Identification and Mapping of Local

Government Capacity to Adapt to Climate

Change

Jessep Douglas Englert

A Thesis in Science

Submitted to the School of Geography and Archaeology in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science

Dr. Kevin Lynch: Faculty Advisor

Dr. Aaron Potito: Head of School

Geography Discipline

August 26th, 2016

Abstract:

Ireland is currently facing the onset of climate change, bringing with it

incremental sea rise, coastal implications, and dubious changes in extreme weather

patterns. Defective associations amid institutions that fail in planning for environmental,

political, and social changes will diminish Ireland’s capacities to adapt and increase its

overall vulnerability. Unlike the past, collaborative endeavors from a multi-level, multi-

actor collective will be utilised in order to proactively respond to the diverse effects of

oncoming climate change. The purpose of this thesis is to address the questions of: How

do local authority, institutional actors perceive and identify their capacity to adapt to

climate change? Can we assess their adaptive capacity based on an adjustment of the

Adaptive Capacity Wheel, in and Irish context? Through extensive literature review and

an adaptation of the established (ACW) by Gupta et al., (2010), 33 custom questionnaires

were distributed to individuals throughout institutions within Ireland. The questions

reflected the 22 criteria used to assess the 6 main dimensions of the (ACW). With the

addition of standarised scoring for question types, results were easily attainable in a

quantitative form. With increased time and personnel the addition of my research with the

current ACW may produce firm footing for future study and assessment.

Thesis Disclaimer: The following dissertation was completely researched, compiled, and submitted

by the author for the purposes of assessment in the MSc Coastal and Marine

Environments 2015-16. All information is the author’s own work, except where it is

explicitly acknowledged otherwise through proper referencing of source material. This

dissertation is for informative and guidance purposes only. The following document does

not represent any formal NUIG, (National University of Ireland, Galway), position on the

content. Colleagues are permitted to use any part of this document, provided the source is

acknowledged. The author reserves the right alter or otherwise change the document at

any time.

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my dissertation advisor Dr. Kevin Lynch for his guidance

throughout the research process. I would like to thank Dr. Frances Fahy and Dr. Terry

Morley for their assistance with interview protocol and structure. I would like to thank

each of the respondents from this study for allowing me insight and research into the

institutions and norms that they work with every day. I would also like to thank my

program colleagues and friends for their tremendous support and encouragement.

Table of Contents Abstract ………………………………

Disclaimer and Acknowledgements ………

List of Figures ……………………………………

List of Acronyms ………………………………………

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………….1-2

Research Question …………………………………………

Key Aims and Objectives ………………………………….

Thesis Plan of Development ……………………………….

2. Conceptual Framework …………………………………………3-4

3. Literature Review and Theoretical Framework ………………….5

a. Climate Change ………………………………………………5

Sea Level Rise ………………………………………...5-12

Coastal Squeeze and Erosion ………………………...13-17

Storminess Situation …………………………………18-21

Social Context ………………………………………..22-29

b. Adaptation …………………………………………………..30

Vulnerability …………………………………………30-33

Resiliency ……………………………………………34-37

Coastal Defenses ……………………………………..38-41

Planning and Regulation ……………………………..42-47

Problems, Barriers, and Obstacles …………………...48-50

c. Mapping Capacity ………………………………………….51

Why Map Capacity …………………………………..51-54

Example Studies and Methods ………………………54-60

4. Research Design, Methodology, and Analysis …………………...61

Research Design …………………………………………61

Methodology …………………………………………61-62

Analysis ……………………………………………...62-63

5. Results ……………………………………………………………...64

6. Discussion ………………………………………………………64-65

7. Conclusion and Recommendations …………………………...66-67

8. Bibliography ……………………………………………………68-77

9. Appendices ……………………………………………………...78-85

List of Figures: Figures

1-10

Citation and Description Figures

11-20

Citation and Description

Fig. 1 (Devoy, 2008) Relative sea wave

heights around Ireland.

Fig. 11 (Farrell, 2007) Increases in

precipitation in the west and north

of Ireland as the century

progresses and increasing drought

conditions in the south and east.

Fig. 2 (Devoy, 2008) Tidal regimes

around Ireland.

Fig. 12 (Devoy, 2008) The predominant

storm tracks over the North

Atlantic

Fig. 3 (Lambeck, 1993) The South of

Ireland Moraine at last maximum,

as well as successive regressive

moraines.

Fig. 13 (Devoy et al., 2000b) Storm tracks

of cyclones affecting Ireland and

coastal Europe from 1973-1975.

Fig. 4 (Lambeck, 1993) The comparison

between glacial extents at 22,000

BP and 14,000 BP.

Fig. 14 (Devoy et al., 2000b) Comparison

of storm frequency and

periodicity from 1965-1995.

Fig. 5 (Lambeck, 1996) Northeast Ireland

RSLC.

Fig. 15 (Gupta et al., 2010) The original

ACW consisting of 6 dimensions

of adaptive capacity, defined by

22 criteria.

Fig. 6 (Lambeck, 1996) Southwest

Ireland, estimated RSLC curves for

the last 20,000 years.

Fig. 16 (Grothmann et al., 2013) Current

revision of the ACW consisting of

8 dimensions of adaptive capacity

(2 additional), defined by 24

criteria (2 additional).

Fig. 7 (Lambeck, 1996) RSLC showing

increases in a number of Irish

regions, ranging from southwest to

west to northwest coasts.

Fig. 17 (NCCAF, 2012) The different

aspects of overall vulnerability in

a human/environmental

relationship.

Fig. 8 (Lambeck, 1996) Estimated paleo

sea levels relative to present day

levels at both 13,000 and 6,000

years BP.

Fig. 18 (Bettini et al., 2015) The adaptive

cycle for understanding resilient

and transformative adaptation. A

system may maintain resilience by

cycling within the limits of its

own potential or a system may

transform and shift to operate

within a new range.

Fig. 9 (Stamski, 2005) The Process of

coastal squeeze as the development

of housing and armour limits the

natural transgression of the beach.

20cm/yr is considered a realistic

value on the east coast and other

soft-sediment areas.

Fig. 19 (Stamski, 2005) Artificial gunite

coastal protection seawall outlined

in black.

Fig. 10 (NCEC, 1992) The managed retreat

of coastal railway inland in County

Wicklow.

Fig. 20 (Gupta et al., 2010) Scoring

rubric.

List of Acronyms: Acronym

Definition

MSL Mean Sea Level

MTL Mean Tidal Level

MSLR Mean Sea Level Rise

BBCZMG Bannow Bay Coastal Zone

Management Group

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change

NCECS National Coastal Erosion

Committee Staff

NCCAF National Climate Change

Adaptation Framework

ACW Adaptive Capacity Wheel

CZM Coastal Zone Management

ICZM Integrated Coastal Zone

Management

EU European Union

EPA Environmental Protection

Agency

IMCORE Innovative Management for

Europe’s Changing Coastal

Resource

MSFD Marine Strategy Framework

Directive

MLOPC Marine Law and Ocean

Policy Centre

IDGEC Institutional Dimensions of

Global Environmental

Change

IPIHDP Institutions Project of the

International Human

Dimensions Programme

CCMA County and City

Management Association

CODEMA City of Dublin Energy

Management Agency

1

1

Introduction: While the climate change conversation within the scientific community is an

ongoing and evolving one, there are still certain areas of the discussion that have not been

developed fully. Namely, this has specific impacts on the context of Irish adaptive

capacity. The aim of the succeeding research is to analyse the perceptions of decision-

makers within, and the response of the institutions that facilitate the norms that guide the

counties of Ireland. The assessment of climate change and subsequent factors within the

literature is followed by an in-depth discussion of vulnerability, resiliency, planning, and

barriers of adaptation. A thorough description of the research methods used within this

study sets the foundation for a series of interviews; the results of which demonstrate the

differences between various institutions and their respective views on climate change.

Climate change impacts, and specifically the capacity to adapt to coming change, are

central to the narrative of this research. The study examines weak links among the

institutions, including the failure to plan for changing environmental and policy

conditions and risks, which effectively constrain adaptive capacity and increase

vulnerability. Given that the impacts of climate change are so diverse, it is a problem that

demands collective action and a multi-level response from the institutions and

participants. For the use of this research, the Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) (Gupta et

al. 2010) was identified as one of the most effective and encompassing methods used to

do this.

Adaptation can significantly reduce many potentially dangerous impacts of

climate change, and reduce the risk of many key vulnerabilities. Yet there exists a lack of

key determinants within adaptive capacity (including economic wealth, technology,

information, skills and infrastructure), which in turn increases the vulnerability of nations

and communities to the various challenges of climate change. Unfortunately, our

understanding of adaptive capacity is less developed than our understanding of natural

systems. This limits the degree to which social vulnerability can be quantified within the

world’s coastal regions, and necessitates further investigation. The technical, financial,

and institutional capacity —along with the actual planning and implementation of

effective adaptation— is currently quite limited in many regions. Much of the current

research has critiqued earlier approaches on adaptive capacity determinants and

2

indicators, arguing that is it more important to understand the dynamics of adaptive

capacity in the relationships between common determinants in different contexts. This is

an argument that the succeeding research intends to build upon. Coastal research is

frequently directed more towards the general understanding of coastal function and in the

development of coastal management concepts; yet it is at the local level that the outcomes

of generic coastal studies have been applied, and it is time to tackle this on a larger scale.

While scientific research into climate change impacts for Ireland has been underway for

some time, only now is an understanding of the distribution of changes in temperature,

precipitation, sea level, and flood risk beginning to coalesce. This information has

become more accessible, and now presents the question of utilising this research in an

Irish context. This is a question the following study attempts to answer.

3

Conceptual Framework: A necessary narrative on the discussion of social vulnerability to natural hazards.

This builds upon the previous discussion in his work (Tapsell, 2010). Tapsell describes

this vulnerability as a way of ‘describing who is likely to be especially at risk to the

effects of hazards’, temporarily and spatially; an analysis that enables the specific and

special needs of the so-called ‘vulnerable groups.’ (2010). These aspects are to be taken

into account as part of the risk assessment, and, more importantly, the risk management

planning process in regards to said vulnerability (Dunning, 2009). It is worth noting that

this framework is one of many suggestions concerning social vulnerability. An alternative

to Tapsell (2010) is presented by Turner et al. (2003), whose vulnerability framework is

constructed for the assessment of coupled human-environment systems to

comprehensibly assess who or what may be more susceptible to multiple environmental

changes. This counterpart to Tapsell (2010) suggests that social vulnerability is unique in

that it is not registered by exposure to any specific hazard alone; in fact, vulnerability

must be assessed as it resides in the sensitivity and resilience of the system experiencing

said hazards (Turner et al., 2003). This framework—that is, the integration of potential

exposures and social resilience— has gained increasing attention and significance in the

past few years, specifically in relation to research on natural hazards. This new surge of

interest is largely due to the work of Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003).

The recognition of Turner et al.’s (2003) framework requires certain revisions and

augmentation in the fundamental design of assessments on social vulnerability, including

the capacity to treat these paired human-environment systems and those links within the

systems that may affect their vulnerability. Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003) uses a conceptual

model complementing the aforementioned framework; it is a model of vulnerability that

incorporates both biophysical and social indicators to provide users with an all-hazards,

overarching assessment of vulnerability specifically at the local level. The frameworks

and conceptual models of Turner et al. (2003) and Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003) work so

well together due to their shared assumptions of interdependent relations between

hazards, resiliency, vulnerability, and sensitivity; concepts that encouragement my own

agreement with these works. I assumed these elements as a conceptual framework of my

own in my consideration of the ACW, as well as the coupling of biophysical and social

4

factors unique to Turner et al. (2003) and Cutter et al. (2000 & 2003). Tapsell (2010),

though not as widespread as his counterparts, did discuss a societal similarity with his

Diamond Analogy; a concept that contributed to my own work.

5

Literature Review:

Climate Change

Sea Level Rise (SLR)

More than 50% of Ireland’s population, (approx. 4.7 million as of the 2015

census), lives within 15km (kilometers) of its coastline (Devoy, 2008). Most of these

people live in, more or less, isolated metropolitan areas (e.g. Dublin, Cork, Galway, etc.),

which leaves large stretches of the near 7,000km of coastline with a contrasting low

density populous. The relationship between the two factors indicates that Ireland is seen

as having a relatively low vulnerability to the impacts of SLR (sea level rise); however,

roughly 30% of Ireland’s coastal wetlands could be forfeited given a standard 1m (meter)

SLR scheme (Devoy, 2008). Much of Ireland’s soft coastline, predominantly

unconsolidated glacial sediments, rests at a sea level medium of 10m-12m, with deep

water waves that can transcend heights of +11m-20m (Devoy, 2008). You can see an

example of Ireland’s modeled wave heights in Figure 1, showing a consistent figure of

approx. 30m to 35m along the western to northern Irish coasts, but also diminishing

significantly along the eastern and

southeastern coasts. This coupled with

various tidal ranges of Ireland,

predominantly mesotidal to macrotidal

(Figure 2), adds overall pressure from

heightened wave crests during significant

storm action (Devoy, 2008). Additional

Figure 1 seen right and Figure 2 seen below,

both utilised from Devoy, 2008.

6

SLR due to climate change, however small,

could also become a cause of a potential

increase in irregular large scale perturbations

(Carter, 1991a). With this loss of quasi-

periodic storm events, the comparison could

become an increase in coastal floods and

erosion; this sentiment is shared by the

MLOPC (2006), who affirms that a, “100

year,” flooding event can be expected to occur

approximately every five years. Consequently,

the anticipated increases of storms in the

Northern Atlantic due to climate change, high

wave action in the Irish zone, and overall

location of Ireland in existing storm paths,

have culminated into a present rate of land loss of roughly 160ha (hectares) per year from

around 300 locals in Ireland (Devoy, 2008).

The relative sea level for Ireland is rising at an average rate of 1mm (millimeter)

per year (Orford, 2006; Devoy, 2008) and while the specifics of this vary notably, climate

change scenarios ran in the IPCC (2007) conclude that the anticipated MSL (mean sea

level) is said to rise up to 0.59m over the next century, coincidentally about three or four

times that of the current eustatic average (Farrell, 2007). The previous figure of 1mm

relative sea level change, while seen the most in literature, doesn’t account for all

estimations, with the MLOPC (Marine Law and Ocean Policy Centre) predicting 17cm-

31cm (±15cm) (centimeters) over the next thirty years (2006). A yearly average rise in

sea level is also estimated at a lower .2mm, meaning a comparable SLR between 1990

and 2030 of .3m in MLOPC (2006) if the rest of the century were to follow the same

logic. SLR is lethargic in the sense that its inertia will continue beyond 2100 for many

centuries (IPCC, 2007). The IPCC also conducted scenarios that show breakdowns of the

West Antarctic/Greenland ice sheets would make the long-term rise still larger and with

the current threshold for breakdown gauged to be approx. (1.1°C) – (3.8°C) above

present values, this likely to happen by 2100 under current IPCC schemes (2007).

7

In Northern Ireland, past tidal records were used to estimate MSL (mean sea

level) change from two different positions at two different times, those being Malin Head

from 1958-1998 and MTL (mean tidal level) at Belfast Harbour from 1918-2002 (Orford,

2006). In this thesis, MSL is considered the calculated average of water levels, taken

hourly, over the course of a year, while Orford also uses MTL as a surrogate calculation

of the average daily min and max tidal levels over a year (2006). Although both areas

exhibit significant deviation throughout the year, both show a relative fall in sea level.

The RSLC (relative sea level change) shows -.2mm/yr (±.37mm/yr) in Belfast Harbour

and a -.16mm/yr (±.17mm/yr) around Malin Head (Orford, 2006); however the shear

amount of variance that is seen in a natural system seems to dictate that these values are

seemingly zero. A review of Carter also established that the RSLC rate was essentially

zero through the use of tidal gauges in Belfast Harbour (1982).

