Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Review

Challenges and opportunities for food systems in a changing climate: A

systematic review of climate policy integration
Daniela Medina Hidalgo a, b, *, Patrick D. Nunn a, Harriot Beazley a
a
University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia
b
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), St Lucia, Queensland, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The compounding effects of climate change on food systems have led researchers into developing approaches
Integration aimed at understanding the multiple trade-offs and synergies associated to dealing with climate change. As
Vertical countries continue to develop climate policies, in particular adaptation strategies, it is evident that these need to
Horizontal
be articulated more effectively across multiple policy domains and jurisdictions. Climate policy integration is
Planning
often sought to improve policy coherence and climate governance at different scales. The aim of this paper is to
Climate change
better understand to what degree climate policy integration is being achieved and what are the common barriers
and enablers. Additional emphasis is placed on identifying challenges and opportunities specifically relevant to
food systems and the attainment of food security goals. The study was conducted using the PRISMA Statement
and four-phase diagram for reporting results of systematic reviews. The dataset analysed included 209 peer-
review articles published in the period 2010− 2020. The review shows that although climate policy integra­
tion is increasingly discussed as a preferred strategy to deal more effectively with complex and multiple policy
domains, existing institutional and governance structures pose barriers to the effective integration of climate
goals across sectors, approaches and jurisdictions. There are specific opportunities and challenges for food
systems and food security. Among these opportunities are the conceptual compatibility which can be derived
from land-use strategies that generate synergies between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development
goals. In addition, the agricultural sector has often developed vertical structures for the delivery of support
services which can be utilized to facilitate vertical integration and implementation of strategies. In contrast, the
legislative legacy and often complicated processes of policy layering, drift and conversion in land-use sectors
challenge the achievement of policy coherence.

1. Introduction Nevertheless, to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals, including

As compound impacts of climate change become more evident across
sectors and geographies, new approaches aimed at providing more
comprehensive responses are emerging and evolving. One such
approach has been to view food systems as part of cohesive solutions in
achieving environmental and human health outcomes (Willett et al.,
2019). For new approaches to evolve beyond establishing conceptual
relationships between food production, the environment and human
health, policies and institutions need to be put in place to facilitate the
effective integration of multiple policy domains (Golcher and
Visseren-Hamakers, 2018). This is particularly challenging when these
different policy domains are traditionally managed within siloed and
specialized institutions and legislative frameworks (Oseland, 2019).
effectively responding to future challenges posed by climate change
across sectors and jurisdictions, there needs to be greater focus on the
role and architecture of policies and institutions (Glass and Newig,
2019).
The inclusion of environmental policy domains across sectors and
scales has been defined in the literature as environmental policy inte­
gration (EPI) (Lafferty and Hovden, 2003). EPI initially focused on
giving “principled priority” to environmental objectives in
policy-making processes by integrating environmental considerations
into other sectoral policies (Lafferty and Hovden, 2003). With the
prominence of concepts like sustainable development, the focus started
to shift into managing trade-offs and pursuing synergies between the
social, environmental and economic dimensions of policies (Adelle and

* Corresponding author at: University of the Sunshine Coast, Sippy Downs, Queensland, Australia.
E-mail address: daniela.medina@research.usc.edu.au (D. Medina Hidalgo).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.017
Received 11 February 2021; Received in revised form 28 May 2021; Accepted 16 July 2021
Available online 2 August 2021
1462-9011/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
Russel, 2013). Similarly, climate policy integration (CPI) has aligned
with this approach by incorporating climate-related considerations
(mitigation and adaptation) into planning and policy across sectors and
levels of governance, involving both public and private actors (Bauer
and Steurer, 2015). There are two types or integration pursued in CPI
processes: vertical integration (integration that occurs across gover­
nance levels and jurisdictions), and horizontal integration (integration
of policy goals across different sectors) (Adelle and Russel, 2013).
Additionally, CPI processes may also seek to harmonize strategies and
achieve policy coherence between approaches, such as disaster risk
reduction or sustainable development (Di Gregorio et al., 2017b).
