Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089DOI 10.1007/s00267-017-0933-1

Similarities and Differences in Barriers and OpportunitiesAffecting Climate Change Adaptation Action in Four NorthAmerican Landscapes

Whitney R. Lonsdale1 ● Heidi E. Kretser2 ● Cheryl-Lesley B. Chetkiewicz3 ●

Molly S. Cross4

Received: 18 April 2017 / Accepted: 16 August 2017 / Published online: 7 September 2017© The Author(s) 2017. This article is an open access publication

Abstract Climate change presents a complex set of chal-lenges for natural resource managers across North America.Despite recognition that climate change poses seriousthreats to species, ecosystems, and human communities,implementation of adaptation measures is not yet happeningon a broad scale. Among different regions, a range of cli-mate change trajectories, varying political contexts, anddiverse social and ecological systems generate a myriad offactors that can affect progress on climate change adaptationimplementation. In order to understand the general versussite-specific nature of barriers and opportunities influencingimplementation, we surveyed and interviewed practitioners,decision-makers, and scientists involved in natural resourcemanagement in four different North American regions,northern Ontario (Canada), the Adirondack State Park (US),Arctic Alaska (US), and the Transboundary Rocky Moun-tains (US and Canada). Common barriers among regionsrelated to a lack of political support and financial resources,as well as challenges related to translating complex andinteracting effects of climate change into managementactions. Opportunities shared among regions related to

collaboration, funding, and the presence of strong leader-ship. These commonalities indicate the importance of cross-site learning about ways to leverage opportunities andaddress adaptation barriers; however, regional variationsalso suggest that adaptation efforts will need to be tailoredto fit specific ecological, political, social and economiccontexts. Comparative findings on the similarities and dif-ferences in barriers and opportunities, as well as rankings ofbarriers and opportunities by region, offers important con-textual insights into how to further refine efforts to advanceadaptation actions in those regions.

Keywords Adaptation ● Adirondacks ● Alaska ● Climatechange ● Ontario ● Rocky mountains

Introduction

As the climate changes, scientists, policy makers, municipalplanners, and natural resource managers face the challengeof assessing impacts and planning adaptation actions tomanage the already complex systems for which they areresponsible. While adaptation planning within social andecological systems is progressing (NRC 2010; Bierbaumet al. 2013), implementation of adaptation actions is notkeeping pace with an ever-increasing need (Archie et al.2012; Runhaar et al. 2012; Bierbaum et al. 2013; Kempet al. 2015). To understand this “stubborn gap” between theperception of climate change as a significant issue and thedevelopment of on-the-ground adaptation actions (Betsilland Bulkeley 2007: 448), a growing body of researchaddresses the barriers and opportunities affecting adaptation(Bassett and Shandas 2010; Uittenbroek et al. 2012;

* Whitney R. Lonsdalewhitneylonsdale@gmail.com

1 Cornell University, 502N 9th Ave, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA2 Wildlife Conservation Society & Cornell University, Saranac

Lake, NY 12983, USA3 Wildlife Conservation Society Canada, Thunder Bay, ON P7B

6T8, Canada4 Wildlife Conservation Society, Bozeman, MT 59715, USA

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article(doi:10.1007/s00267-017-0933-1) contains supplementary material,which is available to authorized users.

Lemieux et al. 2013; Kemp et al. 2015). Generally, barriersare considered factors that may hamper the process ofdeveloping and implementing climate change adaptationactions, but can be overcome using a variety of means andapproaches (Moser and Ekstrom 2010); opportunities (alsoreferred to as drivers, bridges, triggers, stimuli) are factorsthat can promote, enable, or strengthen adaptation planningand implementation (West et al. 2009; Jantarasami et al.2010; Engle 2012).

Research on factors that impede adaptation actions hastaken place at an international scale across a variety ofsectors (Measham et al. 2011; Dannevig et al. 2012; Brotoand Bulkeley 2013; Aylett 2015). While certain sectors,locales, or political frameworks may produce unique chal-lenges for planners, managers and decision-makers workingto address climate change, a core of common barriers seemsto exist, including lack of resources (Lemieux et al. 2015;Aylett 2015; Nordgren et al. 2016), lack of information(Aylett 2015; Kemp et al. 2015; Runhaar et al. 2012), lackof leadership (Flugman et al. 2011; Hamin et al. 2014), andcompeting priorities (Measham et al. 2011; Ellenwood et al.2012). Within each of these general barrier categories, morespecific factors emerge. A lack of funding is often cited asthe top resource-related barrier, while insufficient staff andlack of time also reduce the capacity to adapt to climatechange (West et al. 2009; Flugman et al. 2011; Bierbaumet al. 2013). Information-related barriers include lack ofinformation at scales relevant to management (Jantarasamiet al. 2010; Archie et al. 2012; Kemp et al. 2015), difficultyunderstanding climate science (Nordgren et al. 2016), andthe challenge of transforming knowledge into action(Measham et al. 2011; Aylett 2015). Lack of leadershipwithin organizations and agencies charged with adapting toclimate change is a frequently cited barrier, while a lack ofpolitical will among government officials has also beennoted (Hamin et al. 2014; Aylett 2015). The barrier ofcompeting priorities may be a reflection of resource deficits,but may also indicate conflicting values, within an organi-zation or at the community or governmental level (Aylett2015; Shi et al. 2015).

Despite the significant range and depth of factorsimpeding efforts to address climate change, research showsthat planning and implementation of adaptation actions aretaking place in many countries around the world (Aylett2015). Where such progress is being made, availablefunding (Lemieux et al. 2015; Shi et al. 2015) and politicaland organizational leadership (Burch 2010; Measham et al.2011; Nordgren et al. 2016) are commonly cited as keydrivers, highlighting the fact that certain factors can eitherenable or impede adaptation. Other frequently cited factorsenabling climate change adaptation include awareness ofpresent or future climate change impacts (Tompkins et al.2010; Shi et al. 2015) and collaboration and sharing of

information between organizations and agencies (Juholaand Westerhoff 2011; Lemieux et al. 2015; Nordgren et al.2016).