At this point you might be thinking that the literature is indicating that sea level

change in Ireland is seemingly stable, perhaps even dropping; however the retreat of ice

sheets late in the Quaternary period caused, as Devoy puts it, predominantly emerging

coasts in Northern Ireland areas giving way to more stable to submerging coasts to the

south (2008). The RSLC encompassing Ireland, during the last 20,000 year period, is

predominantly the product of isostatic rebound from glacial retreat along the British Isles

and the subsequent change from the melt waters (Lambeck, 1996). However, the

significance of global eustatic additions of melt water shouldn’t be over looked in the

overall change. The furthest extent of main ice sheets during the time of the last glacial

maximum is believed to have been located

at the South of Ireland Moraine (Figure 3)

at approximately 22,000 years BP (before

present) (Lambeck, 1993; 1996), but it

stands to reason that ice extended further

southwards, albeit at uncertain

thicknesses.

Figure 3: seen right, shows the South

of Ireland Moraine (2) at last

maximum, as well as successive

regressive moraines. Lambeck, 1993

8

However, by about 17,000 years BP, the main retreat of ice sheets causing the formation

of the northern drumlin fields had occurred with the eastern coast of Ireland almost

completely free of the ice

sheet, while by 14,000 years

BP the initial end extent of the

last maximum was estimated

to be only just over the current northern coast (Figure 4) (Lambeck, 1993).

At approx. 600m thickness, the melting of the South of Ireland Moraine ice sheet

and other British Isle ice sheets had ceased around 6,000 years BP (Lambeck, 1996).

Examples of this threshold can be seen in the northeast of Ireland, such as Ballycastle and

Donaghadee, with Lambeck stating an initial decrease in sea levels followed by a

somewhat stationary value at 12,000 years BP and rising thereafter until, “present,” levels

at 6,000 year BP (1996). Using Lambeck’s RSLC curves (Figure 5), you can see that in

the northeast of Ireland the initial isostatic crustal rebound is extraordinary (curve 1), this

is predominantly due to the retreat of

Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Northern

England ice sheets (1996). This is reflected

in core and reflectivity readings by Kelly

that show a minimum of 50m in isostatic

uplift in 800 years, beginning with a high

tier sea level of +20m of present, at approx.

14,200 year BP, and ending with a 30m

basal low-stand of -30m below present, at

approx. 13,400 year BP (2006). With the

previous measurements the assumption is

Figure 4: seen left, shows the

comparison between glacial

extents at 22,000 BP and

14,000 BP. Lambeck, 1993

Figure 5: seen above, northeast

Ireland RSLC. Lambeck, 1996

9

that local sea levels dipped significantly at approx. 6.3cm/yr (Kelly, 2006). At first the

crustal rebound rate exceeds that of the eustatic sea level rise (curve 2) and even though

global sea level rises quite fast, the magnitude of crustal rebound gives the appearance of

relative sea level fall in (curve 3), which is the comparison between the two. At around

the 12,000 years BP mark the intensity of

the two curves are close to equal and sea

level remains relatively constant in the area

after 6,000 years BP as stated earlier. The

assumption is that this trend will continue

until the eustatic change outpaces the uplift

in N. Ireland. A second RSLC curve

model, used in Lambeck (1996), can be

seen in Figure 6, showing the contrast between the

emergent coasts in the north and the stable to submergent coasts in the south of Ireland,

this example being Bantry Bay in Cork.

Using sea level predictions utilised in Lambeck’s studies, (1993; 1996), (Figure

7) you can see the relative increases in specific localities from Dingle and Limerick in the

south up to Donegal in the North. These can be further understood when used in tandem

with Figure 8 showing the predicted sea levels in

relationship to present day sea levels at 13,000 and

6,000 years BP (Lambeck, 1996). The black

curves shown serve as comparison between the

estimated isobases and the present day levels, with

13,000 year BP being directly after the predicted

retreat of glacial ice beyond the northern coast.

Figure 6: seen right, shows southwest Ireland,

estimated RSLC curves for the last 20,000

years. Lambeck, 1996

Figure 7: seen left, RSLC showing increases in a

number of Irish regions, ranging from southwest to

west to northwest coasts. Lambeck, 1996

10

Figure 7 also shows indication of relatively significant potential sea level rise in, “some,”

localities in the last 6,000 years (Lambeck, 1996).

Directly after 6,000 years BP, “steady,” point, the overall global sea level rise has

become almost minute due to the completion of melting ice sheets and the lingering

isostatic rebound now overshadows that of the SLR; however, the long incubation period

of global processes means that it will become influential in the future.

Studies on latitudinal profile of the vertical velocities of crustal movement by

Orford, with the use of GPS (global positioning systems), with models for northern

Ireland showing rebound of less than .5mm per year (2006). Carter identified RSLC to be

essentially zero through tidal gauge data from Belfast, mentioned earlier, and suggests

that the crustal rebound effect that had since been influencing N. Ireland is, by present

day, considerably lessened (1982). In contrast, a southern example in Ireland would be

Figure 6 in Bantry Bay, where the retreat of ice began much sooner than in the northern

regions and therefore the isostatic recoil. The rebound in question was only about 10m

during the last glacial maximum and only slight amounts, (roughly less than 1.5m used in

Figure 8: seen above, estimated paleo sea levels relative to present day levels at both 13,000 and 6,000

years BP. Lambeck, 1996

11

the model), of rebound arise after approx. 10,000 years BP (Lambeck, 1996). These

results coupled with the afore mentioned estimations of 2m SLR at the regional level

would give the impression of an overall rise in sea level in most southern areas. The

interesting thing is that observations made by Lambeck indicate a gradual rise in sea level

over the past 5,000 years without an upper limit, this being supported by trends in Figure

5 that also extend up coast to N. Ireland, albeit the data becomes more uncertain from

northern reaches (1996). Potential rise in eustatic sea level is theorized at about 1mm/yr

(Orford, 2006; Devoy, 2008), and with Orford gauging the current isostatic rise at only

.5mm/yr, even given a fair yield of ±5mm/yr, the current climate warming is beginning to

mask the last centuries work of rebound in Northern Ireland (2006). The observations and

data put through this research would suggest the trends in sea level change could be

growing, meaning that future sea level tendencies may shifting upwards. Although gauge

data and other statistics have commensurate uncertainty, the assumption based off what

can be figured is that the long-term rebound experienced after the last glacial maximumis

now beginning to be shadowed by the current eustatic SLR (Orford, 2006). Assuming

that isostatic rates don’t increase or change, which research estimates won’t, then the

RSLC for Northern Ireland could begin to increase over the present assumption of nil and

this could mean more significant troubles for those in the south who have already

experienced a relative SLR already.

Notwithstanding limitations of Lambeck’s glacial-isostatic model (Lambeck,

1996), is can be safely assumed that the sea level sequences, both past and present, are a

product of isostatic rebound due to the melting of glaciers over Ireland and global sea

level change from British Isle ice sheets among others. While various uncertainties lie

within northern gauge statistics and Lambeck’s ice model (Lambeck, 1996), the overall

prediction of current isostatic rebound rate is inadequate to overwhelm the global eustatic

factor. Different regions and locals will be accompanied by their own discrepancies, the

big picture is that the rebound of northern regions can only continue to offset the

proposed sea level rise for so long. As of the present, there is no preeminent national

policy that specifically assists in the management of SLR effects caused by climate

change and most literature on the subject is concerned with a sustainable environment,

coastal admin, and decision making at different levels of governance. This afore

12

mentioned factors, coupled with climate and storm led SLR, will fundamentally increase

current coastal flooding and erosion (Devoy, 2008).

13

Coastal Squeeze and Erosion

Much of the Ireland’s approx. 5,000km-7,000km coast remained relatively

underdeveloped throughout the last few hundred years; however Devoy acknowledges

that an, “island-wide awakening,” was made to the potential of coastal and marine zone

resources (2008). Developments such as the Department of the Marine and Natural

Resources in 1988 and the establishment of the Marine Institute in 1991, to name a few,

fixed the importance of the coastal/marine zone in Irish culture (Devoy, 2008). Literature

portrayal and first-hand experience have shown me a deep-rooted, ingrained attachment

to the ownership of land in Ireland. This is most of all seen in the coastal communities,

where residents are tenacious in their endeavor to keep the sea at bay. Roughly 350,000

citizens are put at risk each year from SLR-led flooding and other associated coastal

hazards, prompting an approximate 170 million euro loss in capital per year, and a

potential 420 million euros per year in protection or adaptation expenditure (Devoy,

2008). Though the population has declined in the 20th century, in no small part due to the

Celtic Tiger, the coastal zone is still responding to the impacts left by the larger

populations, which coincidentally have gotten up to 9 million in the past. The trying

times of the 1980’s caused the rural populous to flock to urban centres in search of work,

with evidence of this generation’s impact on the coastal zone shown in MLOPC with

amounts of residential housing increasing by 47% up to 180% in some areas during a

three year period 1994-1997 and the amount of industrial land increasing by 16.6% over

the period of 1975-1990 (2006). Since the development bubble burst of the 1980’s the

coastal population has seen marked increase due to rural emigration, urban expansion,

and a rise in tourism. The coastal population (living within 5km of the coastal zone)

accounts for 34% of the total and coupled with coastal urban areas jumps to approx. 50%

of the total population (Devoy, 2008).

To date, coastal research has predominantly been utilised for general research

topics, along the lines of coastal functions, structure, and progression; however current

concerns revolve around questions of coastal vulnerability, climate change, and

anthropogenic forces. The process of coastal erosion and subsequent coastal squeeze has

become significantly more pronounced, with one explanation from Carter being that the

transfer of, “new,” sediments to most of the coast from offshore, shelf sources has almost

14

ceased (1993). Coastal dune and beach systems are currently under a multitude of

different pressures from around the world due to SLR and anthropogenic forces

attributing to sand loss, such as construction and leisure activities. Factors such as these

promote coastal loss resulting in coastal squeeze. Coastal squeeze (Figure 9) is a process

that can best be interpreted as a dune system that is restricted from seaward movement by

storm and tidal activity, but is also restricted from propagating inland by coastal

development, agriculture, livestock, and anthropogenic forces. This process essentially

thins out the beach face or, “squeezes,” it and shortens the length of space (fetch) that

sediment needs to flow

and accrete into new

juvenile dune systems.

The development of

coastal squeeze can lead

to a vicious cycle in

which the narrower

backshore zone

accordingly dissipates

less wave energy and

therefore increasing the

amount of erosion in the

area (Williams, 2001).

Irish coastal

systems are diverse

including: cliffs,

mudflats, lagoons, dune

systems, beach systems,

cobble/gravel, salt marshes, machair habitats, and other wetlands. Ireland has a largely

cliff coastline (Carter, 1991), predominantly running from the southwest, up the west side

of Ireland to the north; and while there is a fair mix of meso-macrotidal regimes (see

Figure 2), Ireland owes its almost 3,000km of rock dominated coastline to the shaping of

paleo, geologic controls. The opposite side of Ireland, mainly the east and southeast

Figure 9: seen above, is the process of coastal squeeze as the

development of housing and armour limits the natural

transgression of the beach. The example of 20cm/yr is

considered a realistic value on the east coast and other soft-

sediment areas. Stamski, 2005

15

portions, consist of predominantly glacial till and loose sediment; however these

sediment characteristics can be found in some places on the rockier parts of the coast due

to glacial carving and fluvial processes (Devoy, 2008). At first glance, the geophysical

aspects lend themselves to the assumption that much of Ireland’s coastal environment is

liable to absorb much of the impact coming from climate related SLR; however, roughly

30% of the aforementioned coastal systems are at serious threat from SLR and climate

led increases in storm magnitude/frequency must be taken into account (Farrell, 2007;

Devoy, 2008). The maximum wave heights and wave energies are seen along the west

coast of Ireland. These values can climb to significant wave heights of 15-20m and in

some cases 30-35m (see Figure 1) (Devoy, 2008). As you progress along the east coast

the values decrease significantly, getting down to almost 1.5m to 2m further into the Irish

Sea (Carter, 1993). While the eastern coasts do glean some storm influence, Devoy

claims that they only draw approx. 20% of the wave energy levels that occur on the

Atlantic facing west coast (2008). Although the wave energy on the east coast constitutes

a fraction of the west, the inverse is true in regards to erosional rates, with average values

of .2-.5m/yr on loose sediment and typically rising to rates of 1-2m/yr on the glacial till

of the eastern and southeastern coasts (Devoy, 2008). As of 1991, the total consolidated

rates for flooding/erosional land loss in Ireland was calculated at approximately

1.6km²/yr (160ha) concentrated throughout about 300 sites (Carter, 1991a). For

perspectives sake, imagine a hectare as being very close to the size of a standard

international rugby pitch.

The consequences portrayed by predicted changes in North Atlantic storm

scenarios are likely to cause Ireland’s coastal wetlands and various loose sedimentary

structure to be among the first in Europe to respond to storm-led SLR (Devoy, 2008).

Anthropogenic effects such as, agriculture, grazing of livestock, mineral extraction,

urbanization/industry, forestry, and both active and passive recreation (Mayer, 1995); can

be separated into two designations, in regards to dune systems (Williams, 2001). These

designations being temporary effects (e.g. civilian and animal compaction) and

permanent effects (e.g. development, infrastructure, crops, etc.) (Williams, 2001).

Whereas extreme changes in the environmental status quo will be observed immediately,

such as coastal dune system and infrastructure destruction from major storm activity, the

16

observation of miniscule alteration within the coastal matrix can often go overlooked and

subvert system resilience over the long-term.

The potential phenomenon of accelerated SLR in conjuncture with underlying

MSLR (mean sea level rise) of 1.3mm - 2.3mm per annum (Carter, 1991; IPCC, 2007),

and current anthropogenic pressure on coastal areas may diminish the natural resistance

or resiliency of various coastal types. The capacity of a dune system to be resilient

depends on several factors, such as the length, width, height, etc. of the dune system and

the larger the overall size of the system and its sediment budget the better the equilibrium

between systems which accounts for better resiliency (Williams, 2001). For example,

with consistent sediment supply and suitable fetch, a dunes system will revolve as a

prograding regressive coastline, with embryo (juvenile) dunes accreting, through wind-

blown sediment being intercepted by vegetation, growing into foredunes and so on

(Williams, 2001); however anthropogenic forces or storm systems can cause blow outs

lowering the effectiveness of dune accretion and therefore lowering resiliency. Nature

provides examples of this process, with coastal barriers (beaches, etc.) becoming

squeezed against uplands and hard rock coast, causing a constant reworking of the beach

sediments alongshore into other various environments (Devoy, 2008). This process is a

key in the regional variance of onshore adjustment and rejuvenation of coastal sediment

in response to SLR (Devoy, 2008). While natural processes provide variance the added

confusion of anthropogenic effects on coastal beach and dune systems is excessive to say

the least; for example, the removal of beach sediment for personal use or the implanting

of coastal structures that hamper sediment movement (Carter, 1991; Farrell, 2007). Major

incident of anthropogenic effects can be seen in our large marine works such as

marinas/ports (County Kerry, Kinsale, Cork, etc.), intertidal reclamation (County Cork,

County Derry, etc.), and aquaculture development (Devoy, 2008). In addition, while the

literature continuously extols the detriment that certain processes can have on coastal

protection systems (Carter, 1991a), there are often strong local bias to maintain their

current location, in spite of useable space further inland. Overall, the adaptation to

17

potential climate change effects through

accommodation, adjustment, and

managed retreat strategies (Figure 10),

including shoreline realignment, are

viable options (Pethick, 1993).

However, as stated earlier, the cultural

aspect of Irish land ties are deep-rooted

and could potentially negate any

perceived advantage.

Figure 10: seen right, the managed

retreat of coastal railway inland in

County Wicklow. NCEC, 1992

18

Storminess Situation

In 2007, the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) depicted

scenarios within their Fourth Assessment Report that reflected MSL (mean sea level)

rise, increased storm frequency, potential change in current patterns, and increased rigor

of coastal storms (2007; Commission of the European Communities Staff, 2009). While

the typical tides and wave action can generate high water levels and flooding (e.g. during

spring highs, [Farrel, 2007]), storm driven wave sequences can demolish beach barriers,

dunes system, demolish coastal defences, and overwhelm land areas with inundation.

Modelling from Devoy (2008) shows and increased likeliness of mild summers and a

contrast of winter storms as we move into the 21st century, particularly for the northern

and western coasts. Studies also show evidence of greater erosional complications for

eastern coasts, in regards to incremental change of easterly wind patterns (Devoy, 2008).

The consequences of current climate changes lend themselves to the likelihood that

coastal wetlands, among other sedimentary complexes, could be the some of the first in

the European region to alter in response to weather induced SLR.

