This article was downloaded by: [Victoria University of Wellington]On: 07 October 2013, At: 21:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and SustainabilityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cloe20

Adapting to changing climate risk bylocal government in New Zealand:institutional practice barriers andenablersJudy Lawrencea, Frances Sullivanb, Alison Lashc, Gavin Ided, ChrisCamerone & Lisa McGlincheyf

a New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, School ofGeography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Level 1, CottonBuilding, Wellington 6140, New Zealandb Local Government New Zealand, P O Box 1214, Wellington 6140,New Zealandc Kapiti Coast District Council, Private Bag 60601, Paraparaumu5254, New Zealandd Hawke's Bay Regional Council, P O Box 6006, Napier 4142, NewZealande Wellington City Council, PO Box 2199, Wellington 6140, NewZealandf Tasman District Council, Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, NewZealandPublished online: 07 Oct 2013.

To cite this article: Judy Lawrence, Frances Sullivan, Alison Lash, Gavin Ide, Chris Cameron & LisaMcGlinchey , Local Environment (2013): Adapting to changing climate risk by local government inNew Zealand: institutional practice barriers and enablers, Local Environment: The InternationalJournal of Justice and Sustainability, DOI: 10.1080/13549839.2013.839643

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.839643

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions

and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

Adapting to changing climate risk by local government in NewZealand: institutional practice barriers and enablers

Judy Lawrencea∗, Frances Sullivanb, Alison Lashc, Gavin Ided, Chris Camerone andLisa McGlincheyf

aNew Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, School of Geography, Environment and EarthSciences, Level 1, Cotton Building, Wellington 6140, New Zealand; bLocal Government NewZealand, P O Box 1214, Wellington 6140, New Zealand; cKapiti Coast District Council, PrivateBag 60601, Paraparaumu 5254, New Zealand; dHawke’s Bay Regional Council, P O Box 6006,Napier 4142, New Zealand; eWellington City Council, PO Box 2199, Wellington 6140, NewZealand; fTasman District Council, Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050, New Zealand

(Received 24 January 2013; accepted 27 August 2013)

Adaptation to climate change has been reviewed in several developed nations, but innone where consideration of the effects of climate change is required by statute anddevolved to local government. We examine the role of institutional arrangements, theplayers operating under them, the barriers and enablers for adaptation decision-making in the developed nation of New Zealand. We examine how the roles andresponsibilities between national, regional and local governments influence the abilityof local government to deliver long-term flexible responses to changing climate risk.We found that the disciplinary practices of law, engineering and planning, withinlegal frameworks, result in the use of static mechanisms which create inflexibleresponses to changing risk. Several enablers are identified that could create greaterintegration between the different scales of government, including better use ofnational policy instruments, shared professional experience, standardised informationcollection and risk assessment methods that address uncertainties. The framing ofclimate risk as dynamic and changing that differentiates activities over their lifetime,development of mechanisms to fund transitions towards transformational change, areidentified as necessary conditions for delivering flexible responses over time.

Keywords: climate change; adaptation; institutional barriers; multi-scale governance;local government

1. Introduction

Adaptation to the effects of anthropogenic climate change has become an important issueglobally and nationally as a way of reducing harmful impacts of climate change. Up tothe middle of the twenty-first century impacts such as sea level rise, storm surges and flood-ing will be dominated by changes in exposure and vulnerability, thus highlighting a role forrisk reduction strategies in the short-term that can reduce the impacts of climate-relatedevents over the short- and long-term. Decisions that result in long-term spatial commit-ments that persist over many decades to centuries are particularly at risk (Auld 2008,

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

∗Corresponding author. Email: judy.lawrence@vuw.ac.nz

Local Environment, 2013http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.839643

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

Stafford Smith et al. 2011), for example, decisions on infrastructure, the location of urbandevelopment and underground network utilities. In many jurisdictions, such decisions aretaken by local government within nationally prescribed institutional frameworks. Dominantlegal, engineering design and planning practices that have developed for responses to pastand current climate conditions have been based on static assumptions that will have tobecome more flexible and adapt to meet changing climate conditions (Milly et al. 2008).The growing body of knowledge on risk governance acknowledges that framing climaterisk only as measurable uncertainty is problematic for consideration of dynamic and chan-ging climate risk (IPCC 2007, Yohe 2009, Jones and Preston 2011) because it does notaccount for complexity, ambiguity or scientific uncertainty (Renn et al. 2011). Studies ofthe utility of more flexible implementation measures to address such uncertainties arenow emerging (Haasnoot et al. 2012, van den Berg and Coenen 2012, Lawrence et al.2013, Walker et al. 2013).

Research on climate change adaptation has evolved from developing country studies(Schipper 2009) to those that focus on developed countries. An “adaptation deficit” hasbeen identified (Burton 2009) in both developed and developing countries where societieshave not yet adapted to current climate impacts. Inadequate preparedness for climate-related risks has resulted in large clean-up costs, and ongoing development in hazardprone areas has increased the costs of extreme events (Lloyds 2008, World Bank 2010).Reviews of developed country adaptation practice (Measham et al. 2011, Preston et al.2011, Reisinger et al. 2011) suggest that adaptation plans are lagging behind what willbe required as climate continues to change and that an implementation deficit is emerging(Storbjork 2007), highlighting gaps in the use of adaptation guidance material, consider-ation of adaptive capacity and gaps in scholarship on the wider governance contextwithin which adaptation decisions are made.

Barriers to adaptation and the role of adaptive capacity to address them have been high-lighted in a number of studies (Smit and Wandel 2006, Adger et al. 2007, 2009, Barnett andO’Neill 2010), including resource constraints, information, leadership, competing issuesand institutional contexts. A number of empirical studies are emerging in developedcountries that identify institutional barriers at a local government level (Burch 2010,Juhola and Westerhoff 2011) and which question whether the local level alone is the rel-evant level for adaptation decisions (Keskitalo and Kulyasova 2009, McDonald 2011).Empirical studies on barriers and action entry points (Moser and Ekstrom 2010) are build-ing a body of practice-relevant knowledge in the local government context (Moser andEkstrom 2012), which identify institutional and governance barriers such as impedimentsto information flow within organisations, legal barriers and limited jurisdiction as themost frequent. Leadership, available adaptation processes and options, understanding ofthe science and communication have emerged as enablers that are missing orunderdeveloped.

The role of institutional frameworks and practices under them in determining the abilityto manage changing climate risk has been studied less (Smith et al. 2009, Dovers and Hezri2010) and is the focus of this paper. Institutional frameworks are defined according to theInternational Human Dimensions Programme (IDGEC Scientific Planning Committee1999) and as used by Handmer and Dovers (2013) as the persistent and predictablesystems of rules, decision-making procedures, programmes, and the values and normsthat determine social practices, assign roles and guide interactions amongst those inthose roles. Institutional frameworks can have three influences over climate change adap-tation decision-making (Agrawal et al. 2009) – structuring the local responses, mediatingbetween the collective and individuals and delivering resources to facilitate adaptation. It

2 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

has been noted (Adger 2001, Young 2002, Næss et al. 2005) that institutional frameworksalso influence the social distribution of vulnerability and the management of climate-sensi-tive issues. In addition, interconnectedness between scales of government has an importantenabling function (Wilbanks 2002, Young 2002, Young et al. 2008) and it has beenobserved (Olsson and Folke 2001) that cross-scale co-management can contribute to therobustness of systems to external changes. Klinke and Renn (2002) and Rijke et al.(2012) have identified the importance of understanding whether existing institutional fra-meworks are fit for purpose, since practitioners and policy-makers appear unable to copewith complexity and uncertainty in decision-making. Understanding the role of institutionalframeworks and practices in anticipating and preparing for climate change impacts is there-fore critical, as greater stresses are placed on current institutional frameworks to reduceharm to communities.

Our paper adds to the review of developed country practice by examining institutionalpractices across scales of government in New Zealand. We look at how professional disci-plines within a national institutional framework influence practice and how the relationshipsbetween national, regional and district scales of government affect the ability of local gov-ernment to deliver flexible responses to changing climate risk. We identify barriers andenablers that reduce or enhance the ability to implement local government’s devolvedresponsibility to consider the effects of climate change in its decision-making.

