Content uploaded by Mulala Danny Simatele
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mulala Danny Simatele on Jan 28, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Citation: Sibiya, N.P.; Das, D.K.;
Vogel, C.; Mazinyo, S.P.; Zhou, L.;
Kalumba, M.A.; Sithole, M.; Adom,
R.K.; Simatele, M.D. Overcoming
Bureaucratic Resistance: An Analysis
of Barriers to Climate Change
Adaptation in South Africa. Climate
2023,11, 145. https://doi.org/
10.3390/cli11070145
Academic Editor: Nir Y. Krakauer
Received: 31 May 2023
Revised: 30 June 2023
Accepted: 6 July 2023
Published: 11 July 2023
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
climate
Article
Overcoming Bureaucratic Resistance: An Analysis of Barriers to
Climate Change Adaptation in South Africa
Nomfundo Patricia Sibiya 1, *, Dillip Kumar Das 2, Coleen Vogel 3, Sonwabo Perez Mazinyo 4, Leocadia Zhou 4,
Mukalazi Ahmed Kalumba 4, Mikateko Sithole 5, Richard Kwame Adom 1and Mulala Danny Simatele 1,3
1School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, University of the
Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa; 1645009@students.wits.ac.za (R.K.A.);
mulala.simatele@wits.ac.za (M.D.S.)
2School of Engineering, College of Agriculture, Engineering and Science, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Durban 4000, South Africa; dasd@ukzn.ac.za
3Global Change Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg 2050, South Africa;
coleen.vogel@wits.ac.za
4Department of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Fort Hare, Alice 5700, South Africa;
smazinyo@ufh.ac.za (S.P.M.); lzhou@ufh.ac.za (L.Z.); akalumba@ufh.ac.za (M.A.K.)
5Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, Pretoria 0001, South Africa; mfsithole@dffe.gov.za
*Correspondence: 573380@students.wits.ac.za
Abstract:
Climate change is already a reality, and it is affecting the lives and livelihoods of many
people globally. Many scientists argue that adaptation is, therefore, necessary to address the impact of
climate change on life-supporting systems. Climate change adaptation, however, is a complex process
that involves transformations implemented through governance at multiple levels. In this paper, the
barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa are presented and analysed. Semi-structured, in-
depth interviews were conducted telephonically and online via Microsoft Teams with 13 government
officials working at the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment; the KwaZulu-Natal
Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs; and the uMkhanyakude District
Municipality. The findings suggest that the barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa
include inadequate financial resources, a lack of human capacity at the provincial and local levels,
limited political will at the local level, limited understanding of climate change adaptation issues
by communities, inadequate coordination across government levels and sectors, no legal mandate
at the local level, no climate change unit at the district and local levels, a lack of knowledge by
some staff members tasked with environmental duties at the local level, not enough climate change
plans in place at the local level, and outdated information on climate change used in the IDPs. This
paper, therefore, recommends that climate change be a standing item in the Integrated Development
Plan for local governments, which will ensure that climate change is budgeted for appropriately. In
addition, this paper suggests that a mandate for climate change adaptation be developed for all three
government levels. There is also a need for the government to invest in capacity development and
improve horizontal and vertical coordination to strengthen the weak climate governance capacity
that exists.
Keywords:
climate change adaptation; governance; systems integration; institutional arrangement;
barriers; South Africa
1. Introduction
Climate change adaptation is defined by the IPCC [
1
] as the “adjustment in natural or
human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which
moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities”. It is estimated that without adapta-
tion, climate change will drive approximately 132 million people into extreme poverty in
the next decade alone [
2
]. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to argue that climate change is a
Climate 2023,11, 145. https://doi.org/10.3390/cli11070145 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/climate
Climate 2023,11, 145 2 of 19
“wicked” problem [
3
] or a “super wicked problem” [
4
]. Climate change is expected to have
the largest impact on rainfall, temperature, and water availability in South Africa [5]. The
western regions of South Africa are projected to have 30% reduced water availability by
2050 [
5
]. Van der Bank and Karsten [
6
] argue that over the last five decades, annual tem-
peratures have increased by approximately 1.5 times in South Africa and 0.65
◦
C globally.
According to the World Economic and Social Survey conducted by Savelli et al. [
7
] in South
Africa, poor and marginalised individuals are likely to experience the worst impacts of
future water shortages. This survey supports an earlier study by Nhamo and Agyepong [
8
],
which reported that the overall dam levels in Cape Town, South Africa, dropped from 92.5%
to 23% during the 2014–2017 drought, whereas in 2000, severe floods affected northern
South Africa, resulting in multiple deaths and damaging infrastructure [
9
]. In 2016 and
2017, there were reported cases of localised flooding in several provinces across South
Africa. Most recently, the 2022 Durban floods had devastating impacts on the lives of many
vulnerable people. In light of the above, it is undeniable that the sub-Saharan African
region is very susceptible and vulnerable to the impacts of climate change [
10
]. These
impacts have been observed in all sectors of the economy, environment, and society [
11
].
Given the highly interactive and wicked nature of climate change, many scholars, such
as Sibiya et al. [
12
] and Adom et al. [
13
], have analysed the impact of climate change on
marginalised communities, water, and food security in South Africa. Biesbroek et al. [
14
]
and Keskitalo [
15
], however, are of the view that the number of studies on climate change
adaptation and the forms it takes is far from unlimited, and much remains to be understood
about the governance of adaptation and how this may affect its success or failure.
Huitema et al. [
16
] defined adaptation governance as “the patterns that emerge from
the governing activities of social, political, and administrative actors in the realm of climate
change adaptation.” “Governance is not a set of rules or an activity, but a process; the
process of governance is not based on control but on coordination; it involves both the
public and private sectors; and it is not a formal institution but a continuing interaction” [
17
].
Research shows that most of the studies concerning the governance of climate change have
focused on the development of the international climate change system, its constituent
agreements, the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and their implementation [
18
–
21
]. While
research on barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa has been conducted
previously [
22
–
24
], previous research can only be considered a first step towards a more
profound understanding of how to overcome these barriers. Furthermore, there is limited
empirical evidence in the literature that demonstrates the views of those mandated to drive
the climate change adaptation agenda in South Africa. In view of these gaps, an analysis
of the barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa is provided in this paper. The
overall aim is to provide an entry point through which the government can develop and
enhance a more enabling environment that promotes effective climate change adaptation
in South Africa.
The literature review investigates the challenges of climate change adaptation from
the global to the local context. In the Section 2of the paper, the methodology used in this is
described. In the Section 3, the empirical evidence of this study is articulated, followed by
a comprehensive discussion, conclusions, limitations, and recommendations.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Framework—Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation
The major challenge for successful adaptation is the ability to traverse the barriers
that arise in the governance of adaptation [
25
–
28
]. Barriers are defined by Adger et al. [
29
]
as the result of action in the realms of finance, culture, and politics that raises questions
about the effectiveness and accountability of climate change adaptation. While Moser and
Ekstrom [
26
] define barriers as hurdles that impede adaptation or may necessitate changes
that result in missed opportunities or increased costs. They can be overcome, prevented, or
minimised by individual or collective action with intensive effort, creative management,
changed ways of thinking, political will, and reprioritization of resources, land uses, and
Climate 2023,11, 145 3 of 19
institutions [
26
]. It is imperative to note that barriers are not viewed the same way by all
actors involved in the adaptation process. Thus, Klaus et al. [
30
] argue that while a barrier
may be observed as such by one actor, it may not be the same for another actor’ therefore,
it depends on how something is valued.
Scholars have used several ways to categorise the barriers to climate change adap-
tation. The categories used by Adger et al. [
29
], for example, include institutional, social,
informational, financial, and cognitive. On the other hand, Falaleeva et al. [
31
] use the earth
system governance framework, which involves stability, credibility, adaptiveness, and in-
clusiveness categories. Biesbroek et al. [
32
] identified seven barrier categories: “conflicting
timescales; substantive, strategic, and institutional uncertainty; institutional crowdedness
and institutional voids; fragmentation; lack of awareness and communication; motives and
willingness to act; and resources”. Moser and Ekstrom [
26
] use a systematic diagnostic
framework. The framework uses theories of coupled socioecological systems thinking and
multi-level governance theories by focusing on scale, contextual processes, and structures,
amongst other factors, and it enables a flexible approach to examining the barriers [
33
].
Anderies et al. [
34
] define socioecological systems thinking as “an ecological system intri-
cately linked with and affected by one or more social systems”. Berkes [
35
] views the social
(human) and ecological (biophysical) subsystems of systems thinking as two fundamental
parts that function as a coupled, symbiotic, and co-evolutionary system. Furthermore,
Hooghe and Marks [
36
] are of the view that theories of multi-level governance can be
categorised into two definite types: the first is governance with a distinct structure and
a vertically tiered hierarchy, in which only a limited number of authorities have actual
decision-making powers [
37
]. The second type is “polycentric” governance, which is de-
fined by Ostrom [
38
] as “multiple governing authorities at different scales rather than a
monocentric unit”.