The incorporation of adaptation into everyday action anddecision-making within the natural resource managementand conservation sector, specifically, has also been slow toemerge, despite the fact that many natural resource man-agement agencies have high-level mandates to include cli-mate change in policies and planning (Ellenwood et al.2012; Kemp et al. 2015). Natural resource managers facemany of the common barriers and opportunities discussedabove, with lack of financial and human resources citedalmost universally, especially by managers in state andfederal agencies (Jantarasami et al. 2010; Archie et al. 2012;Kemp et al. 2015). Despite these commonalities, there aresome specific factors affecting adaptation in the naturalresource management and conservation sector. Upper-levelorganizational directives may be unclear, leaving managersuncertain about what to prioritize or how to translate climatescience into management initiatives (Archie et al. 2012).Ecosystems and species of concern for natural resourcemanagers often span a mosaic of land ownership jurisdic-tions, adding complexity to the process of planning andimplementing adaptation actions (Jantarasami et al. 2010;Lemieux et al. 2015). As public land is often managed formultiple uses, reconciling competing and potentiallyincompatible land uses make implementing climate adap-tion actions challenging (Ellenwood et al. 2012). Addi-tionally, as federal, state and provincial land managementdecisions must include public consultation, natural resourcemanagers cite insufficient stakeholder support or publicopposition as hurdles to implementation (Jantarasami et al.2010; Archie et al. 2012). Managers have also noted that theextensive scope of responsibility and organizational size—of federal agencies in particular—can slow the integrationof climate change science into management policies (Archieet al. 2012).

Although a small number of studies do focus on thepolicies, processes, and organizations/agencies responsiblefor natural resource management and climate changeadaptation in rural and wild landscapes (e.g., Jantarasamiet al. 2010; Archie et al. 2012; Ellenwood et al. 2012; Kempet al. 2015; Lemieux et al. 2015), research on adaptationbarriers and opportunities has largely focused on urbanplanning (e.g., Preston et al. 2010; Flugman et al. 2011;Uittenbroek et al. 2012), and coastal zone and water man-agement (Biesbroek et al. 2013). Additionally, research hasmost often involved single or neighboring regions andmunicipalities (Burch 2010; Dannevig et al. 2012; Brotoand Bulkeley 2013), leaving a need for comparative studiesacross contexts, particularly in addressing biodiversityconservation (Biesbroek et al. 2013; Eisenack et al. 2014).Recent studies also identify the need to move beyond basic

Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089 1077

enumeration of barriers into a more nuanced understandingof the factors both within a particular context and acrosscontexts to understand how they might be addressed(Biesbroek et al. 2013). Research suggests that the “coun-terpoint” to a particular barrier may not be the most effectiveway to overcome it (Biesbroek et al. 2013: 1125); forexample, if a lack of human resources is cited as a barrier,simply hiring more staff may not help if the leadership andpolitical will are not present to ensure that new staff areincorporating climate change into their work. Therefore,investigation of opportunities in addition to barriers addsimportant insight into what is actually driving climatechange adaptation actions and how specific barriers mightbe overcome (Eisenack et al. 2014). Research, particularlyqualitative inquiry, focusing on perceptions and experiencesof key individuals in resource management working onadaptation is recognized as a valuable tool for under-standing what is limiting adaptation and how efforts canbest be advanced (Tompkins et al. 2010). In summary, thereis a recognized need for in-depth, cross-site investigation offactors inhibiting and promoting climate change adaptation,particularly in the field of natural resource management.

To address these research gaps and provide a morenuanced look at barriers and opportunities affecting plan-ning and implementation of adaptation actions to conservebiodiversity, we conducted a comparative study across fourNorth American landscapes: northern Ontario (Canada), theAdirondack State Park (US), Arctic Alaska (US), and theTransboundary Rocky Mountains (US and Canada). Theselandscapes include two countries (Canada, USA), threestates (New York, Alaska, Montana) and one province(Ontario), and each face different challenges due to variedclimate change trajectories, political contexts, and socialand ecological systems (Fig. 1, Table 1). By ranking bar-riers and opportunities according to perceived importance,and quantifying similarities and differences across the fourlandscapes, we sought to identify general as well ascontextually-dependent factors affecting adaptation in theseregions. In researching opportunities as well as barriers, weaimed to go beyond an investigation of what is not workingto offer insight on factors enabling practitioners to over-come obstacles and implement adaptation action in eachregion. Building on a history of significant involvement inconservation in each of the four landscapes, study results

Fig. 1 Four North Americanconservation landscapes selectedfor this study

1078 Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089

Tab

le1

Com

parisonof

keyfactorsacross

four

priority

conservatio

nland

scapes

Arctic

Alaska

Yellowston

eRockies

Adirond

ackPark

Ontario’sNorthernBoreal

Rateandim

mediacy

ofclim

atechange

Average

annu

altemperature

has

increased~0

.5°C

/decadesince19

49.Average

annu

altemperature

has

increased~0

.3°C

/decadesince19

51.

Average

annu

altemperature

hasincreased

~0.2°C

/decadesince19

51.

Average

annu

altemperature

hasincreased

asmuchas

1.3°C

since19

49.

Futuretemperature

increases

projectedto

bethemostrapidandof

thegreatestmagnitude.

Futuretemperature

increasesprojected

tobe

high

erthan

glob

alaverages.

Futuretemperature

increasesprojectedto

behigh

erthan

glob

alaverages.

Warmingandprecipitatio

nareexpected

toincrease

inthefuture,particularly

inwinter.

Likelyavailabilityof

future

refugiaforcurrent

speciesandecosystems

Arctic

system

scann

otmov

efurther

poleward,

orup

inelevation,

ifcond

ition

sin

currentlocatio

nsbecomeun

suitable.

Yellowston

eRockies

areamix

ofspeciesandecosystemsat

their

southern

andno

rthern

edges,andthe

center

oftheirdistribu

tions.

The

Adirond

ackParkliesat

thetransitio

nbetweensouthern

cool-tem

perate

forests,

andno

rthern

boreal

forestsso

shifts

betweentheseecosystem

typesarelik

ely.

Ifcond

ition

sin

currentlocatio

nsbecome

unsuitable,sub-arcticsystem

smay

beable

tomov

efurtherpo

leward,

across

the

James

andHud

sonBay,bu

tno

tup

inelevationdu

eto

alack

oftopo

graphic

diversity

.

Futurerefugiawith

intheArctic

contingent

onidentifying

relativ

ely

fine-scale

clim

aterefugia(e.g.,fog-

boun

dcoastalareas).

Top

ograph

icdiversity

may

allow

for

high

erelevationrefugia;

speciesand

ecosystemsmay

find

refuge

athigh

erlatitud

es.

Refug

iamay

existforbo

real

species

furtherno

rth,

butitisun

clearwhether

all

specieswill

beable

tomov

ethere.

Relativedegree

ofinternal

ecolog

ical

integrity

andisolation

Highlyintact

with

little

developm

ent

todate.

Relativelyintact

both

internally,and

with

otherlargecore

protectedareas.

Relativelyintact

with

intheAdirond

ack

Park,

butrelativ

elyisolated

from

other

largecore

protectedareas.

Highlyintact

with

little

developm

entto

date.

Biggestcurrentthreat

toecolog

ical

integrity

isminingandenergy

developm

ent.