2. Methods

Empirical practice research was undertaken during 2010 and 2011 on the consideration ofsea level rise and increased flood frequency and intensity by local government in NewZealand, where statutory responsibility for considering the effects of climate change hasbeen devolved.1 The current practice, the barriers and enablers for considering climate-related risks2 were examined using a mix of methods enabling a range of situations to beexamined. The methods used included:

(a) Semi-structured interviews with practitioners and elected councillors (57) acrossfive regions representing urban and rural settings and different types of local gov-ernment (Wellington, Auckland, Otago, Hawke’s Bay and Nelson/Tasman).

(b) Workshops in two regions with practitioners and elected councillors (96) in Well-ington and Nelson/Tasman based on the semi-structured interview questions usedin (a) above.

(c) Analysis of council planning documents and relevant Environment Court decisionsfrom the five regions.

(d) Case studies of practice from four councils on sea level rise, coastal erosion andflooding (Wellington City, Tasman District, Kapiti Coast District and Hawke’sBay Regional councils).

Practitioners were recruited across the main functional groups in councils: strategicplanning, district planning, hazards management, emergency management, flooding andstormwater management, and climate change and legal advisors. They came from differentauthority levels in their organisations – managers, advisors and elected councillors. At theworkshops and prior to the interviews, information about current and changing climate riskwas presented to create a base-line understanding across participants. Feedback was soughtfrom them on practices and barriers to considering climate-related risks; the implications forlocal government and national government; and new decision-making approaches that

Local Environment 3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

address uncertainty about climate change impacts over time. A standard set of questionswas used as the basis for the workshop discussion and interviews (Appendix 1).

Summaries of responses were prepared and checked by the participants for accuracy.The workshop and interview records were analysed using a thematic approach (Figure 1)adapted from Braun and Clarke (2006).

The records were first arranged according to current practice, barriers and enablers andthen each grouping coded for scale, standards, timeframes, etc.; quotes were grouped foreach group, e.g. (for practice) “no consistent practice across councils” (consistentcomment across the two types of local government, planners, engineers, hydrologists andemergency managers); “200 year return period flood taken as a proxy for climatechange” (regional council hydrologist). Themes were defined in terms of frequency ofoccurrence or their uniqueness, and named, e.g. information barriers, capability, funding,community expectations, roles and responsibilities and national instruments. Furtherprobing of participants enabled corroboration of themes, thus adding robustness to the prac-tice conclusions.

Such an approach reflects an extrapolation method suggested by Bardach (2004), usingexemplars of practice. It also reflects a case study approach suitable for studies thatexamine, “how” and “why” in a real-life context where the researcher has little controlover the events being studied (Yin 2003). The results are thus our own interpretation ofthe range of information, interleaved with the different realities of the participants.

Figure 1. Theme coding process for analysis of data.Source: Adapted from Braun and Clarke (2006).

4 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

3. The institutional context

3.1 The framework

The institutional framework in New Zealand for addressing changing climate risk is domi-nated by a statutory framework for managing natural and physical resources – the ResourceManagement Act (RMA) (NZ 2013a). The RMA is operated by local government and guidedlightly by central government at the national level through guidance on coastal and flood riskmanagement for climate change (Ministry for the Environment 2008a, 2010) and a statutoryNew Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) (Minister of Conservation 2010) onplanning in coastal areas, including for sea level rise and related coastal hazards. This arrange-ment is unique in requiring (since 2004) all who exercise functions and powers under theRMA, to have “particular regard to the effects of climate change” (RMA Section 7 (i)).This builds on longstanding statutory requirements for provision of hazards information tothe public and for the avoidance and mitigation of natural hazards through policies, plansand rules at two levels of local government – regional and district.

Six additional statutes set out the roles and responsibilities of local government, includ-ing for flood control, stormwater management, flood warning and land drainage, manage-ment of assets, including infrastructure services and emergency management. The LocalGovernment Act 2002 (NZ 2013b) provides the governance umbrella for these functions,including a community consultative framework for decision-making through Long-TermPlans asset management plans and annual plans. Non-statutory planning instruments canalso be developed for coastal and catchment planning.

These functions operate within a highly devolved form of government (Figure 2),including a unicameral national legislature, and local government comprising regionalcouncils based on catchments (12) and district councils based on smaller scale territories(57) including cities (16). There are some combined regional and district councils,unitary authorities (5), which include New Zealand’s largest metropolitan council – Auck-land, formed in 2010.

Within this institutional framework, local government makes decisions on land-useactivities, natural hazard management, infrastructure and urban development. The locusof functions and power between central and local government has evolved from a highlycentralised management regime with significant funding transfers from central government

Figure 2. New Zealand governance framework.

Local Environment 5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

for flood and coastal protection up to the early 1990s, to the current highly devolved regimebased on the subsidiarity principle (Lebel et al. 2006, Huntjens et al. 2012).

3.2 Performance under the framework

The workshops and interviews demonstrated mixed adaptation outcomes under these insti-tutional arrangements. Historically, centrally determined outcomes resulted in “certainty”of protection, through large flood control schemes and seawalls, giving communities afalse sense of security (Burby 2006). Our results showed that over time this has reducedflexibility, by increasing path-dependency and exposing communities to greater risk (Lawr-ence et al. 2011, Reisinger et al. 2011). This has the potential to create maladaptation(Barnett and O’Neill 2010) should the design protection be exceeded as climate changes.

We found that the framework has created potential for councils to become more proac-tive in adapting to climate changes. However, our research showed that the framework isweakly linked between the levels of government with only one relevant National PolicyStatement (NPS) the NZCPS supporting climate change outcomes. Progress across scalesof government has been slow in identifying the effects of climate change nationally orlocally, or in developing adaptive responses to them. This was explained by the prac-titioners as being due to the slow 10-year cycle of plan reviews since consideration ofthe effects of climate change was required and the delay that is occurring as the NZCPSis implemented (councils that had reviewed their District Plans prior to the NZCPS 2010are not required to give effect to it until their next 10 yearly review). However, there is pro-vision for District Plan changes to be promulgated at any time. A few councils have donethis in coastal settings, including for sea level rise and storm effects (Whakatane DistrictCouncil 2006, Tasman District Council 2011).

The interviews, workshops and document analysis showed that climate change impactshave been addressed to date primarily through natural hazard management which has givenlimited consideration of the dynamic and changing characteristics of climate risk.Responses described by respondents were typically static in design, either using fixedhazard lines with graduated land-use controls lessening with distance from the hazard,for example, the Hawke’s Bay Regional Coastal Environment Plan (Hawkes Bay RegionalCouncil 2012) or engineering structures, for example, the Hutt Valley Flood Risk Manage-ment Plan (Wellington Regional Council 2001). Such responses are providing limited flexi-bility for addressing increased frequency or intensity of climate change impacts such ascoastal storms or flooding. Respondents indicated that this is because responses arebased on low end sea level rise or rainfall projections and because of perceptions ofsafety and expectations of protection by land owners who build between the reviewperiods. Where retreat from the coast is being considered (Hastings District Council2012) and hazard information is available on Land Information Memoranda (LIM)(Kapiti District Council 2012) councils face challenges managing community expectationsof private property owners and related land value issues (Hawkes Bay Regional Council2008).

While local government is widely regarded as being the best location to reflect commu-nity interests and local physical conditions (Adger et al. 2007), the current practice has leftindividual councils to “design its own wheel” (a district council planner and reflected incouncil officer responses across all functions, all authority levels and each type ofcouncil). This was described by council practitioners as an “inefficient use of theirlimited resources”. Individual council responses to climate change were considered verysensitive to challenge in the courts, making other councils cautious and leading to

6 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

delayed consideration and response to climate change. Different perceptions and under-standing of the risks and tensions between public and private interests were also consideredto be contributing to a hiatus in consideration of climate risks. The use of national statutoryinstruments, like further NPS or National Environmental Standards (NES) that couldsupport successful legal challenges and greater consistency and clarity of response, hasnot been promulgated by central government. This was of concern to local governmentrespondents who see pressure mounting for more nationally defined statements andmethods to provide support for the devolved governance model as provided for in theRMA framework legislation.