This systematic diagnostic framework comprises three components, which are identi-
fying the nature of the barrier, its source, and the location of influence over the barrier. In
identifying the nature of the barrier, four phases of adaptation, including understanding,
planning, implementation, and monitoring, guide this process (as illustrated in Figure 1).
According to Moser and Ekstrom [
26
], the understanding phase focuses on the availability
of adequate and valuable information and knowledge and the capacity of actors to engage
efficiently with it. The planning phase encompasses the development of adaptation options,
the assessment of options, and the selection of options. The management phase focuses on
the implementation of the selected options, monitoring the environment and outcome of
the realised options, and evaluation.
Climate 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Figure 1. Depiction of the systematic diagnostic framework. Source: Reprinted/adapted with per-
mission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
The second component of the framework (Figure 2) involves identifying the source.
The three essential sources of the barriers include the actors involved in the adaptation
process, the larger context in which they act, and the object upon which they act [26,39].
According to Moser and Ekstrom [26], although the system to be managed may produce
signs of change, the actors, governance system, and larger human and biophysical context
affect whether they are detected and how they are interpreted.
Figure 2. The structural elements of the diagnostic framework. Source: Reprinted/adapted with per-
mission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
Figure 1.
Depiction of the systematic diagnostic framework. Source: Reprinted/adapted with
permission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
Climate 2023,11, 145 4 of 19
The second component of the framework (Figure 2) involves identifying the source.
The three essential sources of the barriers include the actors involved in the adaptation
process, the larger context in which they act, and the object upon which they act [
26
,
39
].
According to Moser and Ekstrom [
26
], although the system to be managed may produce
signs of change, the actors, governance system, and larger human and biophysical context
affect whether they are detected and how they are interpreted.
Climate 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 19
Figure 1. Depiction of the systematic diagnostic framework. Source: Reprinted/adapted with per-
mission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
The second component of the framework (Figure 2) involves identifying the source.
The three essential sources of the barriers include the actors involved in the adaptation
process, the larger context in which they act, and the object upon which they act [26,39].
According to Moser and Ekstrom [26], although the system to be managed may produce
signs of change, the actors, governance system, and larger human and biophysical context
affect whether they are detected and how they are interpreted.
Figure 2. The structural elements of the diagnostic framework. Source: Reprinted/adapted with per-
mission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
Figure 2.
The structural elements of the diagnostic framework. Source: Reprinted/adapted with
permission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
The last component of the systematic diagnostic framework provides a “guide” to
identify and understand the barriers, and to design strategies to evade, eradicate, or reduce
them. A barrier that is both proximate and contemporary is one over which government
officials have direct control here and now. (A in Figure 3), whereas a remote contemporary
barrier is one that occurs now but is beyond the official’s direct control (B in Figure 3).
A proximate legacy barrier is one where a law prevents the official from taking a certain
adaptation action (C in Figure 3). A remote legacy barrier is one that is a legacy of past
science-policy decisions by remote officials (D in Figure 3).
Climate 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 19
The last component of the systematic diagnostic framework provides a ‘‘guide’’ to
identify and understand the barriers, and to design strategies to evade, eradicate, or
reduce them. A barrier that is both proximate and contemporary is one over which
government officials have direct control here and now. (A in Figure 3), whereas a remote
contemporary barrier is one that occurs now but is beyond the official’s direct control (B
in Figure 3). A proximate legacy barrier is one where a law prevents the official from
taking a certain adaptation action (C in Figure 3). A remote legacy barrier is one that is a
legacy of past science-policy decisions by remote officials (D in Figure 3).
Figure 3. Opportunities to overcome barriers. Source: Reprinted/adapted with permission from
Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
2.2. Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation—A Synthesis of the Literature
Evidence is now emerging that barriers to adaptation often arise from institutional
and cognitive constraints [26]. Governance failures occur when there is ineffective institu-
tional decision-making and/or policy implementation [40,40]. These failures limit adapta-
tion by creating barriers and slowing planning and delivery. Ekstrom and Moser [39] iden-
tified inadequate financial resources and political support as the common barriers encoun-
tered by local people in the San Francisco Bay Area in the United States of America in their
adaptation efforts to climate change. This is supported by several studies that argue that
at the national, provincial, and municipal government levels, a lack of financial resources
and knowledge prevents and “locks out” people and institutions from solving problems
and managing change [26,42,42]. Roberts [44], working extensively at the local and inter-
national scale on adaptation governance, is of the view that there are limited financial
resources available locally to fund climate change adaptation initiatives at the national,
provincial, or municipal levels in South Africa.
Furthermore, the problem of capacity has been conclusively cited in the policy inte-
gration literature [45]. Cullman et al. [46] argue that the sub-Saharan African region faces
persistent technical and financial capacity constraints. Ryan and Bustos [47] argue that
government departments and agencies working on climate adaptation policy do not have
adequate human and technical abilities to analyse and evaluate the available information.
On the other hand, studies conducted in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda by
Mohmand and Loureiro [48] and Ampaire et al. [49] found that the local governments,
though declared self-governing by the central government, do not have sufficient human
Figure 3.
Opportunities to overcome barriers. Source: Reprinted/adapted with permission from
Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [26].
Climate 2023,11, 145 5 of 19
2.2. Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation—A Synthesis of the Literature
Evidence is now emerging that barriers to adaptation often arise from institutional and
cognitive constraints [
26
]. Governance failures occur when there is ineffective institutional
decision-making and/or policy implementation [
40
,
41
]. These failures limit adaptation by
creating barriers and slowing planning and delivery. Ekstrom and Moser [
39
] identified
inadequate financial resources and political support as the common barriers encountered
by local people in the San Francisco Bay Area in the United States of America in their
adaptation efforts to climate change. This is supported by several studies that argue that at
the national, provincial, and municipal government levels, a lack of financial resources and
knowledge prevents and “locks out” people and institutions from solving problems and
managing change [
26
,
42
,
43
]. Roberts [
44
], working extensively at the local and international
scale on adaptation governance, is of the view that there are limited financial resources
available locally to fund climate change adaptation initiatives at the national, provincial, or
municipal levels in South Africa.
Furthermore, the problem of capacity has been conclusively cited in the policy inte-
gration literature [
45
]. Cullman et al. [
46
] argue that the sub-Saharan African region faces
persistent technical and financial capacity constraints. Ryan and Bustos [
47
] argue that
government departments and agencies working on climate adaptation policy do not have
adequate human and technical abilities to analyse and evaluate the available information.
On the other hand, studies conducted in Kenya, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Ghana, and Uganda
by Mohmand and Loureiro [
48
] and Ampaire et al. [
49
] found that the local governments,
though declared self-governing by the central government, do not have sufficient hu-
man and financial resources to implement policies or climate-resilient actions, even when
adaptation objectives and actions have been integrated into local development plans. A
considerable body of literature argues that meeting funding requirements from bilateral
and multilateral donors remains difficult for African countries [
50
,
51
]. The investment
required for adaptation in developing countries can range from USD 50 billion to USD
500 billion annually in 2050 [
52
]. Numerous studies, therefore, argue that although adapta-
tion finance through the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will
help offset some of the climate costs, it is not of the magnitude required for climate-proofing
in developing countries [53–55].
The literature also demonstrates that the lack of explicit national agendas and in-
ducements may burden local governments in a different way based on their different
capacities [
56
,
57
]. Climate adaptation is also viewed as the segregated task of a particu-
lar sector that may hamper mainstreaming and horizontal coordination between sectors
and departments and coerce the degree to which systems can learn or adapt to climate
change [
58
–
63
]. It has also been argued that a lack of leadership and accountability at local
levels hinders information dissemination, policy implementation, and financial accountabil-
ity [
14
,
64
]. Additionally, it is highlighted in the literature that knowledge gaps are one of
the main barriers that affect the planning and implementation of climate change adaptation
measures [
65
]. Ryan and Bustos [
47
] observed that the knowledge available for climate
adaptation policymaking (climate data, impact studies, social-environmental vulnerability
assessments, etc.) is dispersed and fragmented. Numerous scholars have also identified
limited climate change knowledge, institutional capacity, funding, awareness mechanisms,
and coordination amongst and within government institutions as challenges [66,67].
In addition, Füssel [
68
] and Smit and Pilifosova [
69
] argue that government institutions
lead the process of designing, implementing, and monitoring climate policy, and thus their
“political will” is a major factor in the policy success. However, it is widely acknowledged
in the literature that it is often a challenge to attain political will. Mossler et al. [
70
], for
example, posit that one of the reasons for the low level of political support for climate
change response globally is the way it has been framed by governments. He further argues
that framing can shape the perception of a problem and impact the way the audience is
likely to address it [
70
]. In the same vein, Füssel et al. [
71
] argue that making political
decisions based on uncertainty in a dynamic system is a challenge that political leaders are
Climate 2023,11, 145 6 of 19
not always willing or able to face. On the other hand, Smith et al. [
72
] argue that political
will is an important mechanism to overcome bureaucratic resistance and risk aversion in
addressing wicked problems like climate change. Clement and Amezaga [
73
] are of the
view that a lack of political will in national policymaking gives only weak inducements
to those who implement local policies, which results in a reduced uptake. Keen et al. [
74
]
argue that the political nature of local government means that political interests affect all
decisions, including climate adaptation.
