Wither Adaptation Action

Abstract

Longitudinal research commenced in 2012 and was repeated in 2022 in two regional areas in Victoria, Australia. The researchers sought to understand the facilitators and barriers to climate adaptation, given the perception of the authors that climate adaptation was making little progress, a view supported following an extensive literature review and international consultations. Adaptation was not part of the debate when climate change was first discussed by the UN General Assembly in 1988 and not identified by the IPCC until 2007. Recent Australian governments have shown a ‘hands-off’ and uniformed approach. Research workshops and consultations sought the views of residents, community organisations, local governments and representatives of state agencies, who were invited or requested attendance. The workshops were designed to understand the perspective of participants, using a Search Conference methodology with both guided questions and participant-led issues. The results suggest that, despite the presence of many adaptation plans, the fundamental arrangements needed for the scale of adaptation required were not in place in 2012, nor in 2022. There was a lack of federal and state government action beyond their own institutional structures, responsibility for action being passed down the line to local government, business and community. Yet this devolvement was commonly not accompanied by financial support, supportive and inclusive governance arrangements, expert advice, data, or clear guidance for action. Climate adaptation policy remains disconnected from the broader economy, with little progress on how to achieve this task, which is rapidly growing in size and complexity. There is not an accepted roadmap for effective adaptation, an approach that does not easily fit into the risk-averse approach of public sector management that has prevailed in Australia since the 1980s.

1. Introduction

Recent years have seen widespread extreme weather events in many countries. These events have included wildfires, storms and floods, with unusual intensity. In Canada, for example, 6500 wildfires burned 18.5 million hectares as of 9 November 2023, releasing a toxic bloom stretching 3000 km across North America [1,2,3]. Such climate impacts are predicted to increase in frequency and severity due to the levels of greenhouse gasses still being emitted, despite international commitments to emission reduction [4,5]. A failure to halt the use of fossil fuels may mean the resultant rise in emissions could lead to an estimated 26 tipping points, where these Earth systems establish a potentially uncontrollable feedback loop that gives rise to further change, such as the melting permafrost releasing stored carbon [6,7].

An associated risk could arise where, if adaptation is left too late, a similar tipping point may occur as the adaptation task becomes too large to prevent significant losses of people and the environment. Indeed, it is argued that such a point is already present in some parts of the world where the loss of arable land has led to local conflict, and livable conditions and stable societies are proving difficult to achieve [8]. Despite the many adaptation planning reports, researchers in Australia, China and the USA, found little adaptation taking place [9]. An extensive global network of 126 researchers arrived at a similar conclusion, finding that less than 5% of 1682 adaptation articles reviewed reported adaptation implementation [10]. This research found interest in water-related hazards but noted that transformational adaptations and evaluations were scarce. A report by The White House [11] noted that in the United States, most adaptation actions have been incremental and small in scale when “more transformative adaptation will be necessary” (p. 3).

This article draws on two research projects undertaken in two regional locations in Victoria, Australia, a decade apart: in 2012, in Bass Coast and South Gippsland in Southern Victoria; and in 2022 in the Shire of Strathbogie and the City of Greater Shepparton, Central Victoria [12,13]. Both projects sought the views of local officials and community members regarding what climate adaptation action had taken place, and the barriers and facilitators that impacted action. The article begins with a review of the literature on climate adaptation leading up to, and over, the decade of interest. Following an explanation of the research method, a comparison of research findings is given, followed by discussion and conclusions offering recommendations to expedite future adaptation if Australia is to respond to the repeated warnings of the global scientific community about the growing threats of the increasing numbers and severity of disasters [14].

As there are many interpretations of adaptation, the following definition is used in this paper:

“Adaptation: in human systems, the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects, in order to moderate harm or exploit beneficial opportunities. In natural systems, adaptation is the process of adjustment to the actual climate and its effects; human intervention may facilitate adjustment to the expected climate and its effects”.

[15] (p. 4)

2. Literature Review

2.1. Overview of Australian Adaptation

Adaptation was not part of the debate when climate change was first discussed by the UN General Assembly in 1988. Some adaptation topics were identified by the IPCC in 2007. A few early reports were published in Australia in relation to adaptation and water management [16,17]. A scattering of academic interest was present in the USA, and the problem of sea level rises was discussed in major Australian print media [18,19]. Adaptation as a local issue was part of these early discussions [20]. Marsden and Pickering [21] believe that local councils and communities are well placed to determine needs and vulnerabilities, as well as the most appropriate adaptation measures, and to ensure these are effectively integrated with local and regional programs and strategies.

The Australian federal government’s perspective on adaptation was outlined in 2010 in the document ‘Adapting to Climate Change in Australia’ [22]. The report stated that the government’s role was to maintain a strong and flexible economy and a market-based approach to adaptation, to ensure that price signals are able to drive efficient behavioural responses; in essence, not talking about adaptation as such. The state and territory governments were said to have a bigger role than the federal government in direct adaptation action, including providing public information, decisions on urban land release, land-use planning, codes and standards, and environmental and public health legislation where market mechanisms are ineffective. However, in the state of Victoria, the adaptation task was passed on to local government, which was said to be better placed to understand their climate risks and bear the costs [23,24]. The Australian government noted that adaptation takes time, “so the time to start acting is now” [24] (p. 6). These proved to be hollow words, as Australia was soon to lose a critical decade of climate change policy under the federal Liberal government, from 2013 to 2022.