As part of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) work programme
agreed in 2001 under the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC), LDCs were encouraged to develop and
present to the UNFCCC National Adaptation Programmes of Action
(NAPAs) to determine their most urgent and immediate adaptation
needs (UNFCCC, 2020). As part of this process many countries decided
to also formulate National Adaptation Plans (NAPs). In the process of
developing and implementing these NAPs, it was determined that
climate adaptation strategies were connected to other development
outcomes, such as reducing food insecurity or poverty and improving
health and well-being (Pramova et al., 2012). This realization led to an
increased focus on how NAPs can be effectively articulated with other
development strategies at all levels of governance. As countries in both
the developed and developing world have attempted to integrate climate
considerations with other development approaches, both vertically and
horizontally, CPI issues have started to emerge, as part of broader
climate governance processes.
1.1. Climate policy integration and food systems sustainability
Food systems are complex social-ecological systems that encompass
all stakeholders, processes and institutions involved in the production,
processing, distribution, consumption and disposal of food (Lamine,
2015). The concept of food systems has re-gained importance in recent
years, as an effective entry-point to tackle multiple development ob­
jectives, such as the alleviating poverty and malnutrition, and contrib­
uting to climate change adaptation and mitigation (Béné et al., 2019). It
can be considered that food systems are guided by the normative
outcome of achieving food and nutrition security (Tendall et al., 2015).
Recent research has also started to focus on the role of food systems in
reducing dietary related non-communicable diseases and supporting
human and environmental health (Fanzo et al., 2020). Correspondingly,
a sustainable food system is one that is capable of achieving food and
nutrition security, while guaranteeing that the economic, social and
environmental baselines that underpin food systems functions and
processes are maintained and secured for future generations. These
premises make CPI in food systems an even more complex task, since the
provision of food would normally take precedence over climate change
adaptation or mitigation objectives.
To add to the aforementioned complexities, climate change is
considered one of the most significant threats to modern food systems.
Climate change impacts are expected to cut across all processes and
functions of food systems, hindering their potential to achieve food and
nutrition security outcomes today and in the future. In addition, emis­
sions from the agriculture, forestry and land use sector are responsible
for approximately a quarter of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
and if they continue in their current trend, they would prevent the
achievement of the Paris Agreement target (Clark et al., 2020). There­
fore, the challenge of feeding a growing population in a sustainable
manner goes beyond the simplistic approach of producing more food,
and food systems governance should be closely aligned with climate
governance (Caron et al., 2018). The transformations necessary to
support sustainable food systems under current and projected climatic
conditions, require different governance mechanisms and a better un­
derstanding on how climate policies influence the attainment of food
486
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
and nutrition security and the sustainability of food systems (Leach
et al., 2020; Loboguerrero et al., 2019).
Recognizing that governments have been dealing with CPI issues in
multiple domains, this systematic review was conducted with the aim to
first identify to what degree CPI is being achieved and what are common
barriers and enablers reported in the literature. Additionally, the review
focused on determining specific challenges and opportunities within CPI
processes in the food systems domain. The review also provided the
opportunity to assess how the CPI literature has been developed across
regions and over the past 10 years, including the identification of
remaining research gaps, and the different approaches used to charac­
terize CPI.
2. Methods
This study followed the PRISMA Statement and four-phase diagram
for reporting results of systematic reviews (Moher et al., 2009). The
PRISMA checklist used to structure the narrative of this study and
reporting of results can be found on Appendix 1. A protocol for the re­
view describing the objectives, research questions, inclusion and
exclusion criteria and methods was prepared, discussed and ratified
between the authors, prior to the commencement of the review. The
inclusion criteria used to select studies were:
1 Articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
2 Articles published in the past 10 years (2010- June 2020).
3 Articles published in the English language.
4 Full text of article is available online.
5 The article makes explicit mention to aspects of policy integration or
implications at the policy/planning level.
6 The article focuses on climate change adaptation and how it is in­
tegrated across sectors, jurisdictions or approaches (such as disaster
risk reduction or mitigation).