The historic tendency of municipalities to view climate change as an environmental
problem can also affect mainstreaming, given that environmental issues are assigned a
lower priority than other issues [
75
–
77
]. Thus, environmental departments are often not
assigned much influence or resources [
77
–
79
]. Previous studies seem to suggest that
politicians have not acknowledged climate adaptation as politically urgent to advance the
policy agenda. Subsequently, they identify a tendency to prioritise other political concerns,
which are often more tangible issues [
58
,
75
,
80
]. Ziervogel and Parnell [
78
] argue that
one of the challenges that local governments face in mainstreaming adaptation to climate
change is the lack of authority held by environmental departments to address climate
change. Previous research has blamed the ineffective policy on limited budget allocations
and staffing and insufficient stakeholder participation and linkages [
81
–
85
]. Therefore,
there is strong evidence in the literature of the barriers that hinder the development and
implementation of climate change adaptation policies and strategies in developed and
developing countries with many pointing to various governance dimensions.
3. Materials and Methods
The data collection process for this paper was conducted between February and Oc-
tober 2021. A total of 30 government officials working on climate change adaptation at
the national, provincial, and district/local government levels were purposively sampled
from the government officials lists received from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and
the Environment; KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development, Tourism, and
Environmental Affairs; and uMkhanyakude District Municipality. Out of the 30 govern-
ment officials that were sampled, 13 participated in the study, making the response rate
43%. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken online through Microsoft Teams and
telephonically with government officials from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and
the Environment; the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development, Tourism,
and Environmental Affairs; and the uMkhanyakude District Municipality. Government
officials provided expert perspectives related to the barriers they are confronted with in
facilitating effective climate change adaptation at the three government levels in South
Africa. The profiles of the participants are displayed in Table 1below.
The data obtained from government officials were analysed using thematic analysis.
This involved familiarising and engaging with the data, generating codes for the data,
searching for themes, reviewing themes, and defining and naming themes. According to
Nowell et al. [
86
], a rigorous thematic analysis can generate insightful and reliable findings.
This is aligned with Braun and Clarke [
87
], who argue that thematic analysis is flexible for
identifying, describing, and interpreting themes within a data set in detail. It is tailored
to qualitative studies that seek to investigate complex research issues, such as the one this
paper sets out to investigate.
This paper used a systematic diagnostic framework developed by Moser and Ek-
strom [
26
] to analyse the barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa. It was
important for a study of this nature to adopt this framework because understanding the
barriers to climate change adaptation requires a holistic approach. The systematic diagnos-
tic framework is based on four phases of adaptation, including understanding, planning,
implementation, and monitoring. The framework uses theories of coupled socioecological
systems thinking and multi-level governance theories by focusing on “scale, contextual
processes, and structures, amongst other factors, and it enables a flexible approach to
examining barriers” [
33
]. The systematic diagnostic framework enabled the classification
Climate 2023,11, 145 7 of 19
of the barriers identified in this paper and a comparison of the barriers across various
government levels.
Table 1. The profiles of the government officials.
Title Government Level
Youth Environmental Coordinator District/Local
District and Local Government support—Environmental Management District/Local
Executive Director—Community Services District/Local
Youth Environmental Coordinator District/Local
District Manager—Environmental Management Provincial
Control Environmental Officer Provincial
Climate Change Intern Provincial
Climate Change Specialist National
Chief Director—Climate Change Adaptation National
Control Environmental Officer National
Director of Adaptive Capacity Programme National
Director—Climate Change Adaptation National
Director—Climate Change Adaptation National
Source: Field-based survey notes (2021).
4. Results
4.1. An Analysis of the Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in South Africa
The fundamental issue driving this paper is to examine the barriers to climate change
adaptation in South Africa. In light of this, government officials working on climate
change adaptation were asked, “What are the key challenges that exist in developing
and implementing climate change adaptation policies, strategies, and programmes at
the national, provincial, and local government levels?” Firstly, government officials who
participated in this study identified the barriers to climate change adaptation. Therefore,
the nature of the barrier and the frequency of the responses received are presented in
Figure 4(in percentages).
Climate 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 19
4. Results
4.1. An Analysis of the Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in South Africa
The fundamental issue driving this paper is to examine the barriers to climate change
adaptation in South Africa. In light of this, government officials working on climate
change adaptation were asked, “What are the key challenges that exist in developing and
implementing climate change adaptation policies, strategies, and programmes at the na-
tional, provincial, and local government levels?” Firstly, government officials who partic-
ipated in this study identified the barriers to climate change adaptation. Therefore, the
nature of the barrier and the frequency of the responses received are presented in Figure
4 (in percentages).
Figure 4. Frequency of different types of barriers encountered at the different government levels.
Source: Field-based survey notes (2021).
The predominant barrier to climate change adaptation in South Africa is inadequate
financial resources across all government levels, which represents 28% of the responses
received from government officials working on climate change adaptation (Figure 4). A
further 21% indicated that there is a lack of human capacity at the provincial and local
government levels. An estimated 12% of the responses claimed that there is limited polit-
ical will at the local government level, whereas 9% expressed that there is ineffective co-
ordination across government officials, and a further 9% indicated there is a limited un-
derstanding of climate change issues by the communities. Of the total 12% of responses,
6% indicated that there is no climate change unit at the district and local government lev-
els, and the remaining 6% expressed that there is no legal mandate at the local government
level. Of the total 9% of responses, 3% claimed that outdated information on climate
change is being used in the municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs); 3% expressed
that there are not enough climate change plans in place at the local government level; and
another 3% indicated a lack of knowledge by some staff members who are tasked with
environmental duties at the district and local government levels.
In addition, the fundamental sources of the barriers were identified by government
officials working on climate change adaptation issues. This data is presented using the
systematic diagnostic framework; the data presented in Table 2 is structured around iden-
tifying the fundamental sources of the barriers under the four phases of adaptation (i.e.,
understanding, planning, implementation, and monitoring guide the process).
28%
21%
12%
9%
9%
6%
6%
3%
3%
3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Inadequate financial resources across all…
Lack of human capacity at provincial and local level
Limited political will at local level
Limited understanding by communities
Inadequate coordination across government levels…
No legal mandate at local level
No climate change unit at district and local levels
Lack of knowledge by some staff members at local…
Not enough climate change plans in place at local…
Outdated information used in the IDPs
Number of barriers by respondents
Type of barrier
Figure 4.
Frequency of different types of barriers encountered at the different government levels.
Source: Field-based survey notes (2021).
Climate 2023,11, 145 8 of 19
The predominant barrier to climate change adaptation in South Africa is inadequate
financial resources across all government levels, which represents 28% of the responses
received from government officials working on climate change adaptation (Figure 4). A
further 21% indicated that there is a lack of human capacity at the provincial and local
government levels. An estimated 12% of the responses claimed that there is limited
political will at the local government level, whereas 9% expressed that there is ineffective
coordination across government officials, and a further 9% indicated there is a limited
understanding of climate change issues by the communities. Of the total 12% of responses,
6% indicated that there is no climate change unit at the district and local government levels,
and the remaining 6% expressed that there is no legal mandate at the local government
level. Of the total 9% of responses, 3% claimed that outdated information on climate change
is being used in the municipal Integrated Development Plans (IDPs); 3% expressed that
there are not enough climate change plans in place at the local government level; and
another 3% indicated a lack of knowledge by some staff members who are tasked with
environmental duties at the district and local government levels.
In addition, the fundamental sources of the barriers were identified by government
officials working on climate change adaptation issues. This data is presented using the
systematic diagnostic framework; the data presented in Table 2is structured around
identifying the fundamental sources of the barriers under the four phases of adaptation
(i.e., understanding, planning, implementation, and monitoring guide the process).
Table 2. A summary of the barriers presented by phase.
Understanding Planning Implementation and Monitoring
Limited understanding of climate change issues
by communities
Not enough climate change plans in place
at the local level Inadequate financial resources
Limited political will Lack of human resources
Lack of climate change knowledge by some staff
members tasked with environmental duties Inadequate coordination across government levels and sectors
No climate change unit at the local level
No legal mandate at the local level
Outdated information on climate change issues used in the IDPs
Source: Field-based survey notes (2021).
An examination of Table 2suggests that four of the barriers have to do with under-
standing the importance of climate change adaptation. These include limited understanding
of climate change issues by communities; lack of climate change knowledge by some staff
members tasked with environmental duties; outdated information on climate change issues
used in the municipal Integrated Development Plans; and limited political will. In view of
this, one of the government officials indicated that:
“The change in political parties or administration after elections is always problematic
because different political parties have different priorities and oftentimes climate change
is not prioritised. Thus, it is important to note that politics is a reality we must learn to
navigate” (Remark 1).