Interest in adaptation grew in the academic community around 2011. Adaptation assessments and plans undertaken by the research community in Australia were produced via significant federal government funding given to the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility based at Griffith University. This resulted in over 150 major reports between 2008 and 2013. The consequences of the gap in government policy are revealed in recent damning findings in reports of inquiries, and in academic literature. These documents refer to issues such as a lack of preparedness, coordination and leadership by government agencies, accompanied by poor communication, confusion, and a failure to engage and coordinate with the local community and First Nation people [25,26]. These Australian findings are not surprising as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identified governance, institutions, and policy as high-level constraints on human adaptation to climate change in all areas of the world [15].

The incoming federal government (elected May 2022) re-opened the issue of responding to extreme climate events, and undertook a restructuring of federal departments, but offered few resources. The Department of Climate Change, Energy, Environment and Water and Energy (DCCEEW) was formed, with multiple responsibilities, including adaptation, climate science and emissions reduction, to be guided by the National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy 2021–2025 [27]. The Strategy’s objectives were the following:

• To drive investment and action through collaboration;
• To improve climate information and services;
• To assess progress and improve over time.

The objectives reflect a ‘hands-off’ approach, with departmental advice noting that the form of activities is not clear as yet (personal communication, DCCEEW 15 December 2022). However, in 2023 work commenced on a National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan, with a budget of AUD 28 million over two years. A discussion document was released April 2024, being predominantly a plan to make a plan, with national priorities for adaptation action expected to be completed by December 2024 [28] but still not released in early 2025.

The seven Australian states and territories have varying plans for adaptation. The Victorian government released Adaptation Action Plans in early 2022, broadly organised according to seven ‘essential systems’, such as the water cycle, and health and safety [29]. Most proposed action continues to shift responsibility for adaptation, under The Local Government Act 2020 (Vic), to the 75 local governments in Victoria. The authors of the Australia and New Zealand chapter in the recent IPCC 6th Assessment Report draw attention to the “slow speed at which governments and institutions are moving to deal with these changing risks, undermining the system-wide adaptation needed” [6] (p. 4).

While some sectors of business/manufacturing are commencing GHG mitigation, the information is fragmented and it is hard to distinguish between emission reduction and marketing language or greenwashing [30]. Certainly, with 100 new fossil fuel projects in various stages of approval and development in Australia [31] there can be little reassurance that major industries are responding to climate change. A World Economic Forum report argues there has been limited business engagement in adaptation [32]. The report argues that business should take action to build business resilience, capitalise on opportunities to grow business and shape collaborative outcomes, steps largely designed to secure the business itself by reducing losses and securing markets, rather than offering an argument for a wider social responsibility approach.

Importantly, while there does not appear to be a base of literature on the progress of community adaptation actions, small-scale local community environmental adaptations, particularly in relation to the environment, do appear to be happening. For example, The Mornington Peninsula Koala Conservation Group planted 9350 trees in the first six months of 2024. However, despite these efforts, about 10,380 habitat hectares of native vegetation are removed from Victorian private properties each year [33].

The literature on climate adaptation currently remains fragmented, without comprehensiveness across risk types, and still lacks a strong evidence base [10]. This presents as a difficulty for building knowledge into the current discourse and does little to assist practitioners. While Nalau [34] believes that Australia was a forerunner in climate adaptation globally, this has not resulted in desired adaptation action transpiring. However, writing this in 2024, a strong and growing academic interest in adaptation is now evident.

2.2. Facilitators and Barriers to Action on Adaptation

2.2.1. Early Perspectives

Turning specifically to the barriers to adaptation, the early literature on this topic is described as “limited and highly fragmented across the academic community”, presenting as a “major challenge” to the achievement of successful adaptation [35] (p. 1119). Early adaptation literature was interested in knowledge gaps on what local adaptation is occurring, and the conditions that assist or hinder adaptation [36,37].

Interest in barriers was reflected in other countries. Amundsen et al. [38] reviewed what adaptation was being undertaken in Norway by municipal councils, finding little climate adaptation action overall, but where there was adaptation, this was largely reactive to a climate event. They found that a key barrier to action was the relationship between local and national governments, due to a lack of focus on adaptation at the national level. The lack of local competence and funding also proved a barrier. The authors concluded that there is a need for a multilevel governance framework and the development of institutional capacity at the municipal level of government.

Paschen and Ison [39] reported a growing sense of frustration and powerlessness about the lack of adaptation action in the community of Port Fairy in Victoria, Australia, with the community feeling that they were denied agency and information by government practices, as well as having concerns about central planning, finance, and insurance. This resulted in “a sense of powerlessness, deferral of responsibility, denial, fatigue, (that) stifles local initiative” [39] (p. 41). This was despite the finding that the community appeared well informed and involved with general environmental and social concerns, with a good record of achievement in local campaigns. Water issues, such as sea-level rises and flooding, remained a priority topic, with some interest shown in the barriers preventing adaptation [13,35,38,39,40]. These studies rarely covered adaptation action or the assessment of adaptation effectiveness, a situation that remains at present.