An EPA report filed by Fealy et al., (2007), on the Key Meteorological Indicators

of Climate Change in Ireland, concludes that not only is Irish average temperature .7°C

warmer than it was a century ago, but also that the climate has been warming every

decade by .42°C for the last 30 years. The report went on to explain that regions in the

north and west of Ireland are experiencing consistently heavier and more frequent rains

(Figure 11) and that six of the ten warmest years have occurred within the last 20 years

(Fealy et al., 2007). At the present, the

foreseen climate outcome for Ireland over

the next century is characterised by a rise

of approx. 2°C, almost 11% winter

rainfall, and a 25%-40% summer rain

water deficit (Farrell, 2007). The potential

ramifications for these changes

Figure 11: seen left, showing increases

in precipitation in the west and north of

Ireland as the century progresses and

increasing drought conditions in the

south and east. Farrell, 2007

19

ranges from drinking water availability and

quality to the irrigation of crops and can

even extend as far

as changes in

production of

hydropower. These

potential situations are compounded by the prevalent major storm paths of the Northern

Atlantic (Figure 12 & 13), and while Sweeney (2000) acknowledges that all of Ireland’s

coasts are in some way affected, Ireland’s eastern, and southeastern coasts only receive

roughly 20% of the wave energies that the western and southwestern coasts experience

(Devoy, 2008). The shear amount of storm activity that bombards the western regions of

the island is best represented in Figure 12 and Figure 13 (Devoy, 2008). Assumptions

of the frequencies and periods of storms over the past half century is best exemplified by

the noted reduction in periodicity storm situations between the years of 1965-1995

(Figure 14) (Devoy et al., 2000b). The reduction in periodicity is evidenced by the

increase in the North Atlantic Oscillation trend (NAO) line that increases over quasi-

decadal sequence (Devoy et al., 2000b); while the thickened line shows the frequency of

storms during the thirty year time period. The effects of SLR may result in further

reduced periodicity (Carter, 1991a), with additional climate led SLR potentially

producing cumulative impacts when coupled with the already pronounced frequency of

current storm system.

Figure 12: seen upper left, shows the

predominant storm tracks over the North Atlantic

Devoy, 2008

Figure 13: seen lower left, storm tracks of cyclones

affecting Ireland and coastal Europe from 1973-1975.

Devoy et al., 2000b. Figure 14: seen below, comparison of

storm frequency and periodicity from 1965-1995. Devoy et

al., 2000b

20

The aspects that form wave sequences are diverse and therefore the resulting

wave conditions that meet the coast are diverse and I believe Coco describes it best as

saying, ‘the role of waves can quickly change from accretive, small wave conditions, to

erosive storm wave conditions’ (2014). Coastal mechanisms such as the division between

the lower energy bay, inlet, and port areas and the higher energy of open water/coastal

areas serves as a driving force for coastal operation. In regards to the related issues of

coastal impacts, the coastal mechanisms that facilitate various tidal regimes are further

influenced by the excessive wave heights of storm activity. Of course, it would be

unrealistic to assume that all changes are solely negative and a certain “silver lining” may

be found in the climate change phenomenon. For example, Devoy’s study of mudflats

and other wetlands, portrayed a possible link between sediment transfer during storm

events and annual accretion cycles in coastal systems, which in turn could contribute

some resistance or resilience against SLR in the form of wetland creation (2008).

Additional studies put forth by Wang et al. (2006) have shown that some shorelines can

potentially recover from large scale storm perturbations and that, initially, this process

can be quite fast with some coastal areas fully recovering their pre-storm beach face and

berm within a 90 day period. Opposite of this, some major storms can limit a beach

profile from fully recovering for years, particularly if the backshore dune systems have

been damaged in the event (Coco, 2014). This level of potential for a beach to be

distressed is a form of ‘vulnerability’ and largely depends, not only on the magnitude of

the imminent storm, but also the frequency of successive storms and the possible rate of

beach readjustment. For example, if the previously stated beach was to come under

duress by a storm and the existing backshore dune system consisted of mostly juvenile or

incipient dunes, then the vulnerability of the beach could be higher, seeing as there is a

bigger potential for dune system destruction if the system isn’t yet mature. However,

while you might expect a degraded beach front to be more prone to storm led erosion,

recent work by Coco (2014) indicates that as a beach trends towards an equilibrium the

storms tends to pull the beach away from equilibrium and that, logically, the successive

storms each begin to become less and less effective at disrupting the beaches stability as

it continues to be pulled farther away from stasis. As logic and observation allow us to

understand portions of the climactic impacts on the coastal zone, the complications in

21

obtaining satisfactory or pertinent datasets puts real limitations on studies concerning

long-term beach morphology and climate driven storm interaction (Zhang et al, 2002).

22

Social Context

It is not, at this point, a secret that climate change presents a real problem to our

future; many facets of which will potentially be damaged if we do not employ necessary

methods for prevention now. And while climate change and adaptive capacity is an

international issue, there are some places that face a particular threat due to pre-existing

‘weaknesses’. For Ireland, a nation with its population concentrated on its coastal areas,

this is especially true. This brings us to the forefront of climate change in an Irish context,

and the strengths and weaknesses local authorities and institutions possess in the face of

adaptive capacity. According to Devoy (2008), various approaches by scientists,

government, the public, and others has consistently led to an unbalanced implementation

of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) measures along coastal authorities. Best practice is

seldom embraced, and this, paired with flaws in ‘legislation, availability of coastal data,

and awareness of international coastal control measures maintained through the 1990’s, a

fragmented national approach in CZM (Devoy, 2008). History and emigration, factors

that are quite political in scope, have limited people’s awareness of the fragile coastal

environment in Ireland for most of the 20th century (Devoy, 2008). Issues of long-term

coastal vulnerability and issues of SLR must be addressed by engaging in the

development of society’s response to the institutions governing the Irish coast. Such an

approach would motivate and inspire a general awareness of coastal issues, bringing

about a sense of responsibility necessary for the use and preservation of coastal

environments. It can be argued that the vulnerability of Ireland’s coastal areas lies

predominantly with the attitudes of its people than in any specific physical susceptibility

in response to climate change; adaptive capacity can only be brought about when the

people choose to do so (Devoy, 2008). It comes down to a delicate equation of the

physical components of coastal vulnerability under SLR and overall climate change, and

the influence of coastal residents.

The overall Irish population is estimated to be around 4.7 million people,

according to the latest census figures. As a side note, it should be known that for the last

150-200 years the population has been as high as nearly 9 million, with the majority of

those in the 19th century living in rural coastal areas (Devoy, 2008). Clearly, the

population pressure of the past has had severe repercussions on the use of these coastal

23

lands, ‘sedimentary system changes, reclamation, coastal shape, and the built

environment’ (Devoy, 2008); and although there was a significant decline in population

throughout the 20th century, coastal systems are still performing under the strains of the

earlier (18th-19th century) human impacts. Factors such as the aforementioned tourism,

retirement, second/holiday homes, and general urban expansion have been steadily

building upon coastal population numbers since the 1980’s (Devoy, 2008). This coastal

population, defined by Devoy as living within 5 km of the coast, makes up for about 34%

of the total population overall; (a staggering 1.25 million in the Republic of Ireland, and

0.6 million in Northern Ireland [Devoy, 2008].) If the distance was expanded to include

those living in the major coastal urban centres (15 km from the coast), then it can be

concluded that Ireland’s coastal population is comprised of more than 50% of the total

(Devoy, 2008). This percentage of the overall population is unfortunate at best. The

number of people affected by coastal impacts can reach 250,000 per year, the number of

people at risk from SLR-induced flooding can reach up to 100,000 per year, wetland

deficits can reach 800 km2 (making up ‘critical IPCC designated values at 30% of total

wetlands [Devoy, 2008]), with the cost of protection and adaptation for the country

reaching up to 420 million per year (figures based on IPCC recommended quantification

methodology [IPCC, 2007]). Many major settlements in Ireland (+50,000 people) are

currently situated within the confines defined as estuaries where, as Devoy (2008) argues,

the impact of river floods, particularly where these are paired with marine surges, can

create notable ‘flood events.’ This can be seen in the case of Cork (Devoy, 2000a). In

some locals the location isn’t the only problem, with continued removal of sand and

gravel as a resource for people causing a distinct negative impact upon coastal beach

systems, despite a legal prohibition (Devoy, 2008). This is exacerbated by the fact that

the coastal populations are so concentrated; outside of main urban areas, the rural coastal

population is only 10% of the total (Devoy, 2008). This makes the employment of

necessary provisions in an Irish context all the more pressing.

According to Devoy (2008), the ‘potential for planned adaptation’ exists most

potently through the organisation of both accommodation and retreat-type policies.

Currently, the literature portrays the general strategy for adaptive capacity throughout

Ireland as a reduced, inactive one, encouraged by the government for dealing with the

24

effects of SLR and coastal change issues. Naturally, this has resulted in the development

of overlapping and inefficient administrative policies at both local and national levels. It

is a snowball effect that leads to an inevitable lack of awareness and knowledge regarding

coastal vulnerability facing various environmental situations (Klein & Nicholls, 1999); a

mindset that puts significant restraints on the country’s ability to cope with the oncoming

impacts of SLR. Those operating on the coast —ranging from private to commercial to

public users— tend to do so in ‘isolation’. For example, ‘in the breaching of coastal

barriers to encourage land drainage in the face of environmental opposition, in the

dumping of debris as shoreline defenses, or in the removal of beach materials (Devoy,

2008). Coastal authorities experience a tremendous amount of pressure to provide ‘site

specific control measures’ dealing with beach erosion, etc. and the costs of such measures

(sea walls, for example) can be more than €60,000 and may reach into the millions, not

including the cost of maintenance for years to come (Devoy, 2008). The overall lack of

education on this subject has not been aided by the media, which tends to emphasise

destruction and catastrophe in the name of sensational news, rather than providing

informed environmental information for those that need it most.

Education is especially important, since humans have the powerful ability to not

only respond to their environment but also to alter it (Slovic, 1988). Survival is ‘aided by

the ability to codify and learn from past experiences’ (Slovic, 1988), using said

experiences to produce change; this ability can both create and reduce risk. Slovic (1988)

continues this narrative by stating that new intellectual disciplines that identify,

characterise, and quantify risks and risk perception have evolved out of the characteristics

of modern environmental hazards. This cause-effect relationship is a powerful one, since

it can be employed on a personal or larger scale. Most individuals rely on personal risk

perception (hence, survival) instead of measured evaluation and observation analysis

(Slovic, 1988). This is a trait that leads to the pessimistic mindset: that we are more at

risk today than in the past, and the future will be even worse. While this tends to be

construed in a negative light, when wielded positively from an institutional standpoint, it

could be argued that this inherent tendency could provoke development of solid

preventative policy regarding climate change. Risk perception was initially defined as a

simple risk judgment or emotion (Cooper, 2014). Nevertheless, environmental risk

25

awareness is a kind of ‘consciousness’ that can subscribe to sustainable management

decision-making, a kind of awareness that alters the social behaviour, pushing it towards

a choice of sustainable strategies (Cooper, 2014). This is described as a ‘reach’ to a

functional level of awareness, and to do this, a ‘certain influence on the behaviour or at

least the behavioural intention must also be evident, otherwise it is a non-functional

awareness’ (Cooper, 2014).

However, research indicates that initial views of a person are quite resistant to

change (Slovic, 1988), even in the case of opposing evidence and defying logic, because

this affects how later information is perceived and interpreted. For example, the presence

of new evidence only reinforces existing opinions and feels informative only if it already

correlates with said existing beliefs. In contrast, when a pre-existing opinion does not

exist, the individual is ‘at mercy of the problem/question formulation,’ or the questioner’s

previous conceptions (Slovic, 1988). While this might seem like an extreme, even

animalistic view of human coping mechanism and learning, it is important to understand

the way in which people perceive and respond to risk during an extreme event in order to

employ such information for future endeavours. There is power in perception: research

has found that the public will accept ‘voluntary potential risk’ that is 1000 times riskier,

such as driving a car, than in non-voluntary risk such as nuclear power (Slovic, 1988).

Though this is ill-informed, this knowledge can be used in a modern context if the public

consider climate change to be a significant threat.

Perhaps the notion that we are moving towards a unanimous judgment on the state

of climate change is not as whimsical of an idea as initially perceived. In fact, hazard

events experienced across the whole of Ireland in the past few years have demonstrated

the need for pressing decision-making and policy challenges, clearly spurred on by the

damage caused by environmental hazards and climate change (Jeffers, 2015). Indeed, the

national government, trade unions, and many other participants have formed social

partnership agreements that have become key aspects of Ireland’s national economy and

social policy (Jeffers, 2015). Jeffers (2011) discusses, on the other hand, the results-

oriented institutional ‘restructuring’ that has resulted in many single-purpose, third party

agencies. The ‘regulatory and decision-making functions’ (Jeffers, 2015) of the Irish

26

government have been relocated to these agencies, making an established culpability for

a particular issue a difficult thing, especially in the overwhelming context of managing

environmental hazards (Jeffers, 2011).

Continuing along this vein, Jeffers (2011) explain that the enactment of the EU

Floods Directive, while certainly reshaping flood risk management policies at both local

and national levels, will face difficulty in its effectiveness when applied to different

geographical and institutional contexts. (The Floods Directive was designed in the very

specific context of widespread transnational floods in ‘continental river basins’ [Jeffers,

2015]). Ireland is also unique in the fact that local government is, when compared to

other countries, relatively weak. In Ireland, the local authorities possess far less

responsibility for policy areas than those in other European countries; and since the

abolition of domestic rates in 1978 (Jeffers, 2011), Irish local authorities have been

hindered by a restricted ability to raise local funds (Jeffers, 2015). Central government

provides nearly 50% of their funding (Tierney, 2003). Furthermore, flood risk

management policies lack acknowledgment that some regions in society are far more

susceptible (Jeffers, 2015).

In the presiding conversation, there has been seldom discussion or reflection on

the many ways in which society shapes the economy, simply the acknowledgement that it

does. This, of course, raises important questions for research on climate change

adaptation on both a grand scale and an Irish one. Up to this point, environmental and

social goals have been ‘subservient to development objectives’ (Jeffers, 2015), though

adaptation advocates still hope that both social and economic change might result from

solid efforts to create a more sustainable future (Jeffers, 2015). The particular Irish case

demonstrates a real need for further research, distinctly on the complexity of the

relationship between development and adaptation. For example, the ‘economic value of

hazards mitigation policies’ that focus on the reduction of social vulnerability and the

steps to do so may be less immediate, and therefore less like to successfully ‘pass a cost-

benefit analysis’ (Jeffers, 2015). From a government standpoint, the focus on cost-benefit

presents the decision-making process as a neutral one (Jeffers, 2015; however, this

obscures subjective assessment and detailed value associated with particular types of

27

hazard loss. In this case, funding might be afforded during periods of plenty but not times

of strain, considering climate change preparation and reaction a ‘discretionary expense’

(Jeffers, 2011). The view of adaptive capacity as an unjustified expense is a prevailing

one, a fact that acts as further evidence of limitations, in regards to further progress for

climate change adaptation.

Assessment of adaptive capacity in climate change research developed from

climate impact and vulnerability assessments together (Grothmann, Grecksch, Winges, &

Siebenhüner, 2013). ‘Climate impact assessments’ look only at two criteria: exposure and

sensitivity to climactic stimuli (for example, changes in precipitation levels or average

temperature) (Grothmann et al., 2013). These were used to assess the potential impact of

overall climate change. In the second phase of these assessments (first-generation

vulnerability assessments), these potential impacts were also evaluated in terms of social

relevance (Grothmann et al., 2013). More focus was put on social, demographic, and

political factors, which caused a shift from ‘potential to feasible’ adaptation. According

to Grothmann et al. (2013), social factors like perception of risk has a particular use for

reducing vulnerability and ‘building social capacities’ because they can likely be altered

easier and more efficiently than other social factors (i.e. economic, technological,

infrastructural development, etc.). Such assessment, then, is crucial to the future of

climate change adaptation. If adaptation to increasing flood risk in a coastal locality can

be discerned by the behavioural adaptation of its residents, and analysis of social factors

limiting these adaptations can be used to single out which barriers must be overcome to

increase the social adaptive capacity. For example, the residents adapt by creating

measures to stop floodwater from entering buildings; this behaviour can be hampered by

a lack of risk perception in the community (Grothmann et al., 2013).