Furthermore, Table 2demonstrates that there are four barriers to climate change
adaptation in the planning phase, one of which is that there are not enough climate change
plans in place at the local level, and the other three overlap between the planning and
implementation and monitoring phases (i.e., no legal mandate at the local level, no climate
change unit at the local level, and inadequate coordination across government levels and
sectors). To validate the above assertions, one government official alluded to the following:
“There isn’t a united voice across government levels. It is not because people are in denial,
but people are dealing with real-life issues, e.g., human settlements and service delivery.
Climate 2023,11, 145 9 of 19
However, we need to work together. We need to find people within the different sectors to
take up climate change work and work together using a bottom-up approach. We need to
be proactive rather than reactive. We need to continue working at the operational level so
that it cascades up” (Remark 2).
Lastly, inadequate financial resources and a lack of human resources are the main
barriers encountered in the implementation and monitoring phase. A government official
from the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment, who participated in an
interview, disclosed that:
“There are not enough funds to implement all climate change plans and projects” (Re-
mark 3).
On the other hand, another government official indicated that:
“Although we receive external funding from donors, it is never enough” (Remark 4).
In view of the lack of human resources, one government official stated that:
“The lack of employees who are purely climate change practitioners at the local government
level hinders progress” (Remark 5).
Social-ecological systems are nested within a larger system at global, regional, national,
and local scales. Thus, it is important to note that the above-mentioned barriers vary across
the government scales. In view of this, using the second component of the systematic
diagnostic framework, the location of the influence over the barrier is identified in Table 3.
Table 3. A comparison of the barriers across the various government levels.
Barriers National Level
DFFE
Provincial Level
KZN EDTEA
District/Local Level
UKDM
Inadequate financial resources X X X
Lack of human resources X X
Limited political will X
Limited understanding of climate change issues
by communities X
Inadequate coordination X X X
No legal mandate X
No climate change unit X
Lack of climate change knowledge by some staff members
tasked with environmental duties X
Not enough climate change plans X
Outdated information on climate change issues used in the IDPs
X
Source: Field-based survey notes (2021).
The information in Table 3suggests that there are inadequate financial resources and
inadequate coordination across all three government levels in South Africa. Of particular
interest is the fact that Table 3seems to suggest that all the barriers (i.e., inadequate
financial resources, lack of human resources, limited political will, limited understanding
of climate change issues by communities, inadequate coordination, no legal mandate, no
climate change unit, lack of climate change knowledge by some staff members tasked with
environmental duties, not enough climate change plans, and outdated information on
climate change issues used in the IDPs) are encountered or felt at the local government
level in South Africa.
Climate 2023,11, 145 10 of 19
4.2. Suggested Strategies to Overcome Barriers
It was imperative to try and identify some of the origins of the barriers that were
identified in this paper. Therefore, using the last component of the systematic diagnostic
framework, Figure 5demonstrates the origins of the barriers and how this has an influence
on overcoming the barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa.
Climate 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
.
Figure 5: Summary of the origins of the barriers and the contribution represented as percentages.
Source: Reprinted/adapted with permission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) using field-based sur-
vey notes (2021).
Scrutinising Figure 5 suggests that a combined total of 21% of the responses on the
existing barriers form part of the proximate contemporary barriers. This comprises limited
understanding of climate change issues by communities, representing 9% of the total re-
sponses, a lack of climate change knowledge by some staff members tasked with environ-
mental duties (3%), and inadequate coordination across government levels and sectors
(9%). These barriers can be overcome by government officials working on climate change
adaptation, as they have control over them. The strategies that can be used to overcome
these barriers include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Creating awareness and educating communities on climate change issues;
• Improving coordination across the government levels and sectors;
• Ensuring that staff members that are tasked with climate change issues are well-
versed in this area of expertise.
A further 28% of the total responses form part of the remote contemporary barriers,
which, although they occur now, the government officials working on climate change ad-
aptation have no control over (i.e., the issue of inadequate financial resources). Therefore,
the government can do the following:
• Prioritise climate change adaptation issues to ensure that they are budgeted for ap-
propriately;
• Source external funding from donors for all government levels in order to ensure that
there are funds to implement the strategies and plans that are meant to facilitate cli-
mate change adaptation on the ground.
A total of 45% of the total responses form part of the proximate legacy barriers against
which the law prevents action. This comprises no legal mandate at the local levels (6%),
no climate change unit at the district and local levels (6%), lack of human capacity at the
provincial and local levels (21%), and limited political will at the local levels (12%). How-
ever, government officials have control over initiating changes in the regulations by:
• Advocating for the need for the government to create a legal mandate at the local
government level;
• Creating a climate change unit at the local government level;
• Increasing the human capacity to ensure that there are climate change adaptation
practitioners on the ground implementing the strategies and plans that have been
developed. In addition, these practitioners can play a major role in engaging with the
communities, educating the communities, and driving change on the ground.
Figure 5.
Summary of the origins of the barriers and the contribution represented as percentages.
Source: Reprinted/adapted with permission from Moser and Ekstrom (2010) [
26
] using field-based
survey notes (2021).
Scrutinising Figure 5suggests that a combined total of 21% of the responses on
the existing barriers form part of the proximate contemporary barriers. This comprises
limited understanding of climate change issues by communities, representing 9% of the
total responses, a lack of climate change knowledge by some staff members tasked with
environmental duties (3%), and inadequate coordination across government levels and
sectors (9%). These barriers can be overcome by government officials working on climate
change adaptation, as they have control over them. The strategies that can be used to
overcome these barriers include, but are not limited to, the following:
•Creating awareness and educating communities on climate change issues;
•Improving coordination across the government levels and sectors;
•
Ensuring that staff members that are tasked with climate change issues are well-versed
in this area of expertise.
A further 28% of the total responses form part of the remote contemporary barriers,
which, although they occur now, the government officials working on climate change
adaptation have no control over (i.e., the issue of inadequate financial resources). Therefore,
the government can do the following:
•
Prioritise climate change adaptation issues to ensure that they are budgeted for appro-
priately;
•
Source external funding from donors for all government levels in order to ensure
that there are funds to implement the strategies and plans that are meant to facilitate
climate change adaptation on the ground.
A total of 45% of the total responses form part of the proximate legacy barriers against
which the law prevents action. This comprises no legal mandate at the local levels (6%),
no climate change unit at the district and local levels (6%), lack of human capacity at
the provincial and local levels (21%), and limited political will at the local levels (12%).
However, government officials have control over initiating changes in the regulations by:
•
Advocating for the need for the government to create a legal mandate at the local
government level;
•Creating a climate change unit at the local government level;
Climate 2023,11, 145 11 of 19
•
Increasing the human capacity to ensure that there are climate change adaptation
practitioners on the ground implementing the strategies and plans that have been
developed. In addition, these practitioners can play a major role in engaging with the
communities, educating the communities, and driving change on the ground.
While the remaining 6% of the barriers form part of the “remote legacy barriers”,
which are a legacy of past decisions (i.e., not enough climate change plans in place at the
local government level; representing 3% and the use of outdated information in the IDPs of
municipalities; representing 3% of the total responses), some of these barriers could still be
addressed by:
•
Ensuring that the IDPs have relevant, up-to-date information on environmental issues,
which can be achieved by having individuals who are well-versed in this area of
expertise contribute to such important municipal documents and discussions.
However, closer scrutiny of Figure 5suggests that the proximate barriers provide a
combined 66% of the barriers over which government officials working on climate change
adaptation have control by either providing the action to overcome the barriers or initiating
changes in the regulations that exist. In view of this assertion, government officials shared
the following suggestions:
•
“There is room for creating more climate change adaptation awareness programmes” (Re-
mark 6).
•
“Climate change adaptation strategies, plans and programmes must be aligned across the three
levels of government and across sectors which are affected by climate change” (Remark 7).
•
“There is an opportunity for improved integration between the three levels of government when
it comes to climate change governance” (Remark 8).
Therefore, the overall impression represented in Figure 5indicates that although there
are barriers that the law prevents, the government officials working on climate change
adaptation should initiate and drive change.