Biesbroek et al. [35] examined peer-reviewed literature from 2000 to 2011 to explore existing knowledge on barriers, finding 81 relevant papers in English. While many different barriers were identified, three groupings were consistently found. These related to the individual actor, the policy or governance process of developing and implementing adaptations, and the enabling or constraining context. The authors argue that barriers may be viewed differently due to personal perceptions and the values of those attempting adaptation. This point was also noted by Eisenack et al. [36], who stated that different perceptions and values lead to difficulties in producing systematic insights as to how identified barriers can be overcome. In 2014, the IPCC listed a wide-ranging list of constraints on adaptation action being due to “…limited financial and human resources; limited integration or coordination of governance; uncertainties about projected impacts; different perceptions of risks; competing values; absence of key adaptation leaders and advocates; and limited tools to monitor adaptation effectiveness” [41] (p. 26). Further, there was said to be insufficient research, monitoring, observation and finance to maintain adaptation.

2.2.2. More Recent Literature on Barriers

With the recent growing interest in climate adaptation, the topic has become less concise, encompassing a range of labels, the most frequent being ‘resilience’, a term that includes a range of activities, including post-event recovery issues. Fünfgeld et al. [42], in an international exploration of barriers, found a significant knowledge gap around adaptation implementation in small and medium-sized municipalities. This was said to be due to limited municipal adaptive capacity in the area of resources, knowledge, and political will. They note that correcting this will be difficult due to short-term political cycles. However, top-down regulation in the form of mandatory consideration of climate change impacts and vulnerabilities, integration into land use planning, plus higher-level government support, would assist local community adaptation action [42]. A review of barriers in the UK again found a lack of resources to be a major barrier [43]. The authors also noted that climate information was not available in a form that assisted decision-making, with this barrier positioned at the national level, accompanied by inadequate governance arrangements.

Simonet and Leseur [44] explored the barriers within ten local authorities in France. They found barriers related to reduced national government funding, a poor overlap of skills between local and higher authorities, poor awareness of climate issues at the local level, low priority given to climate policies by the government, and an inadequate regulatory environment. The authors also refer to a lack of resources and cost–benefit analyses, and difficulty finding suitable financing tools. The authors believe that solutions could be found in a reorganisation of the public service to improve the implementation of climate policy, improving the local capacity to deliver, and employing a climate planner at all levels of governance.

Ison and Straw [45] refer to fundamental philosophical barriers. These relate to neo-classical philosophies in business and government that only pursue profit without any responsibility for the biosphere, and a centralised government system that is critically out of date as regards the current circumstances of the world and is also damaging people in terms of “wealth, power, wellbeing, products and fear of government” [45] (p. 7). This perspective is also noted by Guida and Howarth [46] who noted that organisations often lack critical capacity in terms of personnel with knowledge and skills, as well as support from leaders leading to a lack of both urgency and resources.

In summary, the literature reports an overwhelming number of barriers to climate adaptation, many of which have continued over a considerable stretch of time. Despite some recommendations on how to address the barriers, these issues have not gone beyond identification to resolution [43]. This appears to be a common problem internationally [9].

3. Material and Methods

This longitudinal research took place in two regional locations in the state of Victoria, as follows (see Figure 1):

• The 2012 workshops in the Bass Coast and South Gippsland region in southern Victoria, an area of 4155 square kilometres;
• The 2022 workshops in north central Victoria, known as the Goulburn Broken Catchment region, 24,317 square kilometres, covering five local government areas, most participants coming from Greater Shepparton and Strathbogie.

Workshops were held in 2012, with a total of 61 participants, and in 2022 with a total of 33 participants. Following the two major workshops, each lasting four hours, small follow-up consultations were held in person in both time periods to encourage more in-depth thinking, response clarification and discussion about the issues raised, as well as to further understand how widely views were held in the communities. In 2012, this included 12 local people in Inverloch and Sandy Point, and in 2022, two small discussion groups totalling 7 people in the town of Avenel and 11 in the major regional town of Shepparton. Information about the proposed workshops was disseminated widely through key interest groups, businesses and councils, and community leaders, attendance being open to all community members who wished to participate. In 2012, this included an alert in the local paper, while in 2022, notification was given through social media. While the 2012 workshop included people who identified themselves as climate sceptics and the 2022 workshop included Indigenous and youth representatives, participants in both time periods reflected similar representations (local interest groups, business, local government Councillors, sustainability managers, state government staff and interested citizens), enabling a viable comparison of perspectives over time.

In relation to local knowledge on adaptation, the 2012 South Gippsland participants had access to a detailed report on climate impacts on various sectors and population groups, undertaken by the CSIRO [47]. Council planning schemes had been amended to take account of future climate change risks, mapping coastal vulnerability, modifying land title permits, heatwave plans, and developing Municipal Emergency Management Plans. More adaptation information was available for the 2022 workshop. In 2016, Shepparton Council commissioned a 10-year adaptation plan that largely covered Council infrastructure and services, emergency preparedness information, and the protection of the natural environment [48]. The Strathbogie Shire Council [49] produced a similar report planning for 2022 to 2027.

There is a small amount of literature on adaptation action theory, which was followed in this project. Eisenach and Roggero [40] argue that certain conditions need to be present to allow adjustment to likely events in order to prevent or reduce potential harm. The authors note that there needs to be ‘an operator’ or someone who perceives the need to act, the means and institutional arrangement required to act, as well as the financial capacity. Economic incentives need to be aligned, and complex networks negotiated, dealing with issues such as value conflicts and flexibility in institutional arrangements.

