strategies. Bern Convention Standing Committeeon Climate Change. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

Immergut, E., 1992. Health politics: Interests and institutions inWestern Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,United Kingdom.

James, R., 2002. What Makes CSO Coalitions Effective? Lessonsfrom Malawi. INTRAC, Oxford.

James, R., Wrigley, R., 2007. Investigating the Mystery ofCapacity Building. INTRAC, Oxford.

Jasanoff, S., 2005. Designs on Nature. Princeton University Press,Princeton.

Kahneman, D., 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus andGiroux, New York.

Kaiser, F.G., Wolfing, S., 1999. Environmental attitude andecological behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology19, 1–19.

Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., Denton, F., Downing, T.E., Richels, R.G.,Robinson, J.B., Toth, F.L., 2007. Inter-relationshipsbetween adaptation and mitigation. In: Parry, M.L.,Canziani, O.F., Palutikof, J.P., van der Linden, P.J.,Hanson, C.E. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Impacts,Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of WorkingGroup II to the Fourth Assessment Report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 745–777.

Kok, M., Vermeulen, W., Faaij, A., de Jager, D., 2000. GlobalWarming and Social Innovation: The Challenge of a Climate-Neutral Society. Earthscan, United Kingdom, p. 242.

Kok, M.T.J., de Coninck, H.C., 2007. Widening the scope of policiesto address climate change: directions for mainstreaming.Environmental Science and Policy 10, 587–599.

Kollmuss, A., Agyeman, M., 2002. Mind the gap: why do peopleact environmentally, and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental EducationResearch 3, 239–260.

Lawson, C.R., Bennie, J.J., Thomas, C.D., Hodgson, J.A., Wilson,R.J., 2012. Local and landscape management of an expandingrange margin under climate change. Journal of AppliedEcology 49 (3) 552–561, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2664.2011.02098.x.

Lawton, J.H., Brotherton, P.N.M., Brown, V.K., Elphick, C., Fitter,A.H., Forshaw, J., Haddow, R.W., Hilborne, S., Leafe, R.N.,Mace, G.M., Southgate, M.P., Sutherland, W.J., Tew, T.E.,Varley, J., Wynne, G.R., 2010. Making Space for Nature: AReview of England’s Wildlife Sites and Ecological Network.United Kingdom Department of Environment, Food, andRural Affairs, London.

Lee, E., Perl, A., 2003. The Integrity Gap: Canada’s EnvironmentalPolicy and Institutions. UBC Press, Vancouver, Canada.

Leiserowitz, A., 2006. Climate change risk perception and policypreferences: the role of affect, imagery, and values. ClimaticChange 77, 45–72.

Lipson, B., 2003. Civil society strengthening: capacity building.In: Pratt, B. (Ed.), Changing Expectations? The concept and


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S1462-9011(13)00177-9/sbref0005













































































































http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2664.2011.02098.x

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1365-2664.2011.02098.x
















Practice of Civil Society in International Development.INTRAC, Oxford, pp. 71–90.

Lorenzoni, I., Nicholson-Cole, S., Whitmarsh, L., 2007. Barriersperceived to engaging with climate change among the UKpublic and their policy implications. Global EnvironmentChange 17, 445–459.

Maclean, I.M.D., Wilson, R.J., 2011. Recent ecological responsesto climate change support predictions of high extinctionrisk. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of theUnited States of America 108, 12337–12342.

Mahoney, J., 2000. Path dependence in historical sociology.Theory and Society 29, 507–548.

March, J.G., Olsen, J.P., 2006. Elaborating the ‘newinstitutionalism’. In: Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A., Rockman,B.A. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions.Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mata, J.M., Budhooram, J., 2007. Complementarity betweenmitigation and adaptation: the water sector. Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change 12, 799–807.

Mitchell, R.J., Morecroft, M.D., Acreman, M., Crick, H.Q.P., Frost, M.,Harley, M., Maclean, I.M.D., Mountford, O., Piper, J., Parr, T.W.,Pontier, H., Rehfisch, M.M., Ross, L.C., Smithers, R.J., Stott, A.,Walmsley, C.A., Watt, A.D., Watts, O., Wilson, E., 2007. EnglandBiodiversity Strategy – Towards Adaptation to Climate Change,Final report to Defra for Contract CRO327. United KindomDepartment of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.

Morecroft, M., Speakman, L., 2013. Terrestrial BiodiversityReport Climate Change Impacts Report Card 2012–2013.Living With Environmental Change, London, UK.

NAO, 2009. Review for the Environmental Audit Committee.National Audit Office, London.

O‘Riordan, T., Cooper, C.L., Jordan, A., Rayner, S., Richard, K.R.,Runci, P., Yoffe, S., 1998. Institutional frameworks forpolitical action. In: Rayner, S., Malone, E. (Eds.), HumanChoice and Climate Change: The Societal Framework, vol. 1.Battelle Press Ltd, Columbus, Ohio.

O’Riordan, T., Jordan, A., 1999. Institutions, climate change, andcultural theory: toward a common analytical framework.Global Environment Change 9 91-83.

Office of National Statistics, 2009. Vital Statistics: Population andHealth Reference Tables. Office of National Statistics, London.

Olhoff, A., Schaer, C., 2010. Screening Tools and Guidelines toSupport the Mainstreaming of Climate Change Adaptationinto Development Assistance–A Stocktaking Report. UNDP,New York.

Olsen, J.P., March, J.G., 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: TheOrganizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press, New York.