Articles were identified using two databases, following standard
practice to reduce discipline/journal biases (Bramer et al., 2017). The
two databases used were Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus. Articles
were identified using all databases associated in the WOS and Scopus
search engines and the search was conducted in June 2020. The search
syntax was generated by creating a list of test articles and modifying
search terms, and parameter operators to verify that the selected syntax
was able to generate the desired outcomes. Due to the different termi­
nologies and concepts used in the field of policy integration, the search
syntax was modified to include terms that are often used as synonyms,
such as policy mainstreaming or multi-level governance. A test list of 10
articles that researchers pre-identified as having good fit to answer the
research questions was used to refine the search syntax. Search syntaxes
were iteratively modified with truncation terms and Boolean operators
and tested to verify they were able to retrieve the articles in the test list.
In both databases, the search engines were programmed to search for the
terms in the title, abstract and keywords fields. The table below details
the exact search strings used for each database (Table 1).
Studies were organised according to relevance with the databases
Table 1
Search syntax used in the study.
Database Search string
Web of TS=((mainst* OR integrat*) AND (climat* change OR climate
science change adaptation) AND (plan* OR govenan* OR polic*) AND
(cross-scale OR cross scale OR multi-level OR multi level OR local
OR national OR sector*))
SCOPUS TITLE-ABS-KEY ((mainst* OR integrat*) AND (climat* AND change
OR climate AND change AND adaptation) AND (plan* OR govenan*
OR polic*) AND (cross-scale OR cross AND scale OR multi-level OR
multi AND level OR local OR national OR sector*)) AND (LIMIT-TO
(LANGUAGE, "English"))
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
functions and all titles were screened to eliminate articles that included
some search terms but were completely off topic. The first author of the
paper screened all the records independently, and the second and third
authors verified the process in a second stage. The systematic process
followed to generate the final list of included articles is summarized in
the PRISMA four-phase diagram (Fig. 1). The screening stage was con­
ducted manually, expect for the process of removing duplicates. The
initial screening reduced the search results from 6023 articles to 360,
after eliminating duplicates. The remaining 360 articles were imported
from the databases into the referencing software EndNote. In the next
step of the screening process, each abstract was assessed to identify if the
article complied with all the inclusion criteria and was relevant to the
research questions and objectives. A total of 145 articles were excluded
at this stage with the reason for exclusion recorded for this phase and the
following phases of the process.
At the screening stage, the reasons for exclusion included the
following: the article mentioned different aspects of the planning pro­
cess but did not discuss any aspect of policy integration (43 %), the
article raised the importance or relevance of integration across sectors or
jurisdictions but did not discuss its policy/planning implications (23 %),
the article focused only on aspects of policy integration for climate
mitigation (17 %), and the extracted record was not a journal article, for
example book chapters or commentaries (18 %). At the eligibility phase,
six articles were removed from the dataset for the following reasons:
three articles did not discuss planning or policy implications for inte­
gration; two articles mentioned aspects needed for effective planning at
different levels but did not focus on integration; one article discussed
elements of policy integration only for mitigation. Articles were not
rated for quality as this was not objectively possible to determine in
mostly qualitative studies. Only the inclusion and exclusion criteria
were used to determine eligibility.
The 209 included articles were imported into the content analysis
software NVivo, which was used for the qualitative analysis. Data
analysis was conducted using an inductive thematic analysis approach.
This consisted of the six standard phases of thematic analysis (data
familiarization, generation of codes, development of themes, revision of
themes, definition of themes and report production) (Clarke and Braun,
2017; Nowell et al., 2017). Each study was read and coded using first an
open coding strategy, in order to capture all possible concepts and ele­
ments emerging from the data. This step of the analysis was conducted
by the first author, who generated the code book, which was then
validated by the second and third authors. This step was followed by
several iterations of axial coding to try to identify patterns and re­
lationships in the codes generated in the first step. Finally, a selective
Fig. 1. PRISMA four-phase diagram.