5. Discussion
The findings presented in this paper demonstrate that the two predominant barriers
to climate change adaptation in South Africa are inadequate financial resources, which
are cross-cutting across all three government levels, and a lack of human capacity at the
provincial and local levels. These barriers are mostly encountered in the implementation
and monitoring phases of adaptation. The results presented in this study are consistent
with previous findings from other studies. Ngwenya and Simatele [
42
] and Averchenkova
et al. [
88
], for example, argued that at the national, provincial, and municipal government
levels, a lack of financial resources and knowledge inhibits people and institutions from
resolving problems and managing change. South Africa’s National Treasury [
89
] estimates
that nearly 80% of the district’s municipal revenue is from the national government, and
because of competing socio-economic demands, little of this revenue is allocated to the
climate change response. Additionally, the empirical evidence presented in this paper
supports previous studies that argue that financial barriers limit municipal adaptation
mainstreaming, partly due to the many responsibilities they must perform and due to
their lack of institutional autonomy [
75
,
78
]. These findings align with the findings from
other regions. Measham et al. [
75
], for example, found that the key challenge to climate
change adaptation across the Sydney region is the constrained resources (financial and
human) faced by local governments. Hooli [
90
] found that in Namibia, the government
has limited financial support for local or informal adaptation responses. As observed by
Pressend [
91
], there is often an inadequate commitment to international funding for climate
change adaptation actions, and when this funding is available, it is difficult to access it due
to excessive red tape.
Goebel [
92
] concurred that a human resources crisis exists within South African
municipalities, which must be addressed to overcome policy implementation hurdles.
Similarly, the South African National Development Plan 2030, “Our Future, Make It Work”,
Climate 2023,11, 145 12 of 19
considers that there is a lack of human resources and skills at the local government level.
Alemaw and Simatele [
23
] further argue that the lack of resources at all government levels
is inclined to inhibit people and institutions from solving problems and mapping changes
caused by climate change. Having established this, we argue that the South African
government must “put their money where their mouth is” and invest strategically in
climate change to build a transformative climate change governance system. In addition, it
is important to have a thought process on how South Africa will best utilise climate change
adaptation finance for the benefit of all. Achieving this requires a radical shift towards
enhancing investments in climate change funding in South Africa for adaptation.
Furthermore, the findings demonstrate that there is limited political will at the local
government level, and this is because of poor understanding of climate change issues by
politicians. This finding aligns with those of several previous studies. CoGTA [
93
], for
example, acknowledged that a lack of policy coherence, skill scarcity, a lack of political
leadership, and corruption are some of the major barriers encountered in promoting effec-
tive climate change adaptation in South Africa. This is supported by Khambule [
94
], who
argues that weakening institutional ability and arrangements within municipalities takes
place through political interference, a lack of efficient bureaucracy, and gross corruption.
On the other hand, Scoville-Simonds et al. [
95
] are of the view that there are three major
political adaptation difficulties, “related to differential responsibility, the global uneven
production of vulnerability, and unequal relations of power in adaptation decision-making”.
Mapfumo et al. [
96
] suggest that political will and political probability are important factors
in undertaking structured measures that are transformational in response to climate change.
There is a need for South African political representatives to demonstrate political will for
climate change adaptation when they make their national, provincial, and district/local
budgets. Although there are conflicting priorities, such as service delivery through water
provision, housing, energy supply, and infrastructure, climate change adaptation must be
featured at the top of the list, particularly because climate change has and will continue to
have dire impacts on all subsectors of the economy.
In addition, the findings presented in this paper revealed that three of the barriers
to climate change adaptation alluded to by government officials had to do with under-
standing climate change issues. This involved a limited understanding of climate change
adaptation issues by communities, a lack of knowledge by some staff members tasked
with environmental duties at the local level, and outdated information used by politicians
in the municipal IDPs. In view of this, we argue that climate change adaptation requires
shared understanding. This finding largely corroborates Ross et al. [
97
], who argue that
efficient and collective adaptation to climate change requires shared understandings of the
possible impacts and risks gained through informed presentation and discussion with other
participants. Numerous scholars, including Lemos et al. [
98
], argue that relations between
knowledge producers and those who could use it can often overcome the cognitive and
social divisions that weaken information usability by building trust, improving aware-
ness, and improving understanding around issues of accuracy and reliability of climate
information [
99
–
102
]. In view of this, therefore, this study argues that the government of
South Africa must educate all citizens on climate change adaptation in order to improve
understanding, increase awareness, and build trust.
It was also revealed that there is inadequate coordination across all government levels
and that this affects the planning, implementation, and monitoring phases of adaptation.
This paper suggests that there is a need for government officials working on climate change
adaptation issues to advocate for coordination across government levels and sectors, as
this will allow for resource mobilisation to address the wicked problem we are faced with.
Loring et al. [
103
] argue that well-operated collaboration and coordination from each level
of governance based on partnerships can facilitate adaptation to climate change and make
societies more resilient to the uncertainty of impacts posed by climate change stakeholders.
Some researchers also believe that learning through coordination improves local actors’
capacity to adapt, enhances policy-making opportunities in broader governance networks,
Climate 2023,11, 145 13 of 19
and provides training for policymaking [
104
,
105
]. This is also supported by Mpandeli
et al. [
106
], who argue that coordination ensures that there is resource mobilisation and
policy convergence across sectors.
The findings of this study also demonstrate that two of the barriers to climate change
adaptation alluded to by government officials have a negative impact on the planning,
implementation, and monitoring phases of the adaptation process. These barriers include
the lack of a legal mandate at the local government level and the fact that there is no climate
change unit at the district and local levels. This finding seems to align with Du Plessis and
Kotzé[
107
], who are of the view that the absence of a climate change mandate in South
African municipalities has not helped matters as it has “downplayed the seriousness of the
need for climate governance and action,” making municipal authorities reluctant to act.
Furthermore, this study argues that it is time for South Africa to tackle the long-standing
barriers and move towards a governance system that will build the resilience and adaptive
capacity of societies in times of changing climatic conditions.
It is suggestive that one barrier arises due to poor planning because there are not
enough climate change plans at the local level. Without proper adaptation planning and
the necessary investments in social safety nets, climate risks can adversely affect efforts to
achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in sub-Saharan Africa [108–110].
The findings presented in this paper demonstrate that there is a differential distribution
of resources across the different government levels. Therefore, it can be argued that the
coordination among the multilevel polycentric governance structures and agency can
become feasible and robust if coupled and symbiotic relationship is established as proposed
by the social systems approach. Although multilevel governance systems may create more
challenges and obstacles in the coordination among multilevel polycentric governance
structures and decision making, social systems theory will enable us to overcome such
challenges. This is in line with Biermann et al. [
111
] and Ostrom and Janssen [
112
], who
argue that although multilevel governance theory enables learning and succeeding at
multiple scales, there is no guarantee that it can successfully deal with complex human–
ecological systems. Furthermore, it is congruent with numerous scholars who are of the
view that to cope with the “wicked” problem of climate change, innovative and theoretically
controversial adaptation actions whose goal is to support the associated social-ecological
adaptation are necessary [113–115].
In view of the above discussion, it is important to note that the situation is not all doom
and gloom. As illustrated in Figure 5, the majority of the barriers that exist are barriers
over which government officials working on climate change adaptation have control by
either providing actions to overcome the barriers or initiating changes in the regulations
that exist. Thus, this paper argues that government officials working on climate change
adaptation in South Africa should drive change, as they are better positioned to advocate
for improvement in the conditions in which they are expected to drive the climate change
adaptation agenda of the country.
6. Conclusions
This paper identifies some of the barriers to climate change adaptation in South Africa.
These barriers include inadequate financial resources, a lack of human capacity at the
provincial and local levels, limited political will at the local level, limited understanding of
climate change adaptation issues by communities, inadequate coordination across govern-
ment levels and sectors, no legal mandate at the local level, no climate change unit at the
district and local levels, a lack of knowledge by some staff members tasked with environ-
mental duties at the local level, not enough climate change plans in place at the local level,
and outdated information on climate change used in the IDPs. There is, therefore, a need
to improve capacity development, strengthen policy alignment, and improve integration
between the three levels of government.
In addition, it is important for local municipalities to strengthen their role in issues
related to climate change. Thus, we recommend that climate change be mainstreamed
Climate 2023,11, 145 14 of 19
in the Integrated Development Plan for local governments, which will ensure that when
projects are budgeted for, they are climate responsive. Motivation from a climate change-
responsive Integrated Development Plan will also ensure that there are funds to hire more
climate change adaptation practitioners. Furthermore, there must be effective coordination
of climate change adaptation issues across government levels and sectors if we are to
effectively manage climate change.
Limitations and the Way Forward
Finally, this research is subject to a few limitations. Firstly, this study focused only on
the barriers related to climate change adaptation. While our results reaffirm the importance
of investigating and addressing the barriers to climate change adaptation, we are aware that
barriers are highly context-specific, challenging to compare, and difficult to use for a more
generalised understanding. Thus, there are opportunities to bolster our findings through
future research. Most notably, our analysis focuses narrowly on barriers to climate change
adaptation without taking into consideration the barriers encountered by government
officials working in the subsectors of the economy that are affected by climate change (e.g.,
water, agriculture, and energy). We recommend that these limitations be addressed and
explored in future studies.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, N.P.S. and M.D.S.; methodology, N.P.S.; validation, R.K.A.
and M.D.S.; formal analysis, N.P.S.; investigation, N.P.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.P.S.;
writing—review and editing, N.P.S., D.K.D., C.V., S.P.M., L.Z., M.A.K., M.S., R.K.A. and M.D.S.;
supervision, M.D.S.; funding acquisition, M.D.S.; resources, M.D.S. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
This research was funded by the National Research Foundation of South Africa, Research
Grant No. 129481, Ref RCUZ200513521731, and the University of the Witwatersrand Postgraduate
PhD Merit Award.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was reviewed and approved by the University
of the Witwatersrand Ethics Committee (protocol number H20/10/28, date of approval: 16 Octo-
ber 2020).