The researchers sought to better understand adaptation issues and views held by the workshop participants, particularly in relation to how barriers and facilitators have impacted adaptation progress. The workshops’ format was based on the Search Conference design, a qualitative research method developed in Australia by Emery and Purser [50]. The method is used in a community setting to discuss and plan around a complex social issue that the community is facing. The design brings together people with diverse perspectives and knowledge about the chosen topic. The two authors of this article were workshop facilitators in 2012, joined by a third facilitator in 2022.

Both workshops addressed the same broad topic as to why adaptation is not occurring in this region. Sub-questions enquired about the priorities for adaptation actions, the forces working against adaptation action, and how adaptation could be facilitated and strengthened. The opportunity was given to raise any related issues relevant to adaptation [51]. Detailed notes of the discussions were taken by the researchers and an independent person in the workshops. In the main 2022 workshop, participants were asked to rate the importance of, and the source of, responsibility for aspects of adaptation.

4. Results

4.1. Overview

Table 1. Summary of major barriers identified in 2012 and 2022.

Themes	2012	2022
Little federal and state government leadership seen as a barrier	√	√
Poor listening to community seen as a problem	√	√
Increased local government and local decision-making support needed	√	√
Under-rating of community ability, empowerment needed	√	√
Improved integrated governance required	√	√
A local adaptation leadership group needed	√	√
Reluctance to face change by some people seen as a problem	√	√
Feeling of powerlessness, fear of failure and/or dissolution a problem	√	√
Funding restricted, not available, and/or poor distribution	√	√
Unclear who should be making adaptation decisions	√	√
Complexity and competing values present that create difficulties for action	√	√
Concerns about the natural environment	√	√
Small positives were achieved	√	√
Planning needs to be linked to adaptation	√	√
Want clarity on who is responsible for maintenance of adapted infrastructure	√
Want more clarity on legal and insurance concerns for community decision-making	√
Adaptation task was mainly confined to water and fire in discussions	√
Lack of urgency seen as a problem	√
Prevention and adaptation prior to extreme event important		√
Short-termism is a problem		√
Concern about equity issues and capacity to adapt (people and business)		√
Wide involvement of groups of people required for adaptation		√
Wider perspectives and avoidance of preconceived ideas seen as required		√

gives a summary of the major adaptation action barriers raised in the 2012 and 2022 workshops, with 14 issues being raised on both occasions. These barriers could be clustered into the need to improve the government’s approach to adaptation, governance arrangements, the undermining of the community’s actions, insufficient resources, the problem of complexity, and diverse values. Responsibility for resolving these issues was not clear in either workshop, with 2012 commonly associating the problems with decision-making, and 2022 associating them with implementation. It is interesting to note that the need for local leadership was raised in both 2012 and 2022. Four issues were raised only in 2012: seeking clarity on who is responsible, concentration on fire and water adaptation, and concern about the lack of urgency. Five issues were raised only in 2022, relating to the penetration, seriousness and complexity of prevention and adaptation.

A small number of positive facilitators were mentioned. In 2012 this was the availability of maps showing likely coastal changes over time, and in 2022, community groups were able to initiate and achieve small adaptation gains such as with tree planting and measuring underground water. The next sections give more information on the issues of collaborations, adaptation priorities, forces that facilitate and prevent adaptation, and ways of facilitating adaptation action.

4.2. Collaborations and Relationships

4.2.1. 2012

Participants in the 2012 Victorian workshops expressed the view that while there were local leaders and some specific organisations who were trying to push for climate adaptation, sometimes with minor accomplishments, they found they were largely on their own, with little leadership and support from state and federal governments and almost no resources. The state government’s failure to engage was a constant theme. They felt that state ‘experts’ came and went. The impression was that they do not really listen to the community’s viewpoint, with the outcome that there was often nowhere to go to enact decisions. Local government was seen as an important player in adaptation, but participants found two-way communication with Council difficult. It was felt that the community was significantly under-rated by many in leadership positions and many politicians. Terms like ‘battles’ were used to describe adaptation work. Volunteers were said to be feeling burnt out and not valued, and there was a call for a new governance arrangement to address adaptation.

4.2.2. 2022

In 2022, participants were asked to consider the importance of five climate-related activities, as follows: prevention, preparation, emergency response, rehabilitation, on-going human and animal needs, and who has responsibility for action (see

Table 2. Importance of, and source of responsibility for, aspects of adaptation, 2022 (N = 36).

Phase Responsible Bodies	Prevention	Preparation	Emergency Response	Rehabilitation	On-Going Human and Animal Needs	Result (Possible High of 30)
Federal Govt.	5	3	3	2	4	17:30 57%
State/Territory Govts.	6	4	3	3	4	20–30 67%
Municipal (Local Govt.)	6	4	3	3	5	21:30 70%
Qangos	5	1	2	1	3	12:30 40%
Business	5	2	1	1	2	11:30 37%
Civil society	4	3	2	2	3	14:30 47%
Total responses from 36 people	31:36 (86%)	17:36 (42%)	14:36 (39%)	12:36 (33%)	21:36 (58%)

Note: Scale is 1 to 6, with 6 being the highest.

). Prevention was judged to be the most important climate activity. Across all groups, the highest responsibilities were viewed as being held by local government (70% of participants), followed by the state government (67%) and federal government (57%). Business was seen as having the lowest responsibility (37%), with civil society also viewed as having comparatively low responsibility (47%).