Biggestcurrentthreatsto

ecolog

ical

integrity

arechanging

land

useand

human

popu

latio

ngrow

th.

Biggestcurrentthreat

toecolog

ical

integrity

isprivateland

developm

ent.

Biggestcurrentthreat

toecolog

ical

integrity

ismining,

energy

developm

ent

andun

certaintyin

government-to-

governmentnego

tiatio

ns.

Politicalcontext

Mix

ofprim

arily

federalland

s,nativ

eland

s(scatteredlow

density

villages),

andstateland

s.

Mosaicof

largelyfederalandprivate

land

s,un

derfederal,state,andcoun

tyjurisdictio

ns.

Mostly

publically-ownedstateandprivate

land

,with

land

useregu

latedby

the

Adirond

ackParkAgency,

incoordinatio

nwith

otheragencies.

Treaty9(190

5/06

,19

29/30),Crownland

(ProvincialandFederal,includ

es34

First

Nationreservations).

Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089 1079

and analyses inform work that the Wildlife ConservationSociety (WCS), a global conservation non-governmentalorganization (NGO), engages in with partner organizationsto develop practical strategies for advancing climate changeadaptation efforts. This study also supports the developmentof cross-cutting “lessons learned” about climate changebarriers and opportunities across regions. The impacts ofclimate change create increasingly challenging social,political, and ecological conditions across the globe whichmake determining how to move from planning to actionever more important.

Methods

To solicit perceptions of barriers and opportunities to cli-mate adaptation in these landscapes, we conducted anonline survey of decision-makers, scientists, and managersengaged in natural resource management in North Americawho were invited to participate in a series of climate changeworkshops hosted by WCS. Surveys were followed by aseries of semi-structured interviews with a subset of surveyrespondents.

Study Sites

The study focused on four landscapes where WCS main-tains a long history of investment in conservation action andon-the-ground scientific research in the US and Canada:northern Ontario (Canada), the Adirondack State Park (US),Arctic Alaska (US), and the Transboundary Rocky Moun-tains (US and Canada). (Fig. 1).

Workshops

WCS hosted climate change workshops in each landscapebetween 2010 and 2012. Workshop participants includedemployees of federal, state, and provincial agencies orministries, NGO employees, Indigenous Peoples (specifi-cally, First Nations from Treaty No. 9 in northern Ontario,Canada), and academics. WCS invited individuals to attendthese climate change workshops based on their expertize,experience and influence in their respective regions. Someworkshop participants were directly engaged in naturalresource management and decision-making, whereas othersconducted research, education and policy work supportingnatural resource management.

Survey

We sent a web-based questionnaire to all individuals invitedto participate in the workshops (n= 165), within two yearsafter the workshops. We chose a web-based survey as it

allowed for branching and skipping questions and made itpossible to tailor a single survey to four regions (Sextonet al. 2011). We contacted respondents at their work e-mailaddresses and used a standard four-wave design (Dillman2000). The questionnaire was divided into two main parts:(1) a workshop evaluation for those participants whoattended, including a segment on adaptation action takensince each meeting; and (2) a section for all respondents torank the perceived level of importance of various barriersand opportunities affecting adaptation in practice, with aspecific section on collaboration. In this paper, we presentthe results from the second part of the survey.

We developed the questionnaire (Appendix 1) based on areview of evaluations after each workshop, a review of theclimate change literature, and discussions with naturalresource professionals in order to create a list of potentialbarriers and opportunities to adaptation practice. To elicitresponses uninfluenced by the content of forced-choicequestions, sections on barriers and opportunities began withopen-ended questions on climate change. We provided listsof barriers and opportunities and asked participants to ratethe current importance of each in affecting progress madeby them, or their organizations, in addressing climatechange.

Interviews

We conducted ten semi-structured interviews after the sur-vey was administered to further investigate collaboration,progress within the phases of climate change adaptation,and highly ranked barriers and opportunities (Appendix 2).From a pool of survey respondents who indicated a will-ingness to participate in interviews, we selected participantsto achieve a balance among regions, employment groups,and gender. Interviews were conducted by phone, ranged inlength from 60 to 90 min, and were voice recorded withconsent.

Data Analyses

We analyzed survey data using SPSS 20 (IBM Corp. 2011).For barriers and opportunities, rated by participants on afour-point importance scale (“not at all important”, “some-what important”, “important”, and “very important”), wecalculated scores using only “very important” responses. Weranked barriers and opportunities for combined regions aswell as for individual regions. Where “very important”scores were equal between barriers or opportunities, weused “important” scores to break the tie. For results anddiscussion, we refer to rankings instead of raw scores toshow how barrier scores compared to one another withineach landscape. We coded open-ended questions to identifypatterns and themes, and ranked the themes according to

1080 Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089

their frequency in responses. We transcribed and codedinterviews according to dominant themes identified in thesurvey. We present combined results for the four land-scapes, unless stated otherwise, and results based on“rankings” refer to quantitative survey findings.

Our analyses are based on a census of individuals invitedto WCS workshops. Of the survey respondents, 64% wereworkshop participants; 36% were invited to the workshops,but did not participate. The individuals invited to participatein the workshops were identified by WCS as already havingan interest in climate change adaptation and/or as influentialactors in each landscape. Due to the non-random samplingused to select the study regions as well as the survey andinterview participants, results from this study may not begeneralizable across all agencies, organizations or regions;yet, experiences and lessons learned can inform climatechange priorities in these landscapes and should haveapplication for other organizations addressing climatechange in similar types of landscapes.

Results

Baseline Information

Of the 165 workshop invitees asked to complete the survey,97 (59%) completed the entire survey, a typical result for asetting in which participants are vested (Dillman 2000).Thirty-five percent of completed surveys were from theAdirondacks, 29% from Ontario’s Northern Boreal, 22%from the Transboundary Rockies, and 14% from ArcticAlaska. Across all landscapes, 87% of participants respon-ded that climate change is part of their organization’s mis-sion. Combined regional responses showed that 43% oforganizations place significant emphasis on planning, 40%place significant emphasis on research, and 14% placesignificant emphasis on implementation. Emphasis on theseelements varied across regions (Fig. 2).

Barriers to Climate Change Adaptation

Several broad themes on barriers emerged including: lack ofpolitical support for climate change work, resource deficits,the challenge of identifying management options to addressthe impacts of climate change, and pressures from andcomplexities related to land uses and their interactions withclimate change (Fig. 3). We include qualitative statementsfrom study participants. Open-ended survey responses onbarriers largely coincided with those found in forced-choicesurvey results, and interview responses about barriers sup-ported survey findings and provided a nuanced under-standing of top barriers from the survey results.