Informed Consent Statement:
Written informed consent has been obtained from the participants to
publish this paper.
Data Availability Statement:
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the
article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Acknowledgments:
Thank you to all the research participants from uMkhanyakude District Munici-
pality, KwaZulu-Natal Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs, and the
Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment for their invaluable insights.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Adaptation to Climate Change in the Context of Sustainable Development
and Equity. In Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; IPCC, Ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 2001.
2.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability; Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts,
D.C., Tignor, M., Poloczanska, E.S., Mintenbeck, K., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., et al., Eds.;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2022; p. 3056. [CrossRef]
3.
Balint, P.J.; Stewart, R.E.; Desai, A.; Walters, L.C. Wicked Environmental Problems: Managing Uncertainty and Conflict; Island Press:
Washington, DC, USA, 2011; p. 253.
4.
Lazarus, R.J. Super wicked problems and climate change: Restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev.
2008
,94,
1153–1233.
Climate 2023,11, 145 15 of 19
5.
Turpie, J.; Visser, M. The impact of climate change on South Africa’s rural areas. In Financial and Fiscal Commission Submission for
the 2013/14 Division of Revenue; Financial and Fiscal Commission: Cape Town, South Africa, 2013; pp. 100–162.
6.
Van der Bank, M.; Karsten, J. Climate change and South Africa: A critical analysis of the Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and
another v minister of energy and others 65662/16 (2017) case and the drive for concrete climate practices. Air Soil Water Res.
2020
,
13, 1178622119885372. [CrossRef]
7.
Savelli, E.; Rusca, M.; Cloke, H.; Di Baldassarre, G. Don’t blame the rain: Social power and the 2015–2017 drought in Cape Town.
J. Hydrol. 2021,594, 125953. [CrossRef]
8.
Nhamo, G.; Agyepong, A.O. Climate change adaptation and local government: Institutional complexities surrounding Cape
Town’s Day Zero. JàmbáJ. Disaster Risk Stud. 2019,11, 717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
9.
David, S.G.T.; Twyman, C.; Osbahr, H.; Hewitson, B. Adaptation to climate change and variability: Farmer responses to
intra-seasonal precipitation trends in South Africa. Clim. Chang. 2007,83, 301–322.
10.
Hummel, D. Climate Change, Land Degradation and Migration in Mali and Senegal-Some Policy Implications, Migration and Development;
Institute of Social-Ecological Research: Frankfurt, Germany, 2015.
11.
Skogen, K.; Helland, H.; Kaltenborn, B. Concern about climate change, biodiversity loss, habitat degradation and landscape
change: Embedded in different packages of environmental concern? J. Nat. Conserv. 2018,44, 12–20. [CrossRef]
12.
Sibiya, N.; Sithole, M.; Mudau, L.; Simatele, M.D. Empowering the Voiceless: Securing the Participation of Marginalised Groups
in Climate Change Governance in South Africa. Sustainability 2022,14, 7111. [CrossRef]
13.
Adom, R.K.; Simatele, M.D.; Reid, M. The Threats of Climate Change on Water and Food Security in South Africa. Am. J. Environ.
Clim. 2022,1, 73–91. [CrossRef]
14.
Biesbroek, G.R.; Swart, R.J.; Carter, T.R.; Cowan, C.; Henrichs, T.; Mela, H.; Morecroft, M.D.; Rey, D. Europe adapts to climate
change: Comparing national adaptation strategies. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010,20, 440–450. [CrossRef]
15.
Keskitalo, E.C.H. (Ed.) Developing Adaptation Policy and Practice in Europe: Multi-Level Governance of Climate Change; Springer:
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2010.
16.
Huitema, D.; Adger, W.N.; Berkhout, F.; Massey, E.; Mazmanian, D.; Munaretto, S.; Plummer, R.; Termeer, C.C.J.A.M. The
governance of adaptation: Choices, reasons, and effects. Introduction to the Special Feature. Ecol. Soc. 2016,21, 37. [CrossRef]
17.
Keping, Y. Governance and Good Governance: A New Framework for Political Analysis. Fudan J. Humanit. Soc. Sci.
2018
,11, 1–8.
[CrossRef]
18.
Sterk, W.; Wittneben, B. Enhancing the clean development mechanism through sectoral approaches: Definitions, applications and
ways forward. Int. Environ. Agreem. Politi. Law Econ. 2006,6, 271–287. [CrossRef]
19.
Biermann, F. The rationale for a world environment organization. In A World Environment Organization: Solution or Threat for
Effective International Environmental Governance? Biermann, F., Bauer, S., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2005; pp. 117–144.
20.
Dessai, S.; Schipper, E.L. The Marrakech accords to the Kyoto Protocol: Analysis and future prospects. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2003
,
13, 149–153. [CrossRef]
21.
Grubb, M.; Yamin, F. Climatic collapse at The Hague: What happened, why, and where do we go from here? Int. Aff.
2001
,77,
261–276. [CrossRef]
22.
Ortega-Cisneros, K.; Cochrane, K.L.; Rivers, N.; Sauer, W.H.H. Assessing South Africa’s Potential to Address Climate Change
Impacts and Adaptation in the Fisheries Sector. Front. Mar. Sci. 2021,8, 652955. [CrossRef]
23.
Alemaw, B.F.; Simatele, D. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation into Sustainable Development Planning: The
Policy Dimension. In Climate Variability and Change in Africa; Sustainable Development Goals Series; Matondo, J.I., Alemaw, B.F.,
Sandwidi, W.J.P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
24.
Cockburn, I.; Henderson, R.; Stern, S. The impact of artificial intelligence on innovation. In The Economics of Artificial Intelligence:
An Agenda; Agrawal, A., Gans, J., Goldfarb, A., Eds.; University of Chicago Press and NBER: Chicago, IL, USA, 2019.
25.
Rijke, J.; Brown, R.; Zevenbergen, C.; Ashley, R.; Farrelly, M.; Morison, P.; van Herk, S. Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework
to make adaptive governance operational. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012,22, 73–84. [CrossRef]
26.
Moser, S.C.; Ekstrom, J.A. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
2010
,107,
22026–22031. [CrossRef]
27.
Adger, W.N.; Barnett, J. Four Reasons for Concern about Adaptation to Climate Change. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space
2009
,41,
2800–2805. [CrossRef]
28.
Adger, W.N.; Eakin, H.; Winkels, A. Nested and teleconnected vulnerabilities to environmental change. Front. Ecol. Environ.
2009
,
7, 150–157. [CrossRef]
29.
Adger, W.N.; Agrawala, S.; Mirza, M.M.Q.; Conde, C.; O’Brien, K.; Pulhin, J.; Pulwarty, R.; Smit, B.; Takahashi, K. 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., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2007;
pp. 717–743.
30.
Klaus, E.; Susanne, C.M.; Esther, H.; Richard, K.; Christoph, O.; Anna, P.; Maja, R.; Catrien, T. Explaining and overcoming barriers
to climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2014,4, 867–872.
31.
Falaleeva, M.; O’Mahony, C.; Gray, S.; Desmond, M.; Gault, J.; Cummins, V. Towards climate adaptation and coastal governance
in Ireland: Integrated architecture for effective management? Mar. Policy 2011,35, 784–793. [CrossRef]
Climate 2023,11, 145 16 of 19
32.
Biesbroek, R.; Klostermann, J.; Termeer, C.; Kabat, P. Barriers to climate change adaptation in the Netherlands. Clim. Law
2011
,2,
181–199. [CrossRef]
33.
Mukheibir, P.; Kuruppu, N.; Gero, A.; Herriman, J. Cross-Scale Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation in Local Government, Australia;
National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility: Gold Coast, Australia, 2013; p. 95.
34.
Anderies, J.M.; Janssen, M.A.; Ostrom, E. A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional
perspective. Ecol. Soc. 2004,9, 18. [CrossRef]
35.
Berkes, F. Restoring unity: The concept of marine social-ecological systems. In World Fisheries: A Social-Ecological Analysis; Ommer,
R., Perry, I., Cochrane, K.L., Cury, P., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwells: Oxford, UK, 2011; pp. 9–28. [CrossRef]
36. Hooghe, L.; Marks, G. Multi-Level Governance and European Integration; Rowman & Littlefield: Boulder, CO, USA, 2001.
37.
Fairbrass, J.; Jordan, A. European Union environmental policy and the role of the UK government: Passive observer or strategic
manager. Environ. Politics 2001,10, 1–21. [CrossRef]
38.
