draft...draft 2 23 university of alberta, edmonton, alberta, canada t6g 2p5 24 email:...

Draft

Overcoming the ‘Barriers’ Orthodoxy: A New Approach to

Understanding Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation

Governance Challenges in the Canadian Forest Sector

Journal: Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Manuscript ID cjfr-2017-0465.R1

Manuscript Type: Reply

Date Submitted by the Author: 18-Feb-2018

Complete List of Authors: Wellstead, Adam; Michigan Technological University, Department of Social

Sciences Biesbroek, Robbert ; Wageningen University Cairney, Paul; University of Stirling Davidson, Debra; University of Alberta Dupuis, Johann; University of Lausanne Howlett, Michael; Simon Fraser University, Political Science Rayner, Jeremy; University of Saskatchewan Stedman, Richard; Cornell University

Keyword: mechanisms, climate change, adaptation, mitigation, policy

Is the invited manuscript for consideration in a Special

Issue? : N/A

https://mc06.manuscriptcentral.com/cjfr-pubs

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Draft

1

1

Overcoming the ‘Barriers’ Orthodoxy: A New Approach to Understanding Climate Change 2

Adaptation and Mitigation Governance Challenges in the Canadian Forest Sector 3

4

Adam Wellstead (Corresponding author) 5

Department of Social Sciences 6

Michigan Technological University, 1400 Townsend Drive, Houghton, Michigan, USA. 49931 7

Email: [email protected] 8

Phone: (906) 487-2215 9

10

Robbert Biesbroek 11

Public Administration and Policy Group, Wageningen University, Hollandseweg 1, 6700 EW 12

Wageningen, the Netherlands 13


15

Paul Cairney 16

Department of Politics and History 17

University of Sterling, Sterling, UK FK9 4LA 18


20

Debra Davidson 21

Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology 22

Page 1 of 27



Draft

2

University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6G 2P5 23


25

Johann Dupuis 26

IDHEAP, Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration, University of Lausanne, Quartier 27

Mouline, Lausanne CH-1015, Switzerland 28


30

Michael Howlett 31

Department of Political Science, Simon Fraser University, 8888 University Drive, Burnaby, British 32

Columbia V5A 1S6, Canada 33


35

Jeremy Rayner 36

Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Saskatchewan, 101 37

Diefenbaker Place, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5B8, Canada 38


40

Richard Stedman 41

Department of Natural Resources 42

Cornell University 43

Page 2 of 27



Draft

3

104 Fernow Hall, Ithaca, NY 14850 44


46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

Page 3 of 27



Draft

4

67

Abstract 68

We respond to Williamson and Nelson (2017) recent comprehensive review, “Barriers to 69

enhanced and integrated climate change adaptation and mitigation in Canadian forest 70

management” (47: 1567–1576). They employ the popular barriers analysis approach and 71

present a synthesis highlighting the numerous barriers facing Canadian forest managers. The 72

underlying functionalist assumptions of such an approach are highly problematic from both a 73

scholarly and a practical policy perspective. We argue that social scientists engaged in climate 74

change research who want to influence policy-making should understand and then empirically 75

apply causal mechanisms. Methods such as process tracing and qualitative comparative analysis 76

(QCA) are promising tools that can be employed in national level assessments or at the local-77

level. 78

79

80

81

Key Words: adaptation, climate change, mechanisms, mitigation, policy 82

83

84

85

86

87

88

Page 4 of 27



Draft

5

Overcoming the ‘Barriers’ Orthodoxy: A New Approach to Understanding Climate Change 89

Adaptation and Mitigation Governance Challenges in the Canadian Forest Sector 90

91

Introduction 92

Recently in this journal, Tim Williamson and Harry Nelson (2017), two well-known Canadian 93

forest economists, published a comprehensive review, “Barriers to enhanced and integrated 94

climate change adaptation and mitigation in Canadian forest management” (47: 1567–1576). To 95

do so, they borrow from Eisenack et al’s (2014) mainstream barriers analysis approach and 96

present a synthesis highlighting the numerous barriers facing Canadian forest managers. They 97

make critical contribution to forest climate change literature by making the case for an 98

integrated approach that adopts adaptation and mitigation concerns in forest management 99

decisions. Overshadowing this point, however, are the underlying functionalist assumptions 100

inherent in the barriers approach that they employ to illustrate challenges of integrated 101

considerations in forest management decision-making. This is problematic from both a 102

scholarly and a practical policy perspective. We argue that social scientists engaged in climate 103

change research need to abandon the barriers approach. Instead they should understand and 104

empirically apply causal mechanisms that may affect implementation (Wellstead and Stedman 105