Paterson, J.S., Araujo, M.B., Berry, P.M., Piper, J.M., Rounsevell,M.D.A., 2008. Mitigation, adaptation and the threat tobiodiversity. Conservation Biology 22, 1355.

Pereira, H.M., Leadley, P.W., Proenca, V., Alkemade, R.,Scharlemann, J.P.W., Fernandex-Manjarres, J.F., Araujo, M.B.,Balvanera, P., Biggs, R., Cheung, W.W.L., Chini, L., Cooper,H.D., Gilman, E.L., Guenette, S., Hurtt, G.C., Huntington, H.P.,Mace, G.M., Oberdorff, T., Revenga, C., Rodrigues, P., Scholes,R.J., Sumaila, U.R., Walpole, M., 2010. Scenarios for globalbiodiversity in the 21st Century. Science 330, 1496–1501.

Peters, E., Slovic, P., 1996. The role of affect and worldviews asorienting dispositions in the perception and acceptance ofnuclear power. Journal of Applied Sociology 26, 1427–1453.

Pierson, P., 2000. Increasing returns, path dependence, and thestudy of politics. American Political Science Review 94, 251–267.

Pierson, P., 2004. Politics in Time: History, Insitutions and SocialAnalysis. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.

Powell, W.W., DiMaggio, P.J., 1991. The New Institutionalism inOrganizational Analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A., Rockman, B.A., 2006. The OxfordHandbook of Political Institutions. Oxford University Press,Oxford.


RSPB, 2007. Climate Change: Wildlife and Adaptation; 20 ToughQuestions, 20 Rough Answers. Royal Society for thePreservation of Birds, Sandy, Bedforshire, UK.

Schipper, L., Pelling, M., 2006. Disaster risk, climate change andinternational development: scope for, and challenges to,integration. Disasters 30, 19–38.

Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009.Connecting Biodiversity and Climate Change Mitigation andAdaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical ExpertGroup on Biodiversity and Climate Change, Technical Series No.41. 126, Montreal.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., MacGregor, D.G., 2007. Theaffect heuristic. European Journal of Operational Research177, 1333–1352.

Smit, M., 2007. We’re Too Much in ‘to do’ Mode: Action Researchinto Supporting International NGOs to Learn. INTRAC, Oxford.

Stern, P.C., 1992. Psychological dimensions of global environmentalchange. Annual Review of Psychology 43, 269–302.

Stern, P.C., 2000. Toward a coherent theory of environmentallysignificant behaviour. Journal of Social Issues 56, 407–424.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., 1994. The value basis of environmentalconcern. Journal of Social Issues 50, 65–84.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Abel, T., Guagnano, G.A., Kalof, L., 1999. Avalue-belief-norm theory of support for social movements: thecase of environmentalism. Human Ecology Review 6, 81–97.

Sutherland, W.J., Albon, S.D., Allison, H., Armstrong-Brown, S.,Bailey, M.J., Brereton, T., Boyd, I.L., Carey, P., Edwards, J., Gill,M., Hill, D., Hodge, I., Hunt, A.J., Le Quesne, W.J.F.,Macdonald, D.W., Mee, L.D., Mitchell, R.J., Norman, T., Owen,R.P., Parker, D., Prior, S.V., Pullin, A.S., Rands, M.R.W.,Redpath, S., Spencer, J., Spray, C.J., Thomas, C.D., Tucker,G.M., Watkinson, A.R., Clements, A., 2010. REVIEW: Theidentification of priority policy options for UK natureconservation. Journal of Applied Ecology 47, 955–965.

Swart, R., Raes, F., 2007. Making integration of adaptation andmitigation work: mainstreaming into sustainable developmentpolicies? Climate Policy (Earthscan/James & James) 7, 289.

Thelen, K., 2003. How institutions evolve: insights fromcomparative historical analysis. In: Mahoney, J.,Rueschemeyer,D. (Eds.),Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences.Cambridge University PRess, New York, pp. 208–240.

Tompkins, E., Adger, W.N., 2003. Defining response capacity toenhance climate change policy. Tyndall Centre for ClimateChange Research Working Paper 39 .

USAID, 2009. Adapting to Coastal Climate Change. A Guidebookfor Development Planners. United States Agency forInternational Development, Washington, DC, USA.

Vignola, R., Locatelli, B., Martinez, C., Imbach, P., 2009.Ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change: what role forpolicy-makers, society and scientists? Mitigation andAdaptation Strategies for Global Change 14, 691–696.

Vonk, M., Vos, C.C., Van der Hoek, D.C.J., 2010. AdaptationStrategy for Climate-Proofing Biodiversity. Report to theNetherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, Report no.500078005. .

Walmsley, C.A., Smithers, R.J., Berry, P.M., Harley, M.,Stevenson, M.J., Catchpole, R., 2007. MONARCH – ModellingNatural Resource Responses to Climate Change: A Synthesisfor Biodiversity Conservation. UKCIP, Oxford.

Yohe, G., Strzepek, K., 2007. Adaptation and mitigation ascomplementary tools for reducing the risk of climateimpacts. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for GlobalChange 12, 727–739.

Yohe, G.W., 2001. Mitigative capacity: the mirror image ofadaptive capacity on the emissions side. Climatic Change 49,247–262.

Young, O.R., 2002. Evaluating the success of internationalenvironmental regimes: where are we now? GlobalEnvironment Change 12, 73–77.



































































































































Documents

Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England