Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.advisorRosser, Andrew-
dc.contributor.advisorGray, John-
dc.contributor.advisorHarvey, Nicholas-
dc.contributor.authorPrance, Felicity Jane-
dc.description.abstractClimate change adaptation mainstreaming (CCAM) is considered an effective way of integrating climate change adaptation and sustainable development agendas in policy and practice. Conventional approaches to CCAM emphasise either: a) a technological response that focuses on ensuring climate change projections influence decision-making; or b) the need for CCAM to incorporate an understanding of the underlying drivers of vulnerability that expose people to climate change impacts. However, both approaches give inadequate attention to political and social conflict in shaping CCAM implementation. This dissertation presents a case study from the Republic of Kiribati to explore the role of political and social conflict in shaping CCAM. It argues that the Government of Kiribati, in partnership with United Nations Development Program (UNDP), via the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA), and the World Bank, via the Kiribati Adaptation Program (KAP), failed to effectively implement mainstreaming. Yet the KAP made more progress than the NAPA. Why was mainstreaming largely unsuccessful in Kiribati? Why did the KAP have more success compared with the NAPA? What does this case study tell us about the political and social pre-conditions for successful CCAM implementation? And what are the implications for CCAM policy and implementation in developing countries? In addressing these questions, I draw on normative neo-institutionalism and the notion of epistemic communities. Normative neo-institutionalism, and especially Olsen’s four pre-conditions for successful reform, provides a powerful framework for understanding the role of political and social factors in reform processes, while the notion of epistemic communities helps us to understand the nature of the values and actors that characterise these factors. According to this approach, successful CCAM implementation depends upon: a) a high degree of normative matching between the reform and implementing institution; b) a high degree of normative matching between the reform and the relevant society; c) a high degree of clarity about reformers’ intentions; and d) the capacity and resources of the institution implementing the reform. CCAM implementation in Kiribati was largely unsuccessful because: a) two competing coalitions became embroiled in political struggles over CCAM; and b) Olsen’s four pre- conditions for successful reform were not met. In regards to the first point, I show that the Ministry for Environment, Land and Agricultural Development formed a coalition with UNDP to support a vulnerability-based approach to CCAM, while the Office of the President formed a coalition with the World Bank to advocate for a technology-based approach. On the second point, I argue that the NAPA initially succeeded because performance against a majority of the pre-conditions was strong, but it ultimately failed because the government became disenchanted with the coalition’s vulnerability-based approach to CCAM. The KAP had more success long term because its coalition of support had greater resources and support from the government to push their technology-driven approach. However, tension within its supporting coalition led to reduced normative matching and capacity to support CCAM implementation. In policy terms, the implication is that CCAM strategies, and the step-by-step guides designed to inform implementation, should take politics and values into account.en
dc.subjectclimate change adaptationen
dc.subjectnormative neo-institutionalismen
dc.subjectepistemic communitiesen
dc.titleInstitutions and values: climate change adaptation mainstreaming implementation in Kiribatien
dc.contributor.schoolSchool of Social Sciencesen
dc.provenanceThis electronic version is made publicly available by the University of Adelaide in accordance with its open access policy for student theses. Copyright in this thesis remains with the author. This thesis may incorporate third party material which has been used by the author pursuant to Fair Dealing exceptions. If you are the owner of any included third party copyright material you wish to be removed from this electronic version, please complete the take down form located at:
dc.description.dissertationThesis (M.Phil.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Social Sciences, 2017.en
Appears in Collections:Research Theses

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
01front.pdf434.63 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
02whole.pdf4.21 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
  Restricted Access
Library staff access only210.61 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
  Restricted Access
Library staff access only4.29 MBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.