2015; Wellstead et al 2016). Categorizing any factor or process as a “barrier” reduces complex 106

and highly dynamic decision-making into simplified, static and metaphorical statements about 107

why current outcomes are ‘incorrect’ (Biesbroek et al 2015). 108

109

Page 5 of 27



Draft

6

Williamson and Nelson (2017) adopt a systems-based lens where barriers and capacity 110

requirements affect forest-management policy outcomes. Critical to their systems analysis is 111

that an “ultimate outcome is specified precisely, the means necessary for implementation are 112

identified, and the reasons why the means are not being implemented (i.e., barriers) are 113

identified and evaluated” (p.1569). This is followed by their overview of barriers which are 114

broadly identified by three categories: harmonization, enabling, and implementation. 115

Harmonization barriers, they state are “attributable to differences between adaptation and 116

mitigation among forest management agents in beliefs, framing, knowledge, and awareness” 117

(p.1571). The presence or absence of enabling barriers (such as psychological factors, 118

institutions, and leadership) are critical in determining the extent of adaptation and mitigation 119

mainstreaming. Finally, implementation barriers such as governance, science and knowledge, 120

knowledge exchange, information, education, and training, funding, and monitoring present 121

challenges to achieving ‘ideal’ sustainable forest management (SFM) outcomes. 122

123

The Shortcomings of Functionalist Assumptions 124

While the barriers approach presented by Williamson and Nelson (2017) may be a useful 125

heuristic, its functionalist assumptions leave much to be desired in terms of understanding or 126

accurately characterizing political and social phenomena, including activities like public policy-127

making, law-making, as well as legislative and administrative behavior, and as outline below is 128

of little use to actual policy-makers. This approach assumes that society is a system of 129

interconnected parts that work together in harmony to maintain a state of balance and social 130

equilibrium for the whole (Little 1991; Elster 1983). More specifically, the “explanas specifies 131

Page 6 of 27



Draft

7

the function of the explanandum within the larger system and the benefits the feature confers 132

upon the smooth working of the system. The explanandum is to be explained, that is, in terms 133

of the beneficial consequences it confers on the system as a whole” (Little 1991, p.92). Elster 134

(1986) notes that functionalism is a “puzzling and controversial” mode of explanation in general 135

because, unlike other scientific modes such as causal or intentional explanations (where the 136

intended consequences occur earlier in time), early events are explained by another event later 137

in time (p. 31). Thus, in a functional explanation, “we cite the actual consequences of the 138

phenomenon in order to account for it” (p. 31).i And, Elster further notes, in political life there 139

are many examples of singular, non-recurring events that produce unintended policy 140

consequences (such as wars, riots, and rebellions), while feedback loops are often postulated or 141

tacitly assumed when they do not in fact exist (Elster 1986). 142

143

A second problem arises due to the lack of specificity about the mechanisms and internal 144

workings of institutional and other components of political and social systems: the so-called 145

‘black box’ problem. Such concerns about the limitations of high-level systems-theoretic 146

approaches also surfaced more than half a century ago when they first became vogue in the 147

social sciences. Many 1960s-era social scientists such as Talcott Parsons (1951), Gabriel Almond 148

(1965) and David Easton (1965) suggested that a high-level cybernetic view could explain much 149

political and social behavior and outcomes. 150

151

As early as the 1970s, this overly abstract approach had already been largely discredited. For 152

example, Lilienfeld (1978) labeled the functionalist approach as an “ideological movement” 153

Page 7 of 27



Draft

8

because of its tendency to assume that systems maintain themselves in a state of equilibrium, 154

and concluded that it contained little relevance to the real world where actors actively sought 155

and produced change. Similarly, Chilcote (1994) found black box systems-level frameworks did 156

little to explain political or policy change, yielded few testable hypotheses, and presented a 157

strong ideological underpinning that sought to downplay political conflict and promote a 158

technocratic understanding and approach to political life. Thorson (1970) found the whole 159

enterprise futile so long as the black box of real political and social processes remained 160

unopened and unexamined. Groth (1970) found that “structural-functionalism has run aground 161

trying to specify its model of the social system untangled by monumental ambiguities and 162

values in the guise of survival considerations” (p. 499). 163

164

By adopting this conceptually problematic top down and functionalist view of decision making 165

in a Canadian forest management context, Williamson and Nelson’s (2017) contribution does 166

little to actually explain decision-making. They simply outline the actors, ideas, and institutions 167

that define the forest policy regime (See Lindquist and Wellstead 2001; Rayner et al 2001; St. 168