Lack of political support and leadership

Three of the most highly ranked barriers in the surveyrelated to lack of political support (Fig. 3). “The challengeof gaining political support for long-term action” wasranked either first or second within each landscape, makingit the only barrier to consistently rank that high across allfour landscapes. Several respondents also highlighted theinfluence of shifting political priorities on their ability tocarry out long-term climate change work:

The priorities shift with changing Administrations andthat makes the maintenance of a good solid long termmonitoring program, for instance, challenging.

~Federal agency employee, Arctic Alaska

Insufficient political support for climate change was thesecond most common barrier in the open-ended responses,mentioned by 32% of the respondents (n= 85). Interviewparticipants echoed the relative importance of a lack ofpolitical leadership and political will:

And not sure it’s fair to say that it’s funding or lack ofdata that is a… hindrance… certainly those thingsare in some cases, but really this has been due to thelack of political will.

~State agency employee, Adirondacks

With the exception of “gaining political support for long-term action,” Arctic Alaska ranked political barriers lowerthan did the other regions (Fig. 3). Political barriers weremore prevalent in the Adirondacks than any other region(Fig. 3).

Resource deficits

Quantitative results identified several highly ranked barriersrelated to lack of resources, including deficits in funding,expertise, and appropriate technology (Fig. 3). Lack offinancial resources was also mentioned most frequently

Fig. 2 Regional representation of emphasis placed on climate changeresearch, planning and implementation

Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089 1081

(48%, n= 85) in the open-ended survey section and high-lighted by interview participants:

There are…approaches to make forests more robustto climate change, but all of them have relatively highcosts—none of them actually makes money for theagency. We have no extra capital to spend on newprojects, regardless of their merits.

~Federal agency employee, TransboundaryRockies

Lack of staff and related time constraints were the fourthmost mentioned barrier in open-ended responses (16%, n=85) and figured prominently in interviews, particularly withstate, provincial and federal agency employees, who iden-tified staff cuts and lack of human capacity as significantbarriers:

Our staff have a million things to do and, and [I have]100 less staff than I had 5 years ago to do it.

~State agency employee, Adirondacks

While funding deficits were considered important in allregions, lack of financial resources was ranked higher in theTransboundary Rockies than in any other region. Ontario’sNorthern Boreal respondents considered lack of financial

resources as relatively less important than other barriers(Fig. 3). Other types of resource deficits emerged asimportant in individual regions, such as “Need for greaterexpertise,” which ranked fourth in Arctic Alaska and“Inadequate technological resources,” which ranked sixth inOntario’s Northern Boreal (Fig. 3).

The challenge of identifying management actions to addressthe impacts of climate change

Defining appropriate adaptation management actions wasidentified as a barrier across all regions, with “Determiningfeasible climate change initiatives within the broader con-text” and “Difficulty of translating projections into actions”ranking seventh and eighth, respectively (Fig. 3). Open-ended responses reinforced this challenge:

There is still… a big disconnect between, “okay, nowwe notice,” [and] “what do we do about it?”

~Federal agency employee, TransboundaryRockies

The difficulty of translating projections ranked in the topten in the Adirondacks and the Transboundary Rockies, anddetermining feasible initiatives appeared in the top ten

Fig. 3 Regional ranking of barriers. Top ten barriers in each region shaded in dark blue

1082 Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089

barriers of all regions, except Ontario’s Northern Boreal(Fig. 3).

Competing land uses

Two highly ranked barriers in combined regions arise fromthe multiple uses and anthropogenic factors affecting ruraland wild landscapes: “Pressure from other land uses”(ranked fourth overall and first in Alaska) and “Under-standing the combined effects of climate change and otherfactors” (ranked sixth) (Fig. 3). Interview participants alsoemphasized these factors:

There’s a very much acknowledged focus on climatechange that’s affecting Alaskan resources. Where itbreaks down…is…in the consideration of the addi-tional or cumulative factors that [with] climatechange may exacerbate sensitivity of wild lands.

~Federal agency employee, Arctic Alaska

Opportunities for Climate Change Adaptation

Overall, themes that emerged from surveys and interviewsabout opportunities related to adaptation included resource

availability, political support and public concern, colla-boration, improved ability to select management actions toaddress climate change, recognition of climate change as akey conservation issue, and leadership (Fig. 4). Comparedto our results on barriers, we found quantitative and quali-tative results for opportunities differed more.

Resource availability

Although lack of financial resources was considered one ofthe most influential barriers (Fig. 3), “Government-spon-sored funding or incentives” was a top-ranked opportunity(Fig. 4). The perceived availability of funding for climatechange adaptation was the second most common open-ended response on opportunities (17%, n= 86):

Overall, funding is tight and the economic situationbeing what it is in the United States…everybody’sfeeling the pinch…But that said, if you have a distinctclimate change focus, I think it increases your chanceof getting funding…we’re always…incorporating thatclimate change aspect into our proposals …to secureadequate funding.

~Federal agency employee, Arctic Alaska

Fig. 4 Regional ranking of opportunities. Top five opportunities in each region shaded in dark blue

Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089 1083

Availability of funding was ranked first or second in allregions, except Ontario’s Northern Boreal, where it rankedfourth. Private foundation funding ranked within the topfive opportunities for Arctic Alaska only.

Political support and public concern

Political context, like financial resources, emerged as a bar-rier and an opportunity in our study. Funding from govern-ment sources was quantitatively the highest rankedopportunity (Fig. 4), while “Policy support and/or mandates”ranked fourth (Fig. 4). Participants mentioned political sup-port as an opportunity and noted specific political mandatesdriving climate change work in their agency/organization:

The most significant factors that are actually drivinginstitutional change are pressure from Washington.

~Federal agency employee, TransboundaryRockies

Public concern about climate change was the third mostcommon theme in open-ended responses regarding topopportunities across regions:

Increased recognition by stakeholders e.g. the public,First Nation communities that climate change is a realthreat to current lifestyles.

~Academic, Ontario’s Northern Boreal

Political support as a perceived opportunity of climatechange adaptation ranked lowest in Ontario’s NorthernBoreal and highest in Arctic Alaska (Fig. 4). “Growingpublic support” ranked fifth in Ontario’s Northern Boreal.While it was not ranked in the top five opportunities of otherlandscapes, it appeared frequently across landscapes inopen-ended responses.

Collaboration

“Collaboration between organizations/agencies” was thesecond highest ranked opportunity (Fig. 4). All interviewparticipants stressed collaboration as essential to addressingthe impacts of climate change. Some emphasized that col-laboration is expected in all types of conservation work,including climate change adaptation, and others highlightedhow collaboration brings together expertise and resources:

…as a small group of scientists, it is also important totry and maximize our impact by bringing peopletogether with expertise, decision-making authorities,and different kinds of knowledge…

~NGO employee, Ontario’s Northern Boreal

Collaboration received the highest score in Ontario’sNorthern Boreal, in contrast to the Transboundary Rockies,where it received the lowest score (Fig. 4).