While emergency management and operational warning systems in New Zealand haveimproved the interconnectedness of agencies responsible for natural disasters, complacencystill exists – risk reduction remains a challenge at the national and local levels (Lee 2010).The emergency management regime focuses on response and recovery, rather than avoid-ance of risk (Glavovic et al. 2010). The consequence has been continued exposure to risk,due to land-use activities being restored in the same location which is reinforced by publicand private insurance rules.

The legacy of practice under the institutional framework is that much of New Zealand’spopulation (65%) and critical infrastructure is now located within 5 kilometres of the coast(Statistics New Zealand 2010)3 with more than 100 cities and towns located on flood plains.Development in coastal areas and on flood plains has intensified as communities havebecome more affluent (Reisinger et al. in press). The value of development has risen andprivate property right expectations have become entrenched, despite statutory responsibil-ities to avoid and mitigate natural hazards and to inform communities about the hazards.The empirical research presented here and previous reviews have shown that the legislativeframework has not been effective in curbing expansion and intensification of coastal devel-opment (Freeman and Cheyne 2008), nor intensification of settlement on flood plains. NewZealand society is very reliant on technology and interdependent infrastructure with a highcommunity expectation of access to services and utilities. As this reliance grows, vulner-ability to failure from external and internal causes grow, including from climate change(Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet New Zealand 2007). Flooding is currentlythe most frequent, natural hazard experienced in New Zealand (Ministry for the Environ-ment 2008b). On average, a major flood occurs every eight months (Ministry for theEnvironment 2008b, p. 1) at a significant cost to the nation, e.g. the estimated costs ofthe damaging 2004 floods were $380 m (2006 dollars) (Department of Prime Ministerand Cabinet New Zealand 2007, p. 62). Coastal squeeze between development and anadvancing sea, episodic storm events and the prospect of these worsening with climatechange is challenging local government to act.

A similar situation exists in Norway (Næss et al. 2005) where the institutional frame-work for flood management gives weak incentives for proactive flood management at thelocal level. The frameworks in law that encourage certainty, the short electoral cyclesand associated political and economic power relationships within communities, favournear-term decisions of a more static kind. Our results show similar effects. These factorshave had the effect of exacerbating existing risk and perpetuating an inflexible cycle ofrisk that is difficult to unravel by any one local council (Lawrence and Hamilton 2007,Lawrence and Allan 2009). These types of outcomes have been well recognised in the lit-erature (Pielke 1999, Moser et al. 2008, McDonald 2011) in other institutional settings forsome time, yet none has been able to address the barriers to implementing more durable andflexible responses.

Local Environment 7

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

4. Institutional barriers

4.1 Practice under the regulatory framework

Practice under the regulatory framework described by the practitioners and set out withintheir documents is carried out within a common institutional framework (Figure 2)which operates nationally. The practice that manages climate-related risks is dominatedby distinctive and divergent technical disciplines, each with a particular set of processes,standards and guidelines that influence the way risk is framed and responses developed.This in turn affects the decisions taken. The three main disciplines that drive decision-making by local government on climate change effects are – planning which operatesunder a quasi-legal framework and strives for certainty of outcome; engineering/hazardswhich although risk-based is dominated by quantifiable risk and historical experienceand emergency management which focuses on immediate response and recovery fromextreme events.

4.1.1 Planning and legal approaches

Planning practices led by legal processes under the RMA have a 10-year review cycle aredominated by pre-decision activity addressing process issues of public engagement and thestandards required for judicial review much as described by Ruhl (2010). This in turn isdriven by evidentiary tests of likelihood or past experience which strive for certainty ofoutcome. A static framing of risk results, assuming that future climate will be like thepast. Practice methods use fixed hazard lines based on single expressions of risk like a“best estimate” or average (Lawrence et al. 2013). This was described by respondents asentrenching the public perception of safety outside the hazard lines. Ten-yearly reviewperiods for adjustment were considered ineffective because much development can occurover that time.

Analysis of planning documents indicates that the use of regional plans to control landuses in areas exposed to climate risk is poorly developed. Land-use controls were per-ceived to be the preserve of district councils (Berry and Vella 2011), even though therehas been provision since 2005 for regional councils to influence those decisions. Districtrules cannot revoke existing use rights, but these can be adjusted by regional rules and ifthe political appetite exists. Pressures from private property interests have also contributedto delayed response on longer term solutions, like retreat from the coast or from floodprone areas.

The constraints of planning processes, the policy assessment methods used, combinedwith insufficient understanding of the dynamic and changing nature of climate change,has led to misuse of national guidance. For example, councils described how such uncer-tainty is under-represented because of their difficulty in using a rainfall range for flooddesign levels, and planning rules and annual changes in sea level rise beyond 2100 forlong-lived assets as suggested in the guidance (Ministry for the Environment 2008a,2010).

The legal processes under the RMA were considered to compound these practices, inparticular the evidentiary processes that require certainty. Uncertainties are perceived bythe decision-makers as lack of evidence and thus practitioners use single numbers, or themiddle or low end of the range to express climate risk, despite the precautionary approachadvocated in the national guidance and the NZCPS. Practice is also constrained by thesnapshot-in-time processes under the RMA for plans, following which the institutionalmemory of council decision-makers and their communities can change. This combined

8 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

with the use of static mitigation methods which raise community expectations of beingprotected from harm, make it difficult for councils to manage long-term risk. The shortthree-year electoral cycle also conspires to deliver short-term decisions. Paradoxically,the timeframe of planning cycles is too long for flexible responses, while the short-term political cycle is too short for consideration of risks emerging over longertimeframes.

4.1.2 Engineering approach

The engineering discipline, which has dominated flood risk and coastal zone managementover many decades, has historically preferred static structural responses based on quantitat-ive risk management assessments, over avoidance or minimisation of risk through non-structural measures. The limitations of risk management in a climate change context atlocal government has been reviewed by Kennedy et al. (2010) as ignoring non-lineareffects. The resulting increased risk can encourage a sense of “safety” behind the protectionstructures – the levee effect (Tobin 1995), encourage further development and physical pro-tection like seawalls and levees which have long-term cost limitations and will inevitablyreach structural integrity limits.

This perception of safety was demonstrated amongst practitioners when considering thedesign flood level of 1:440 year return period for the Hutt river (Wellington RegionalCouncil 2001), suggesting that the developed area protected by the flood levees was“flood free” (a council engineer). Residual risk was regarded as an emergency managementissue by planners, rather than one that could initiate evaluation of complementary non-structural measures, such as land-use planning controls. A “best estimate” approach wasused to convert heavy rainfall into flood frequency, because the guidance manuals basedon precaution were perceived as not practical within the decision frameworks underwhich they operated. The need for frequent updates to guidance information and standardswas perceived negatively, due to the resources required to amend long-term asset plansthrough community consultation processes.

The understanding of risk in the communities affected by the flood scheme wasinfluenced by how the risk was communicated by the engineering practitioners. Statisti-cal probability statements like annual return interval (ARI) and annual exceedance prob-ability (AEP) were not well understood within local communities, or in some cases bythe decision-makers (Quade and Lawrence 2011). Practice was often described by engin-eers as “risk-based”, but reflected physical risk expressed in quantitative terms, ratherthan representing differential vulnerabilities within communities arising from societal,cultural or economic factors. One consequence of this approach was that some flood-affected households in the Wellington region were perceived as having greater influenceover priorities for flood protection than others, due to higher value assets at risk (Quadeand Lawrence 2011).

Over-confidence by land owners outside hazard lines and by those “protected” bylevees has been another consequence of engineering practice, making it difficult forcouncils to consider the increasing residual risk associated with climate change andthus enable more flexible adaptive management practices to be implemented. Theseinclude secondary flood ways for residual flow from higher than design floods, planningcontrols in areas “protected” by levees, redesign of stormwater systems affected by seawater intrusion and rising groundwater, and consideration of retreat options and mech-anisms to fund them.

Local Environment 9

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

4.1.3 Emergency management

The emergency management focus on response and recovery has resulted in less attentionbeing given to reduction of risk, to readiness and to the ability of emergency management tocope with increased residual risk as protection design levels are exceeded with changing sealevel, coastal storms and increased flood frequency and intensity. Despite calls for moreintegrated catchment planning and the potential for avoidance planning through theRMA (Glavovic et al. 2010) planning, engineering and emergency managementapproaches have been slow to converge.