Laurent et al 2017). The underlying assumption in their review is that there is a ‘gap’ between 169

the actual and expected output of climate change decision-making, something must be 170

preventing policymaking from attaining an ideal equilibrium, or ‘ideal outcome. Thus, ex ante 171

barriers to climate change adaptation and mitigation are presented in order to explain this gap. 172

According to Biesbroek et al (2015), the key problem with this line of thinking is “that it 173

originates with the normative assumption that collective decision-making at national, regional, 174

and local levels should be producing climate-adaptive decisions and actions (p.493). Overly 175

Page 8 of 27



Draft

9

linear, functionalist approaches assume that socio-political systems will automatically adjust to 176

changes providing barriers are removed. Unfortunately, the complexities and ambiguities of 177

collective forest management decision-making related to climate changes is reduced to a 178

simple input–output model in which important internal dynamics and processes are absent 179

(Cairney et al 2015). 180

Functionalist Overtures in Williamson and Nelson’s Analysis 181

Despite being largely discredited in social science fields, in particular political science and 182

sociology, functionalism has made a comeback in a growing multi-disciplinary climate change 183

research program that has readily embraced this type of explanation (Smit and Pilifosova 2001; 184

Fussell and Klein 2006; Smith and Wandel 2006; Preston et al 2010). Wellstead et al (2013, 185

2014, 2015) highlighted the functionalist assumptions in the literature examining forestry 186

adaptation frameworks and vulnerability assessments. We speculate that that many non-social 187

science scholars may be unaware of its limitations when trying understand complex social 188

problems (Wellstead et al 2016). Many climate change scholars come from biology and ecology 189

where functionalism is a legitimate form explanation (Elster 1983). Moreover, epistemological 190

debates about functionalism are not widespread in mainstream neo-classical economics, 191

Williamson and Nelson’s discipline. Nonetheless, many economic assumptions about market 192

pertubations leading to equilibrium are functionalist in nature. For example, the market is 193

perceived as an institution that self-attains and self-maintains equilibrium. General equilibrium 194

theory that sustains most economic models assume human interactions by means of demands 195

resulting ultimately in a functional equilibrium. As a result of contingency, complexity, 196

institutional constraints and agency, societies and political systems are erratic and chaotic 197

Page 9 of 27



Draft

10

systems which completely differ theoretically and empirically with how classical economics 198

picture market interactions (Polanyi 1957). The market system does not subsume socio-political 199

systems but on the contrary, markets are embedded in socio-political systems, which is why 200

markets often do not reach the predicted state of equilibrium due to influences of and 201

interaction with socio-political system where power asymmetry, cognitive biases and limited 202

information hinder economic rationally and perfectly functional markets. The point is that the 203

trap of functionalism is one that many well-meaning scholars fall into. Our goal is to lend a 204

helping hand out. 205

206

Although they refer to forest management, Williamson and Nelson’s (2001) actual unit of 207

analysis is more specifically a political system within a forest management context. Their 208

approach begins with a “normative” overview of an “ultimate outcome” and “ideal outcome” 209

for this system that reflects mainstreaming goals to include adaptation and mitigation 210

considerations in sustainable forest management policies and programs. “Barriers” they argue 211

are “impediments and capacity deficits that can stop, delay, or divert the development and 212

implementation of comprehensive and integrated adaptation and mitigation”(p.1568). Their 213

systematic overview of barriers rightly highlights the challenges associated with mainstreaming 214

climate change into SFM policy-making. To their credit, Williamson and Nelson (2017) 215

acknowledge that overcoming barriers will be a difficult process. However, the key functionalist 216

assumption that the system maintains itself through the consequences that benefit some 217

groups, means that their assessment ultimately treats government and governance as 218

manipulated reactive or automatic system variables. Similar to economic input–output models, 219