Improved ability to select management actions to addressclimate change

“Improved ability to translate climate change projectionsinto management action” was the third ranked opportunityacross landscapes (Fig. 4). Several interview participantsreported it as an area of growth for their organization/agency:

[Our ability to use climate change data to makedecisions] has gotten 300 times better. I think we’regetting better and better at…looking at the differentmachinations of how to analyze [climate change data]and how you can use it.

~Federal agency employee, TransboundaryRockies

“Translate projections into management actions” rankedfirst or second in all landscapes, except Arctic Alaska,where it did not appear in the top five opportunities (Fig. 4).

Climate change champions and recognition of climatechange as an important issue

“Policies within your agency/organization” and “Strongleadership” were ranked the fifth and sixth most importantopportunities (respectively) across all landscapes (Fig. 4).Individual and/or organizational recognition of climatechange as a critical issue was mentioned twice more oftenthan other opportunities in open-ended results (43%; n=85):

Within our territory, climate change affects thewaters, wildlife, birds, landscape.

~First Nations citizen, Ontario’s Northern Boreal

Participants also frequently mentioned leadership at anorganizational level as a driving influence on adaptationefforts:

There is an executive order that is out there that says“We’ll build it into everything that we do,” but nobodyasks about it. They’re not staffing us…they’re notsaying “get out there and do more” so I’m the onewho’s pushing us to build it into the very things thatwe do…Particularly when you’re doing significantparadigm shifts and rethinking how we do things…Getting people to think about where we’re goinginstead of where we’ve been…[leadership] is veryimportant.

~State agency employee, Adirondacks

Strong leadership ranked in the top five in the Trans-boundary Rockies and the Adirondacks (Fig. 4), and wasmentioned frequently in survey and interview responsesacross landscapes. Organizational policies encouraging

1084 Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089

climate change work ranked in the top five opportunities inthe Arctic Alaska and Transboundary Rockies landscapesonly (Fig. 4), but individual and organizational recognitionof climate change as a key issue figured prominently inopen-ended responses from all landscapes.

Discussion

Although 87% of participants in this study indicated thataddressing the impacts of climate change is part of theirorganization’s mission or mandate, only 14% reported sig-nificant emphasis on the implementation of climate changeadaptation. Our results provide insight into the most impor-tant barriers and opportunities to adaptation as perceived by avariety of managers, researchers, private landowners, Indi-genous Peoples, and decision-makers in four North Amer-ican regions and enable us to identify regional differencesand similarities to further refine recommendations andinfluence adaptation action in these and other landscapes.

Regional Similarities

Across the four landscapes, managers face common barriersto advancing adaptation, including lack of political support,resource deficits, competing pressures from land use chan-ges, and uncertainty in designing management actions toaddress the impacts of climate change. Resource deficits,particularly funding, are frequently cited as a primaryexplanation for why practitioners have not begun imple-mentation of adaptation actions (Moser and Ekstrom 2010;Archie et al. 2012; Kemp et al. 2015). While 79% of surveyparticipants in this study considered lack of financialresources an important barrier, other barriers emerged asmore influential in most landscapes, an indication thatparticipants perceive more diverse challenges to adaptation.In particular, participants in all the landscapes but ArcticAlaska identified lack of political will and support as a topimpediment to adaptation, particularly as it related to initialproblem recognition, priority setting and allocation ofresources. This finding is consistent with the internationalliterature for urban and rural settings, which shows that alack of high level government support can inhibit climatechange adaptation efforts at local scales (Measham et al.2011; Aylett 2015; Lemieux et al. 2015). In our study,survey respondents in every landscape identified the chal-lenge of sustaining political support for long-term action asone of the top two most influential barriers to adaptationaction. Similarly, participants highlighted the difficulty ofaddressing the scale and complexity of climate changewithin the constraints of one or two-year funding cycles.Taken together, our results support other findings thatsuggest the short-term nature of political agendas and

funding cycles has significant effects on an organization’scapacity to implement actions to address climate change(Crabbé and Robin 2006; Ford et al. 2011; Bierbaum et al.2013; Aylett 2015).

Barriers related to climate change data and information,such as uncertainty of climate change projections and poorinformation transfer between researchers and practitionersare well-documented (Jantarasami et al. 2010; Murthy et al.2010; Kemp et al. 2015); however, these particular barriersdid not emerge as influential in our study suggesting therehas been progress in making climate change informationmore readily available, in these landscapes at least. Moresignificant and pervasive across all landscapes were barriersrelated to understanding how climate change interacts withcomplex social, ecological and political dynamics, ongoingland uses and other changes affecting wild ecosystems, andidentifying appropriate management actions in response tothose interactions. This finding reflects the results fromAylett (2015), who found that barriers become more pro-nounced as one moves from general climate change infor-mation to understanding local impacts and formulatingdefinitive management plans. Our interview responsesstrongly suggest that even when managers accept climatechange as a critical threat to resources and ecosystems, thegeneral challenge of ‘not knowing what to do about it’ mayprevent them from taking meaningful action (Jantarasamiet al. 2010; Archie et al. 2012; Kemp et al. 2015), especiallyif they simultaneously face other limitations, e.g., fundingdeficits, staffing and time constraints, and a lack of politicalsupport. Such findings indicate that barriers cannot beunderstood as isolated factors, but as interconnected andcumulative influences on adaptation action (Eisenack et al.2014).

In addition to perceiving common barriers to climatechange adaptation, managers also identified a number ofcommon opportunities that have helped advance climatechange planning and action in their regions, including thoserelated to government funding and incentives, collaboration,and leadership. Collaboration emerged in our survey resultsas being necessary to address the impacts of climate change,a finding supported in the social learning and adaptationliterature (Collins and Ison 2009; Lauber et al. 2011; Juholaand Westerhoff 2011; Eisenack et al. 2014). Withoutexception, interview participants corroborated the criticalrole that collaboration plays, particularly in enabling workacross large landscapes, as well as in overcoming barriersrelated to resource deficiency by promoting shared resour-ces, information and expertize (Burch 2010). The impor-tance of collaboration is consistent across many naturalresource management contexts where governments oftenformally or informally rely on other entities to achievedesirable management goals (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000;da Fonseca 2003; Hatchwell 2014). Reflecting these results,

Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089 1085

a number of organizations have adopted a collaborative andparticipatory approach to climate adaptation, bringing scienceand management experts together to learn about climatechange science and use systematic planning processes to applythat science to management decisions (Cross et al. 2012;Littell et al. 2012; Cross et al. 2013; Janowiak et al. 2014).