This type of system, reliant on strong scientific expertise has been described by Termeeret al. (2012) as one of five institutional weaknesses affecting climate change adaptation,along with lack of openness to learning, tensions between top-down policy developmentand bottom-up implementation, distrust from civil society and little allocation of fundingto long-term action. A compounding factor is the cost efficiency requirements of local gov-ernment legislation which biases decisions towards the short-term costs and benefits, eventhough the urban development and infrastructure persist for many decades. There is a ten-dency to compare options that could be implemented immediately and give benefit to exist-ing property owners, with the longer term managed options, like retreat from the coast orfloodplain that could benefit future generations and the wider community. High discountrates (between 8% and 10%) commonly used for assessment of infrastructure projectsskews consideration of changing risk over time and has the potential to further entrenchengineering works as the assumed best option. A strong tension between costs to privateland owners compared with the community ratepayers, as a whole, was identified as abarrier to adaptation. More flexible assessment methods that can manage uncertainty,such as real options analysis (Dobes 2008; Ranger et al. 2010), robust decision-making(Lempert and Collins 2007) and pathways assessments (Haasnoot 2012) have beenapplied to assessment of large infrastructure projects, but have yet to be applied in NewZealand, due to resourcing and capacity constraints. While simplified methods are begin-ning to emerge (Cunha et al. 2011, Hall et al. 2012, Haasnoot et al. 2013, Lawrenceet al. 2013) further development of simple and less resource-intensive methods is required.

4.2 Roles and responsibilities between and within scales of government

The statutes governing consideration of climate-related risks and hazards management,overlap at national, regional and local scales in New Zealand. The balance betweenthem has evolved over time, largely in response to governance crises, pressures onnatural resource allocation, climate-related events, or with the political ideology of thetime. We found that, the degree to which each scale exercises its climate-related func-tions and responsibilities, depends on the perception that the decision-makers have oftheir community’s wishes as expressed at the polls, pressures from specific interestsand formal engagement processes. The degree to which the national level of governmentaddresses climate change adaptation at any time, emerged as a critical influence onwhether local government addresses long-term climate risks. The absence of nationalsteering as a barrier to the design and implementation of adaptation measures wasalso found in Finland (Juhola et al. 2012).

Apart from the technical and policy guidance on sea level rise and flood flows from thenational level of government, local government has been left to work out the implemen-tation methods. Regional council climate hazard planning functions are principallyapplied through regional policy statements (RPSs) and plans and the provision of hazardinformation, on which the detailed land-use controls can be formulated by district councils.

10 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

A barrier exists for the district councils where climate change effects have not been region-ally identified, or where policies and rules have not been promulgated through a regionalpolicy statement or plans. Regional rules can require progressive adaptation in areasalready developed, as well as setting rules for new uses and development which must begiven effect to by district councils. This arrangement was designed to foster consistencyof approach (Randerson et al. 1990). There was some evidence that unitary councilswith combined regional and district functions and staff of long standing have been ableto implement measures to address climate risk more readily, than regional or district coun-cils by themselves (e.g. Tasman District Council). Other contributory factors identified werea comprehensive approach where climate risk is one part, a long-term strategic process of atleast 10 years, political leadership and experience of hazard risk which provides ongoingfeedback to the communities affected through engagement processes.

The NZCPS provides clear and unambiguous direction to address climate-relatedhazards and sea level rise, using the precautionary principle to avoid hazards, to discouragestructural solutions and to take “at least a 100 year” (NZCPS) planning timeframe. Prac-titioners considered that a similar NPS for other climate-related hazards was necessaryfor them to defend land-use controls in court, following property owner or community chal-lenge. Where district councils attempt to constrain land uses through plan rules, they felt thefull brunt of community concern about controls over their private property interests andland values. Better integration between regional and district levels was called for by respon-dents to provide more robust support for climate change measures. A lack of integrationbetween, and strategic oversight at the different scales of government was highlighted asa barrier to adaptation, for example, the lack of coordination between risk managementfunctions like hazards and asset management, with regulatory planning activities. Somerecent amendments to the RMA promulgated by central government have made it more dif-ficult for councils to be proactive. For example, Tasman District Council was required toapply for an order from the Environment Court under Section 86D (RMA) for a PlanChange affecting coastal development, to avoid a rush on development applicationsunder the old District Plan rules, when changes to them were introduced that constraineddevelopment in a coastal location with a history of erosion and inundation.

Table 1 presents a summary of the barriers to consideration of climate change effectsand the implementation of responses, based on the four case studies of practice, includinga regional council, one district council, one unitary council and a metropolitan city council.

4.3 Enablers

Enablers have been suggested by Gupta et al. (2010) that could increase the capacity of theactors to adjust practice – variety of perspectives, ability to learn and leadership qualitieswhich have also been identified by Moser and Ekstrom (2010) as possible entry points foraction. The respondent councils identified a number of enablers for implementation of flex-ible measures to address changing climate risk. The common features across all councils arepresented in Table 2 and include the interdependency of the different scales of governmentin a supportive architecture, the sharing of professional practice, standard assessment andimplementation methods, framing of climate-related risks as dynamic and changing, differ-entiated assessment of activities over their lifetime, and mechanisms to fund transitionstowards transformational changes as being necessary for implementation to advancefrom the current practice.

A part of the supporting architecture is the Environment Court (under the RMA) whichhas acknowledged the dynamic nature of changing climate risk (Kenderdine 2010). In a

Local Environment 11

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

notable case of a non-complying building at the coast (New Zealand Environment Court2010), the court accepted a range of sea level rise projections for the assessment of therisk which included human safety, potential consequences and the lifetime of the asset.

Disaggregating the risk by type of activity and its lifetime was thought by respondentsto be more cognitively manageable, conforming to what is known about the ability ofhumans to only “worry” about one thing at a time and about things they have experienced(Weber 2006, 2010) thus having the potential to engage affected communities. Forexample, Wellington City Council was using a strategic and tactical differentiation of activi-ties for framing the risk. While such approaches are appearing in the literature (Kwadijket al. 2010, Reeder and Ranger 2010, Stafford Smith et al. 2011, Haasnoot et al. 2013),their uptake has not happened autonomously in the New Zealand context. Rather, ourresearch indicates that uptake of new approaches relies upon experts like engineers, consult-ants and academics keeping abreast of new methods and introducing them into the planningand engineering processes as the opportunities arise. This has proven to be a slow processwith only a few councils taking the lead. The success factors for such councils are presentedin Table 3.

Some examples of self-organisation (Pelling 2011, p. 61) that can support adaptationhave emerged, which is enhancing sharing of knowledge and experiences across thescales of government. These are driven by professional leaders within local governmentand by research organisations (e.g. through Web-based tools, regional council professionalgroups like the Special Interest Groups that are disciplinary based). These are, however,

Table 1. Barriers.

Information† Data quality variable within and across regions† Difficulty allowing for changing climate risk

Capability† Little climate change expertise amongst coastal and flood experts† Repeat professional opinion differences

Funding† Limited ability of district councils to fund risk assessments

Community expectations† “Denial” of risks by some† Claims of adequate control of land uses in at-risk areas† Opposition to impact of hazard zones on property values† Perception that regional councils’ role not in land-use control† Risk will be mitigated by structures using community rates

Roles and responsibilities† Lack of agility in plan-making† Regional rules cannot control subdivision under RMA† District plan provisions for coast and flooding differ within regions† Decision-making case-by-case, rather than consistently across regions† Siloed council processes (subdivision/building/land-use consents)† Service levels rising over time with legacy of risk exposure

National instruments† No national risk assessment methodologies† No national process to update sea level rise and flooding guidance† No national standard for sea level rise† Misalignment of RMA, river control, building and disaster laws

12 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

informal and temporary arrangements, led by individuals. While necessary, they are not suf-ficient to initiate and sustain adaptation, since they are not embedded into practice norms ororganisations.

Table 2. Enablers.