Page 10 of 27



Draft

11

important internal dynamics and processes are absent throughout their paper. Barriers are 220

understood as an input variable inhibiting system-wide adaptation functionality. When 221

removed, SFM goals can be more readily achieved. For example, lack of policy capacity is 222

considered a critical component of the governance barrier which in turn impedes system wide 223

implementation. Williamson and Nelson (2017) state that there are “disconnect between 224

increasing policy mandates associated with climate change and decreasing governance 225

capacity”(p.1572). Their solution is to reduce the disconnects. Policy capacity, like all of the 226

other barriers, is understood as an entity rather than process or activity that leads to actual 227

outcomes rather than ideal outcomes. 228

229

The Way Forward: Thinking Mechanistically 230

Explaining decision-making requires the identification of causal processes that are responsible 231

for producing a certain outcome or effect. Barriers thinking, with its overly reductionist 232

comprehension of the decision-making process, prevents such explanations. There is large 233

social science ‘mechanisms’ literature, which is influenced by the natural sciences and 234

philosophy of science. Mechanisms are sets of entities and activities organized to produce a 235

regular series of changes from a beginning state to an ending (McAdam 2008). They usually 236

“invoke some form of 'causal agent' that is assumed to have generated the observed 237

relationship between the entities and are analytical constructs providing hypothetical links 238

between observable events (Hedström and Swedberg 1998). Often mechanisms are 239

unobservable or hidden phenomena, sensitive to variations in context, but empirically traceable 240

processes that act as a cause in generating the outcome (Pawson and Tilly 1997). Assessing the 241

Page 11 of 27



Draft

12

logic of association helps us open the black box of the limited X (barriers) → Y (forest 242

management outcomes) causal inferences so prevalent in the barriers literature, and prominent 243

in Williamson and Nelson’s (2017) argument. Causality is not simply a functional description of 244

a certain variable, but requires uncovering how X actually produces Y under specific conditions. 245

Thus, context is important to this relationship and the role it plays in determining outcomes. 246

Initial conditions play a key role in determining how mechanisms are triggered and how they 247

respond to certain contextual conditions. Identifying the context and the mechanism is 248

important when formulating hypotheses. It is critical to understand under what conditions that 249

mechanisms are most likely to occur or produce a particular outcome (Pawson and Tilly 1997). 250

Various scholars have adopted “context-mechanism-outcome” (CMO) approach: namely the 251

observed patterns of (un)intended outcomes can be explained by identifying the plausible 252

causal set of mechanisms within the situational context of the process (Pawson and Tilly 1997; 253

Biesbroek et al 2017) (Figure 1). 254

255

--Figure 1 About Here-- 256

257

This more robust understanding of causality opens up the black boxes of forest management 258

decision-making. In doing so, social scientists will find a diversity of causal mechanisms that 259

affect policy outcomes. There are different broad mechanism types: structural cognitive, and 260

relational. Second, mechanisms can span between micro-level (individual) and macro-level 261

(structural) phenomena (Bunge 1997; Checkel 2006). Given the multi-level nature of climate 262

change decision-making, these mechanisms are particularly important. These are illustrated in 263

Page 12 of 27



Draft

13

Figure 2. ‘Situational’ mechanisms occur when social structures or environmental phenomenon 264

constrain individuals’ action or shape and beliefs. ‘Action-formation’ mechanisms link 265

individual micro-level activities or behaviour to their actions. 266

267

--Figure 2 About Here-- 268

269

Transformational mechanisms are those in which individuals, through their actions and 270

interactions, generate intended and unintended outcomes. Third, forest social science 271

researchers need to be aware of the temporal nature of mechanisms which includes the time 272

horizons of both the mechanism and outcomes (Pierson 2003; Beach and Pedersen 2013). For 273

example, some slow-moving causal processes result in a threshold event resulting a sudden 274

change. In the social sciences, there are many examples of mechanisms that fit these broad 275

categories. For example, where Williamson and Nelson (2016) refer to inflexible top down 276

traditional modes of governance as a barrier. However, a situational action-formation 277

mechanism such as Robert Dahl’s (1957) well known power resources approach may in part 278

explain utilized a sub-optimal policy outcome. The emergence of new values can be attributed 279

to the role negative feedbacks challenging the long-term stability of policy monopolies is an 280

example of a cognitive transformative mechanism (Baumgartner and Jones 2010). Finally, the 281

intervention by collaborative leaders (a situational action-formation mechanism) can be 282

explained by measurable rational choice models of key officials to maximizing their control of 283

government (Downs 1957), seeking intrinsic rewards of their office (Riker 1962) or the 284