Ostrom, E. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Chang.
2010
,20,
550–557. [CrossRef]
39.
Ekstrom, J.A.; Moser, S.C. Identifying and overcoming barriers in urban climate adaptation: Case study findings from the San
Francisco Bay Area, California, USA. Urban Clim. 2014,9, 54–74. [CrossRef]
40.
HMG. The National Adaptation Programme: Making the Country Resilient to a Changing Climate; Analytical Annex: Economics of the
National Adaptation Programme; Her Majesty’s Government (HMG), Stationery Office: London, UK, 2013.
41.
Cimato, F.; Mullan, M. Adapting to Climate Change: Analysing the Role of Government; DEFRA Evidence and Analysis Series Paper 1;
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA): London, UK, 2010.
42.
Ngwenya, N.; Simatele, M.D. The emergence of green bonds as an integral component of climate finance in South Africa. S. Afr. J.
Sci. 2020,116, 25–27. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43.
Serdeczny, O.; Adams, S.; Baarsch, F.; Coumou, D.; Robinson, A.; Hare, W.; Schaeffer, M.; Perrette, M.; Reinhardt, J. Climate
change impacts in Sub-Saharan Africa: From physical changes to their social repercussions. Reg. Environ. Chang.
2017
,17,
1585–1600. [CrossRef]
44.
Roberts, D. Thinking globally, acting locally Institutionalizing climate change at the local government level in Durban, South
Africa. Environ. Urban. 2008,20, 521–537. [CrossRef]
45. Peters, B.G. Policy capacity in public administration. Policy Soc. 2015,34, 219–228. [CrossRef]
46.
Cullmann, J.; Dilley, M.; Egerton, P.; Fowler, J.; Grasso, V.F.; Honoré, C.; Lúcio, F.; Luterbacher, J.; Nullis, C.; Power, M.;
et al. 2020 State of Climate Services; Risk Information and Early Warning Systems; World Meteorological Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2020.
47.
Ryan, D.; Bustos, E. Knowledge gaps and climate adaptation policy: A comparative analysis of six Latin American countries.
Clim. Policy 2019,19, 1297–1309. [CrossRef]
48.
Mohmand, S.K.; Loureiro, M. Introduction: Interrogating Decentralisation in Africa. 2017. Available online: https://bulletin.ids.
ac.uk/index.php/idsbo/article/view/2856/ONLINE%20ARTICLE (accessed on 29 January 2023).
49.
Ampaire, E.L.; Jassogne, L.; Providence, H.; Acosta, M.; Twyman, J.; Winowiecki, L.; van Asten, P. Institutional challenges to
climate change adaptation: A case study on policy action gaps in Uganda. Environ. Sci. Policy 2017,75, 81–90. [CrossRef]
50. Timilsina, G.R. Financing Climate Change Adaptation: International Initiatives. Sustainability 2021,13, 6515. [CrossRef]
51.
Gujba, H.; Thorne, S.; Mulugetta, Y.; Rai, K.; Sokona, Y. Financing low carbon energy access in Africa. Energy Policy
2012
,47,
71–78. [CrossRef]
52.
Aligishiev, Z.; Bellon, M.; Massetti, E. MacroFiscal Implications of Adaptation to Climate Change; IMF Staff Climate Note 2022/002;
International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2022.
53.
United Nations Environment Programme. Future Proofing Infrastructure to Address the Climate, Biodiversity and Pollution Crises;
UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2021.
54.
Donner, L.J.; Wyman, B.L.; Hemler, R.S.; Horowitz, L.W.; Ming, Y.; Zhao, M.; Golaz, J.-C.; Ginoux, P.; Lin, S.-J.; Schwarzkopf, M.D.;
et al. The dynamical core, physical parameterizations, and basic simulation characteristics of the atmospheric component AM3 of
the GFDL global coupled model CM3. J. Clim. 2011,24, 3484–3519. [CrossRef]
55.
Fankhauser, S.; Schmidt-Traub, G. From adaptation to climate-resilient development. The cost of climateproofing the Millennium
Development Goals in Africa. Clim. Dev. 2011,3, 1–20. [CrossRef]
56.
Dannevig, H.; Rauken, T.; Hovelsrud, G. Implementing adaptation to climate change at the local level. Local Environ.
2012
,17,
597–611. [CrossRef]
57.
Anguelovski, I.; Carmin, J. Something borrowed, everything new: Innovation and institutionalization in urban climate governance.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011,3, 169–175. [CrossRef]
58.
Runhaar, H.; Mees, H.; Wardekker, A.; van der Sluijs, J.; Driessen, P.P.J. Adaptation to climate change-related risks in Dutch urban
areas: Stimuli and barriers. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2012,12, 777–790. [CrossRef]
59.
Larsen, S.V.; Kørnøv, L.; Wejs, A. Mind the gap in SEA: An institutional perspective on why assessment of synergies amongst
climate change mitigation, adaptation and other policy areas are missing. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev.
2012
,33, 32–40. [CrossRef]
60.
Wilby, R.L.; Keenan, R. Adapting to flood risk under climate change. Prog. Phys. Geogr. Earth Environ.
2012
,36, 348–378.
[CrossRef]
Climate 2023,11, 145 17 of 19
61.
Burch, S. Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in British
Columbia, Canada. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010,20, 287–297. [CrossRef]
62.
Roberts, D. Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience in Durban, South Africa. Environ. Urban.
2010
,22,
397–413. [CrossRef]
63.
Storbjörk, S. ‘It Takes More to Get a Ship to Change Course’: Barriers for Organizational Learning and Local Climate Adaptation
in Sweden. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2010,12, 235–254. [CrossRef]
64.
Amundsen, H.; Berglund, F.; Westskogs, H. Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation—A question of multi-level
governance? Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2010,28, 276–289. [CrossRef]
65.
United Nations Environment Programme. Annual Report. 2022. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/annual-
report-2022 (accessed on 21 April 2023).
66.
Taljaard, S.; van Niekerk, L.; Weerts, S.P. The legal landscape governing South Africa’s coastal marine environment—Helpingwith
the ‘horrendogram’. Ocean. Coast. Manag. 2019,178, 104801. [CrossRef]
67.
Ampaire, L.; Muhindo, A.; Orikiriza, P.; Mwanga-Amumpaire, J.; Bebell, L.; Boum, Y. A review of antimicrobial resistance in East
Africa. Afr. J. Lab. Med. 2016,5, a432. [CrossRef]
68.
Füssel, H.-M. Adaptation planning for climate change: Concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain. Sci.
2007
,2,
265–275. [CrossRef]
69.
Smit, B.; Pilifosova, O. From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. In Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity, and
Development; Smith, J.B., Klein, R.J.T., Huq, S., Eds.; Imperial College Press: London, UK, 2003; pp. 9–28.
70.
Mossler, M.V.; Bostrom, A.; Kelly, R.P.; Crosman, K.M.; Moy, P. How does framing affect policy support for emissions mitigation?
Testing the effects of ocean acidification and other carbon emissions frames. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017,45, 63–78. [CrossRef]
71.
Füssel, H.M.; Kurnik, B.; Tomescu, M.; Vanneuville, W.; Smith, M.; Gerber, F.; Artola, I.; Adriaenssens, V.; Bigano, A.; Vingerhouts,
P.; et al. Adaptation Challenges and Opportunities for the European Energy System: Building a Climate-Resilient Low-Carbon Energy
System; EEA Report No 01/2019; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2019.
72.
Smith, T.F.; Preston, B.; Brooke, C.; Gorddard, R.; Abbs, D.; McInnes, K.; Withycombe, G.; Morrison, C.; Beveridge, B.; Measham,
T.G. Managing coastal vulnerability: New solutions for local government. In Integrated Coastal Zone Management; Moksness, E.,
Dahl, E., Støttrup, J.G., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: West Sussex, UK, 2009.
73.
Clement, F.; Amezaga, J.M. Afforestation and forestry land allocation in northern Vietnam: Analysing the gap between policy
intentions and outcomes. Land Use Policy 2009,26, 458–470. [CrossRef]
74.
Keen, M.; Mahanty, S.; Sauvage, J. Sustainability assessment and local government: Achieving innovation through practitioner
networks. Local Environ. 2006,11, 201–216. [CrossRef]
75.
Measham, T.G.; Preston, B.L.; Smith, T.F.; Brooke, C.; Gorddard, R.; Withycombe, G.; Morrison, C. Adapting to climate change
through local municipal planning: Barriers and challenges. Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Glob. Chang. 2011,16, 889–909. [CrossRef]
76.
Wilhelm-Rechmann, A.; Cowling, R.M. Local land-use planning and the role of conservation: An example analysing opportunities.
S. Afr. J. Sci. 2013,109, 1–6. [CrossRef]
77.
Hardoy, J.; Lankao, P.R. Latin American cities and climate change: Challenges and options to mitigation and adaptation responses.
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2011,3, 158–163. [CrossRef]
78.