Although it’s clear that the importance of social factors (e.g. institutions,

perceptions, and social capital for adaptive capacities of social systems) has been

demonstrated in several case studies, there is fault in the lack of standardised assessment

concepts for said factors (Grothmann et al., 2013). This supports the argument that the

ACW lacks a certain amount of social factors, but it may be countered that the

psychological and social aspects of various areas differ even more than their physical and

28

adaptive capacities. If there is a lack of adaptation motivation of decision-makers in a

social system, its adaptive capacity is reduced due to a lack of political will for

adaptation. Adger et al. (2009) argues ‘that social and individual factors limit adaptation

action.’ Factors such as perception of risk, habit, social status and age operate at

individual decision-making levels while also constraining to collective action (Adger et

al., 2009). Therefore more research into the social and psychological side would be

needed to develop an ‘ACW’ focused primarily on the social and cognitive side of

adaptation as a compliment to the existing ACW (Figure 15); for example, a revision of

Tapsell’s (2010) Diamond Analogy.

In the effort of solidarity, Tapsell’s

(2010) Diamond Analogy acts as an

example of a socio-

economic sphere of

reference. The

framework makes use

of eight different facets

to conceptualise

vulnerability, ranging

from the potential loss of

indigenous beliefs (‘cultural’) to

the susceptibility of loss of economic

assets (‘economic’) (Tapsell, 2010). While the amount of

facets, the importance of individual facets, and the

relativity of the framework has been hotly contested, the method is still being refined and

researched. It can be argued that the social vulnerability of groups defined at different

scales (individuals, communities, social systems) will also differ as any one particular

hazard unfolds and as it is generated and impacts upon these social groupings. This is an

important consideration in an Irish context, where this has not been a main focus.

Figure 15: seen above, original

ACW consisting of 6

dimensions of adaptive

capacity, defined by 22 criteria.

Gupta et al., 2010

29

Grothmann et al. (2013) suggests that individual and social characteristics (in

particular, perception of risk) ‘interact with underlying values to form subjective and

mutable limits to adaptation that currently hinder society’s ability to act’. A slightly

revised version of the ACW (Figure 16) involved adaptation motivation and adaptation

belief; therefore two of the many

psychological factors with the ability to

influence adaptive capacity of a

social system were selected

(Grothmann et al., 2013). These

factors are, for the sake of

Grothmann et al.’s (2013) study,

considered to be empirically

evidenced and necessary factors

for adaptation; but they are not

considered to be sufficient in

overcoming the large number of potential

psychological barriers to adaptation. The results

of the former study provide merit to the concept

of including psychological and subjective

dimensions to adaptation motivation and adaptation belief in an expanded ACW

(Grothmann et al., 2013). In an Irish context, further revisions and investment into long-

term restructuring of the current social concepts and institutional norms could yield

unexpected and beneficial results.

Figure 16: seen above, current revision of

the ACW consisting of 8dimensions of

adaptive capacity (2 additional), defined by

24 criteria (2 additional). Grothmann et al.,

2013

30

Adaptation

Vulnerability

The vulnerability of a system, regardless of scale, is most commonly referred to in

climate change literature, as the product of exposure in a particular system to threats and

the abilities of that system to endure or adapt to resultant effects (Adger, 2006; Brown et

al., 2010); or as the degree to which geophysical, biological and socio-economic systems

are deemed unable to cope with potential impacts (Füssel and Klein, 2006; IPCC, 2007;

Tapsell, 2010). While there has been a relatively large rise in adaptive capacity literature

in the past decade (Gupta et al., 2010), present literature surrounding subjects such as

climate change, vulnerability, and adaptation, is still decidedly less developed than

existing literature on the function and responses of the environmental systems. This has,

unfortunately, set limitations to the extent that we can quantify societies’ vulnerabilities

in the face of global climate change (IPCC, 2007).

Coastal vulnerability is inherent as populations continue to grow along

coastal margins, both increasing the value of socio-economic vulnerabilities and also

lowering the coastal system’s innate resilience. As populations grow and directly affect

the resilience of a natural system, it can be safely assumed that the highest instances of

vulnerability can be identified with not only high exposure areas and low levels of

adaptive practice, but also areas with the highest levels of human influence and stresses

on environmental systems (IPCC, 2007). The potential effects of increased susceptibility,

in regards to vulnerability and exposures, is often exacerbated through the settlement

patterns and locations of humans (Wheeler, 2011). While we have historically settled

along the fringes of potentially hazardous zones (e.g. coastal margins, etc.), the rapid

expansion of these settlement patterns has often outran the rate at which we are able to

properly adapt (Wheeler, 2011). Examples of everyday anthropogenic stresses can be

seen in the cut off of sediment supply by damns, navigational channels, flood protection

developments, and subsequent changes in tidal flows (IPCC, 2007); all adding additional

socio-economic pressures and altering the natural sensitivity of the system in the face of

compounding climate change (Figure 17). Risk reduction, disaster preparedness, and

31

overall climate change adjustment

requires that we accurately assess the

various vulnerabilities, economy, resources, and institutions of our society (Tapsell,

2010). While physical exposures can cause significant complications within human and

environmental systems, a lack in adaptive capacities is one of the more important

variables that can affect societal systems, reflecting the focus of this study. The

application of the magnitude of a specific impact coupled with the potential that it will

occur is the main concept of risk, whereas the underlying aspects of climate change,

individual and collective impacts, sensitivity, and adaptation capacity serve to cloud the

overall issue. Many of the impacts, sensitivities, and vulnerabilities are afforded distinct

attention from potential policy-makers, seeing as the characteristics of these aspects

might make them key in overall adaptive capability (IPCC, 2007).

Primarily climate change affiliated researchers have begun to immerse

themselves in the aspects of vulnerability, especially in regards to adaptive capacities and

adaptation as a whole. However, some researchers such as Birkmann et al., (2009), have

argued that, ‘climate change research has stronger emphasis on gradual and creeping

change, such as sea level rise,’ and that those who predominantly align with the disaster

risk affinity primarily focus on hazards of a sudden nature. Now, while the main aspect of

this ideal may have been accurate in research long past, this has been recently

contradicted by the current outset of research into climate lead increases in oceanic storm

magnitudes and frequencies. However, one of the primary difficulties currently limiting

the study of climate change adaptation is the disjointing of applicable societal

vulnerability factors and the main body of climate change scientific research.

Figure 17: seen above, the different aspects of overall

vulnerability in a human/environmental relationship.

NCCAF, 2012

32

Vulnerability to climate change differs considerably across socio-economic

groups, thus raising important questions about equity (Tapsell, 2010). While, in reality,

all people that live in potentially hazardous areas are considered vulnerable in one form

or another; those who are the least prepared, retain a minority of available resources, and

haven’t the benefit of heightened experiences or knowledge, feel the impacts of

hazardous events disproportionately to the rest of the community. For example, multiple

coastal communities may rely on marine sources as their primary food source, this

placing them in a vulnerable positions of public health and regional economy, in regards

to climate change and associated health risks from marine biological temperature changes

(IPCC, 2007). As a result, vulnerability is quite dependent on the potential human interest

or effects; for instance, the change of a preexisting ecosystem may be labeled as

significant if there are certain amounts of rare species, etc. (IPCC, 2007). However, if the

priorities of the human occupants are aligned with another similar system for any reason,

the later system will be deemed more important, and therefore more vulnerable in the

face of climate change. These scenarios, coupled with ‘social norms and customs,

international, national, private and public law’ can vastly differentiate various outlooks

on vulnerability in separate regions (Parker et al., 2009).

Previous information aside, the aspect of vulnerability is not only a subject of

discussion at the regional to local level, but also at national to international scales.

Research schemes presented by Wheeler (2011), demonstrate that the success of a

particular countries economic strategies are almost interdependent of their level of

vulnerability to climate change over time, with those having more successful economic

strategies being considered less vulnerable and vice versa. In contrast, the political and

social desire to assist the more socially vulnerable may be apparent and only the deficit of

financial and other resources establishing limitations (IPCC, 2007). Vulnerability

indicators will undoubtedly vary between those countries that are developing

vulnerability assessment and adaptation frameworks, with those who have already

established plans by no means being exempt from potential climate change events.

While the aim of this research is to analyse the perceptions and suggestions of

potential decision makers within currently established institutions of Ireland, an all-

33

inclusive assessment of sensitivity, adaptive capacity, exposure, and subsequent

vulnerability, must be considered to offset the inevitable variation of different coastal

types and social scales (IPCC, 2007). The former evaluation concludes that vulnerability,

resiliency, and adaptive capacity, are closely linked approaches (Gupta et al., 2010) that

provision for information needed in the process of hazard mitigation (Tapsell, 2010).

34

Resiliency

Adaptive capacity is widely held as a key property of resilient and adaptable

social-ecological systems. This is important because it views adaptive capacity as a

formative ingredient for dealing with specific challenges in regards to composing

complicated systems (both social, and ecological), including those revolving around

intervention, decision-making, and uncertainty (Bettini et al., 2015). With the certainty of

change now solidly acknowledged throughout the coming years, the adaptation to climate

change has become an urgent policy priority. It should, of course, represent pro-active

and preemptive action, ideally preventing the worst risks that climate change can bring

about in our society (Gray, 2012). The development of an adaptation strategy cannot be

done without first understanding how well an institution can adjust in the face of current

weather extremes and trends (Gray, 2012). The hope is that, in doing so, adaptive

capacity will encourage short-term coping, and therefore buy valuable time to segue into

an adaptive policy that possesses greater resilience when presented with future climate

change impact.

Another unclear concept is found in understanding the relationship between

adaptive capacity and two separate outcomes of adaptation: resilience and transformation

(Bettini et al., 2015). A resilient system ‘absorbs shocks and perturbations without

significant loss of results’ (Walker et al., 2004). On the other hand, a system of

transformation is altered to meet different objectives (Walker et al., 2004; Folke et al.,

2005). While many researchers argue that the two are merely aspects of one another; but

without clarity on the distinction between the two, it can be difficult to separate the

respective processes and determine the overall contribution of adaptive capacity (Bettini

et al., 2015). In this context and for the purpose of this thesis, I adhere to the distinction

that resilience resists change by maintaining system objectives through restructuring;

while transformation pursues change by exploring new objectives and altering the system

to achieve them. The distinction between the structure and potential or functional purpose

of a system demonstrates necessary facets to understanding how adaptive capacity can

produce resilience or transformation within said system (Bettini et al., 2015).

35

According to Gunderson & Holling (2002), resilience can be maintained by

rotating within a system’s potential, ‘as represented by the bottom trajectory; or [the

system] may transform by shifting to operate within a new potential, represented by the

top trajectory’, (Figure 18). But in reality, resilience (or transformation, for that matter)

is unlikely to be found on a direct path. Generalised phases of adaptation can be achieved

through the ‘adaptive cycle’ (Bettini

et al., 2015), while also maintaining

that systems may remain resilient

throughout the cycle. In regards to

coastal vulnerability, the role of

resilience factors to SLR and

coastal changes has been used to

provide a common ground for

quantitative measurement (Devoy,

2008). The establishment of general

terms and concepts has been crucial

to the identification of vulnerability

issues and risk assessment.

However, this formalised definition

places emphasis on the detection of

individual components of

vulnerability; namely, resilience.

These definitions may downplay the important responses among certain components;

‘accelerated SLR, together with renewed human pressures on coastal land use’ (Devoy,

2008), can reduce the former, natural resilience as the coastal environments become more

sensitive to change.

It may also be important to recognise which groups of people are more

susceptible to climate change impacts and why. This knowledge may facilitate targeted

strategies, and create a window for effective mitigation and future social capacity and

resilience (Tapsell, 2010). Climate change policy has historically focused on the issue of

mitigation, and must continue to do so. For example, in the effort to restrict new emission

Figure 18: seen above, the adaptive cycle for understanding

resilient and transformative adaptation. A system may

maintain resilience by cycling within the limits of its own

potential or a system may transform and shift to operate

within a new range (top rotation). Bettini et al., 2015

36

of greenhouse gasses (GHG) and enhance carbon sinks (Gray, 2012). Now, there is the

emerging realisation that hazard prevention and mitigation must address economic,

social, and political factors that influence wider society. This will also enable more

targeted strategies, and acknowledge vulnerability to hazards as a detector of the

susceptibilities of the system (both physical and social) (Tapsell, 2010). According to

Gray (2012), climate change adaptation does not need to be more complex than any other

local governance. Relevant adaptation options are already in use at the local level, which

requires little change in order to orient existing efforts towards greater climate resilience

(Gray, 2012).

In regards to vulnerability, a deeper level of investigation is necessary in order to

mitigate hazards. The term itself is defined by ‘identifying natural risks’ among national

and local institutions, instead of being viewed as an existing social structure that could be

mitigated in order to reduce climate change impacts (Tapsell, 2010). Instead,

vulnerability should be defined as ‘the state of a system before an event triggers disaster’

(Tapsell, 2010), or at the very least, considered in terms of the likelihood of loss. This

understanding is valuable in terms of resilience, since two distinct relationships between

vulnerability and resilience are often pursued by researchers (Galderisi et al., 2010). They

are either treated as opposites (the ‘flip-side’ approach), or the relationship is seen as

more complex. The former views an indirect relationship between vulnerability and

resilience (high vulnerability implies low resilience, etc.) and is increasingly challenged

by research; whether this is true or not, it is clear that an integral relationship does exist

between the two (Galderisi et al., 2010).

The relationships between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity are also

called into question. Pelling (2003) argues that the concept of vulnerability is broadened

to highlight further components of exposure; together with resistance and resilience, this

defines vulnerability itself. A desire to emphasise the positive has also resulted in the

concept of resilience: for example, the enhancement of resilience meaning reduction in

vulnerability (Klein, 2003). This continues to view vulnerability as part and parcel to

resilience; that vulnerability is not simple defined by the hazards experiences, but must

exist within the sensitivity and resilience of the respective system (Klein, 2003). Many

37

concepts can be deemed resilience factors in that they affect management capacity within

a community (e.g. resource availability, cultural attitudes, access to services); social

vulnerability is only one part of disaster risk assessment (Tapsell, 2010). While certainly

crucial to implementing hazard and mitigation assessment, the solution is just as complex

as the resilience-vulnerability relationship. The ability to adapt is similar to resiliency and

coping capacity; the characteristics of vulnerable populations are important to the

confrontation of multiple sets of problems. The needs and solutions that risk managers

will confront and the range of measures necessary to the consideration of effective

mitigation strategies are subject to resiliency factors (Tapsell, 2010).

38

Coastal Defences

Coastal defences, including those of coastal sediment and flood defence, are a

major management issue, and are certain to become even more complicated in regards to

current climate changes. Most often, three choices arise when faced with the situation of

adaptation to climate change; they being coastal protection, accommodation, or managed

retreat (Klein et al., 2001).

The attitudes of Irish citizens are more commonly aligned with the aspect of

coastal protection measures due to their deep-rooted attachment to land ownership

(Devoy, 2008). Protection is best described as the avoidance of potential impacts from

ever being encountered. Coastal protection is virtually always used in the context of use

of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ sea and river defences (Few, 2007; Stamski, 2005). Also known as

‘grey’ adaptation or coastal armour, this option often utilises technical or engineering

skill sets to combat the effects of oncoming climate change. Protection options vary in

material used, engineering extent, and overall success rates (Stamski, 2005); however one

of the primary aspects of coastal protection works is the relative ease in which you can

quantify their use, in regards to project cost and anticipated returns (Gray, 2012).

Seawalls and semi-consolidated riprap are often the coastal armour structures used in

Irish protection works, with temporary, ‘soft,’ structures such as sand bags or beach

nourishment schemes also utilised; however, to a lesser extent. Riprap, also called rock

armour, is defined by Stamski as any rock used for coastal protection that is at least one

to six tonnes (2005); while seawalls are homogenous, fixed structures that stand

vertically on coasts to deflect incoming wave action and sometimes have concaved faces

or slight overhangs to discourage wave overtopping. Gray (2012) offers alternative forms

of ‘grey’ adaptation in the face of other climate change effects such as drought, where

traditional sprinkler or other irrigations systems can be replaced with an engineered drip-

feed irrigation system. As these sorts of protection options are derived from the

engineering and technological sectors, their benefits are easier to corroborate and defend,

while their limitations are also more simply disseminated (Gray, 2012); this is often

needed as the high investment costs warrant scrutiny.