Page 13 of 27



Draft

14

combination of vote-seeking party, the office-seeking, and policy-seeking behavior (Strom 285

1990). From each of these more specific mechanisms, testable hypotheses can be developed. 286

287

Policy Relevant Research 288

A related problem with the barriers approach is the absence of a rigorous research program 289

that will ultimately inform policy-making. Beyond a long list of barriers, researchers have, 290

without understanding the dynamics and processes hidden in the forest management black 291

box, no way of assessing actual outputs. A mechanism methodological approach allows 292

researchers to pinpoint specific mechanisms and test them. When the mechanisms are 293

understood, analysts can collect diagnostic evidence, theorize variables and empirical proxies, 294

and test hypotheses which then provides a narrative explaining how a particular outcome or set 295

of events came about (Kay and Baker 2014). Beach and Petersen (2013) identify three types of 296

‘process tracing’: theory-testing, theory building, and explaining outcomes. Process tracing is a 297

qualitative technique for capturing causal mechanisms in action (George and Bennett 2005). In 298

some cases, researcher might be interested in a simple change of events related to a single 299

phenomenon. However, in the case of the complex world of sustainable forest management 300

policy-making there often is a convergence of a number of conditions, or complex interactions 301

causal factors (Trampusch and Palier 2016). Theory-testing process tracing is employed when a 302

phenomenon X is causing outcome Y is known but the mechanism is not specified. Since 303

mechanisms are portable concepts, they can applied by policy researchers to further elaborate 304

the long-term nature of policy change. Alternatively, in theory-building process-tracing, the 305

relationship between X and Y is detected but the researcher cannot identify the mechanism or 306

Page 14 of 27



Draft

15

when the outcome (Y) is known, but X is unknown. In both cases, the researcher develops a 307

new mechanism. Theory building would require considerably more time and effort than theory-308

testing. In explaining-outcome process tracing the outcome (Y) is known but X is unknown or 309

the researcher is interesting in fully explaining why X happened. In each type of process 310

tracing, the analyst will develop a causal mechanism. The second step involves operationalizing 311

the mechanism based on ‘observable manifestation’ from different types of evidence. From 312

collecting such information, the inferential weight of the evidence and the hypotheses can be 313

assessed using four well known tests that apply Bayesian probability (straw-in-the-wind, hoop, 314

smoking gun, and doubly decisive tests) (See Van Evera 1997). These tests examine necessary 315

and/or sufficient conditions for inferring evidence from the hypotheses exist. The principles of 316

certainty and uniqueness of the evidence reflect the necessary and sufficient conditions. The 317

straw-in-the-wind test supports or weakens a hypothesis but does not exclude it. The smoking-318

gun test confirms that the hypothesis but does not exclude other hypotheses. Hoop tests reject 319

a hypothesis but does not influence other hypotheses. Finally, a double-decisive test confirms a 320

single hypotheses and disconfirms other rival hypotheses. 321

322

Often researchers will be interested in comparing a number of cases. For example, comparing 323

climate change policy in a number of jurisdictions. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) is 324

popular approach which applies set theory and conceives cases as configurations of attributes. 325

QCA examines the necessary and sufficiency of configurations of conditions combine to 326

generate outcomes and enable causal interpretation (Ragin 2014). These popular methods 327

could be incorporated into national-level assessments such as the “Canada in a Changing 328

Page 15 of 27



Draft

16

Climate: Advancing our Knowledge for Action” assessment currently underway or by local level 329

decision makers interested in integrating climate change into decision-making processes 330

(Gleeson et al 2011). 331

332

Conclusion 333

We agree with Williamson and Nelson’s (2017) claim that the “ability of Canadian forest 334

managers to incorporate climate change considerations into all aspects of sustainable forest 335

management is an open question” (p.1573). In order to answer this question, climate change 336

researchers need to transition from the barriers approach and take up the challenge of 337

identifying specific mechanisms affecting forest management decisions outcomes. 338

A toolkit equipped with well-elaborated mechanisms is not only useful for precision and depth 339

to understand the generative processes of existing theoretical models but is also valuable for 340

empirical research and enhancing decision-making (Tranow et al 2016). This may lead to what 341

Dietz et al (2003) refer to as ‘analytical deliberation’ which provides for “improved information 342

and the trust in it that is essential for information to be used effectively, builds social capital, 343

and can allow deal with inevitable conflicts” (p.1910). Thus, the social scientist and public 344

official can benefit from deeper understanding of causal mechanisms. 345

346

Page 16 of 27



Draft

17

References

Almond, G. 1965. A developmental approach to political systems. World Politics 17:183–214.