487
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
coding strategy was used to derive and refine the themes reflected in the
dataset. Codes were refined via qualitative coding consensus, which
controlled for inter-rater variability and subjectivity and bias in the
coding process. The themes highlighted in the results section that dis­
cusses barriers and enablers of integration correspond to topics that
were present in at least 50 % of the studied sample, this measure was
used to assess confidence in the prevalence of those theme in the liter­
ature. Results indicate when a theme was only present in a few studies
(lower confidence) but were included in the analysis when they
contributed a valid perspective to the research question. This was also a
strategy used to reduce reporting biases, for areas that are being less
prominently addressed in the literature. Codes were sourced from all
sections of the articles that provided information directly related to the
research questions. A sub-sample of articles was generated which con­
tained studies that directly discussed aspects of climate adaptation
policy integration in the fields of food systems (including agriculture,
fisheries and forestry) and food security. A second round of open, axial
and selective coding was conducted on that sub-sample to further
identify opportunities and challenges for policy integration. The quan­
titative results and descriptive statistics are presented for the full dataset
(209 articles). A complete list of the 209 included articles is presented in
Appendix 2.
3. Results
The following section is divided into four parts, starting with the
quantitative analysis that describes the 209 studies included in the re­
view. That sub-section is followed by three sub-sections focusing on
themes that emerged from the content analysis of the studies.
3.1. Description of the studies analysed
A total of 104 countries are represented in the papers included in the
review. Fig. 2 presents a choropleth map with the distribution and
classification of the different countries. The official United Nations
classification was used to assign the countries in the categories of
developed, developing, LDCs, and small island developing states (SIDS)
(United Nations, 2020). The country with the highest number of studies
is Australia (n = 18). From the top ten countries with the highest
number of studies, the majority are developed countries, except for
South Africa (n = 16), India (n = 13), and Nepal (n = 11). Several
studies were conducted in more than one country. Additionally, 16
studies (not considered for Fig. 2) targeted specific regions or country
classifications such as: developing countries (n = 5), the European
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
Fig. 2. Worldwide distribution of studies.
Union (n = 5), LDC (n = 3), SIDS (n = 1), and global (n = 2).
Studies analysed were published in 84 different journals, with 50 %
of articles published in 13 different journals. The top three journals in
which articles are published were: Climate and Development (n = 20),
Regional Environmental Change (n = 13), and Environmental Science &
Policy (n = 12). Most articles in the dataset were case studies (61 %),
followed by case study comparisons (22 %), which are articles that
compare case studies from two or more different countries. Other types
of studies included: literature reviews, articles developing theory or
concepts, and a combination of those, as shown in Fig. 3A. The 209
articles were also classified to identify the type of policy integration on
which they focused (Fig. 3B). It was determined that 31 % of articles
discussed elements of integration of climate change adaptation policy
with other approaches such as disaster risk reduction, climate change
mitigation and sustainable development. From these, the most promi­
nent approach to be integrated with climate change adaptation was
disaster risk reduction (n = 20). Horizontal integration was also dis­
cussed in 31 % of articles with water (n = 9), coastal management
(n = 8), and forestry (n = 7) as the sectors most represented. A total of
22 % of articles discussed issues of vertical and horizontal integration
while 17 % focused only on vertical integration (Fig. 3B).
Seven different categories were established when identifying the
methods used in each article. The most frequently used method was
content analysis (47 %), which primarily focused on conducting the­
matic analyses of existing planning and governance instruments, fol­
lowed by a mix of content analysis and use of primary data sources (31
%) collected using interviews and surveys. Other methods included the
use of participatory tools, such as focus group discussions and work­
shops, ethnographic fieldwork and modelling (Fig. 3C). Only one study
used modelling techniques to explore implications of climate policy
integration, which means almost all studies were conducted ex-post,
meaning the analysis was done on existing policy and governance
mechanisms, instead of attempting to model outcomes of different
488
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
policy integration options.
3.2. Why is policy integration being promoted and when might it not be an
option?