Information† International research and practice† Centralised collection and funding of LiDARa for risk assessment† Consolidated existing data in accessible form† Consistent risk assessment methodologies† Online tools for communicating risk and developing response options

Capability† Shared practice experience and new science within and across councils† Linked practitioners across scales of government to build capability

Funding† Centralised funding for national climate risk assessment† Pooled funding for regional risk assessment and options development† A contingency fund for retreat and capacity development

Community expectations† Continuous engagement with communities† Risk communicated as changing† Communities informed of new information† Visual and local information conveyed in processes that build trust

Roles and responsibilities† A regional approach to risk assessments and planning rules† A differentiated but integrated “all hazards” approach to planning† Statutory changes so subdivision controls can be controlled regionally† Greater integration of consent applications within councils† Integrated regional and district planning

National instruments† An NPS on all natural hazards that includes climate change† Climate change information updated more frequently than 10 years† RMA, river control, building and disaster legislation aligned

aLight Detection and Ranging (airborne laser scanning for terrain mapping).

Table 3. Implementation success factors.

Success factors Tasman and Kapiti Coast districts; Hawke’s Bay region

Council approach Hazards assessment; graduated development of controlsStrategic approach A decade-long process; comprehensive development strategyProfessional focus Continuity of staff; expertise and information available; monitoringIntegrated functions Highly integrated, with corroborative “evidence” across functionsCommunity Ongoing community engagement at critical stagesPolitical fortitude Consistency maintained over long timeframes; political commitment

driven off high staff capability and political continuityJudicial integrity Two councils have tested their policies and plan rules in Environment

Court successfully; one yet to be tested

Local Environment 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

Table 4. Case studies of practice.

Hawke’s Bay RegionalCouncil

Tasman District Council(Unitary authority)

Wellington City Council (DistrictCouncil)

Kapiti Coast District Council

Case studiesof practice

Coastal Hazard Zoning andRegional Rules

Flood hazard assessmentand engagement

Sea level rise risk assessment andstrategic planning

Coastal hazard management

Approach Multiple risk zones for coastalerosion and inundation

LiDAR elevation data used to model flood hazard(Mapped using WaterRide software) to createstatic maps for peak flood depth and velocity,difference mapping for scenario comparison,depth x velocity hazard maps and animationsof modelled floods

Scenario-based for strategicassessment of the consequences ofa range of sea levels across a rangeof values and the costs of responses

Development controls (set-back lines) overalmost entire coast since 1979

Controls progressively strongerwhere risk is higher

A range of risk reduction scenarios examined: A tactical (short-term) and strategic(long-term) approach

Coastal erosion hazard risk assessment 2004–2012 projecting shoreline within 50 and 100years, including climate change effects – riskof sea level rise and erosion (1800 propertiesaffected)

Regional rules apply to eachzone

† Zoning and building controls Unmanaged and managed (with protection)scenarios presented

† Structural protection Hazard information available on LIM on request† Flood flow path protection Multiple risk zones for coastal hazards with

effects of climate change† River gravel management Stronger regulations will apply (Proposed

District Plan) where risk is higher, e.g. “nobuild” seaward of 50-year line with existingbuildings restricted to current footprint andfloor area; “relocatable” buildings between50- and 100-year line

Effects of existing structural protection excludedto mimic a “worst case scenario”

Structural protection not supported – consistentwith NZCPS

Public open day for local community to discusshazards and potential responses

Static poster displays, power point presentations,flood maps and animations, terminology guidefor AEP and ARI

Summary of flood risk assessment its impact onasset management and development planning

AEP, ARI and chance, e.g. 1 in 4 chance of a 100-year event in next 30 years or a 63% chancethat asset with a 100-year life span willexperience a 100-year ARI event

14J.

Law

renceet

al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

Scale Coastal hazards assessed formany coastal settlementsacross the whole region’scoastline

Takaka urban area and adjacent rural land locatedwithin lower Takaka River floodplain

The City district but wider interestacross the region

Whole district and for specific local settlementsfor consistency

Standards SLR ¼ 0.5 m by 2100 10-, 20-, 50-, 100- and 200-year ARI events Five scenarios: 0.6, 1.5, 2.2, 3 and 3 mplus storm effects

Potential shoreline retreat based on sea level riseof 0.3 m within 50 years and 0.9 m within100 years

Inundation event ¼ 2%AEP 200-year ARI a proxy for climate change effect(which would become a 100-year ARI by2090 under annual Tasman rainfall projectionsusing Mfe (2008a)

Timeframes Erosion risk Climate change projections to 2090 Have avoided use of specifictimeframes

50- and 100-year timeframes were used toindicate two risk scenarios

† Current’ ca. next 10 years Concentrating on the effects andresponse options

† Longer term based aroundca.50 year planning interval(by 2060) and ca.100-yearinterval (by 2100)

The lower scenarios could correspondto a 2100 date

Inundation event probability of2%AEP

Local

Environm

ent15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

While nine of the 57 councils have taken steps to restrict development in areas subject tocoastal hazards, they have all used different methods (e.g. as shown for four councils inTable 4). Different approaches are vulnerable to being treated differently by the Courts,often with different outcomes when issues are re-debated by different experts in an adhoc manner through the statutory processes. This has resulted in ongoing caution by coun-cils in considering climate change effects. Where consistency is starting to emerge in districtplanning, this is reflected in the use of two hazard risk zones restricting development in a“no build” area of immediate risk, and allowing only relocatable buildings in the longerterm risk area. Some councils have restricted reconstruction of buildings in a way thatretreat may be triggered over time, creating a more permanent response. For example,Tasman District Council zoned alternative land for development away from the coast andCanterbury Regional Council zoned land where buildings are moved away from thecoast at critical threshold points (erosion). However, graduated risk-based zoning mayhold the line in the immediate future, but is likely to limit more adaptive and resilient prac-tices over time as the risks change and affect land outside the hazard zones.

A critical gap in the supporting architecture for implementation is funding arrangementsto enable transition pathways to more flexible responses and transformational change wherethat will be necessary. The resourcing of standardised data, assessment methods and infor-mation stewardship, was identified by respondents as a legitimate role for central govern-ment that could improve efficiencies of practice by reducing the need for each council toaddress similar issues using its own limited resources. A spin-off benefit identified wasthat a more comprehensive scanning of climate change risks and vulnerable nationallywould emerge, enabling more targeted and proactive responses in vulnerable locations.

The importance of the framing of climate change risk was identified as a critical enabler.Probability statements currently used to communicate risk were reported as often misunder-stood, leading to a lack of concern by communities, especially where there are protectionstructures (Lawrence et al. 2011). This has reduced the political willingness of decision-makers to address climate change effects over timeframes beyond their term of office atall scales of government, and to compromise when under “fire” from groups with short-term private interests, as also found by Handmer (2008) and McDonald (2011). Councilsparticipating in this research reported that most councils in New Zealand are finding it chal-lenging to address climate risks amongst competing priorities and have the perception that“it isn’t a problem”, or at least “not in my term of office” (practitioners reflected these asviews of elected politicians, some senior managers and some technical advisors),4 due tothe contested nature of the climate change discourse. Framing climate change in a waythat reflects the dynamic and changing nature of the risks (Lawrence et al. 2013), presentingthe consequences as avoided costs and clarifying “who pays”, were seen as necessary forflexible responses to be designed and implemented.

Achieving flexibility while creating sufficient certainty for the decision-making pro-cesses to deliver robust adaptation responses was the core of the challenge for councils.Institutional innovations to decision-making that attempt to address this challenge inother resource managements contexts have emerged in New Zealand for water allocation(Land and Water Forum 2012) and water quality management (Lake Taupo ProtectionTrust 2007). These are funded collaborations between the different scales of governmentand interest groups. Such initiatives are based on research and experimentation, drivenby community leaders, NGOs and research institutions, with local and national level gov-ernment support including funding. Similar initiatives can be found in Norway for floodmanagement (Næss et al. 2005), in Finland and Italy for climate change adaptation(Juhola and Westerhoff 2011) and in Australia on the coast (Measham et al. 2011).