While (hard/grey/soft) coastal protection options are relatively simple to

understand and implement, multiple negative aspects accompany the use of these works.

39

For example, placement losses, negative visual effects, potential loss of sediment,

biological community harm, extreme costs, and passive/active erosion (Stamski, 2005).

Protection structures are often regarded as unsightly and have been an ongoing cause of

debate between local authorities need for protection and coastal recreation. Other

negative aspects such as placement loss, the portion of beach in front of coastal

development that is unavoidably covered up with protection works; and the potential loss

of sediment, basically being the sediment that is essentially locked in behind protection

works, causing potential erosion down-coast due to sediment source loss (Stamski, 2005).

Both of these negative side effects are also hotly debated, says Stamski (2005), due to the

contrast between the ease of use in impact statement implementation and public/private

property loss. The unfavorable biological aspect comes about from potential invasive

species being attracted to newly placed substrate (Stamski, 2005) or outright death of

biota during construction. One of the more recent popular practices has been beach

nourishment, involving the addition of sediment along the seaward side of the beach

providing extra buffer space. As costs are typically very high and the long-term benefits

are often left up for debate Leonard et al., (1990), a recent survey of nourishment projects

established that only about 27% of projects survived 5 years and 18% lasted less than a

year (Leonard et al., 1990). Passive and active erosion are some of the last examples

given and are actually some of the most misunderstood of the potential protection works

impacts. Passive erosion occurs when coastal structure is implanted in front of

development the coast behind is basically trapped there causing the ongoing erosion to

circumvent it (see Figure 9), while active erosion is a direct result of interaction between

the waves and coastal armour (Stamski, 2005). The misunderstanding between the two is

that passive erosion transpired regardless of the protection type or without any protection

at all and active erosion is a direct result of the implemented works. While in the past,

emergency coastal armour has been implanted without any real care for aesthetic or other

impacts, new technologies are allowing rock faces of different materials, such as gunite

or shotcrete (Figure 19), that can be tailored to assimilate the native rock type and look

(Stamski, 2005).

40

The second option,

accommodation, is comprised of

reducing of anthropogenic

sensitivities to the potential

impacts (Few, 2007). Examples of

accommodation usually utilise

coping mechanisms to anticipated

impacts of events, such as the use

of stilts on coastal property or

optimising infrastructure drainage.

Sometimes synonymously used with ‘soft’

adaptation - accommodation in the form of

alterations in human behaviour, altered regulation or management, and the overall sense

of working more with the environment than against it - are inclined to be more flexible

and inexpensive in the face of potential changes (Gray, 2012). Regularly seen as a

stepping stone, examples include: altered building standards for development and

infrastructure, increased scientific research in the area, and public education programmes.

While accommodation and other soft adaptation works are easy to initially implement,

they have a tendency to undergo difficulties in relation to long-term support mechanisms

and enforcement of implemented policy (Gray, 2012).

. The last choice comprises of the least favored among Irish citizens, it being

managed retreat. The concept of managed retreat involves the transfer of homes and

infrastructure away from areas prone to hazardous impact and potential changes in land

use. The option of retreat is also accompanied by conditions needed for realistic

implementation, such as local authority or central government acquisitions of land or

funding plans to assist citizen in relocation (Few, 2007). A prime example of this is the

managed retreat of a coastal railroad located in Co. Wicklow (see Figure 10), where the

formation of natural dunes systems has been encouraged as sustainable coastal defence

(National Coastal Erosion Committee Staff, 1992). Retreat is known to be a poor option,

at least in an Irish context, although they should be given careful consideration as

genuine solutions over the long-term.

Figure 19: seen above, artificial gunite

coastal protection seawall outlined in

black. Stamski, 2005

41

Small site schemes of riprap, seawall construction, beach nourishment, and

groyne implementation occur extensively over Ireland (NCECS, 1992); however, the

costs of current schemes can exceed €60,000 and may reach the millions independent of

future maintenance costs (Devoy, 2008). Coastal defences and other infrastructure are

often old, and ‘less than 4% of the coastline is protected by shoreline defences’ (Carter,

1991a; Devoy, 2008). In much of Ireland’s rural area, the coastal protection structures

currently in use were originally property walls or stone rows separating fields and have

been altered or modified in a haphazard fashion on an as-needed basis (Devoy, 2008).

The assumption is that these structures are not only being used for purposes not meant for

them, but that future climate changes such as SLR will be more than they can handle. The

cost of ‘essential’ repairs to coastal protection was estimated to be about €159 million in

1991 (NCECS, 1992), with the first allocation of funding to local authorities (a realtively

small €44 million) only happening in the year 2000. The implication of these factors

seem to indicate that the provision of resources for the needs of local authorities is

lacking in the extreme.

42

Planning and Regulation

From a logistical standpoint, the methodology and structure of adaptive capacity

and the policies revolving the concept are not being implemented as ardently as they need

to be. In an Irish context, planning to adapt to climate change should be incorporated to

varying degrees in all statewide planning efforts (as well as regional and local planning

efforts) (Innovative Management for Europe’s Changing Coastal Resource (IMCORE),

2011). Although there is certainly growing awareness and the documentation at the

national level is beginning to reflect concerns for adaptation, this process has been slow

(Barton, 2013). It is important to note that the relevant instruments for spatial planning

include regional development strategies, municipal regulatory plans, metropolitan

regulatory plans, municipal development plans, and coastal zone plans; these are all

crucial to consider when implementing such plans in a (reasonably) new system such as

Ireland (Barton, 2013). However as an institution chooses to move forward, the ultimate

goal is, according to IMCORE (2011), to create ‘coastal states and communities that are

organized to take action, have the tools to take action, and are taking action to plan for

and adapt to the impacts of climate change.’ There are a variety of potential adaptive

responses available to our societies in general, ranging from technological, behavioural

(e.g. altered food and recreational choices), to managerial, and to policy adaptation (e.g.

planning regulations) (IPCC, 2007). IMCORE’s (2011) guidelines are particularly

prevalent here; the authors state that sectoral technological advances are certainly made,

but they are of limited use because they are not integrated with other needs (such as those

mentioned above). A lack of resources and integration of policies allows the general

public to ignore local regulation; and, while it may seem helpful, property owners take

certain coastal protection measures into their own hands. Due to a lack of education and a

wealth of misinformation, this can be more damaging in the long run (IMCORE, 2011).

New planning processes are attempting to overcome these barriers at local, regional and

national levels in both developing and developed countries (IPCC, 2007). But regulation

and ‘on-the ground’ management is limited, and these institutions do not make the best

use of the limited resources they have (IMCORE, 2011). In fact, there is very little

sharing between institutions, which negates the amount of good data available and results

43

in duplicated research. Coastal and marine risk assessments are undertaken by these

individual agencies and are not regulated by overarching policies (IMCORE, 2011).

According to the NCCAF (2012), the ‘White Paper on Adapting to Climate

Change: Towards a European Framework for Action (published by the European

Commission, April 2009) entered the conversation with the aim of increasing a resilience

to climate change in a variety of sectors. This included health and social policy;

biodiversity, ecosystems and water; coastal and marine; and production systems and

physical infrastructure. In short, it was an attempt at a far-reaching and comprehensive

regulatory policy (NCCAF, 2012). One method of increasing adaptive capacity can be

conceived by introducing the consideration of climate change impacts in development

planning. For example, by implementing adaptation measures in the design of

infrastructure and land-use planning, and including measures to reduce vulnerability in

existing disaster-prone, risk reduction strategies (IPCC, 2007). The 2009 ‘White Paper’

makes a point to recognise that close cooperation among relevant institutions within the

EU and at various national levels is necessary in order to be successful in implementing

mainstream climate adaptive policy within European and Member States (NCCAF,

2012). Of course, there are likely to be a number of policies, regulations and legislation

originating from the EU, the Oireachtas, or the Authority itself that have each influenced

the discussion on climate impacts in the past, and which will continue to do so into the

foreseeable future (Gray, 2012). Specific legislative details tend to slow the process of

implementation, and are only hindered by the lack of communication between

municipalities. This legislation includes specific thresholds or targets, who is responsible

for their planning and implementation, any measures or plans in place to counteract

climate change, and the estimated lifespan of the management measures (Gray, 2012).

Optimistically, new planning processes are attempting to overcome these barriers

at all levels in both developing and developed countries (IPCC, 2007). This is necessary

for many countries so that institutions can then enforce said processes for clearer coastal

regulation, and to improve systems of coastal planning and adaptive capacity (IPCC,

2007). According to Gray (2012), the key task in preparing an adaptive baseline for

legislation is to map the landscape surrounding the climate impacts. This becomes a sort

44

of specialised policy; for example, in the event of problems with consistent water

shortages, the Water Framework Directive would have the most influence over the recent

management of water supplies, and would hypothetically continue to manage such things

in the years to come. Internal organisational and committee structures within local

authorities also vary significantly between States and between individual authorities.

These factors can influence integration in degree and type, and coordination between

sectors and their departments (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In Ireland, the responsibility

for roads, planning, and environmental protection falls under local authorities, and in

doing so this has resulted in specific coastal functions falling in the gap between these

segments, and has led to little communication between the respective authorities

(O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In fact, the modern coastal zone was only considered a

specific policy area for the first time in 1993 in the National Development Plan for

Ireland 1994-99 (Government Publications Office, 1993). In 1997, multiple governmental

departments (including the Department of Marine and Natural Resources; the Department

of Environment and Local Government; and the Department for Arts, Heritage,

Gaeltacht, and the Islands) worked together to commission a coastal zone management

policy for Ireland (Martin, 1997). This was a necessary sign of communication between

sectors, an attempt to avoid earlier examples of miscommunication. Coastal erosion is

one such example: this fell under the responsibility of the ‘roads’ segment rather than

environment or planning (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In Cork County Council, the

Planning Policy Unit was ignorant of the Council Committee on Coastal Erosion and vice

versa, even though both bodies were housed in the same building, and as such, held

responsibilities for the same coastal areas (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Comprehensive,

unified legislation such as the National Development Plan for Ireland, however flawed in

scope, are a step in the right direction.

Though there have been clear efforts to define coastal zone in its denotation and

limits, it simply cannot be slipped neatly into pre-existing administration (O’Hagan &

Cooper, 2001). It is an inherently dynamic system, an ‘area of infinitely variable function

and condition’ (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). There are no formal legal systems for

integration of the various departments and sub-departments whose responsibility it is to

manage such a legally abstract area, but in the majority of cases there is cooperation

45

when dealing with large-scale developments (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). Further issues

can be found in the Harbours Act 1946, a collection of legislation giving jurisdiction of

harbour authority that overlaps with the Department of the Marine and Natural

Resources, as well as general planning authorities (Harbours Act, 1946-1996). This wide-

sweeping legislation gives each county council considerable input into the management

of all commercial harbours in contact with the county. While a change to the legislation

in 1992 did switch from public to private ownership, it is still unclear how development

on the foreshore will be carried out, as there are ‘no statutory guidelines as to how these

overlapping jurisdictions relate to each other’ (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001).

In Ireland, there is a definite lack of national programme objectives for both urban

and rural coastal areas alike; this means that government institutions and local authorities

have a habit of pushing coastal management to the wayside (O’Hagan & Ballinger,

2010). Coastal management is viewed as a voluntary activity that has no access to stable

financial or human resources. While it can be said that the individual local authorities

may recognise how important it is to better manage coastal zones in their area, the

relevant administrations inhibit them because those above them do not attribute any gains

to coastal management (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This is unfortunate, as strict

planning controls will be required to reduce the impact of climate-change effects (Devoy,

2008). In the context of integrated land management and environmental policy, certain

steps must be taken to ensure environmental health, sustainable adaptation, and

integration of planning of the coastal zone (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). In Ireland, the

process has been slow, but continues nonetheless. The Department of Marine and Natural

Resources began to administer and promote a national policy in 1988; working with

Forbairt (now Enterprise Ireland), the policy dealt with coastal infrastructure and

shoreline protection (Devoy, 2008). The Department of the Environment (1989-1990)

commissioned a report to examine the Irish impact of major changes in sea level (Carter,

1991a), which provided a review of environmental issues linked to sea-level changes,

‘including approaches to coastal vulnerability and resilience, coastal data, and coastal

management (Carter, 1991a). Devoy (2008) provides a concise narrative of the following

movements towards legal, comprehensive climate change adaptation. A national Marine

Institute was formed in 1991 to deal with acquiring and handling marine and coastal data,

46

as well as research promotion and related commercial activities. 1995 brought with it the

initiation of a public debate to determine Irish marine policy through the Marine Institute.

Ongoing digital aerial photographic coverage of the coastline began in 1997,

implementing the elements of a National Coastal Survey, which led to the continuation of

many independent studies on coastal issues and national funding. A national Coastal

Protection Programme was approved in 2000, bringing with it limited but necessary

funding. Clearly, a steady drafting of legislation was underway. In Northern Ireland,

administration is quiet concentrated within the Department of the Environment and the

National Trust (Devoy, 2008). In contrast, primary control in the Republic of Ireland is

split among several agencies. These include the Department of the Environment and

Local Government; the Department of the Marine and Natural Resources; Department of

Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands; and the Environmental Protection Agency

(Devoy, 2008). This continues upon their commission of CZM policy in 1997. In the

European Unit, there is a need for ‘greater grassroots public participation in coastal

decision making’ (Commission of the European Communities Staff, 1992), as in Agenda

21. EU project initiatives and funding are spearheading the Strategic Environmental

Assessment for environmental sustainability (Devoy, 2008). In Ireland, while no national

ICZM policy exists, legislation and policy at national and European level may help to

boost future discussion (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010).

Unfortunately, national priorities in Ireland resulted in little funding available to

help research and assess coastal issues (Devoy, 2008). Yet the potential marine and

coastal resources (at approx. 900,000 km2 [Devoy, 2008]) is massive. This has

historically hindered coastal action; the relationship between the large coast and formerly

hard-up economy have discouraged national-scale work and made the concept of

shoreline protection an inaccessible one (Devoy, 2008). What’s more, decision-making

powers are frequently delegated to the lowest level of recommendation, consistent with

the extent of the issue (Kay & Adler, 1999). The higher powers of government further

limit the action that can be taken within such a framework (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010).

In Ireland, these consequences mean that a local authority can be used as a matter of

convenience for the use of the administration: either for a series of separate service, or as

an elected body charged with many purposes (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This leads to

47

a situation in which said authorities administer over existing policy, yet have limited

abilities in a wider sense. Most coastal authorities are not even geared towards coping

with the public debate on CZM matters (Devoy, 2008). They are under-resourced and

under-staffed to deal with the already arising issues of coastal and climate change; this

will become especially prudent in the future, under accelerated SLR and climate warming

on a larger scale (Devoy, 2008). This acts as a clear example of the consequences that

exist when no national coastal policy is put into place.

Of course, there is certainly a light at the end of the tunnel. Changes proposed in

the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill aim to bring about greater consistence

between varying policies; this is accompanied by a Climate Change Bill that is underway

(O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Here exists a basis for potential integration of policies at

both the national and local level. The concept of bringing this legislation into the

mainstream is already underway; it exists in the context of the River Basin District

planning under the Water Framework Directive (O’Hagan & Cooper, 2001). And while

local authorities do have significant independence when it comes to their respective

duties, coastal management has always sat someone uneasily with this. The main cause of

this, in an Irish context, has been from the discrepancies surrounding local jurisdiction

(O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Legislation has certainly attempted to alleviate the current

issues, but these measures are only in regards to development (O’Hagan & Ballinger,

2010). The term ‘coastal management’ is, at a national level, poorly defined; the

beginning remedy to this exists in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive of 2008

(O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Unfortunately, lack of clarity is still very prevalent.