Policy integration, irrespective of the area or type of integration, is
principally presented as a process that seeks to improve efficiency and
effectiveness in the way governments respond to complex issues. At the
institutional level, integration is promoted as a process targeted at
avoiding duplication of functions and efforts, aimed at optimizing
financial and human resources (Hafezi et al., 2018). Additionally, policy
integration is meant to deal with potential synergies and trade-offs
resulting from the implementation of strategies (Papadimitriou et al.,
2019). As climate change is a cross-cutting issue, posing differentiated
risks across sectors and society, it cannot be effectively managed in a silo
and must be considered in relation to how it affects other policy and
development outcomes (Casado-Asensio and Steurer, 2014; Dovers and
Hezri, 2010). As a number of recent scholars have warned, some
sector-specific adaptation actions might produce negative externalities
in different sectors or at different spatial and temporal scales, or even
lead to maladaptation or conflict between sectors (Aleksandrova, 2019;
Burley et al., 2012).
Climate change adaptation specifically was presented in articles
reviewed as an integral part of development policies, due to the links
between drivers of vulnerability and development outcomes (Hardee
and Mutunga, 2010; Papadimitriou et al., 2019). Fig. 4 summarizes the
different types, levels and approaches used to achieve CPI that are dis­
cussed in the literature. Different versions of these classifications are
used in articles aimed at providing a conceptual framework for the
assessment of levels and approaches used to achieve CPI (Russel et al.,
2018; Wamsler and Pauleit, 2016; Widmer, 2018). Nevertheless there is
no internationally agreed standard for evaluating the effectiveness of
CPI; classifications are used primarily to compare and describe levels
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
Fig. 3. Categorization of type of study, type of integration and methods used.
and approaches used in different contexts (Lioubimtseva and da Cunha,
2020).
In most of the articles analysed, CPI is identified as the preferred
mechanism for securing an effective and coordinated response to
climate change. Yet in four of the studies analysed, evidence was pre­
sented about situations where climate policy integration could have
undesirable outcomes (Groven et al., 2012; Regmi et al., 2016; Uppa­
nunchai et al., 2018; Wamsler et al., 2014). The most cited pitfall is the
risk that strategies based on broad or integrative planning approaches
could dilute the focus on direct impacts of climate hazards and under­
mine their urgency (Regmi et al., 2016). This has also been identified as
an issue in environmental policy integration when placing an emphasis
on concepts such as sustainable development results in diverting
attention from the more traditional environmental policy issues
requiring action (Wamsler et al., 2014). In addition, it was found that for
countries or sectors with insufficiently functional baselines of gover­
nance and planning, integrating climate adaptation concerns into
existing policies commonly proves ineffective (Uppanunchai et al.,
2018). For example, when existing planning instruments lag in imple­
mentation, modified policies that incorporate climate change consider­
ations might carry that lag in implementation with them.
In the reviewed literature, CPI is the preferred strategy over stand-
alone climate policies which have a higher risk of resulting in policy
incongruencies (Wellstead and Howlett, 2017). Nevertheless, the
aforementioned considerations need to be accounted for to guarantee
that the full benefits of integration materialize. Irrespective of the de­
gree of integration of climate policies with other policy domains, or
489
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
across jurisdictions, it was funding, implementation and evaluation of
policies that were commonly identified as lacking by these studies. Even
when planning instruments adhere to a comprehensive and participa­
tory process for institutional development, it was consistently identified
that institutions often struggle to secure funding sources to implement
the actions outlined in the strategies, limiting the possibilities for
implementation (Rosendo et al., 2018; Sabel and Victor, 2017). A total
of 95 studies reported limitations with funding and lack of imple­
mentation of existing climate policies.
3.3. Is climate policy integration a reality and what are common barriers
and enablers?
Irrespective of the chosen approach, evidence that climate policy was
not being effectively integrated across scales and sectors, was explicitly
discussed in 73 (40 %) of the case studies reviewed. In most cases, the
lack of integration became evident when the analysis moved beyond
what was outlined in the policy documents. For example, when looking
at the actual mechanisms that counties use to implement NAPAs, it
became evident that even when the document claimed to be connected
to the national development agenda, there was a lack of demonstrable
and clear pathways to demonstrate those connections (Gwimbi, 2017;
Saito, 2013). It was also clear that, even when sectoral and climate
adaptation strategies are developed around the same time, they were
carried out and influenced by different institutions and processes
(Gwimbi, 2017; Nagoda, 2015). Most cases of lack of integration were
reported for developing or least developed countries and relate
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
Fig. 4. Classification of types, levels and mechanisms used in CPI.
primarily to the absence of integration of climate adaptation policies
with sectoral goals, development priorities and approaches such as
disaster risk reduction. In the studies reporting lack of integration in
developed countries, the primary focus was found to be on vertical
integration of both climate strategies from the national to the local
levels, and integration of climate adaptation with approaches such as
mitigation.