Political and organizational leadership also emerged ascritical enablers of adaptation action, a finding consistentwith other studies (Ford et al. 2011; Bierbaum et al. 2013;Eisenack et al. 2014). Our study participants identifiedleadership as important in terms of setting agendas, direct-ing resources, leading collaborative efforts, initiating pro-jects, and sustaining momentum. These findings suggestthat leadership can help overcome barriers related to com-peting priorities, financial and human resource deficits, andlack of long-term support for adaptation. Interview resultsalso suggested that organizational leadership can help closethe gap between national policy and adaptation action at thelocal level, and may be a critical factor in shifting to newapproaches and new ways of looking at issues that includeclimate change (Moser and Ekstrom 2010; Measham et al.2011; Shi et al. 2015). The above results related to colla-boration and leadership support the idea that strengtheningthe ability to convert existing resources into action can be ascritical as finding additional resources (funding, time orinformation) (Burch 2010).

The finding that particular barriers and opportunities arecommon across most or all landscapes highlights that cer-tain factors can affect adaptation efforts regardless of thespecific context or location. We suggest this finding offerssupport for the importance of cross-site learning. Withcomparative studies, the findings may yield more general-izable recommendations or principles for adaptation. Forexample, investing in efforts that lessen financial con-straints, build and strengthen collaboration, and develop andsupport climate change advocates within organizations andagencies, in local communities, and at various politicallevels will likely help to promote adaptation action in alllandscapes. Yet addressing only these barriers may not besufficient to move from adaptation planning to imple-mentation, due to the landscape-specific nature of otherbarriers, as described below.

Regional Differences

Differences in how participants in our study reported bar-riers and opportunities across regions lend support for theneed to also plan and develop adaptation efforts tailoredaccording to specific contexts and the needs of particularlandscapes. For example, while participants in all of thelandscapes identified the importance of barriers related topolitical will and support, those barriers varied across

landscapes in their scale and nature. In the Adirondacks, alandscape composed entirely of state and private lands,highly ranked barriers illustrated the need for increasedpolitical will and support at local and regional scales. In thatlandscape, it will likely be necessary to invest in activitiesthat can increase political support for adaptation among themore than 100 towns and villages in the region, as well aswithin the regional Adirondack Park Agency. However, inlandscapes such as the Transboundary Rockies, dominatedby federal public lands and managed by federal agencies,investments in political will at the national level may berelatively more important. In Ontario’s Northern Boreal,where First Nations and government ministries are thedecision-makers, participants perceived a lack of nationalpolitical support as an influential barrier, a finding sup-ported in other literature addressing integration of climatechange adaptation in higher level environmental planning inCanada (Aylett 2015). Consequently, strengthening formalprovincial, federal and international policies and commit-ments will be important to integrating local approaches toadaptation and supporting internal networks for addressingclimate change within Ontario. Understanding how adap-tation can best be coordinated across jurisdictions andamong different levels of government, and connecting high-level directives to local strategies and efforts will beessential to building, managing, and sustaining effectiveclimate change adaptation in each region.

Disparities among regions in the relative importance ofchallenges associated with understanding climate changeimpacts and translating the science into action should leadto differential investments in funding, research and mon-itoring across the landscapes. For example, in Ontario’sNorthern Boreal, investment in technology to better monitorclimate and ecosystem changes appears important, whileadaptation in Alaska may benefit more from providingArctic-specific climate change information and strengthen-ing climate change expertize within organizations. In theTransboundary Rockies and Adirondacks, priorities includeless emphasis on research related to climate change impacts,and more effort on building practitioners’ comfort level withtranslating the science that does exist into practical man-agement strategies. The decision-making process forinvesting in climate change work might benefit from con-sidering more targeted approaches to climate impactsassessment that “first” identify the most critical informationneeds and the sensitivities of particular systems “before”analyzing climate change projections to evaluate risk(Brown and Wilby 2012). These additional steps could helpidentify and prioritize appropriate local sites for manage-ment actions and evaluate the tradeoffs between multiplemanagement options.

Differences in opportunities among landscapes can alsosuggest appropriate directions for funding and adaptation

1086 Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089

efforts. Highly ranked opportunities in a particular land-scape lend insight into what should likely receive continuedfocus. For example, in Ontario’s Northern Boreal, partici-pants rated increased access to data as an influentialopportunity whereas participants from Arctic Alaska sawprivate funding as being important to their adaptationefforts. Opportunities considered less influential by parti-cipants may indicate areas that could be targeted tostrengthen adaptation efforts in the future.

Barriers as Opportunities

Several themes that were top barriers across landscapeswere also top opportunities, including funding, politicalsupport and leadership, and using climate change data toidentify management actions. This finding is congruent withother studies showing that certain factors may serve aseither drivers or barriers (Engle 2012; Uittenbroek et al.2012; Lemieux et al. 2015). The presence of particularfactors as both barriers and opportunities may indicate thatindividuals or organizations in our study have been able totransform barriers into opportunities through creativity,learning, leadership, and/or use of varied approaches. In theTransboundary Rockies and Adirondacks, for example,organizations have been able to circumvent political andcommunity wariness of climate change by framing climatechange adaptation in terms of key regional resource issues.In the Rockies, framing climate change as a water man-agement issue has garnered support from natural resourcemanagement agencies and the ranching community whohave implemented actions to address declining snowmeltinputs to streams, such as the installation of low-cost andlow-tech structures constructed from willow branches andother local vegetation. These structures mimic beaveractivity and restore the natural water storage capacity ofriparian and wetland ecosystems. In the Adirondacks,framing of the issue in terms of protecting winter recreationopportunities, a major economic driver in the area, hasmotivated groups to work together on addressing climate-related issues. For instance, three New York state-owned skiresorts (two based in the Adirondacks) have pledged to bepowered by 100 percent renewable energy by 2030 andinvest millions of dollars into making the resorts year-rounddestinations with ample non-snow related activities. Otherlandscapes and organizations may be able to incorporatesimilar approaches in their own efforts, corroborating theimportance of sharing insights and expertize across regionsand between organizations.

Conclusion

Priorities for conservation action in the face of climatechange within a particular region must include an

understanding of how climate change interacts with themyriad other forces affecting conservation of wild land-scapes, and how adaptation can most effectively be carriedout within the social, political, and cultural contexts thatinfluence governance and adaptation decisions in thatregion. Fortunately, some frameworks have successfullyhelped practitioners integrate climate change planning intomanagement actions (e.g., Gleeson et al. 2011; Poiani et al.2011; Cross et al. 2013; Raymond et al. 2013; Janowiaket al. 2014). Some decision-support tools, such as scenarioplanning (e.g., Weeks et al. 2011; Rowland et al. 2014), areuseful for integrating climate change alongside other stres-sors and land uses, facilitating collaborative planning acrossdisciplines and organizations. Further use of these methodsand frameworks may help to address a number of the bar-riers and opportunities identified by participants in thisstudy. In fact, our results suggest that within some land-scapes increased investment in adaptation planning and thetranslation of existing science into management actions maybe more effective at addressing key barriers than wouldinvesting in more or ‘better’ science on climate impacts.