48

Problems, Barriers, and Obstacles

Since climate change legislation and adaptation has shown itself to be a painfully

slow process throughout history, it should be no secret that there arise many issues across

the board. Barriers that impede the process of adaptation are far-reaching, and are often

exacerbated by the institutions/participants, context, and the particular country or relevant

locality (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010). The assessment of such barriers or limitations (terms

often used interchangeably by researchers [Moser & Ekstrom, 2010]) is often linked to

social factors such as ‘social capital, social networks, values, perceptions, interests,

customs and traditions’, which strongly determine the ability to adapt to risks related to

climate change (Adger et al., 2007). According to the IPCC (2007), limits are obstacles

that are absolute and cannot be maintained; in contrast, barriers can be overcome with

effort and cooperation among policy makers, etc. For the sake of encouraging progress,

the optimistic take on barriers as a mountain which can be overcome is the direction most

researchers choose to take (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010).

In Northern Ireland, for example, a key feature in development of local authority

has been ‘trust relations’ within its members; dialogue has broken down barriers of

mistrust among members, mostly between the community and councils but also private

sectors (Scott, 2004). There is an increasing sense of shared commitment and

camaraderie among the members, a feeling that they share a goal, and this increases their

ability to work efficiently amongst one another (Scott, 2004). This process demonstrates,

on a larger scale, the need for an interdependence between working partners. The absence

of social/professional networks, the presence of abnormal ones, or the absence of strong

leadership can prompt an unwillingness to make adaptation decisions (Tribbia & Moser,

2008). Moser & Ekstrom (2010) hypothesis that, should the members of institutions not

reach a ‘minimum threshold of concern’ over a specific issue, the adaptation process will

be halted. For example, if a private institution and a government agency are both

developing adaptation plans, their options and methods will likely differ because of

various factors (jurisdiction, political interests, funding, etc.), resulting in mistrust (Renn,

2008).

Not questioning the flexibility of these barriers may itself be an obstacle in the

adaptation process. They may hinder progress between the various stages of the process,

49

or skip certain stages altogether (a plight all too familiar for those involved in real-world

decision-making), resulting in later consequences down the line (Moser & Ekstrom,

2010). For example, early barriers (in a general sense) may be filtered out as irrelevant;

this can lead to such obstacles as the inability to agree on goals, inaccessibility of data,

and ownership of responsibility (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010). In the same way, barriers can,

and often do, arise in the areas of understanding, planning, and management.

Nevertheless, there are negative aspects to acknowledging certain barriers to adaptation.

Grothman et al. (2013) argues that social factors, such as risk perception, demonstrate a

particular ability to reduce vulnerability and build social capacities because they can be

altered more quickly than economic, technological, or infrastructural development. These

factors need more time to be successfully altered. Indeed, the challenges posed by coastal

decision-making highlight significant problems with scale; temporally, ‘time horizons of

coastal planning are generally too short to mandate consideration of climate change

impacts’ (Wilbanks and Kates, 1999; Wilbanks, 2002). While different sectors,

participants, regions, and levels of decision-making respond differently to climate change

impacts, so too must the adaptive capacities among them vary (Grothman et al., 2011). If

‘agents systematically underestimate their own ability to adapt’, they serve as a negative

example for climate change adaptation (Grothmann & Patt, 2005).

Even if the climate change problem is the same, however, the causes, the barriers,

and the motivators of adaptive capacity seem to vary between the different social systems

(Grothmann et al., 2013). Temporal as well as spatial scales exhibit unique barriers in

that they expose discrepancies between strategic planning and the narrower spatial scale

of decision-making on coastal management in the UK (Few et al., 2007). It stands to

reason that these barriers would be similar in an Irish context. The barriers are

particularly evident at the local decision-making scale in a political, financial, and

technical context (Few et al., 2007), and inhibit preemptive response capacity of the

relevant institutions. According to Inderberg (2011), explanations of adaptive capacity

that reside in solely ‘formal factors’ tend to miss important barriers to the adaptive

capacity. The findings in a Norwegian context indicate that the capacity to adapt is

influenced and altered by the changes in both formal structure, and cultural norms

(Inderberg, 2011).

50

The institutional and cultural perspective of climate change focuses on the

legitimacy of adaptation measures existing within relevant values; barriers to adaptation

will exist where the values of institutions do not supply a basis for implementing

respective policies (Inderberg, 2011). The positive side of this is the slowly shifting

cultural factors that will lead to a secure environment for identity and overall

performance; and yet this could still act as a barrier to adaptation, ‘especially if the

corporative economic culture wins terrain’ (Inderberg, 2011). Time might seem to be on

our side in the preparation for climate change impacts, since the normative view is that

these impacts are largely long-term; but the enormity of the potential impacts suggest in

themselves that adaptation legislation will require quite lengthy processes of technical

and social change (Few et al., 2007). The response to climate change impacts by the

relevant agencies will most certainly be affected by issues such as available resources,

funding, conflicting policy priorities, and public support; all of which can be viewed as

barriers to adaptive capacity in their own right.

51

Mapping Capacity

Why Map Capacity?

Climate change is, of course, a very poignant and relevant topic of discussion; a

topic that has been building, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not, for a very long

time. Now, judging by the amount of studies currently underway and the number of

scientists vehemently moving forward with climate change strategies (Adger, 2000), this

field of research is a marketable one to say the least. Geographers and anthropologists

have identified many ways in which ‘traditional practices allow for greater adaptive

capacity’ (Grothmann & Patt, 2005), and how interruptions within the social unity of our

communities can reduce the resilience of adaptive capacity, causing potential breakdown

due to stress (Adger, 2000). So while traditional practices and structures may be a boon

to the adaptive capacity of a society, these structures may also impede the ability to create

more permanent adjustments in the wake of any ‘events’, or ‘threats, of long-term

environmental change (Adler, 2000); a most significant phenomenon at the present

(Grothman & Patt, 2005). This clearly implies a need for more effective, less fragile

systems to be put in place. In contrast, adaptation can occur all across the board, from a

local to international scale, addressing particular issues related to that specific level and

making use of the available facilities (Grothman & Patt, 2005). Unfortunately, the

primary determinants of adaptive capacity have been financial, technical, and institutional

constraints, brought about in part because of a failure to consider empirical research on

the science of decision-making (Grothman & Patt, 2005). Adaptation does not unfold this

way, but comes about after a ‘risk perception process’ and only starts ‘if a specific

threshold of threat appraisal is exceeded’ (Grothman & Patt, 2005). In short, there most

often must already be clear, tangible evidence of a threat or concern before people will

begin contemplating the benefits of change. Clearly, this is not a sustainable solution.

Studies on the outcomes of risk and adaptation appraisal processes demonstrate that a

person responds, in one of two ways, when faced with an immediate threat: adaptation

and ‘maladaptation’ (Grothman & Patt, 2005). Adaptive responses are preventative; taken

if the perceived threat and capacity for adaptation are high. Maladaptive responses

include avoidant behaviour and ‘inverse’ actions (Grothman & Patt, 2005) that, in the

long term, actually work to increase climate change damage not unlike a self-fulfilling

prophecy.

52

Of course, the solution is not simple or clean cut. The Marine Law and Ocean

Policy Centre (MLOPC, 2006) drafted ‘EU legislation and policies with implications for

coastal management’, part of the Corepoint Project; a policy intended to provide cohesion

to an otherwise wildly unregulated debate. The literature attempts to assess European

policy in an effort to gauge how coastal management will evolve and develop. The

results, however thorough, demonstrate that sustainable practices will not automatically

occur when a common legal or policy framework is adopted (MLOPC, 2006). It takes

proactive response to initiate the necessary change.

Climate change is not only a local issue. It is a large scale, international dilemma

that will result in a range of differing impacts across a number of locales that are very

likely to worsen any preexisting problems (NCCAF, 2012). Adaptive responses will be

required to avoid the negative effects of impending climate change; in the NCCAF

(2012), this is presented as inarguable fact. In an Irish context, it is important to not only

avoid the adverse impacts but also to build on positive opportunities that may present

themselves. This is necessary in order to respond effectively to prepare for longer-term

consequences (NCCAF, 2012). Many things are uncertain, and that is a natural caveat of

future events and climate change is no exception. The rate at which climate change will

and is occurring is unclear, but the underlying progression is evident and will continue,

presenting a strong case for preparation. For this, we must continue to build on the

current research and put in place a cohesive, comprehensive policy framework for

adaptation planning in order to respond to the inevitable challenges (NCCAF, 2012). In

turn, we must also incorporate measures to manage the impact on natural and human

systems as they continue to evolve for the foreseeable future; to manage both the harmful

significance and taking advantage of opportunities (NCCAF, 2012). To do this, the

debate on whether or not such policies are necessary must be suspended, and instead we

must begin the discussion on how to implement said policies in the most effective way.

The NCCAF (2012) identifies six main building blocks, the second of which includes an

assessment of adaptive capacity: ‘socio-economic and institutional capacity and

willingness to adapt’. This is a base representation of my paper’s objective in an Irish

context. The NCCAF (2012), partially informed by the National Adaptive Capacity

assessment framework from the years 2007-2013, and proposed by the World Resource

53

Institute, exists as a solid framework of adaptive suggestions. However, its use primarily

only extends to the sectors identified in Ireland’s economy while the ACW can be

utilized in different institutions of different main sectors, and the review does not

determine the extent to which integration is actually occurring. Therefore, it is clear more

research in this context is required if previous discrepancies and inadequacies are to be

avoided.

Of the few studies that do exist pertaining to climate adaptation in an Irish

context, Falaleeva et al. (2011) provides a narrative on stability. In Ireland, actions are

consistent across different time scales, and personnel are able to rely on the normative

governance frameworks regardless of political change or otherwise (Falaleeva et al.,

2011). The study argues that the capacity of the existing governance exists to address

different timelines throughout the decision-making process; most pressingly in the event

of possessing enough intel to support continuation of said policies at various levels. The

focus on ICZM (Integrated Coastal Zone Management) is a positive one, hindered,

however, by the lack of organisation within governing bodies and a fragmented sense of

responsibility for coastal zones (Falaleeva et al., 2011). It is here, once again, where we

demonstrate a need for improvement.

Simply put, climate change potentially brings continuous and unpredictable

changes in our weather patterns. This in itself should be enough to initiate an adaptive

response. In this case, climate change calls for the governing bodies that promote

adaptive capacity and allow society to modify policies at a similar rate to that of

environmental change (Gupta, et al., 2010). Institutions that are traditionally maladaptive

in that they are ‘conservative and reactive’ in their actions will need to support

participants to respond proactively; either through planned processes and deliberate steps,

but also through ‘cherishing and encouraging spontaneous and autonomous change’

(Gupta et al., 2010). The sciences are improving in predicting the future environmental

impacts, and in the case of climate change, said institutions must be able to rise to the

challenge of incorporating new intel and becoming proactive and progressive. This is a

mindset that must be encouraged from within, or the resilience of adaptive capacity will

be adversely affected (Gupta et al., 2010). Gupta et al. (2010) continues by arguing that

54

society at large will have to be ready to anticipate and respond to changes that may occur;

and because climate change is inherently unpredictable, it calls for institutions with the

necessary resources to be prepared and encourage adaptive capacity within the

community. There is certainly a sense that we are moving towards this level of

preparation, due in part to the ‘explosion’ of literature on climate change adaptation in

the last ten years (Gupta et al., 2010). This has mostly dealt with the impacts of climate

change, vulnerability to the impacts (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2006), its criteria and indicators

(Klijn & Koppenjan, 2006), and adaptation to the impacts of climate change (IPCC,

2007). The IPIHOP defines institutions as: ‘‘systems of rules, decision-making

procedures, and programs that give rise to social practices, assign roles to the participants

in these practices, and guide interactions among the occupants of the relevant roles’’

(IDGEC, 1999), and perhaps this definition is necessary to understand the potential of

outlining climate change adaptation policy. In ordinary speech, the word ‘institutions’ is

seen as synonymous with ‘organisations’. Although organisations can be seen as

formalised patterns of rules and decision-making, institutions are not equivalent to

organisations, as institutions also refer to underlying ideological values and norms

(IDGEC, 1999). Institutions are agreements following long debate, and inherently

predisposed to conservatism as if these hard-won institutions would not survive until the

next day, there would be little point in creating them. Moreover, institutions carry the

bias of previous interactions, views and power relations (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2006). For

example, the traditional ideal that men in a relationship need be tough and the primary

bread-winner is an institutionalised concept and isn’t easily changed. Hence, all

institutions embed a degree of robustness and resistance to change. This can be used to

benefit the future of climate change if the concept of preparation and adaptability is

imbued with this same sense of permanence. It is a mindset, after all, that will urge us in

the direction we must go.

Method Examples

A singular founding methodology for the succeeding narrative and for my own

research can be found in the work of Gupta et al. (2010), an article detailing the Adaptive

55

Capacity Wheel, appropriately and simply named ‘A method to assess the inherent

characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society’. The Adaptive

Capacity Wheel (ACW) does exactly that. The method was used to assess the adaptive

performance of institutions in the Dutch urbanised municipalities of Delft and Zaandam,

with special consideration for sharing responsibilities for factors such as rainfall and

ground water management between the government and residents alike (Gupta et al.,

2010). The study collected data through an intensive interview process (inspiring my own

survey-based responses) with nineteen stakeholders involved in the local water

management of the municipalities’. A scoring system, where different scores were

assigned to criteria based on information in the interviews, defined the data analysis

process (Gupta et al., 2010). This system clarified the underlying arguments that formed

the basis of the article, thoroughly discussing the capacity of adaptation of the

institutions, though limited in scope. As the data was collected, the conductors of the

study began an interpretation process where they construed the scores on criteria in the

context of both specific municipalities (Gupta et al., 2010). The study used traffic light

colours to communicate the data to relevant policymakers and to discuss and test the

results; a technique Gupta et al. (2010) have applied in an assessment of the formal Dutch

institutions’ ability to magnify and build upon the adaptive capacity of society (this

specifically applies to their governmental policies and regulations). The study honed in

on policies that specifically address or were believed to be relevant to climate change

adaptation; and held a narrow focus on four sectors: nature, water, agriculture and spatial

planning. Gupta et al. (2010) continues collecting data on each criterion by thoroughly

reading through relevant policy documents and conducting a content analysis. In the

analysis of this data, in order to avoid any bias from those closest to the study, the content

analysis was double checked in three separate rounds by three different researchers; first

independently, then together (Gupta et al., 2010). Records were kept on why criteria was

scored a certain way in order to clarify future arguments; these scores were assigned, then

tallied to arrive at a single value for each institution. Interpretation consisted of

comparing scores of said institutions to evaluate relative capacity of adaptation. The

ACW has, by merit of the aforementioned study, become a crucial and integral part of the

56

process for my own work, and even my initial interest in this topic, and has been very

relevant as a comparison for adaptive capacity in an Irish context.

The shaping and honing of the interview process takes much deliberation, and that

can clearly be seen in Pittman et al., (2015)’s climate change study conducted in a

Caribbean coastal-marine context. The methodology behind the study is qualitative and

case-study based, an approach used to examine the complexity of the relationships

between climate change government and institutional adaptive capacity. Data was

collected using thirty-six semi-structured interviews with essential informants involved

with coastal-marine governance, conducted during July and August of 2012 over five

weeks of intensive field work (Pittman et al., 2015). These interviews were conducted

over 30-90 minutes and usually took place in the respective respondents’ office. The

procedure includes more input than Gupta et al. (2010), in that interviews were more

extensive and far-reaching, yet less focused in their purpose. Respondents for this study

were selected using the ‘snowball sampling technique’: each respondent was asked to

provide contact information of other potential respondents for use within the study

(Pittman et al., 2015). This technique was used multiple times to reduce any bias in the

final sample, and initial respondents were chosen through interaction with local experts

on the research team during field work, or through review of ‘grey literature and online

materials’ (Pittman et al., 2015). Pittman et al. (2015)’s interview guide consisted of

open-ended questions that were used as a guide or framework for my own surveys; that

is, the open-ended aspect allows participants to provide information of their own volition,

instead of being led by the questions. These were intended to deal with the main factors

in relation to ‘institutional adaptive capacity, institutional variety, nesting and networks,

analytic deliberation, and gather information related to governance fit’ (Pittman et al.,

2015).