Even for studies which found that some degree of policy integration
was being achieved, all studies recognized different issues that either
enabled or hindered this process. These are synthesized in Fig. 5 and
represent recurring themes that emerged in the literature. Two under­
lying themes were identified as limiting factors for climate policy
development and implementation in general. The first theme relates to
existing issues of sub-optimal governance and planning culture within
countries and institutions. This limitation was highlighted primarily in
developing country contexts or rural and small localities within devel­
oped countries. It is not an issue that is exclusive to climate policy
integration, yet it is a key determinant of the potential of governments
and institutions to effectively address complex challenges within their
jurisdictions. The second underlying theme relates to the intrinsic bar­
riers to effective planning for climate change. These barriers have been
extensively reviewed and discussed in the literature (Barnett et al.,
2015; Eisenack et al., 2014). While the focus of this systematic review
was not to identify and unpack the nature of these barriers to climate
adaptation planning, it is important to recognize that they increase the
complexity of the planning process, including aspects of integration.
490
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
The most prominent factor limiting climate policy integration dis­
cussed in the studies has to do with existing organizational structures
and policy architecture. A total of 79 studies concluded that the siloed
structure of most ministries and government agencies was a significant
barrier to the potential of achieving CPI. In addition, case studies re­
ported that key institutions which were designated as climate change
focal points at the national level, often had limited influence or inter­
action within the country, especially locally (Musah-Surugu et al.,
2019). In countries where these different institutions did not interact or
engage through articulating mechanisms, coordination and collabora­
tion were consequently hindered (Larsen et al., 2012). Unwieldy orga­
nizational structures were further handicapped by a lack of associated
legislation to facilitate the enforcement of climate related strategies. In
44 studies, either the lack of legislation or conflicting legal instruments
were identified as a key barrier limiting the potential to achieve climate
related goals. This was particularly evident in the lack of legal structures
compelling local governments to integrate climate adaptation consid­
erations into planning, for example, in policy domains related to land
use, building codes and water allocation. Furthermore, competing roles
across sectors and jurisdictions further exacerbated the inability of
existing organizational structures to support integration (Nemakonde
and Van Niekerk, 2017). This often led to different sectors and juris­
dictions developing parallel planning processes that resulted in con­
flicting goals, thereby limiting possibilities for integration.
There were several elements that related to the existing political
context which were identified as barriers to integration. A number of
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
Fig. 5. Conceptual map of opportunities and challenges for climate policy integration.
studies identified how the constant cycle of changes in politics can affect
the possibility of committing resources and securing stable mandates to
achieve long-term transformation (Dovers and Hezri, 2010). In the case
of sectors with a long trajectory of layering policy regimes, such as
forestry and agriculture, the constant development of new instruments
with objectives that are imposed on older legislation tend to lead to path
dependency (Lawrence et al., 2015). This means that new policies are
layered over older policy goals which then become difficult to challenge
or change in any significant way.
Political pressure was presented as a factor that can either hinder or
enable integration. Case studies focusing on integration of climate policy
at the local level found that the need of local governments to respond to
the demands of constituents meant they were pressured to act on and
invest in specific issues such as housing or infrastructure, rather than
focusing on issues like climate change (Dany and Lebel, 2020; Pasquini
et al., 2013). On the other hand, political pressure from international
mechanisms such as the NAPA process and multilateral development
agencies has compelled many developing countries to pursue climate
change adaptation strategies and integrate them with national devel­
opment goals. A total of 33 studies discussed how external influence can
be linked to the development of climate adaptation planning processes.