16 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

Provision for such collaborative arrangements in the statutory process (RMA) has now beenproposed by the New Zealand Government for freshwater management (NZ 2013c). It is anopen question, however, whether collaborative initiatives will become the practice norm(proposed as an option), or whether embedding them in law will provide the supportingarchitecture for their success. Some respondents were of the view that funding forimplementation will become the critical enabler which is yet to be addressed acrossscales of government. Others have also noted that funding mechanisms will be needed tofacilitate transitions (Juhola and Westerhoff 2011) and to anticipate transformationalchange as planning thresholds are reached (Abel et al. 2011). Importantly such processesenable non-state actors’ legitimate access to decision-making processes when supportedby governments and are likely to give greater attention to community preferences.Without such support, only those councils with capacity and resources will be able toaddress changing climate risks.

National coordination has proven effective in other jurisdictions for supporting assess-ment of risk and vulnerability, but responses have yet to be embedded in practice. Australiaand the UK have funded coordinating mechanisms for adaptation research and outreach thatsupport consideration of climate risk and how to adapt (e.g. National Climate ChangeAdaptation Research Facility and the CSIRO Climate Change Adaptation Flagship;United Kingdom Climate Adaptation Programme). In New Zealand, this has not happenedalthough some “boundary organisations” (Pelling 2011) are emerging autonomously suchas the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute, the New Zealand Climate ChangeCentre (a virtual association of research institutes and universities) and Local GovernmentNew Zealand (representing the interests of local government nationally). However, theseare not well embedded or supported across the scales of government in a way that can facili-tate links between policy and practice for effective climate change adaptation responsesover long timeframes. The Canterbury earthquakes in 2010 and 2011 in New Zealand,identified cross-scale government practice gaps for earthquake risk (Canterbury Earth-quakes Royal Commission 2012) which has catalysed a proposal to elevate naturalhazards in RMA decision-making, thus providing a potential enabler for councils in consid-ering climate change risks. The main lesson for climate change responses that emerged fromthe earthquakes is the importance of decision-makers’ understanding the consequences ofthe risk information and developing anticipatory risk reduction strategies for implemen-tation. This will require supporting processes and activities for long-term institutionalchange, for example, making available “risk-free” land for development; funding transi-tional land uses where appropriate; funding collaborative initiatives, and coordinatedresearch and outreach on implementation tools.

5. Conclusions

New Zealand local government is starting to address climate change risk through strategicconsideration of potential risks and response options. Shared learning is occurring through arange of informal and formal networks, and some “boundary organisations” have emerged.The institutional framework has constraints, but the strengths of the system are being usedto develop new practice that anticipates changing risk. For practice to be effective over thelong term, governments will need to become more integrated across the three scales, withsupporting architecture at the practice level. Engagement with communities will be neededto foster understanding of the dynamic and changing nature of climate risks and the range ofresponse options available to address them. Some land-uses will require long lead-times,others may be phased out and new flexible and adaptive methods for estimating costs

Local Environment 17

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

and deciding who pays, will need to be developed. Enablers identified through this researchwill be necessary to facilitate shared information exchange, pooling of resources and morestrategic consideration of changing climate risks nationally. Having statutory duties bythemselves is insufficient without the integration of practice under a supporting institutionalarchitecture that can drive coherent action at the local level while reflecting communityaspirations. Such support will include the development of a range of response optionsappropriate to the timeframes of activities, the capacity to assess and implement them,support to enable transitions to the changing future for those who will bear the conse-quences of action or inaction, either now or in the future. Community understanding andacceptance of these choices through continuous engagement will drive political action inthe end.

AcknowledgementsThanks go to the local government respondents whose insights made the paper possible and to twoanonymous reviewers whose comments have strengthened the paper considerably.

FundingThe research for this paper was undertaken through three research programmes, namely CommunityVulnerability, Resilience and Adaptation to Climate Change programme led by the Climate ChangeResearch Institute at Victoria University of Wellington (VICX805) and an Envirolink programme,both funded by the Ministry of Science and Innovation (MSI) and doctoral research undertaken bythe first author in the School of Government, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Notes1. Refer to Section 3.1 for a description of the structures of government in New Zealand.2. Risk in this context refers to probability times consequence and specifically risk of harm to

people and property.3. Based on 1981 and 2006 Censuses of Population and Dwellings and 2006 digital boundaries.4. There were different views amongst the elected politicians, depending on their experience

making decisions on flooding, land-use planning or coastal hazards.

ReferencesAbel, N., et al., 2011. Sea level rise, coastal development and planned retreat: analytical framework,

governance principles and an Australian case study. Environmental Science & Policy, 14 (3),279–288.

Adger, W.N., 2001. Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation and mitigation ofclimate change. Journal of International Development, 13 (7), 921–931.

Adger, W.N., et al., 2007. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: M.Parry, et al., eds. Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution ofWorking Group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climatechange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 717–743.

Adger, W.N., et al., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Climatic Change, 93(3), 335–354.

Agrawal, A., Kononen, M., and Perrin, N., 2009. The role of local institutions in adaptation to climatechange. Paper No.118/June 2009. Social Development Papers. Washington, DC: World Bank, 23.

Auld, H.E., 2008. Adaptation by design: the impact of changing climate on infrastructure. Journal ofPublic Works & Infrastructure, 1 (3), 276–288.

Bardach, E., 2004. Presidential address – the extrapolation problem: how can we learn from theexperience of others? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23 (2), 205–220.

Barnett, J. and O’Neill, S., 2010. Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20 (2), 211–213.

18 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

van den Berg, M. and Coenen, F., 2012. Integrating climate change adaptation into Dutch local pol-icies and the role of contextual factors. Local Environment, 17 (4), 441–460.

Berry, S. and Vella, J., 2011. Planning controls and property rights-striking the balance. In: T. Daya-Winterbottom, Resource Management Law Reform Association of New Zealand Inc, ed.Resource management theory and practice, Vol. 2011. Auckland, New Zealand: ResourceManagement Law Association, 136–194.

Braun, V. and Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research inPsychology, 3 (2), 77–101.

Burby, R.J., 2006. Hurricane Katrina and the paradoxes of government disaster policy: bringing aboutwise governmental decisions for hazardous areas. The Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 604 (1), 171–191.

Burch, S., 2010. Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: insights from threemunicipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global Environmental Change, 20 (2), 287–297.

Burton, I., 2009. Climate change and the adaptation deficit. In: L.E. Schipper and I. Burton, eds. TheEarthscan reader on adaptation to climate change. London: Earthscan, 89–95.

Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission, 2012. Volume 7 Low-damage building technologies.Section 3 Roles and Responsibilities and Section 5: Canterbury Regional Council andChristchurch City Council – management of earthquake risk [online]. Christchurch, NewZealand: Canterbury Earthquakes Royal Commission. Available from: http://canterbury.royalcommission.govt.nz/Final-Report-Volume-Seven-Contents [Accessed 11 September 2013].

Cunha, L.K., et al., 2011. A framework for flood risk assessment under nonstationary conditions or inthe absence of historical data. Journal of Flood Risk Management, 4 (1), 3–22.

Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet New Zealand, 2007. National hazardscape report.[online]. Officials’ Committee for Domestic and External Security Coordination. Wellington,New Zealand: Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 139 pp. Available from: http://www.civildefence.govt.nz/memwebsite.nsf/Files/National-hazardscape-report/$file/NATHAZ-complete.pdf [Accessed 11 September 2013].

Dobes, L., 2008. Getting real about adapting to climate change: using ‘real options’ to address uncer-tainties. Agenda, 15 (3), 55–68.

Dovers, S.R. and Hezri, A.A., 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends of adap-tation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1 (2), 212–231.

Freeman, C. and Cheyne, C., 2008. Coasts for sale: gentrification in New Zealand. Planning Theoryand Practice, 9 (1), 33–56.

Glavovic, B.C., Saunders, W.S.A., and Becker, J.S., 2010. Realising the potential of land-use plan-ning to reduce hazard risks in New Zealand. The Australasian Journal of Disaster and TraumaStudies [online], 1. Available from: http://www.massey.ac.nz/�trauma/issues/2010–1/glavovic.htm [Accessed 12 November 2012].

Gupta, J., et al., 2010. The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics ofinstitutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13 (6),459–471.

Haasnoot, M., et al., 2012. Exploring pathways for sustainable water management in river deltas in achanging environment. Climatic Change, 115 (3–4), 795–814.