By connecting networks of individuals, collaborationshould enable identification, education and support of cli-mate change leaders and advocates. In working with tar-geted advocates, particularly in areas with relatively lesspolitical, public or agency/organizational support for cli-mate change, it may be useful to discuss approaches foreffectively bringing climate change considerations intodiscussions and planning sessions with co-workers andorganizational leadership. Broadening the reach of climatechange planning and educational efforts to include otherplanning professionals, such as city, municipal/county, andregional planners and local-elected and regionally-electedofficials, could also contribute to increasing political sup-port for adaptation. As collaboration is an important tool forunderstanding local and cultural contexts, as well as forbuilding capacity to mobilize resources and expertize toaddress complex natural resource challenges (Wondolleckand Yaffee 2000; Bodin and Crona 2009), the effect ofcollaboration on adaptation planning and implementationwill be important to assess throughout the process.

Additionally, sharing experiences across regions usingcommon terms for barriers and opportunities, as presentedin this paper and incorporated from other research, will bean important next step for improving adaptation planningand implementation. Several opportunities exist for sharingthese lessons, for example through climate adaptation net-works and hubs such as the Ontario Centre for ClimateImpacts and Adaptation Resources (http://www.climateontario.ca/) and the Northern Institute of Applied Climate Sci-ence (https://www.forestadaptation.org). Professional con-servation, management and adaptation conferences, such asthe National Adaptation Forum (https://www.nationaladapta

Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089 1087

tionforum.org) or the North American Wildlife and NaturalResources Conference (https://wildlifemanagement.institute/conference) offer additional opportunities forexchanging ideas on ways to overcome barriers and capi-talize on opportunities to advance adaptation progress.

Overall, our results suggest that there is value inexploring the specific factors that might enable or inhibitadaptation progress within and across diverse landscapes, sothat limited time and financial resources are strategicallyinvested to address potential barriers and capitalize onavailable opportunities.

Acknowledgements We thank JL and RS for their input throughoutthe research and writing process; ZS, JL, BI, and BL for feedback onthe survey questions; AC and KH for comments on earlier versions ofthe manuscript. We are grateful to all of the workshop participants whotook the time to respond to the survey and interview questions. TheKresge Foundation and The W. Garfield Weston Foundation providedfinancial support for this research. Neither foundation had any role instudy design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; inthe writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article forpublication.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no compet-ing interests.

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of theCreative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you giveappropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide alink to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes weremade.

References

Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ, Conde C, OBrien K, Pulhin J,Pulwarty R, Smit B, Takahashi K (2007) Assessment of adap-tation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry ML,Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Hanson CE, van der Linden PJ (eds)Climate change 2007 impacts, adaptation and vulnerability.Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment reportof the intergovernmental panel on climate change. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK, p 719–743

Adger NW, Arnell NW, Tompkins EL (2005) Successful adaptation toclimate change across scales. Glob Environ Change 15(2):77–86.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2004.12.005

Archie KM, Dilling L, Milford JB, Pampel FC (2012) Climate changeand Western public lands: a survey of U.S. federal land managerson the status of adaptation efforts. Ecol Soc 17(4):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05187-170420

Aylett A (2015) Institutionalizing the urban governance of climatechange adaptation: Results of an international survey. Urban Clim14:4–16

Bassett E, Shandas V (2010) Innovation and climate action planning. JAm Plan Assoc 76:435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2010.509703

Betsill M, Bulkeley H (2007) Looking back and thinking ahead: Adecade of cities and climate change research. Local Environ 12(5):447–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549830701659683

Bierbaum R, Smith J, Lee A, Blair M, Carter L, Chapin F, Fleming P,Ruffo S, Stults M, McNeeley S, Wasley E, Verduzco L (2013) Acomprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States:more than before, but less than needed. Mitig Adapt Strateg GlobChange 18:361–406. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9423-1

Biesbroek G, Klostermann J, Termeer CJ, Kabat P (2013) On thenature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Reg EnvironChange 13(5):1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0421-y

Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2009) The role of social networks in naturalresource governance: What relational patterns make a difference?Glob Environ Change 19(3):366–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002

Broto VC, Bulkeley H (2013) A survey of urban climate changeexperiments in 100 cities. Glob Enviton Chang 23(1):92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005

Brown C, Wilby RL (2012) An alternate approach to assessing climaterisks. Eos, Trans Amer Geophys Union 93(41):401–402

Burch S (2010) Transforming barriers into enablers of action on cli-mate change: Insights from three municipal case studies in BritishColumbia, Canada. Glob Environ Change 20:287–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.11.009

Collins K, Ison R (2009) Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: Sociallearning as a new policy paradigm for climate change adaptation.Environ Policy Gov 19:358–373. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.523

Crabbé P, Robin M (2006) Institutional adaptation of water resourceinfrastructures to climate change in Eastern Ontario. Clim Change78(1):103–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9087-5

Cross MS, Zavaleta ES, Bachelet D, Brooks ML, Enquist CA,Fleishman E et al. (2012) The adaptation for conservation targets(ACT) framework: A tool for incorporating climate change intonatural resource management. Environ Manage 50(3):341–351

Cross MS, McCarthy PD, Garfin G, Gori D, Enquist CAF (2013)Accelerating adaptation of natural resource management toaddress climate change. Conserv Biol 27:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01954.x

da Fonseca GAB (2003) Conservation science and NGOs. ConservBiol 17(2):345–347

Dannevig H, Rauken T, Hovelsrud G (2012) Implementing adaptationto climate change at the local level. Local Environ 17:597–611.https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.678317

Dillman DA (2000) Mail and internet surveys: the tailored designmethod, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, NY

Eisenack K, Moser SC, Hoffmann E, Klein RJ, Oberlack C, Pechan A,Rotter M, Termeer CJ (2014) Explaining and overcoming barriersto climate change adaptation. Nat Clim Change 4(10):867–872.https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2350

Ellenwood MS, Dilling L, Milford JB (2012) Managing United Statespublic lands in response to climate change: A view from theground up. Environ Manage 49:954–967. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-012-9829-2

Engle NL (2012) Adaptation bridges and barriers in water planningand management: Insight from recent extreme droughts in Ari-zona and Georgia. J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:1139–1150.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00676.x

Flugman E, Mozumder P, Randhir T (2011) Facilitating adaptation toglobal climate change: Perspectives from experts and decisionmakers serving the Florida Keys. Clim Change 112:1015–1035.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0256-9