Discussions in 2022 offered some more insights as to why most participants felt that local government had the greatest involvement across the range of interventions shown in Table 2. Local government was said to be the most accessible level of government for civil society. They noted that the federal and state governments were expected to provide coordination for adaptation as well as services, such as meteorological services, plans, strategies, and the facilitation of implementation. However, they believed that most of these services came through local government. Business was seen as having an enabling role for the community, such as being providers of equipment, a source of volunteers and leadership, as well as providing services such as insurance. Civil society was regarded as supplying volunteers for emergency responses, rehabilitation, and ongoing human needs.

4.3. Priorities for Adaptation Action

4.3.1. 2012

In 2012, some priorities expressed by the workshop participants were wider than those directly targeting climate adaptation, such as poor local transport options, and problems around the ageing of local farmers. Many participants expressed the connection between climate change and reductions in life quality. Concern was expressed about people living on their own and the economic base of the towns in the context of climate change. A central theme was that the local communities wanted few changes, and only if change is made with the control and oversight of the communities.

Adaptation priorities in 2012 were largely related to the types of past disasters experienced. Water-related impacts were a priority in both settlements. Concerns related to flooding from inland waterways, the future loss of fresh water, and sea level rises. The settlement of Sandy Point built a long bund in the 1930s to protect agricultural land from flooding, but this is now not sufficient for the current challenges. Participants were uncertain as to who was the responsible body for the management of the wall. Inverloch township participants were concerned about coastal inundation and the need to protect coastal ecosystems, as well as to prevent the flooding of the town from inland water. Large rocks had been dumped on beaches at erosion points. Sandy Point expressed considerable concerns about the threat of wildfire with only one egress road, and Inverloch saw the need to develop greenbelts around the town for heat reduction. Concern about the environment featured strongly, environmental groups being the most involved in adaptation actions.

4.3.2. 2022

In 2022, disaster prevention was judged to be the most important climate activity (Table 2). While state and local government were viewed as having the greatest responsibility for prevention, responsibility was widespread, with civil society having the least responsibility. Meeting on-going human and animal needs was judged to be next in importance, with most responsibility sitting with local government, followed by federal and state governments. Workshop participants chose a diverse set of adaptation process priorities, with governance, leadership, and resourcing being most important. Governance and leadership priorities included coordination, collaboration, empowering people to act, addressing existing governance structures not fit for purpose, connecting collaborators with knowledge to support action, and as with 2012, linking adaptation with social issues. Concern was expressed about equity issues in the community; the viability of existing businesses in a changing climate; the ability to deal with more frequent emergency events; provisions for the increased use of electric vehicles and solar PV; and the need for laws and regulations, particularly in relation to safe buildings and infrastructure. The 2022 participants, like those in 2012, were very concerned about the natural environment, noting that there was not one report on the many trees that were falling due to extreme weather events and how this would impact biodiversity.

4.4. Forces Working Against Adaptation Action

4.4.1. 2012

In 2012, barriers to adaptation related to uncertainty about government roles and a feeling that the higher levels of government were not playing their part, nor resourcing adaptation (see Table 1). The lack of resources, the inability to influence financial processes, and the time taken to apply for small grants raised considerable concerns. There was a view that resources were being squandered, with there being some poor funding models and poor resource distribution.

Participants expressed concern about a lack of leadership and were uncertain about who should be making the adaptation decisions. They mentioned a general lack of political will for adaptation, particularly in terms of capturing opportunities for transformational change and demonstrating leadership through actions. For example, they noted the ability of property developers to influence planning laws and build in locations that were not consistent with climate adaptation. The importance of the integration and coordination of decision-making comprising both a bottom up and top-down approach was noted, but not seen as being present. This was particularly notable in relation to water issues and biodiversity security, including protection for species to move around the landscape. Participants saw local government as having an important role in adaptation, but although recognising the complexity of the task, felt that community voices were not being heard and priority was given to other issues. On the other side, workshop representatives from local government said they struggled with the many demands that were made of them to provide the community with the impetus, guidance, and resources for adaptation.

The participants felt overwhelmed by information, yet the information they had was not always what was needed, such as a detailed local risk analysis. Other barriers were mentioned, including a lack of urgency to adapt in some sectors in the local community. This was said to be partly due to people wanting to avoid ‘doom and gloom’, preferring not to think of climate change, while also expressing a fear of the future. Indeed, a feeling of powerlessness and some feelings of despondency about a lack of action were also seen as barriers to action.

4.4.2. 2022

In 2022, forces working against adaptation priorities encompassed elements of governance, leadership, and resourcing, characterised by a lack of will, short-termism, agency and discipline silos, inertia, a culture of fearing failure, buck-passing between agencies and levels of government, a lack of climate-appropriate key performance indicators, and the politics of climate change (see Table 1). The 2022 workshop participants at times expressed feelings of diminished agency and disempowerment.

Relationships that were not working well were those between different levels of government, funding hierarchies, and roles in the implementation of climate adaptation plans. For example, participants felt there were poor climate change integration policies, and there was not a clear process on how regional action plans would be implemented locally. Organisational matters, such as bureaucratic cultures and a loss of key staff, were mentioned as adaptation barriers, which were thought to be associated with disillusion. The wide range of values held by the community raised the question as to who should hold adaptation decision-making responsibility, be it communities alone or if there should there be a community/government partnership.