Haasnoot, M., et al., 2013. Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisionsfor a deeply uncertain world. Global Environmental Change, 23 (2), 485–498.

Hall, J.W., et al., 2012. Proportionate adaptation. Nature Clim. Change, 2 (12), 833–834.Doi:10.1038/nclimate1749

Handmer, J., 2008. Risk creation, bearing and sharing on Australian floodplains. InternationalJournal of Water Resources Development, 24 (4), 527–540.

Handmer, J., and Dovers, S., 2013. Handbook of disaster policies and institutions: improving emer-gency management and climate adaptation. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Hastings District Council, 2012. Sustainable long term solutions to coastal hazards at Haumoana:statement of proposal [online]. Hastings, New Zealand: Hastings District Council. Availablefrom: http://www.hastingsdc.govt.nz/files/all/documents/ltccp/2012–2022/coastal.pdf [Accessed 2January 2013].

Hawkes Bay Regional Council, 2008. Coastal hazard zones-valuation report HBRC EMI 0808 PlanNumber 4021 environmental management group policy report [online]. Napier, New Zealand:Hawkes Bay Regional Council. Available from http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HBRC-Documents/

Local Environment 19

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

HBRC%20Document%20Library/20080404%20WHL%20Report%20(Full).pdf [Accessed 11September 2013].

Hawkes Bay Regional Council, 2012. Hawkes Bay regional coastal environment plan version 3[online]. Napier, New Zealand: Hawkes Bay Regional Council. Available from: http://www.hbrc.govt.nz/HBRC-Documents/HBRC%20Document%20Library/Current%20RCEP%20(All%20Vol1).pdf [Accessed 5 January 2013].

Huntjens, P., et al., 2012. Institutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climatechange in the water sector. Global Environmental Change, 22 (1), 67–81.

IDGEC Scientific Planning Committee, 1999. Institutional dimensions of global environmentalchange. Bonn: IHDP, 160, IHDP Report No 9.

IPCC, ed., 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and IIIto the fourth assessment report. Geneva: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Jones, R.N. and Preston, B.L., 2011. Adaptation and risk management. Wiley InterdisciplinaryReviews: Climate Change, 2 (2), 296–308.

Juhola, S. and Westerhoff, L., 2011. Challenges of adaptation to climate change across multiple scales:a case study of network governance in two European countries. Environmental Science & Policy,14 (3), 239–247.

Juhola, S., Haanpaa, S., and Peltonen, L., 2012. Regional challenges of climate change adaptation inFinland: examining the ability to adapt in the absence of national level steering. LocalEnvironment, 17 (6/7), 629–639.

Kapiti District Council, 2012. Coastal hazards [online]. Available from: http://www.kapiticoast.govt.nz/Planning/District-Planning/Coastal-Hazards/ [Accessed 2 Jan 2013].

Kenderdine, S., 2010. Examining climate change: an environment court perspective. In: T. Daya-Winterbottom, Resource Management Law Reform Association of New Zealand Inc, ed.Resource management theory and practice, Vol. 2010. Auckland, New Zealand: ThomsonReuters, 35–92.

Kennedy, D., Stocker, L., and Burke, G., 2010. Australian local government action on climate changeadaptation: some critical reflections to assist decision-making. Local Environment, 15 (9/10),805–816.

Keskitalo, E.C.H. and Kulyasova, A.A., 2009. The role of governance in community adaptation toclimate change. Polar Research, 28 (1), 60–70.

Klinke, A. and Renn, O., 2002. A new approach to risk evaluation and management: risk-based, pre-caution-based, and discourse-based strategies1. Risk Analysis, 22 (6), 1071–1094.

Kwadijk, J., et al., 2010. Using adaptation tipping points to prepare for climate change and sea level rise:a case study in the Netherlands. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1 (5), 729–740.

Lake Taupo Protection Trust, 2007. Launch of the Lake Taupo Protection Trust, 9 February [online].Available from: http://www.laketaupoprotectiontrust.org.nz/page/lake_7.php [Accessed 11September 2013].

Land and Water Forum, 2012. Second report of the land and water forum: setting limits for waterquality and quantity, and freshwater policy-and-plan-making through collaboration [online].Wellington, New Zealand: Land and Water Trust. Available from: http://www.landandwater.org.nz/ [Accessed 11 September 2013].

Lawrence, J. and Allan, S., 2009. A strategic framework and practical options for integrating floodrisk management-to reduce flood risk and the effects of climate change. Report prepared for theMinistry for the Environment. Wellington, New Zealand, 45 pp.

Lawrence, J. and Hamilton, D., 2007. Flood risk review. Funding, roles and responsibilities.Wellington: PSConsulting and David Hamilton & Associates. Report prepared for the Ministryfor the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand, 102 pp.

Lawrence, J., et al., 2011. Hutt valley flood vulnerability [online]. Wellington, New Zealand: NewZealand Climate Change Research Institute, Victoria University of Wellington, 70 pp.NZCCRI-2011-02. Available from http://www.victoria.ac.nz/sgees/research-centres/ccri/ccri-publications/?a=6803 [Accessed 11 September 2013].

Lawrence, J., et al., 2013. Exploring climate change uncertainties to support adaptive management ofchanging flood-risk. Environmental Science & Policy, 33 (November 2003), 133–142.

Lebel, L., et al., 2006. Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social–ecologi-cal systems. Ecology and Society [online], 11 (1), 19. Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/ [Accessed 6 January 2013].

20 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

Lee, B.-Y., 2010. Working together, building capacity – a case study of civil defence and emergencymanagement in New Zealand. Journal of Disaster Research, 5 (5), 565–575.

Lempert, R.J. and Collins, M.T., 2007. Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: compari-son of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Analysis, 27 (4), 1009–1026.

Lloyds, 2008. Coastal communities and climate change-maintaining future insurability [online].Report prepared by Risk Management Solutions. London, 24 pp. Available from: http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/lloyds/reports/360/360%20climate%20reports/360_coastalcommunitiesandclimatechange.pdf [Accessed 11 September 2013].

McDonald, J., 2011. The role of law in adapting to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change, 2 (2), 283–295.

Measham, T., et al., 2011. Adapting to climate change through local municipal planning: barriers andchallenges [Open access]. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16 (8), 889–909.

Milly, P., et al., 2008. Climate change: stationarity is dead: whither water management? Science,319 (5863), 573–574.

Minister of Conservation, 2010. New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement [online]. Wellington, NewZealand: Department of Conservation. Available from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170873.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_LOcal+government+Act+2002_resel_25_a&p=1 [Accessed 6 January 2013].

Ministry for the Environment, 2008a. Coastal hazards and climate change: a guidance manual forlocal government in New Zealand [online]. 2nd ed. Revised by D. Ramsay and R. Bell(NIWA) for the Ministry for the Environment (No. ME892). Wellington, New Zealand, 129pp. Available from: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual/coastal-hazards-climate-change-guidance-manual.pdf [Accessed 11September 2013].

Ministry for the Environment, 2008b. Meeting the challenges of future flooding in New Zealand[online]. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment, 48 pp. Available from:http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/land/meeting-challenges-of-future-flooding-in-nz/meeting-challenges-of-future-flooding-in-nz.pdf [Accessed 11 September 2013].

Ministry for the Environment, 2010. Tools for estimating the effects of climate change on flood flow-aguidance manual for local government in New Zealand [online]. Woods R, Mullan AB, Smart G,Rouse H,Hollis M, McKercher A, Ibbitt R, Dean S, and Collins D (NIWA). Prepared for Ministryfor the Environment. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment (No. ME1013), 63.Available from: http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate/climate-change-effects-on-flood-flow/tools-estimating-effects-climate-change.pdf [Accessed 11 September 2013].

Moser, S.C. and Ekstrom, J.A., 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation.PNAS, 107 (51), 22026–22031.

Moser, S.C. and Ekstrom, J.A., 2012. Identifying and overcoming barriers to climate change adap-tation in San Francisco Bay: results from case studies. California Energy Commission CEC-500-2011-034. Berkley, CA: California Energy Commission.

Moser, S.C., et al., 2008. Adaptation to climate change in the Northeast United States: opportunities, pro-cesses, constraints. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13 (5–6), 643–659.