Yet, in several of the studies, it was found that because these processes
were initiated by external agencies there was limited domestic buy-in
(Faling, 2020; Pilato et al., 2018). In addition, since the NAPA process
is set to identify priorities for adaptation, the planning process often
takes the form of a project were short-term goals prevail (Nagoda,
2015).
In 48 of the analysed studies, participation was highlighted as an
important element in the policy development and planning process.
491
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
Studies emphasised how stakeholders from different sectors of govern­
ment, development agencies and civil society need to be effectively
engaged in the process since the early stages (Kim and Kang, 2018;
Yoseph-Paulus and Hindmarsh, 2018). This highlights the need to
improve existing governance mechanisms so that effective participation
can take place. The decentralization of governments without any addi­
tional mechanisms put in place are not likely to be sufficient to ensure
successful planning processes (Regmi and Star, 2015). Further, mean­
ingful participation can only be achieved when stakeholders have the
agency and capacity to effectively become part of the decision-making
process and support the design and implementation of strategies
(Holden and Larsen, 2015; Sabel and Victor, 2017). One of the down­
sides of creating more inclusive and participatory processes, however, is
that they need to be effectively managed to ensure that the different
actors and institutions act in a coordinated manner and assume their
allocated responsibilities for strategy implementation. Unfortunately
the existence of hierarchical power differentials were identified as bar­
riers to such effective coordination and participation in all jurisdictions
(Di Gregorio et al., 2019). The failure of central governments to cede
power, responsibility and capacities to local governments renders many
decentralization and integration efforts ineffective (Musah-Surugu et al.,
2019).
Climate adaptation strategies, particularly those aimed at reducing
vulnerabilities, often align closely to other development goals and
strategies (Kim et al., 2017). This compatibility has been highlighted as
an enabler of integration of climate adaptation strategies with other
policy domains. In cases where the synergies are identified and utilized,
integration tends to occur more organically (Somorin et al., 2016).
Nonetheless, in circumstances when economic incentives, such as urban
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
development and generation of new jobs, prevail over other social or
environmental outcomes, adaptation objectives tend to be relegated in
importance (Garcia Hernandez and Bolwig, 2020). In 47 articles,
competing interests between climate adaptation goals and other sectoral
goals were identified as an element which reduced opportunities to
integrate policy domains. For climate adaptation strategies to be fully
integrated across different sectors, it was found that knowledge and
information management was critical for increasing stakeholders’ un­
derstandings of risk and potential impacts and identifying adaptation
pathways within each sector (Forino et al., 2018; Williams et al., 2020).
Risk perceptions at the local and community levels are as important as
scientific and technical risk assessments, as both have a role in changing
policies and practice (Hori and Shaw, 2011; Larsen et al., 2012).
The review of the literature pointed to some key regional differences
in the process of integrating climate adaptation policies. In regions like
the European Union, efforts to formally integrate adaptation to climate
change began in the early 2000s (Yiran and Stringer, 2017). For most
developing counties, however, these processes are still incipient in 2020,
or have been initiated only at the instigation of cooperation agencies and
the UNFCCC NAPA process (Bizikova et al., 2015; Schmidt and Fleig,
2018). In addition, the adaptation dimension and how it integrates with
development goals is a priority in developing countries, while climate
mitigation has dominated the policy agenda in most European countries
(Garcia Hernandez and Bolwig, 2020). The way in which climate
adaptation integrates vertically across jurisdictions is dependent largely
on how decentralized a country is and on existing multi-level gover­
nance mechanisms (Bauer and Steurer, 2015; Korhonen-Kurki et al.,
2016).
3.4. What are opportunities and challenges specific to food systems and
food security?