4.5. Forces Facilitating Adaptation Action

4.5.1. 2012

In 2012, it was noted that local governments had taken adaptation initiatives. These included amending planning schemes to encompass climate change; preparing heatwave plans; and hosting adaptation workshops with key stakeholders, including emergency services agencies and people with specific needs. One of the councils had used risk maps to identify areas of existing settlements that may be subject to future coastal inundation and inland floods, and undertaken preparatory work on a whole-of-council climate change strategy, encompassing mitigation, adaptation, emergency management and community engagement. The local environment group was undertaking adaptation actions, particularly revegetation, but also responding to land-use planning in relation to housing. There was a belief that adaptation required purpose-built organisations from local through to the higher levels of government, with strong co-ordinating governance arrangements.

4.5.2. 2022

In 2022, participants believed that local collaboration seemed to be working reasonably well in the following ways: between councils; between the Catchment Management Authority (local natural resources management agency) and local government; and between the network of voluntary climate groups and the general community, the private sector and universities. There was a sense that local groups knew each other, and collaboration was supported by an ability to interact easily. Forces that were currently helping to create positive change around adaptation priorities were scientific evidence, lived experience in the community, and evidence collected through citizen science. The community was said to have had successes with the provision of groundwater monitoring bores, the health of paddock trees, and organising local food networks. It was noted that local (dry land) farmers are a useful resource, being used to dealing with multiple risks in terms of weather, market changes, and political decisions. A sense of urgency was expressed around adaptation, generated by repeated crises.

4.6. Steps That Could Be Taken to Strengthen Adaptation Action

4.6.1. 2012

Participants in 2012 suggested the following summary of tasks that were needed to achieve adaptation action:

• Adaptation should be strategic and planned, and include both the government and community;
• The community needs to be empowered (sanctioned/galvanised) to act;
• Local decision-making should include all parties;
• A specified local group should be established to organise and coordinate adaptation;
• Funding should be provided to local government for adaptation.

The workshops noted that there did not appear to be a strategic plan that included communities and all levels of government in adaptation decisions. They called for more support for community leaders and champions and for local government. The value of undertaking adaptation decisions at the local level was stressed. Both 2012 workshops suggested that a community group was needed to organise and guide adaptation. ‘The Voice of Inverloch’ was suggested as a coordinating community group for Inverloch, while Sandy Point suggested the formation of a specific policy unit in the Council to advise on climate change adaptation and to coordinate action. Such local groups would engender a sense of empowerment and assist in the elucidation of community values and desired outcomes.

Some participants, particularly those from the state government, wished the community would express their views more clearly, while some community members wished their views were acted upon and not blocked by decisions made elsewhere. The Sandy Point participants appeared confident in their ability to influence local decision-making; however, subsequent conversations with other community members showed that they felt that not all views were well represented by vocal community leaders. The allocation of resources, in terms of a dedicated budget for adaptation, in the community, local and state government was seen as very important. This was referred to repeatedly in all consultations and workshops. Clarity on the legal and insurance implications around adaptation decisions was needed. This particularly related to capital works, government land, and the public responsibility for individuals’ decisions.

4.6.2. 2022

In 2022, participants stressed the importance of undertaking adaptation prior to a disaster or emergency event. It was felt that disaster management needs to be turned around by 90%, so that all the work is not done on the back of disasters. It was felt that an adaptation strategy was needed for a region, constructed via the collaboration of a broad range of actors, networks, disruptors, and cross-sector relationships, including business, traditional owners, new and part-time landowners, climate organisations, universities, youth and grassroots agencies. There was a need to foster adaptation leaders in the community and local governments to assist the community to undertake adaptation initiatives. This should be established through widespread community consultation, leading to a clearly designed vision about what is needed, guided by experts. The Landcare model (Landcare is a community not-for-profit organisation that involves local groups of volunteers repairing the natural environment) was thought to be successful. Better links between the levels of government, coordinated legislation, improving public services culture, and changing the risk-avoidance responses of governments, are required. The Victorian Government should be communicating and supporting local areas, removing local barriers to adaptation, addressing climate in planning schemes and zoning, and monitoring the process and achievement of adaptation.

An improved awareness and acceptance of climate change impacts was recommended through tailored messaging, education, awareness raising, and citizen engagement, which includes First Nations knowledge and experiences. This should consider the values, norms, assumptions, and perspectives of social actors. Funds and resources need to be given to people experiencing disadvantage to assist their adaptation. More agile funding models that account for risk assessments are needed, while accepting that some case studies will fail, along with longer-term grant programs, and improved engagement with philanthropy.

5. Discussion

These workshops have sought to better understand why the many adaptation plans identified in the literature review have not led to adaptation taking place in local communities. While it would appear that there has been considerable local recognition of the need for adaptation in both these time periods, considerable barriers remained in 2022 that were present in 2012. Participants in the 2012 and 2022 workshops recognised that government involvement is critical to enable adaptation action, yet “despite Australia being one of the most climate change exposed countries in the world, our political response to addressing the issue has a long and chequered history of delay and denial” [52] (p. 2).