A similar study to the aforementioned Caribbean-contextualised article is one

focused on the environmental aspects of Cameroon, focusing not only on adaptive

capacity but on overall climate change response as well (Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010). The

conductors of this study argue that this focus stems from the fact that the Congo Basin

Forest in the Republic of Cameroon is an essential part of the country’s economy and

57

livelihood for the local population; an area that has been historically exploited (Brown,

H.C.P. et al., 2010). Of course, this means that there are many different levels of

institutions that could have contributed to this study; in an effort to make the results more

concise, Brown, H.C.P. et al. (2010) focused on formal institutions at the national,

regional, and international level because of ‘their decision-making role in climate change

or forest issues or because of the impact climate change might have on them in the

future’. Various government ministries and institutions were represented within the

private sector and civil society; these included a wide variety of non-governmental

organisations and practitioners awaiting certification for sustainable forest management.

This wide scope of representation was found necessary due to the unique and varied

geographical and political landscape of the Congo Basic Forest (Brown, H.C.P. et al.,

2010). Of course, this does not accurately represent the scale at which I have organised

my own survey of Ireland, but can be encouraged during later and more thorough

versions of this study. Much like Pittman et al. (2015)’s study, Brown, H.C.P. et al.

(2010) used twenty-seven semi-structured, open-ended interviews, conducted during

September and October of 2008. The use of this structure was justified due to the broad

range of participants, allowing the interviewer to use a guide of similar questions with all

representatives, but with the added ‘flexibility needed to pursue further questioning in

order to elucidate the subject’ (Patton, 2002). This method, while comprehensive, is not

an option on a smaller scale, as time constraints would make conducting intensive

interviews as an individual very difficult. However, Patton (2002) makes an excellent

point that could be pursued in later developments, and that was executed concisely in

Brown, H.C.P. et al. (2010)’s process. The data collected from interviews was

supplemented with ‘relevant documents, strategies, press releases and government

statements related to the key themes’ (Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010). This is a strategy

employed, to a lesser degree, in my own research. The previous study attempted to

explore institutional strategic priorities related to climate change and any perceptions of

Cameroon’s capacity to adapt at the final stage.

58

Example Studies

It is only in the past few years that many countries and the government agencies

among them have begun to proactively engage with the scientific literature revolving

around climate change and the consequences this may have for us. This is certainly an

encouraging development, a sign that this research is now part of an in-demand,

emerging field of study; and highlighting the absolute necessity of drafting cohesive,

diligent provisions for adapting to the phenomenon that is climate change. The County

and City Managers Association (CCMA) have very clearly recognised the need for

climate change response, and the key role local authorities play in implementing this.

Fulfilling that role requires a certain amount of adaptation to be embedded in key

functions such as the ‘planning process, the provision of local infrastructure, the

implementation of building control and the co-ordination of emergency planning’

(NCCAF, 2012). Actions already taken by local authorities such as the Climate Change

Strategy for Dublin City 2008-2012 produced by Dublin City Council serve as further

evidence of the growing field (NCCAF, 2012). Serving to build on the encouraging steps

of others, this particular Adaptation Framework aims to bring a ‘consistent and coherent

approach to adaptation planning at a local level’ (NCCAF, 2012), a precedent that surely

led to more recent examples. These include the Mayo County Development Plan 2014-

2020 and Galway County Development Plan 2015-2021, among others, both with focus

on adaptive capacity and environmental concerns (NCCAF, 2012). The need for local

authority is clearly outlined in the NCCAF (2012), seemingly existing as the catalyst for

further research into the value and execution of adaptive capacity.

Not all examples are positive ones, however. Bettini et al., (2015) explored water

governance adaptation in Australia, with particular reference to Perth and Adelaide, and

found less than favorable results. Perth, for example, was dominated by ‘maintenance

dynamic’, due in part to the prescriptive governance setting. This segregated water

management responsibilities and the main performance management mechanism became

regulation, leading to no allowance for cross sectional benefit (Bettini et al., 2015). The

influence this has is extensive. The maintaining of resilience throughout the drought in

Perth would have benefitted from the use of more integrated capacity, if only to find an

approach that did not rob drinking water from their future selves by extracting

59

groundwater at a higher rate than natural recharge (Bettini et al., 2015). Therefore, the

case analysis conducted by Bettini et al., (2015) displayed ‘an institutional setting

displaying cognitive, normative, and regulative maintaining mechanisms, locking the city

into traditional practice by confining the urban water sector to its current configuration.’

In contrast, the study reports that the impression of Adelaide’s institutional dynamics is

chiefly creative and disrupting, typically less traditional than Perth’s system (Bettini et

al., 2015). Fewer maintenance of beliefs and traditional professional practices exist, and

this seems to have been outweighed by other influences on beliefs and cognitive frames,

as well as creative inter/intra-organizational relationships.

Pittman et al. (2015), while existing as a valid framework for methods for similar

studies, also serves as a valid example. With in-depth institutional capacity study,

consideration and inclusion of marine to terrestrial zone fragmentation, and socio-

environmental local authority implementation recommendations; the above study paints a

very similar picture to the obstacles Ireland is currently attempting to alleviate.

Continuing on that train of thought brings us to the (BBCZMG), a local voluntary

initiative set up in Bannow Bay, Co. Waterford on Ireland’s south east coast in 1996

(O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This group formed on the basis of encouragement and

assistance in regards to a coastal management plan being developed due to local concerns

about growing pressures and sub-par management of the Bay (O’Hagan & Ballinger,

2010). This group formed on the basis of encouragement and assistance in regards to a

coastal management plan being developed due o local concerns about growing pressures

and sub-par management of the Bay (O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). Preceeding this, a

report was produced to assist with the formation of a ‘future use strategy’ in the

Management Group (Behan & O’Malley, 1999). The Management Group, comprised of

representatives from voluntary, social and community groups, as well as representatives

from governing bodies, was, following a series of public meetings, urged to form

(O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). However, integration was not something these

representatives intended to do; they preferred to work independently of one another, and

so the public did not feel a sense of responsibility towards their own environment

(O’Hagan & Ballinger, 2010). This undermined the overall plan of the BBCZMG, and

60

while this particular scheme was a failure, it exists as an example of the first steps

towards culpability and organisation, and encourages future studies and potential

attempts.

Finally, the ACW acts as a framework and the basis of this study, and so it would

be remiss not to mention the relevance of the research as an example of mapping

capacity. Used to assess the performance of institutions in two Dutch municipalities,

specifically the shared responsibility of rainfall/ground water management, the ACW is a

long term scheme for adaptive change (Gupta et al., 2010). The authors of the study

examined the institutions’ ability and proficiency in regards to adaptive capacity; this was

mainly concerned with ‘the division of municipal and individual responsibility in local

water management’ (Gupta et al., 2010). The study applied the ACW in an assessment of

Dutch governmental policies and regulations, and the ability to enhance the overall

capacity of society (Gupta et al., 2010), inarguably a loft goal. The study honed in on

policies that specifically address climate change adaptation, as well as four sectors (see

Mapping Capacity Methods), and demonstrate a range of adjustment across said sectors.

This analysis demonstrates that there might exist a tension with regulating responsibilities

between participants and ‘adopting a multi-level, collaborative management approach’

(Gupta et al., 2010). The assessment of these institutions in the Dutch municipalities and

the assessment national institutions are ‘qualitative in the sense that researchers interpret

data (interviews and policy documents) to ‘score’ criteria’ (Gupta et al., 2010); this is a

comprehensive technique due to its allowance of further explanation by the researchers,

and a policy analysis presented quantitatively by comparison. As a case study, the

research implies a distinction between adaptive capacity in nature, and water, for

example, where the institutions scored better (Gupta et al., 2010), and encourages the use

of certain strategies to amplify change and cooperation.

61

Research Design, Methodology and Analysis:

Research Design

This project was designed around the application of the ACW to assist in

identifying and mapping of institutional capacities, in an Irish context. The overall

research design is primarily based of the initial process of Gupta et al., (2010) with

influences of Grothmann et al., (2013) in relation to administration in a specific context.

The individual respondents were chosen by judgment of experience and particular

relevance to the topic of climate change, from institutions among the 32 counties within

Ireland; including CODEMA (City of Dublin Energy Management Agency).

Methodology

As a new addition to the current research, I have attempted to standarise the

questions types with score values from Figure 20. The standarisation criteria of the

questions are as follows: yes/no questions were assigned the values of 2 and -2

respectively; gauged questions (e.g. pick from 1-5) were assigned in a linear fashion with

1 being assigned the value of -2, 2 = -1, 3 = 0, 4 = 1, and 5 = 2; multiple choice questions,

where one option is most representative, are assigned -1 for the least positive option and

1 for the most positive, while either choice in between are given values of 0; multiple

choice questions were more than one option exists, are assigned a value of 2 if one or

more options are marked, a value of 1 if at least one option is marked, and a value of 0 if

simply none are marked or the option (none of these) is marked; a value of zero for any

unanswered questions; any other questions were used for context.

The methodologies of the thesis are primarily derived from the research protocols

of Gupta et al., (2010, 465-466), with five established steps tailored with specific context

include:

1. Preparation for the research: this mainly consisted of the identification of

institutional individuals within each of Ireland’s counties. This was

accomplished through correspondence with relevant professionals with

experience in climate change, to better determine relevant respondents.

2. Collecting the data: the creation and application of questionnaires was,

essentially ground-up, customising 36 questions that reflected the 22

62

criteria and subsequent 6 main dimensions of the ACW. The questions

went through a review of two pilot studies and multiple revisions to limit

leading questions, implied perceptions, and bias; this coupled with a

varied structure allowed for a fundamentally neutral response.

3. Analyzing the data: consists of the discussion and recording of the

differences in opinion, if any, on a specific criterion. This helps to explain

why certain values were assigned to specific institutional criteria and

fosters transparency. This section reflects the additional research in

standardising question types with scores, put forth by myself. Respondents

were placed under generic descriptor of their institutional area (e.g.

coastal/urban) to preserve the anonymity of particular individuals.

Subsequent rounds of review were completed by a singular examiner, due

to time and personnel constraints, which may lead to limitations within

this particular study.

4. Interpreting the data: includes the development story that helps explain

the specific strengths or weaknesses within an institution. The ‘scores’ are

interpreted in order to understand their meaning in context. For example,

what does a ‘+1’ score on entrepreneurial leadership mean for a particular

institution.

5. Presenting the data: primarily the presentation of resulting scores using a

communicative colour scheme (traffic: red, yellow, green), that allow for

simplified understanding within the examples in the thesis.

Analysis

Respondent questionnaires were ‘graded’ on

a five-level scale, interpretative institutional scale

Figure 20: seen above, scoring rubric

as outlined by Gupta et al., 2010.

63

(e.g. negative = -2, slightly negative = -1, no effect = 0, slightly positive = 1, and positive

= 2), adopted from Gupta et al., (2010) (Figure 20); with a more intuitive variation of

labeling (e.g. very low = -2, low = -1, medium = 0, high = 1, and very high = 2), adopted

from Grothmann et al., (2013, 11). Site specific weights were not applied in an attempt to

limit bias and offset innate limitations, in regards to the singular examiner rounds of

review from time and personnel constraints. A mixture of yes/no, multiple choice, gauged

questions (e.g. pick from 1-5), one or the other, and variations of semi-open-ended

questions, were used to limit survey fatigue and facilitate explanation without excessive

interpretation. Averaging and using the scores of each criterion, dividing by the number

or criterion per dimension, and then dividing by the number of criterion per dimension,

the scores are able be aggregated for the 6 dimensions and overall capacity (Gupta et al.,

2010). This provides an aggregated score that, while simpler to explain under current

time constraints, doesn’t allow for certain intricacies in interpretation.

64

Results: Seven responses were collected out of the initial 33 that were distributed after

initial, follow-up, and reminder correspondence rotations. Through the use of an

anonymity identifier used at the beginning of the questionnaire (Appendix B),

respondents were categorised as follows: one inland/urban/rural, one inland/rural, three

coastal/rural, and two urban/rural.

Out of the seven institutional respondents, five were aggregately graded at .01 to

1.0, meaning a slightly positive effect or high value. Two outliers were identified, with

one at (-.3) offering a slightly negative effect (-.01 to -1) or low value; and the other

response graded at (1.2) offering a postitive effect (1.01 to 2.0) or very high value.

Discussion: Current literature is largely pessimistic in the field of adaptive capacity, to the

point that it was not unusual to enter this study with negative expectations. In regards to

the seven respondents, the participants that resulted in a seemingly average range (5)

came as a surprise. While only 7 out of 33 institutions were included in the assessment of

this research, I believe in constitutes a solid and refreshing start for future research.

Through careful scrutiny of the questionnaires, certain parallels were

distinguished. Two key similarities were found: a majority of the institutions claim to be

influenced by the Climate Change and Low Carbon Development Act of 2015, and there

is clear acknowledgement of the extreme lack of funding that, while several of the ACW

dimensions reflected this, was most often seen in the Authority Resources criterion. Only

two of the respondents reported any type of emergency action plans, and one institution

even cut the pay of employees who demonstrated sub-par execution in over 3 different

performance reviews.

While the negatives of institutional capacity were abundant, so too were the

positives. Two of the questioned institutions reported that a continuous professional

development programme is currently in use to keep track of the most recent literature;

one of these institutions even goes so far as to have a certain percentage of their

65

personnel partake in EPA training. Social equity programmes and policy seem to be on

the rise, as opposed to the current outlook in some of the more prevalent research, and all

respondents state that a trend of increased environmental awareness is evident in their

peers and institutional norms.

One of the respondents confessed that their institutional area has little to no input

on climate change adaptation or implementation, a statement I find astonishing. This

clearly points to the necessary formulation of explicit and comprehensive adaptive policy,

if only to designate authority to specific institutions. Despite this, the outlook, even from

a relatively small pool of information, is a better than expected. However, if extrapolated

across the entirety of county institutions in Ireland, the aggregates would most likely

reflect the exact opposite.

66

Conclusion:

Climate change, while not a new discussion within the scientific community, is

certainly an evolving one. As evidence by the previous discussion and evaluation of

relevant research, the climate change conversation has largely been one of general effects

and overall impact. Now, as this conversation narrows and the implications become clear,

both in terms of adaptive capacity and the policies and institutions that accompany it, it is

time to view climate change within varying contexts. In conclusion, the focus of climate

change adaptation within Ireland and the Irish government attempts to examine the

efforts currently being made within these governing bodies. It is very clear that many

underlying factors affect the capacity and immediacy with which any institution may put

adaptation policies into action. This being said, those localities where adaptive capacity

policy is put into place demonstrate the necessity of doing so elsewhere, as well as the

research needed to further understand the best method of implementation and strategy.

Those institutions that fail to plan environmental, political, and social changes will most

certainly hinder Ireland’s capacities to adapt to climate change, and this is something

researchers hope to avoid. But exploring the most effective systems, paired with

empirical evidence on the consequences of increasing vulnerability and decreasing

resistance, it is the hope that future institutions and their governing bodies will choose to

initiate proactive policy changes.

Throughout the body of this thesis, the perception of local authority and

institutional members on their own ability to adapt to climate change was consistently

brought into question; both in review of previous literature and the resulting study. The

Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) (Gupta et al., 2010) was essential to the development

of the following findings.

While the relatively small pool of respondents may lead to the assumption that

there is a positive capacity to adapt to climate change in Ireland, the context of previous

literature and personal accounts from respondents would lead me to believe otherwise.

Further research and more time would contribute to the testing of this hypothesis, and to

better compare the wide range of institutions across Ireland in a more in-depth and

intensive way. Collaboration amongst fellow researchers would improve upon the results

67

of this study, much like communication between the governing bodies of climate change

adaptation would improve future policy.

68

Bibliography:

Adger, W.N., 2000. Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under transition in

Vietnam. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90 (4), 738 758.

Adger, W.N., 2006. Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268–281.

Adger, W. N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D. R., Naess, L. O.,

Wolf, J., Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change?

Climatic Change, 93, 335–354.

Adger, W. N., et al., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity,

in: Climate change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability, Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J.,

Hanson, C. E., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp717–743.

Ballinger, R. Cardiff University., 2008. Report: Spatial Planning and ICZM in North West Europe,

Corepoint Project.

Barton, J. R., 2013. Climate Change Adaptive Capacity in Santiago de Chile:

Creating a Governance Regime for Sustainability Planning. Int J Urban Reg Res

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(6), 1916-1933.

doi:10.1111/1468-2427.12033

Behan A, O’Malley M., 1999. Towards a vision for Bannow Bay. Cork, Ireland.