Ziervogel, G.; Parnell, S. South African Coastal Cities: Governance Responses to Climate Change Adaptation. Climate Change at the City
Scale, Impacts, Mitigation and Adaptation in Cape Town; Cartwright, A., Parnell, S., Oelofse, G., Ward, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon,
UK, 2012.
79.
Dalal-Clayton, B.; Bass, S. The Challenges of Environmental Mainstreaming: Experience of Integrating Environment into Development
Institutions and Decisions; Environmental Governance No. 3; International Institute for Environment and Development: London,
UK, 2009.
80. Preston, B.L.; Dow, K.; Berkhout, F. The Climate Adaptation Frontier. Sustainability 2013,5, 1011–1035. [CrossRef]
81.
Hepworth, N. Climate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation Preparedness in Uganda; Heinrich Böll Stiftung, Regional Office for East
and Horn of Africa: Nairobi, Kenya, 2010.
82.
Rwakakamba, T.M. Examining the nexus between depletion of water catchments systems and the deepening water crisis in
Uganda. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2009,6, 292049. [CrossRef]
83.
Friis-Hansen, E.; Bashaasha, B.; Aben, C. Decentralization and Implementation of Climate Change Policy in Uganda. DIIS
Working Paper 27. 2013. Available online: https://www.diis.dk/files/media/publications/import/extra/wp2013-17_ccri_
uganda_efh_web.pdf (accessed on 3 December 2022).
84.
Orindi, V.A. Evaluation of the Status of NAPA/NAP in Ethiopia, Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya; Climate Change Agriculture and Food
Security (CCAFS); ECBI: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2013.
85. Madzwamuse, M. Drowning voices: The climate change discourse in South Africa. Policy Brief 2010,5, 1–8.
86.
Nowell, L.S.; Norris, J.M.; White, D.E.; Moules, N.J. Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. Int. J. Qual.
Methods 2017,16, 1–13. [CrossRef]
87. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006,3, 77–101. [CrossRef]
Climate 2023,11, 145 18 of 19
88.
Averchenkova, A.; Gannon, K.E.; Patrick, C. Governance of Climate Change Policy: A Case Study of South Africa; Grantham Research
Institute on Climate Change and the Environment and Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy: London, UK; London
School of Economics and Political Science: London, UK, 2019.
89.
National Treasury. Annual Report; Republic of South Africa. 2016. Available online: https://www.treasury.gov.za/publications/
annual%20reports/national%20treasury/nt%20annual%20report%202016-17.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2022).
90.
Hooli, L.J. Resilience of the poorest: Coping strategies and indigenous knowledge of living with the floods in Northern Namibia.
Reg. Environ. Chang. 2016,16, 695–707. [CrossRef]
91.
Pressend, M. Financial barriers to adaptation implementation: A South African case study on financing water adaptation. In
Overcoming Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation Implementation in Southern Africa; Masters, L., Duff, L., Eds.; Africa Institute of
South Africa: Pretoria, South Africa, 2011; pp. 163–179.
92.
Goebel, J.M. Risk, return, and performance measurement: A case of unrealistic expectations? Risk Manag. Insur. Rev.
2007
,10,
51–68. [CrossRef]
93.
CoGTA. Annual Report 2009/2010. National Disaster Management Centre Cooperative Governance & Traditional Affairs.
Available online: https://www.cogta.gov.za/cgta_2016/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NDMC-ANNUAL-REPORT-2009-201
0-FINAL-14-May-2012.pdf (accessed on 25 November 2022).
94.
Khambule, I. Imagining an Institutionalised Social Dialogue in the South African Local Government-Led Development Landscape.
Forum Dev. Stud. 2018,45, 97–117. [CrossRef]
95.
Scoville-Simonds, M.; Jamali, H.; Hufty, M. The Hazards of Mainstreaming: Climate change adaptation politics in three
dimensions. World Dev. 2020,125, 104683. [CrossRef]
96.
Mapfumo, P.; Onyango, M.; Honkponou, S.K.; El Mzouri, E.H.; Githeko, A.; Rabeharisoa, L.; Obando, J.; Omolo, N.; Majule, A.;
Denton, F.; et al. Pathways to transformational change in the face of climate impacts: An analytical framework. Clim. Dev.
2017
,9,
439–451. [CrossRef]
97.
Ross, H.; Shaw, S.; Rissik, D.; Cliffe, N.; Chapman, S.; Hounsell, V.; Udy, J.; Trinh, N.T.; Schoeman, J. A participatory systems
approach to understanding climate adaptation needs. Clim. Chang. 2015,129, 27–42. [CrossRef]
98.
Lemos, M.C.; Kirchhoff, C.J.; Ramprasad, V. Narrowing the climate information usability gap. Nat. Clim. Chang.
2012
,2, 789–794.
[CrossRef]
99.
Kirchhoff, C.J. Understanding and enhancing climate information use in water management. Clim. Chang.
2013
,119, 495–509.
[CrossRef]
100.
Roncoli, C.; Jost, C.; Kirshen, P.; Sanon, M.; Ingram, K.T.; Woodin, M.; Somé, L.; Ouattara, F.; Sanfo, B.J.; Sia, C.; et al. From
accessing to assessing forecasts: An end-to-end study of participatory climate forecast dissemination in Burkina Faso (West
Africa). Clim. Chang. 2009,92, 433–460. [CrossRef]
101. Pagano, T.; Hartmann, H.; Sorooshian, S. Factors affecting seasonal forecast use in Arizona water management: A case study of
the 1997-98 El Niño. Clim. Res. 2002,21, 259–269. [CrossRef]
102.
Power, S.; Sadler, B.; Nicholls, N. The Influence of Climate Science on Water Management in Western Australia: Lessons for
Climate Scientists. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2005,86, 839–844. [CrossRef]
103.
Loring, P.A.; Gerlach, S.C.; Atkinson, D.E.; Murray, M.S. Ways to help and ways to hinder: Governance for successful livelihoods
in changing climate. Artic 2011,64, 73–88.
104.
Owen, S. Learning across levels of governance: Expert advice and the adoption of carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets in
the UK. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2010,20, 394–401. [CrossRef]
105.
Keskitalo, E.C.H.; Kulyasova, A.A. The role of governance in community adaptation to climate change. Polar Res.
2009
,28, 60–70.
[CrossRef]
106.
Mpandeli, S.; Naidoo, D.; Mabhaudhi, T.; Nhemachena, C.; Nhamo, L.; Liphadzi, S.; Hlahla, S.; Modi, A.T. Climate Change
Adaptation through the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in Southern Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health
2018
,15, 2306. [CrossRef]
107.
Du Plessis, A.A.; Kotzé, L.J. The Heat is on: Local Government and Climate Governance in South Africa. J. Afr. Law
2014
,58,
145–174. [CrossRef]
108.
Alemaw, B.F. Framework of best practice for climate change adaptation in Africa: The water–development nexus. In Climate
Variability and Change in Africa: Perspectives, Experiences and Sustainability; Sustainable Development Goals Series; Springer: Cham,
Switzerland, 2020. [CrossRef]
109.
Baarsch, F.; Granadillos, J.R.; Hare, W.; Knaus, M.; Krapp, M.; Schaeffer, M.; Lotze-Campen, H. The impact of climate change on
incomes and convergence in Africa. World Dev. 2020,126, 104699. [CrossRef]
110.
Cacho, O.J.; Moss, J.; Thornton, P.K.; Herrero, M.; Henderson, B.; Bodirsky, B.L.; Humpenöder, F.; Popp, A.; Lipper, L. The value
of climate-resilient seeds for smallholder adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa. Clim. Chang. 2020,162, 1213–1229. [CrossRef]
111.
Biermann, F.; Bai, X.; Bondre, N.; Broadgate, W.; Chen, C.-T.A.; Dube, O.P.; Erisman, J.W.; Glaser, M.; van der Hel, S.; Lemos, M.C.;
et al. Down to earth: Contextualizing the Anthropocene. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2016,39, 341–350. [CrossRef]
112.
Ostrom, E.; Janssen, M.A. Multi-Level Governance and Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems. In Globalisation, Poverty and
Conflict: A Critical “Development” Reader; Spoor, M., Ed.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 239–259.
113.
Serrao-Neumann, S.; Harman, B.P.; Choy, D.L. The Role of Anticipatory Governance in Local Climate Adaptation: Observations
from Australia. Plan. Pract. Res. 2013,28, 440–463. [CrossRef]
Climate 2023,11, 145 19 of 19
114.
Hobbs, R.J.; Hallett, L.M.; Ehrlich, P.R.; Mooney, H.A. Intervention Ecology: Applying Ecological Science in the Twenty-first
Century. BioScience 2011,61, 442–450. [CrossRef]
115.
Araújo, M.B.; Alagador, D.; Cabeza, M.; Nogués-Bravo, D.; Thuiller, W. Climate change threatens European conservation areas:
Climate change threatens conservation areas. Ecol. Lett. 2011,14, 484–492. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note:
The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.