Næss, L.O., et al., 2005. Institutional adaptation to climate change: flood responses at the municipallevel in Norway. Global Environmental Change Part A, 15 (2), 125–138.

New Zealand Environment Court, 2010. Hemi v Waikato District Council. NZEnvC [online], 216.New Zealand Environment Court. Available from: http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinosrch.cgi?method=auto&meta=%2Fnz&mask_path=nz%2Fcases%2FNZEnvC&mask_world=&query=Hemi+v+Waikato+District+Council+&results=20&submit=Search&rank=on&callback=off&legisopt=&view=relevance&max= [Accessed 11 September 2013].

NZ, 2013a. Resource Management Act (1991), with amendments to 4 September 2013 [online].Available from: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1991/0069/latest/DLM230265.html[Accessed 13 January 2013].

NZ, 2013b. Local Government Act (2002), with amendments to 5 August 2013 [online]. Availablefrom: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM170873.html?search=ts_act%40bill%40regulation%40deemedreg_LOcal+government+Act+2002_resel_25_a&p=1 [Acc-essed 12 September 2013].

NZ Government, 2013c. Improving our resource management system:a discussion document [online].Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry for the Environment. Available from: http://www.mfe.govt.

Local Environment 21

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

nz/publications/rma/improving-our-resource-management-system.html [Accessed 15 September2013].

Olsson, P. and Folke, C., 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics for ecosystemsmanagement: a study of Lake Racken watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems, 4 (2), 85–104.

Pelling, M., 2011. Adaptation to climate change – from resilience to transformation. London:Routledge.

Pielke, J.R.A., 1999. Nine fallacies of floods. Climatic Change, 42 (2), 413–438.Preston, B.L., Westaway, R.M., and Yuen, E.J., 2011. Climate adaptation planning in practice: an

evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations. Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change, 16 (4), 407–438.

Quade, D. and Lawrence, J., 2011. Vulnerability and adaptation to increased flood risk with climatechange – Hutt Valley household survey. Wellington: New Zealand Climate Change ResearchInstitute, Victoria University of Wellington, 72 pp.

Randerson, A., et al., 1990. Discussion paper on the Resource Management Bill. Wellington, NewZealand: Ministry for the Environment.

Ranger, N., et al., 2010. Adaptation in the UK: a decision-making process. London: GranthamInstitute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economicsand Policy.

Reeder, T. and Ranger, N., 2010. How do you adapt in an uncertain world? Lessons from the ThamesEstuary 2100 project [online]. Washington, DC. Available from: http://www.worldresourcesreport.org [Accessed 6 May 2013].

Reisinger, A., Wratt, D., and Allan, S., 2011. The role of local government in adapting to climatechange: lessons from New Zealand. In: J.D. Ford and L. Berrang-Ford, eds. Climate changeadaptation in developed nations. Toronto, Canada: Springer, 303–319.

Reisinger, A., et al., in press. From coping to managed retreat: the role of managed retreat in highlydeveloped coastal regions. In: B. Glavovic, R. Kaye, M. Kelly and A. Travers, eds. ClimateChange and the Coast: building resilient communities. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

Renn, O., Klinke, A., and van Asselt, M., 2011. Coping with complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity inrisk governance: a synthesis. Ambio, 40 (2), 231–246.

Rijke, J., et al., 2012. Fit-for-purpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance oper-ational. Environmental Science & Policy, 22, 73–84.

Ruhl, J.B. (2010, Spring). Climate change adaptation and the structural transformation of environ-mental law. Environmental Law, 40 (Spring), 363–435.

Schipper, E.L.F., 2009. Conceptual history of adaptation in the UNFCCC process. In: E.L.F. Schipperand I. Burton, eds. The Earthscan reader on adaptation to climate change. London: Earthscan,359–376.

Smit, B. and Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global EnvironmentalChange, 16 (3), 282–292.

Smith, J., Vogel, J., and Cromwell, J., 2009. An architecture for government action on adaptation toclimate change. An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 95 (1), 53–61.

Stafford Smith, M., et al., 2011. Rethinking adaptation for a 48C world. Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society A, 369 (1934), 196–121.

Statistics New Zealand, 2010. Are New Zealanders living closer to the coast? [online]. InternalMigration. Available from: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/migration/internal-migration.aspx [Accessed 28 February 2010].

Storbjork, S., 2007. Governing climate adaptation in the local arena: challenges of risk managementand planning in Sweden. Local Environment, 12 (5), 457–469.

Tasman District Council, 2011. Public notice of legal effect of parts of proposed change 22 Mapuaand Ruby Bay, Tasman Resource Management Plan [online]. Available from: http://www.tasman.govt.nz/home/SearchForm?Search¼Plan+Change+22&action_results¼Search[Accessed 5 Jan 2011].

Termeer, C., Beisbroek, G., and van den Brink, M., 2012. Institutions for adaptation to climate change:comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. European Political Science, 11 (1), 41–53.

Tobin, G.A., 1995. The levee love affair: a stormy relationship. JAWRA Journal of the AmericanWater Resources Association, 31 (3), 359–367.

Walker, W.E., Haasnoot, M., and Kwakkel, J.H., 2013. Adapt or Perish: a review of planningapproaches for adaptation under deep uncertainty. Sustainability, 5 (3), 955–979.

22 J. Lawrence et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3

Weber, E.U., 2006. Experience-based and description-based perceptions of long-term risk: why globalwarming does not scare us (Yet). Climatic Change, 77 (1–2), 103–120.

Weber, E.U., 2010. What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews:Climate Change, 1 (3), 332–342.

Wellington Regional Council, 2001. Hutt river floodplain management plan: for the Hutt River and itsenvironment [online]. Wellington, New Zealand: Wellington Regional Council. Available from:http://www.gw.govt.nz/assets/Our-Services/Flood-Protection/Hutt/FP-Hutt-River-FMP.pdf[Accessed 6 January 2013].

Whakatane District Council, 2006. Variation 6 coastal hazards. Whakatane operative district plan[online]. Available from: http://www.whakatane.govt.nz/Public-Documents/Policies-and-Plans/District-Plan/Variations-to-the-District-Plan/ [Accessed 5 January 2013].

Wilbanks, T., 2002. Geographic scaling issues in integrated assessment of climate change. IntegratedAssessment, 3 (2–3), 100–114.

World Bank, 2010. World development report 2010: development and climate change. Washington,DC: World Bank.

Yin, R., 2003. Case study research. Design and method. 3rd ed. Thousand Oak, CA: Sage.Yohe, G., 2009. Toward an integrated framework derived for a risk-management approach to climate

change. An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 95 (3–4), 325–339.Young, O., 2002. The Institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Young, O., King, L., and Schroeder, H., eds., 2008. Institutions and environmental change-principal

findings, applications, and research frontiers. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Appendix 1. Workshop and interview questions

1. Do participants view the current approach to flood risk management as adequate for the currentclimatic conditions?

2. To what extent can the current approach to flood risk management be up-scaled as and when infor-mation from this and further research becomes available about increases in flood risk as a conse-quence of climate change?

3. What do you think are the thresholds that could require a fundamental change in the currentapproach to flood risk management? How can they be defined?

4. How do flood risk management decisions in the near term affect the ability of communities tomanage a possible increase in flood risk in the future?

5. What frameworks, tools and regulatory options are currently used by councils to manage uncer-tainty in flood risk estimates for the present and future?

6. Can those frameworks deal adequately with the range of potential future changes under climatechange and balance near-term and long-term benefits, costs and risks?

7. To what extent are different parts of a community differently vulnerable to flood risk? To whatextent are such differential vulnerabilities, taken into account in flood risk management? Aredifferential vulnerabilities likely to increase or decrease in future? Are the tools and regulatoryenvironment in which councils operate able to deal with those differences to ensure sustainableoutcomes across different parts of affected communities?

8. Who would benefit most, and who would be most negatively affected, by different approaches tomanage the range of potential future increases in flood risk?

9. What are the opportunities and barriers that councils face to implement long term flood risk man-agement that considers climate change? What part does uncertainty play?

Local Environment 23

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Vic

tori

a U

nive

rsity

of

Wel

lingt

on]

at 2

1:48

07

Oct

ober

201

3