Bettini, Y., Brown, R. R., & Haan, F. J., 2015. Exploring institutional adaptive capacity in

practice: Examining water governance adaptation in Australia. Ecology and Society E&S,

20(1). doi:10.5751/es-07291-200147

Birkmann, J. von Teichman, K., 2009. Addressing the Challenge: Recommendations and Quality

Criteria for Linking Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change. Bonn.,

DKKV Publication Series 38.

69

Boyer-Villemaire, U. et al., 2014. Quantifying community's functional awareness of coastal

changes and hazards from citizen perception analysis in Canada, UK and Spain. Ocean &

Coastal Management, 93, pp.106–120.

Brown, H. C., 2009. Climate change and Ontario forests: Prospects for building institutional

adaptive capacity. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change, 14(6), 513-536. doi:10.1007/s11027-009-9183-8.

Brown, H.C.P. et al., 2010. Institutional adaptive capacity and climate change response in the

Congo Basin forests of Cameroon. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(3), pp.263–282.

Carter, R.W.G., 1991. Climate Change: Studies on the Implications for Ireland. Dublin, Ireland:

Department of the Environment, pp. 125–171.

Carter, R.W.G., 1991a. Sea-level changes. In: Climate Change: Studies on the Implications for

Ireland. Mcwilliams, B.E., Dublin, Ireland: Department of the Environment, pp. 125–

171.

Carter, R.W.G., 1991b. Shifting Sands: A Study of the Northern Ireland Coast from

Magilligan to Larne. Belfast, United Kingdom: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Carter, R.W.G.; Mckenna, J.; Orford, J.D., and Devoy, R.J.N., 1993. The Irish Sea coast of

Ireland: a brief review of coastal processes, erosion and management. In: The Irish Sea

Forum Staff, The Irish Sea. Liverpool, United Kingdom: Liverpool University Press, pp.

3–23.

CapHaz-Net, November 2007. Social Vulnerability to Natural Hazards, Tapsell, S.,

McCarthy, S., Faulkner, H., & Alexander, M., Flood Hazard Research Centre

(FHRC), Middlesex University, pp. 3-92.

Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Bill 2015. Government Publications,

Published by the Stationary Office, Dublin.

Coco, G., 2014. Beach response to a sequence of extreme storms. Geomorphology, 204, pp.493–

501.

70

Commission of the European Communities Staff, 1992. Towards Sustainability: A

European Community Programme of Policy and Action in Relation to the

Environment and Sustainable Development. COM, 92, Volume 2. Brussels,

Belgium: Commission of the European Communities.

Commission of the European Communities., 2009. Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a

European Framework for Action. Climate Change and Water, Coasts and Marine Issues,

Commission Staff Working Document.

Cutter, S.L., Boruff, B.J., Shirley, L.W., 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental

hazards. Social Science Quarterly, 84 (2). 242–261.

Cutter, S.L., Mitchell, J.T. Scott, M.S., 2000. Revealing the Vulnerability of People and Places: A

Case Study of Georgetown County, South Carolina. Annals of the Association of

American Geographers. 90 (4). 713-737.

Department of the Environment and Coastal Government, May 2001. Coastal Zone

Management, Spatial Planning Unit, pp. 5-66.

Devoy, R.J.N., 2000. Implications of accelerated sea-level rise for Ireland. In: European

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Impacts of Accelerated Sea-Level Rise. De Le Vega-

Leinert, A.C., Nicholls, R.J., and Tol, R.S.J., Proceedings of SURVAS Expert Workshop,

ZMK, University of Hamburg. Flood Hazard Research Centre, Middlesex University,

United Kingdom, pp. 33–46.

Devoy, R.J.N., 2008. Coastal Vulnerability and the Implications of Sea-Level Rise for Ireland.

Journal of Coastal Research, 242, pp.325–341.

Devoy, R.J.N.; Lozano, I.; Hickey, K.; Chaoimh, U., Tobin, D., 2000. Final report of the work

undertaken by the Coastal Resources Centre, University College Cork. In: Storminess

and Environmentally Sensitive Atlantic Coastal Areas of the European Union. Smith, D.,

Commission of the European Communities, Research Contract Publication, Contract

ENV4-CT97–0488. Brussels, Belgium: Commission of European Communities, 320p.

Dunning, M.C., 2009. Social Vulnerability Analysis Methods for Corps Planning. Draft report,

conducted 29 October, 2009.

71

Falaleeva, M. et al., 2008. Coastal Climate Adaptation in Ireland: Assessing current

conditions and enhancing the capacity for climate resilience in local coastal

management. EPA Climate Change Research Programme 2007–2013, pp.1-98

Falaleeva, M. et al., 2011. Towards climate adaptation and coastal governance in Ireland:

Integrated architecture for effective management? Marine Policy, 35(6), pp.784–793.

Farrell, G. J., 2007. Ireland at Risk. The Irish Academy of Engineering, 7-35. doi:1-

898012-93-8

Fealy, R., J. Sweeney., 2007. Climate Scenarios for Ireland, International Journal of

Climatology. Published online: 29 May 2007, DOI:10.1002/joc.1506, In: Climate

Change: Refining the Impacts, Sweeney, J. et al. (ed), Environmental Protection Agency,

Ireland, Government Publications, in press.

Few, R., Brown, K. & Tompkins, E.L., 2007. Climate Change and Coastal Management

Decisions: Insights from Christchurch Bay, UK. Coastal Management, 35(2-3), pp.255–

270.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, J. Norberg, 2005. Adaptive governance of social– ecological

systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441–473. Doi:

30.050504.144511

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

conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75, 301-329.

Galderisi, A., Ceudech, A., Ferrara, F. F., Profice, A. S., 2010. Integration of different

vulnerabilities vs. natural and Na-tech hazards. Deliverable 2.2., ENSURE Project.

Government Publications Office, 1993. National development plan for Ireland 1994–99. Dublin:

Government Publications Office.

Gray, S., 2012. Local Authority Adaptation Strategy Development Guideline. EPA Climate

Change Research Programme 2014-2020, University College Cork, pp. 1-48

72

Grothmann, T., Daschkeit, A., Felgentreff, C., Görg, C., Horstmann, B., Scholz, I., Tekken, V.,

2011. Anpassung an den Klimawandel – Potenziale sozialwissenschaftlicher Forschung

in Deutschland. GAIA, vol20, pp84–90.

Grothmann, T., Grecksch, K., Winges, M., & Siebenhüner, B., 2013. Assessing institutional

capacities to adapt to climate change: Integrating psychological dimensions in the

Adaptive Capacity Wheel. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. Natural Hazards and Earth

System Science, 13(12), 3369-3384. doi:10.5194/nhess-13-3369-2013

Grothmann, T., & Patt, A., 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process

of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change, 15(3), 199-

213. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.01.002.

Gunderson, L., 2008. Adaptive Management and Integrative Assessments. Encyclopedia of

Ecology, pp.55–59.

Gunderson, L. H., C. C. Holling. 2002. Panarchy: Understanding Transformations In Human

and Natural Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Gupta, J. et al., 2010. The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent

characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental

Science & Policy, 13(6), pp.459–471.

Harbours Acts. 1946–1996. Government of Ireland, Dublin.

IDGEC Scientific Planning Committee, 1999. Institutional Dimensions of Global

Environmental Change. Bonn., IHDP Report No. 9.

Inderberg, T. H., 2011. Institutional constraints to adaptive capacity: Adaptability to climate

change in the Norwegian electricity sector. Local Environment, 16(4), 303-317.

doi:10.1080/13549839.2011.569538

Innovative Management for Europe’s Changing Coastal Resource (IMCORE), September 2011.

Guide for the Development of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies: A Guide to the

methodology used for the IMCORE Pilot Areas in NW Europe, pp. 2-24

73

IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E.

Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, pp. 976.

Jeffers, J. M,, 2011. The Cork City flood of November 2009: lessons for flood risk

management and climate change adaptation at the urban scale. Irish Geography, 44(1

pp 61–80.

Jeffers, J.M., 2013. Double exposures and decision making: adaptation policy and

planning in Ireland’s coastal cities during a boom–bust cycle. Environ. Plann. A

Environment and Planning A, 45(6), pp.1436–1454.

Kay R, Alder J., 1999. Coastal planning and management. London: E and FN Spon.

Kelley, J.T. et al., 2006. Sea-level change and inner shelf stratigraphy off Northern Ireland.

Marine Geology, 232(1-2), pp.1–15.

Klein, R., 2003. Environmental Vulnerability Assessment, Pottsdam Institute for Climate Impact

Research.

Klein, R.T., Nicholls, R.J., 1999. Assessment of coastal vulnerability to climate change. Ambio,

28(2), 182–187.

Klein, R., R. Nicholls, S. Ragoonaden, M. Capobianco, J. Aston, E. Buckley, 2001.

Technological options for adaptation to climate change in coastal zones. Journal of

coastal Research 17:531– 543.

Klijn, E.H., Koppenjan, J.F.M., 2006. Governing policy networks: a network perspective on

decision making in network society. In: Handbook of Decision-Making. Morcol, G.,

CRC Press, New York, pp. 169–187.

Kopke, K., & O'mahony, C., 2011. Preparedness of key coastal and marine sectors in Ireland to

adapt to climate change. Marine Policy, 35(6), 800-809.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2011.01.008

74

Lambeck, K., 1993. Glacial rebound of the British Isles-II. A high-resolution, high-

precision model. Geophysical Journal International, 115(3), pp.960–990.

Lambeck, K., 1996. Glaciation and sea-level change for Ireland and the Irish Sea since

Late Devensian/Midlandian time. Journal of the Geological Society, 153(6),

pp.853–872.

Leonard, L., K. Dixon, O. Pilkey, 1990. A comparison of beach replenishment on the U.S.

Atlantic, Pacific and Gulf coasts. Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue(6): 127-140.

Lynch, Kevin., 2016. Climate Change Adaptation —Planning For The Soft Coast.

[Presentation.] School of Geography and Archaeology. [Accessed 2 August, 2016.]

Marine Law and Ocean Policy Centre. Feb 2006 [Revised April 2007]. EU Legislation and

Policies with Implications for Coastal Management, Corepoint Project. Opinion of the

CPMR Political Bureau. June 2011. From Land to Sea, for a consistent, flexible and

simple European Approach to Maritime Spatial Planning (MSP) and Integrated Coastal

Zone Management(ICZM). pp.1-4

Marine Scotland, March 2015. Scotland’s National Marine Plan: A Single Framework for

Managing Our Seas, The Scottish Government, Edinburgh, pp. 8-144.

Martin, B.S., 1997. Coastal Zone Management—A Draft Policy for Ireland. Main Report,

Government of Ireland, Dublin.

Mayer, A., 1995. Comparative study of the coastal vegetation of Sardinia (Italy) and Crete

(Greece) with respect to the effects of human influence, In: Libri Botanici, IHW-Verlag,

p15.

Metcalf, G., F. Chambers, A. Charlesworth, V. Forrest, J. Hunt, L. McEwen, K. Russell, S.

Schofield, 2003. Warming to the idea: technical report. South West Region Climate

Change Impacts Scoping Study, received from

http://www.oursouthwest.com/climate/scopingstudy.htm

Met Éireann, 2014. Winter 2013/2014 Report, The Irish Meteorological Service, pp. 1-5.

75

Moser, S. C., & Ekstrom, J. A., 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change

adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(51), 22026-22031.

doi:10.1073/pnas.1007887107

National Climate Change Adaptation Framework: Building Resilience to Climate

Change. Dec 2012. Department of the Environment, Community and Local

Government.

National Coastal Erosion Committee Staff, 1992. Coastal Management: A Case for Action,

Volumes 1 and 2. Dublin, Ireland: EOLAS, 30p and 87p.

O'Hagan, A., Cooper, J.A., 2001. Extant Legal and Jurisdictional Constraints on Irish Coastal

Management. Coastal Management, 29(2), pp.73–90.

O’Hagan, A., & Ballinger, R., 2010. Implementing Integrated Coastal Zone Management in a

national policy vacuum: Local case studies from Ireland. Ocean & Coastal

Management, 53(12), 750-759. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2010.10.014

O’Hagan, A. & Lewis, A., 2011. The existing law and policy framework for ocean energy

development in Ireland. Marine Policy, 35(6), pp.772–783.

Orford, J.D., Murdy, J. & Freel, R., 2006. Developing constraints on the relative sea-level curve

for the northeast of Ireland from the mid-Holocene to the present day. Philosophical

Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,

364(1841), pp.857–866.

Parker, D. Tapsell, S. et al., 2009. Relations between different types of social and economic

vulnerability. Deliverable 2.1, Final draft report submitted to EU project ‘Enhancing

resilience of communities and territories facing natural and na-tech hazards’

(ENSURE).

Patton, M.Q., 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks.

Pelling, M., 2003. The Vulnerability of Cities: Natural Disasters and Social Resilience.

Earthscan: London, England.

76

Pethick, J., 1993. Shoreline adjustment and coastal management: physical and biological

processes under accelerated sea-level rise. Geographical Journal, 159, 162–168.

Pittman, J., Armitage, D., Alexander, S., Campbell, D., & Alleyne, M., 2015. Governance fit for

climate change in a Caribbean coastal-marine context. Marine Policy, 51, 486-498.

doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2014.08.009 .

Renn, O., 2008. Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World.

Earthscan, London, England.

Scott, M., 2004. Building institutional capacity in rural Northern Ireland: the role of

partnership governance in the LEADER II programme. Journal of Rural Studies, 20(1),

pp.49–59.

Slovic, P., 1988. Risk Perception. Carcinogen Risk Assessment, pp.171–181.

Stamski, R., 2005. The Impacts of Coastal Protection Structures in California’s Monterey Bay

National Marine Sanctuary. Marine Sanctuaries Conservation Series MSD-05-3, U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Marine

Sanctuaries Division, Silver Spring, MD. pp. 5-26.

Sweeney, J. 2000. A three-century storm climatology of Dublin. Irish Geography, 33, 1–14.

Tierney, J., 2003. Process: how the system operates, In: Local Government in Ireland: Inside Out.

Callanan, M., Keogan, J. F., Institute of Public Administration, Dublin, pp 143–164.

Tribbia J., Moser S.C., 2008. More than information: What coastal managers need to plan for

climate change. Environmental Science Policy, 11, 315–328.

Turner II, B.L., Kasperson, R.E., Matson, P.A., McCarthy, J.J., Corell, R.W., Christensen, L.,

Eckley, N., Kasperson, J.X., Luers, A., Martello, M.L., Polsky, C., Pulsipher, A.,

Schiller, A., 2003. A framework for vulnerability analysis in sustainability science.

PNAS, 100 (14): 8074-8079.

77

UK Climate Impacts Programme, April 2007. Identifying Adaptation Options, pp. 1-34

Upton, C., 2012. Adaptive capacity and institutional evolution in contemporary pastoral societies.

Applied Geography, 33, 135-141. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2011.10.008

Walker, B., C. S. Holling, S. R. Carpenter, A. Kinzig. 2004. Resilience, adaptability and

transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9 (2), pp5.

Wang, P., Kirby, J.H., Haber, J.D., Horwitz, M.H., Knorr, P.O., Krock, J.R., 2006.

Morphological and sedimentological impacts of hurricane Ivan and immediate post-storm

beach recovery along the Northwestern Florida barrier-island coasts. Journal of Coastal

Research, 6, 1382–1402.

Wheeler, D., 2011. Quantifying Vulnerability to Climate Change: Implications for

Adaptation Assistance. SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal.

Doi:10.2139/ssrn.182461.

Wilbanks, T. 2002. Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessments of climate change.

Integrated Assessment, 3, pp100–114.

Wilbanks, T., R. Kates. 1999. Global change in local places: how scale matters. Climatic Change,

43, 601–628.

Williams, A. et al., 2001. Integrated coastal dune management: checklists. Continental Shelf

Research, 21(18-19), pp.1937–1960.

Zhang, K., Douglas, B.C., Leatherman, S.P., 2002. Do storms cause long-term beach erosion

along the US East Barrier Coast? Geology, 110, 493–502.

78

Appendix A:

Appendix A: seen above, a completed ACW example

of a coastal/rural respondent during this study.

79

Appendix B: Adaptive Capacity Questionnaire created for this thesis research: Englert J, 2016

80

81

82

83

84

85