Ford JD, Berrang-Ford L, Paterson J (2011) A systematic review ofobserved climate change adaptation in developed nations. ClimChange 106:327–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0045-5

1088 Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089

Gleeson J, Gray P, Douglas A, Lemieux CJ, Nielsen G (2011) Prac-titioner’s guide to climate change adaptation in Ontario’s eco-systems. Ontario Centre for Climate Impacts and AdaptationResources (OCCIAR, Sudbury

Hamin EM, Gurran N, Emlinger AM (2014) Barriers to municipalclimate adaptation: Examples from coastal Massachusetts’ smallercities and towns. J Am Plan Assoc 80(2):110–122

Hatchwell M (2014) Public-private partnerships as a managementoption for protected areas. Anim Conserv 17:3–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/acv.12098

IBM Corp (2011) IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 20.0. IBMCorp, Armonk, NY

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Climatechange 2007: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. In: ParryML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE(eds) Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013) Summaryfor policymakers. In: Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner G-K, Tignor M,Allen SK, Boschung J, Nauels A, Xia Y, Bex V & Midgley PM(eds) Climate Change 2013: The physical science basis. Con-tribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report ofthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge and New York, NY

Janowiak MK, Swanston CW, Nagel LM, Brandt LA, Butler PR,Handler SD, Shannon PD, Iverson LR, Matthews SN, Prasad A,Peters MP (2014) A practical approach for translating climatechange adaptation principles into forest management actions. JFor 112:424–433. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.13-094

Jantarasami LC, Lawler JJ, Thomas CW (2010) Institutional barriers toclimate change adaptation in U.S. national parks and forests. EcolSoc 15(4):33

Juhola S, Westerhoff L (2011) Challenges of adaptation to climatechange across multiple scales: a case study of network govern-ance in two European countries. Environ Sci Policy 14:239–247.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.12.006

Kemp KB, Blades JJ, Klos PZ, Hall TE, Force JE, Morgan P, TinkhamWT (2015) Managing for climate change on federal lands of thewestern United States: Perceived usefulness of climate science,effectiveness of adaptation strategies, and barriers to imple-mentation. Ecol Soc 20(2):375–388. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07522-200217

Lauber TB, Stedman RC, Decker DJ, Knuth BA (2011) Linkingknowledge to action in collaborative conservation. Conserv Biol25:1186–1194. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01742.x

Lemieux CJ, Thompson JL, Dawson J, Schuster RM (2013) Naturalresource manager perceptions of agency performance on climatechange. J Environ Manage 114:178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.09.014

Lemieux CJ, Thompson J, Slocombe DS, Schuster R (2015) Climatechange collaboration among natural resource management agen-cies: lessons learned from two US regions. J Environ PlanManage 58(4):654–677

Littell JS, Peterson DL, Millar CI, O’Halloran KA (2012) US nationalforests adapt to climate change through science–managementpartnerships. Clim Change 110(1–2):269–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0066-0

Measham TG, Preston BL, Smith TF, Brooke C, Gorddard R, With-ycombe G, Morrison C (2011) Adapting to climate changethrough local municipal planning: Barriers and challenges. MitigAdapt Strateg Glob Change 16:889–909. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-011-9301-2

Moser SC, Ekstrom JA (2010) A framework to diagnose barriersto climate change adaptation. Proc Natl Acad Sci107:22036–22031

Moser SC, Luers AL (2008) Managing climate risks in California: theneed to engage resource managers for successful adaptation tochange. Clim Change 87(s1):S309–S322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-007-9384-7

Murthy IK, Tiwari R, Ravindranath NH (2010) Climate change andforests in India: adaptation opportunities and challenges. MitigAdapt Strateg Glob Change 16(2):161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9261-y

National Research Council (2010) America’s climate choices: panel onadapting to the impacts of climate change. National AcademiesPress, Washington, DC, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12783

Nordgren J, Stults M, Meerow S (2016) Supporting local climatechange adaptation: Where we are and where we need to go.Environ Sci Policy 66, 344–352

Poiani KA, Goldman RL, Hobson J, Hoekstra JM, Nelson KS (2011)Redesigning biodiversity conservation projects for climate change:examples from the field. Biodivers Conserv 20(1):185–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-010-9954-2

Preston BL, Westaway RM, Yuen EJ (2010) Climate adaptationplanning in practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from threedeveloped nations. Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change 16(4):407–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-010-9270-x

Raymond CL, Peterson DL, Rochefort RM (2013) The North Cascadiaadaptation partnership: A science-management collaboration forresponding to climate change. Sustainability 5(1):136–159

Rowland EL, Cross MS, Hartmann H (2014) Considering multiplefutures: Scenario planning to address uncertainty in natural resourceconservation. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC

Runhaar H, Mees H, Wardekker A, Sluijs J, Driessen PPJ (2012)Adaptation to climate change-related risks in Dutch urban areas:Stimuli and barriers. Reg Environ Change 12:777–790. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0292-7

Sexton NR, Miller HM, Dietsch AM (2011) Appropriate uses andconsiderations for online surveying in human dimensionsresearch. Hum Dimens Wildl 16(3). https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2011.572142

Shi L, Chu E, Debats J (2015) Explaining progress in climate adap-tation planning across 156 US municipalities. J Am Plan Assoc81(3):191–202

Stein BA, Staudt A, Cross MS, Dubois NS, Enquist C, Griffis R,Hansen LJ, Hellmann JJ, Lawler JJ, Nelson EJ, Pairis A (2013)Preparing for and managing change: climate adaptation for bio-diversity and ecosystems. Front Ecol Environ 11:502–510.https://doi.org/10.1890/120277

Tompkins EL, Adger W, Boyd E, Nicholson-Cole S, Weatherhead, K,Arnell N (2010) Observed adaptation to climate change: UKevidence of transition to a well-adapting society. Glob EnvironChange 20(4):627–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.05.001

Uittenbroek CJ, Janssen-Janssen LB, Runhaar HAC (2012) Main-streaming climate adaptation into urban planning: overcomingbarriers, seizing opportunities and evaluating the results in twoDutch case studies. Reg Environ Change 13:399–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-012-0348-8

Weeks D, Malone P, Welling L (2011) Climate change scenarioplanning: A tool for managing parks into uncertain futures. ParkSci 28(1):26–33

West JM, Julius SH, Kareiva P, Enquist C, Lawler JJ, Petersen B,Johnson AE, Shaw MR (2009) U.S. natural resources and climatechange: concepts and approaches for management adaptation.Environ Manage 44:1001–1021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-009-9345-1

Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work: Les-sons from innovation in natural resource management. Island,Washington, DC, p 277

Environmental Management (2017) 60:1076–1089 1089