The conversations reveal that many of the barriers that have held up adaptation action remain unresolved, with the situation being reflected in a lack of implementation action, as seen in Section 2.1. The research community was initially slow to engage with adaptation science. Despite the research funding boost from the federal government, assigned to establish the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, this did not translate into government utilising this work for adaptation action. The research papers from approximately 2011 to 2018 reported on the problem of barriers to action but appeared to be confounded by the complexity of adaptation, especially the variance in value stances held in the community. A clearer reporting of barriers to adaptation can be found in the more recent academic literature. The concern revealed in both workshops is that this inaction is a threat to people, property, and nature. Furthermore, it is felt that the longer action is delayed, the more costly adaptation and remediation will become, as well as being increasingly less possible. As with many things, these costs will not be borne equally, with the greatest burden falling on those who are in the most vulnerable positions, an issue recognised a decade ago, with concern remaining a decade later [53,54].

As noted in the literature review, responsibility for adaptation is often passed onto others, with this possibly accounting for some of the inaction, and where there is some adaptation activity, we see the dominance of incremental action [24,45,54,55] (p. 95). Nalau et al. [56] (p.95) proposed that the “persistent vacillation among actors” could be due to a lack of clarity about who is responsible for adaptation. Many adaptation decisions are complex, requiring trade-offs and integration across levels of government and agency silos, as well as holistic systems thinking and the consideration of second, third and even fourth-tier impacts [13]. Trade-offs require value judgements about priorities that are often best made at a local level, as recognised in the 2012 and 2022 workshops and the literature [57]. However, there is a need to recognise boundaries, as citizens are not responsible for the oversight of many services, such as water and electricity, and infrastructure such as major roads, health and education.

The role of local government in Australia largely remains restricted to the administration of a relatively select number of services related to council property, roads, rates, and rubbish [58]. Adaptation reports by local governments and businesses reflect this narrow perspective, wherein plans for action tend to relate to their own infrastructure and services or have a marketing orientation and often a heavy greenwash component [31,52]. Delegating adaptation as a local task without multi-level governance arrangements with clear roles and responsibilities will not result in the implementation of adaptation [36,38]. Thus, many considerations point to the need to establish new forms of governance that integrate rather than atomise tasks and solutions, a position often noted in the academic literature [38,43].

Governance barriers should not be underestimated as people face resistance from traditional operating cultures and path-dependency grounded in institutional bureaucracy, functional operations, and authority. The participants were found to strongly believe in the need for adaptation, but in 2012, disillusionment and powerlessness were creeping in and were more prominent in 2022. While a Federal Government position paper on adaptation was published in 2010, reported government actions circled around adaptation, instead of directly addressing adaptation implementation, such as policy recommendations about safer housing locations. The flurry of government documents that followed again avoided government action in the three levels of government in Australia, an issue recognised in the limited academic literature and revealed in the early community adaptation workshop. A decade later, the new Australian government established an adaptation policy division, in association with GHG emission reduction approaches, in the public service. However, again, the stated adaptation goals circled around direct action on climate adaptation. With a federal election imminent, it does not appear an adaptation plan will be delivered within the term of the current government. The focus federally remains on their own ‘resilience’. Community concerns about the lack of government action around leadership, finance and structures remain prevalent in views expressed in the 2022 community workshop, such that community-based action and personal ‘resilience’ remains very difficult to achieve. It would appear, though, that knowledge about the adaptation task has grown, with the 2022 workshop seeking clarification on specific issues.

New Public Sector Management introduced management approaches from the private sector into the public sector in the late twentieth century. This included performance management around a narrow set of goals and short-term thinking, where future costs and benefits are discounted. An approach highlighted by Stern [58] as inappropriate for the uncertain and intertemporal work of addressing climate change. Indeed, this approach may go some way in explaining why the private sector has been slow to respond to the challenges of climate change [30] and is poorly represented in work on adaptation.

Many of these issues influenced the perceptions of participants in both 2012 and 2022. On the one hand participants expected higher levels of government leadership, and on the other, they were frustrated that these higher levels of government have failed to provide the support needed for local leadership. While participants expressed frustration, there was also at times a lack of clarity in communities about the specific nature of the challenges they faced, the implications for them and their communities, and potential actions to address those challenges. In 2022, some information and engagement work had been undertaken on climate change, but the experience showed that communities need a clearer understanding of the issues, strategies and responses. In one workshop, there was an obvious lack of understanding about the difference between mitigation and adaptation. This may well be a product of a lack of leadership and the practices observed earlier of governments pushing responsibilities around between levels of government, community and the private sector.

Thus, the overarching message is that many of the identified barriers to adaptation action still need to be resolved. This research supports the findings of other recent international studies, which reported incoherence in approaches to adaptation action associated with a failure to address financial, relational and value components in the process [30]. In particular, successful adaptation requires more bottom-up, collaborative forms of governance based in the wellbeing and values of local communities. This requires new forms of local adaptation governance supported by higher levels of government through devolved responsibility and authority, longer-term programmatic funding, and acceptance that not all actions will be successful. The need for climate change mitigation and adaptation to be integrated in all areas of government policy still does not appear to be recognised [59]. For example, the most recent report by the federal government on urban policy reads as if adaptation is detached from core business, and not a component of the key goals for urban places, such as ‘liveable’, ‘equitable’ and ‘productive’ [60].