Baumgartner, Frank R., and Bryan D. Jones. Agendas and instability in American politics.

University of Chicago Press, 2010.

Beach, Derek, and Rasmus Brun Pedersen. Causal case study methods: Foundations and

guidelines for comparing, matching, and tracing. University of Michigan Press, 2016.

Beach, D. & Pedersen, R. Process-tracing methods: Foundations and guidelines. 2013.

University of Michigan Press, 2013.

Biesbroek, R., Dupuis, J. and Wellstead, A., 2017. Explaining through causal mechanisms:

resilience and governance of social–ecological systems. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability, 28, pp.64-70.

Biesbroek, R., Dupuis, J., Jordan, A., Wellstead, A., Howlett, M., Cairney, P., Rayner, J. and

Davidson, D., 2015. Opening up the black box of adaptation decision-making. Nature Climate

Change, 5(6), pp.493-494.

Page 17 of 27



Draft

18

Brooks, N., N. Adger, and P. M. Kelly. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive

capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change

15(2):151–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.006

Bunge, M., 1997. “Mechanism and explanation.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences. 27: 410-465.

Cairney, P., Oliver, K. and Wellstead, A., 2016. To bridge the divide between evidence and

policy: reduce ambiguity as much as uncertainty. Public Administration Review, 76(3), pp.399-

402.

Chilcote, R. H. 1994.Theories of comparative politics: the search for a paradigm reconsidered.

Second edition. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado, USA.

Checkel, J.T. 2006. “Tracing causal mechanisms.” International Studies Review. 8: 362-370.

Dietz, T., Ostrom, E. and Stern, P.C., 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science,

302(5652): 1907-1912.

Downs, A. 1957. An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political

Economy, 65(2): 135-150.

Easton, D. 1965. A systems analysis of political life. Wiley, New York, USA.

Page 18 of 27



Draft

19

Eisenack, K., Moser, S.C., Hoffmann, E., Klein, R.J.T., Oberlack, C., Pechan, A.,

Rotter, M., and Termeer, C.J.A.M. 2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers

to climate change adaptation. Nature Clim. Change, 4: 867–872. doi:10.1038/

Nclimate2350.

Elster, J., 1983. Explaining technical change: A case study in the philosophy of science. CUP

Archive.

Elster, J. 1986. An introduction to Karl Marx. Cambridge University Press, New York, New York,

USA. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139163620

Eyzaguirre, J. and Warren, F.J. (2014): Adaptation: Linking Research and Practice; in Canada in a

Changing Climate: Sector Perspectives on Impacts and Adaptation, edited by F.J. Warren and

D.S. Lemmen; Government of Canada, Ottawa, ON, p. 253-286.

Falleti T. & Lynch, F. 2009. Context and causal mechanisms in political analysis. Comparative.

Political Studies. 42: 1143-1166.

Füssel, H.-M., and R. J. T. Klein. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: an evolution of

conceptual thinking. Climate Change 75:301–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-0329-

3

Page 19 of 27



Draft

20

George, A. L., & Bennett, A. 2005. Case studies and theory development in the social sciences.

MIT Press.

Gleeson, J., Gray, P., Douglas, A., Lemieux, C.J., and Nielsen, G. 2011. A Practitioner’s Guide to

Climate Change Adaptation in Ontario’s Ecosystems. Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and

Adaptation Resources, Sudbury, Ontario. 74 p.

Groth, A. 1970. Structural functionalism and political development: three problems. Western

Political Quarterly 23:485–499. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/446568

Kay, A, and Phillip Baker. 2015. "What can causal process tracing offer to policy studies? A

review of the literature." Policy Studies Journal 43 (1): 1-21.

Lilienfeld, R. 1978. The rise of systems theory: an ideological analysis. John Wiley & Sons Inc.,

New York, USA.

Lindblom, C. E. 1977. The policy-making process. Yale University Press, New Haven,

Connecticut, USA.

Lindquist, E.E. and Wellstead, A.M., 2001. Making sense of complexity: Advances and gaps in

comprehending the Canadian forest policy process.

Page 20 of 27



Draft

21

Little, D., 1991. Varieties of social explanation. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Parsons, T., 1991. The social system. Psychology Press.

Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. 1997. Realistic evaluation. Sage.

Pierson, Paul. 2003. "Big, slow-moving, and... invisible." Comparative historical analysis in the

social sciences: 177-207.

Polanyi, K., 1957. The great transformation:(The political and economic origin of our time).

Beacon Press.

Preston, B., R. Westaway, and E. Yuen. 2010. Climate adaptation planning in practice: an

evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change 16:407–438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9270-x

Ragin, Charles C. 2014. The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative

strategies. Univ of California Press.

Page 21 of 27



Draft

22

Rayner, J., Howlett, M., Wilson, J., Cashore, B. and Hoberg, G., 2001. Privileging the sub-sector:

critical sub-sectors and sectoral relationships in forest policy-making. Forest Policy and

Economics, 2(3-4), pp.319-332.

Riker, William H. 1962. The theory of political coalitions. Yale University Press, 1962.

Thorson, T. 1970. Biopolitics. Holt, Rinehard and Winston, New York, USA.

Smit, B., and O. Pilifosova. 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable

development and equity. Pages 879–912 in J. McCarthy, O. F. Canziani, N. A. Leary, P. J. Dokken,

and K. S. White, editors. Climate change 2001: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.

Contribution of the Working Group to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global

Environmental Change 16(3):282–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008

St-Laurent, G.P., Hagerman, S. and Hoberg, G., 2017. Barriers to the development of forest

carbon offsetting: Insights from British Columbia, Canada. Journal of environmental

management, 203, pp.208-217.

Page 22 of 27



Draft

23

Strom, Kaare. 1990. "A behavioral theory of competitive political parties." American journal of

political science: 565-598.

Trampusch, Christine and Bruno Palier. 2016. “Between X and Y: how process

tracing contributes to opening the black box of causality” New Political Economy. 21:5, 437-

454.

Tranow, Ulf, Tilo Beckers, and Dominik Becker. 2016."Explaining and Understanding by

Answering ‘Why’and ‘How’Questions: A Programmatic Introduction to the Special Issue Social

Mechanisms." Analyse & Kritik. Journal of Social Theory 38(1): 1-30.

Van Evera, S. 1997. Guide to methods for students of political science. Cornell University Press.

Wellstead, A., Howlett, M. and Rayner, J., 2017. Structural-functionalism redux: adaptation to

climate change and the challenge of a science-driven policy agenda. Critical Policy Studies,

11(4), pp.391-410.

Wellstead, A., Howlett, M., Nair, S. and Rayner, J., 2016. Canada’s Regional Adaptation

Collaboratives and adaptation platform: The importance of scaling up and scaling down climate

change governance experiments. Climate Services, 4, pp.52-60.

Page 23 of 27



Draft

24

Wellstead, A. and Stedman, R., 2015. Mainstreaming and beyond: Policy capacity and climate

change decision-making. Michigan Journal of Sustainability, 3.

Wellstead, A., Rayner, J. and Howlett, M., 2014. Beyond the black box: forest sector

vulnerability assessments and adaptation to climate change in North America. Environmental

Science & Policy, 35, pp.109-116.

Wellstead, A., Howlett, M. and Rayner, J., 2013. The neglect of governance in forest sector

vulnerability assessments: Structural-functionalism and “black box” problems in climate change

adaptation planning. Ecology and Society, 18(3).

Williamson, T.B. and Nelson, H.W., 2017. Barriers to enhanced and integrated climate change

adaptation and mitigation in Canadian forest management. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research, 47(999), pp.1567-1576.

Page 24 of 27



Draft

25

i Specifically Elster (1986) noted that an institution or a behavioral pattern X is explained by its

function Y for group Z if and only if (1) Y is an effect of X, (2) Y is beneficial for Z, (3) Y is

unintended by the actors producing X, (4) Y (or at least the causal relationship between X and Y)

is unrecognized by the actors in Z, and (5) Y maintains X by a causal feedback loop passing

through Z (p. 28).

Page 25 of 27



Draft

Figure 1 Context Mechanism Output (CMO) model

Source: Pawson and Tilly (1997)

Page 26 of 27



Draft

Figure 2- “Bath tub” approach for identifying different levels of mechanisms

Page 27 of 27



draft...draft 2 23 university of alberta, edmonton, alberta, canada t6g 2p5 24 email:...

Documents