A lack of financial resources was viewed as a major barrier in both 2012 and 2022. It was said that funding needed to be longer-term, facilitate collaborative planning, implementation and monitoring, and not be linked to a project defined outside the local environment. Resources were not offered within a dedicated budget for adaptation, an issue referred to repeatedly in both time periods. The community spent considerable time applying for small amounts of money to undertake their environmental work, where scope, goals and criteria varied from year to year, with little encouragement for innovation, and where outcomes are normally tied to hard measures such as trees planted, fencing erected, etc. This approach is poorly adapted to dealing with intergenerational problems about which there is limited knowledge, timelines that cannot be determined and impacts that are evolving.

Nalau and Verrall [61] show that there has been little academic interest in finance, this being the 50th popular adaptation topic between 2016 and 2020. The Australian Productivity Commission [62] (p. 2) notes that the “…current government natural disaster funding arrangements are not efficient, equitable or sustainable. They are prone to cost shifting, ad hoc responses and short-term political opportunism…Governments overinvest in post-disaster reconstruction and underinvest in mitigation… As such, natural disaster costs have become a growing, unfunded liability for governments”.

Yet, the Australian Treasury [63] has since argued that sustained action across adaptation and emissions reduction will be required to maintain productivity and fiscal sustainability as well as achieve better social and environmental outcomes. Effective investments in resilience will also reduce costs to the economy in the long run. The policy landscape for adaptation is especially complex. The literature frequently argues that adaptation is a mainly local issue, and the responsibility of local governments and communities. However, although the implementation of adaptation activities occurs locally, it is best understood as a process of decision-making that involves all levels of government, as well as informal and traditional governance structures.

Australia has only now started to grasp the beginnings of what successful and effective climate adaptation looks like, and the kinds of policies and strategies that are needed to support different sectors and communities. The road to learning has only just begun [35]. Business as usual is now not effective, and current operating systems are not going to be able to undertake the task of adaptation [45]. The participants expressed the need for the establishment of adequately funded people and bodies with the specific remit to instigate action on adaptation.

The task of adaptation has become more challenging due to delays, which lead to a more complex context. Adaptation has become more urgent due to the expanding climate risks, the need for recovery responses and the urgent need to undertake significant restructuring across all of society’s systems, including, to address GHG emissions. Society cannot wait another 10 years. However, while many adaptation decisions will be based on local conditions, it was seen as important, where necessary, to maintain national consistency in important areas of standards. Ayers and Forsyth [20] pointed out that risks around disasters are often linked more to non-climatic issues, such as social, economic and political factors, than to simply the size of the physical events. To this could be added environmental factors. This was grasped by the community back in 2012.

Conversations continue in the literature on the need for people to design their own future in relation to climate adaptation, seeking to understand what is important to local wellbeing and capturing local aspirations. There is a belief that the community is responsible for its own ‘resilience’, leaving a major gap in equity issues, and reliance on ‘small changes’ as well as little support, such as education and access to technology [64]. This project confirms this, but there are also deeper issues.

6. Conclusions

The literature review reveals that the federal and state governments in Australia view their role as offering a strong economy and a facilitating environment in which direct action on climate adaptation should be undertaken by local governments and by the general public. However, local government and the public were not given the structures or resources to enable action, such as finance, supportive governance, expert advice, information or guidance, and were instead given a series of plans.

Both workshops revealed local awareness of the need for adaptation, with the 2022 workshop also indicating that climate change knowledge had increased since 2012 and expressing specific concerns, such as those related to managing issues of equity. The workshops also revealed a willingness to undertake and/or participate in local adaptation actions in areas that encompassed their remit. However, government expectation that a major cross-sector response could be achieved at the community level without significant support, resources and guidance was identified, in both 2012 and 2022, as highly unrealistic.

The research participants suggested that the community is sophisticated, informed, and willing to try and resolve issues. However, they continue to be let down by the enabling environment, which needs to support their work. It was not there in 2012 and is still not there in 2022. The community needs greater confidence in processes and structures that clearly guide their work, giving agency, support and resources. This agency and resource support cannot be provided for major projects and major transitions, such as town planning changes, and major infrastructure changes, such as moving a whole settlement and re-positioning schools and hospitals. Actions on these by state government need to be integrated and coordinated with actions by the local community.

Government (state, commonwealth and local) will need to become comfortable with the uncertainty of trial-and-error policy development. From the authors’ international experience and that recorded in the literature, we see that there is no readily available detailed roadmap for effective adaptation governance [9]. Climate change does not, and will not, fit the risk-averse approach of public sector management that has prevailed in Australia since the 1980s. Resilience theory informs us that change in social–ecological systems, as a result of climate change, will not be linear or incremental. We are more likely to see step-changes as climate change progresses. This will require adaptive systems that can best be developed through pilot projects that test new approaches and methods. Some will succeed and some will fail. However, it is vital that the successful pilots be used to support adaptation actions, with localised modifications as needed.

Adaptation is more than emergency management and restoration, being a legitimate and important policy domain. This involves more than just saying prevention, preparation and ongoing support is important, and preparing adaptation plans. In a government sector focused on performance metrics from the past 30 years (and without commenting on whether these have been good or bad metrics), some form of benchmarking and measurement of adaptation progress will need to be developed. Our sense is that only when adaptation is part of the performance management matrix in government at all levels will bureaucracies and their component parts start to engage. This will require a purpose-built government structure that oversees adaptation and is represented at the three levels of government in Australia, with direct input from science and community at the local level.