From the sub-sample of studies focusing on food systems (including
agriculture, livestock, forestry and fisheries) and food security, most
case studies (79 %) were conducted in developing countries (n = 20)
and LDCs (n = 11). This is an expected result as agriculture and food
security are prominent in developing countries’ Nationally Determined
Contributions (NDCs) and will likely continue to be a priority for in­
ternational cooperation and resource mobilization to achieve the Sus­
tainable Development Goals (Amjath-Babu et al., 2019; Antwi-Agyei
et al., 2018). A significant opportunity for climate policy integration in
support of food systems is the conceptual compatibilities between
climate adaptation and mitigation objectives with sectoral objectives to
reduce poverty and achieve food and nutrition security (de Andrade
Guerra et al., 2020d). The extent of the compatibility between goals
varies depending on the sub-sector; for example, in forestry there are
clear two-way integration opportunities for both climate adaptation and
mitigation. Yet in the case of forestry and agriculture, and agriculture
and climate change mitigation, there are trade-offs between the different
land uses and the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Golcher
and Visseren-Hamakers, 2018).
Agriculture and other land use sectors also feature prominently in
both climate related and development planning instruments (Di Gre­
gorio et al., 2017a). Owing to the multiple synergies and trade-offs be­
tween sub-sectors and climate policy goals, effective CPI in the land use
sector requires the alignment of climate change mitigation and adap­
tation objectives with each other, and other development objectives
such as poverty alleviation and food security (Monica Di Gregorio et al.,
2017b). Additionally, the process of integrating climate adaptation
considerations in agriculture must shift from ‘climate-proofing’ agri­
cultural development to addressing the underlying drivers of vulnera­
bility and inequality affecting people whose livelihoods rely on the
sector (Wright et al., 2014). For many developing country contexts, it
was found that climate hazards have less influence than other
socio-economic stressors in securing the sustainability of rural liveli­
hoods; hence, the priorities lie with strategies that can deal in a
492
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
comprehensive manner with both climatic and non-climatic pressures
(Wright et al., 2014).
Several approaches that have been utilized in the past to support
natural resource management, such as integrated watershed and coastal
management, have developed baselines of information, knowledge and
governance structures which can be utilized to support the imple­
mentation of climate change adaptation strategies (Hassanali, 2017;
Pardoe et al., 2018). It is expected that climate impacts will affect re­
sources and sectors beyond those directly supporting food production,
such as transportation and distribution chains (Keller et al., 2018). This
means that integrative approaches to deal with climate change must
break the traditional silos of institutions and prioritize landscape and
food systems approaches rather than sector-based interventions
(Golcher and Visseren-Hamakers, 2018; Oseland, 2019). Yet, when
exploring opportunities for vertical integration in many developing
countries, the agriculture sector has developed structures that can sup­
port implementation at the community level (Pilato et al., 2018). These
structures often consist of extension officers and farmer advisory ser­
vices, both public and private. Hence, there are opportunities to explore
climate policy integration strategies that utilize a food systems approach
to frame the initiatives and incorporate existing institutional and private
structures to support implementation on the ground (Wright et al.,
2014).
International climate mechanisms such as Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries
(REDD+), and the NAPA process have been promoted to increase op­
portunities to integrate climate targets with development and sectoral
goals. Yet in practice these externally-driven initiatives are not neces­
sarily promoting more integrative approaches or fostering the institu­
tional changes required to support CPI (Gwimbi, 2017). Carbon-market
based approaches such as REDD + are not delivering adaptation, miti­
gation and sustainable livelihoods outcomes for local communities
because their focus is primarily on maximising emission reduction tar­
gets (Atela et al., 2016; McElwee et al., 2017). Similarly, some NAPA
processes are being managed with a short-term project mindset by
providing narrower and mostly technologically-oriented solutions to
climate change, instead of addressing the underlying drivers of vulner­
ability (Nagoda, 2015). Often the forestry and agriculture sectors are
governed by long-standing organizational structures and legislation, so
initiatives aimed at taking a more integrative approach will inevitably
have to deal with the complexities of existing policy layering and reg­
ulations (Vij et al., 2018).
4. Discussion
This study conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature
on CPI that aimed to identify potential challenges and opportunities for
effective integration of climate change, food systems and food security
issues into planning and policy. Initially, the review looked broadly into
CPI and then focused on aspects that are particularly relevant for food
systems approaches and land-use sectors. Climate change is an issue that
has no boundaries, in the sense that it acts as a threat multiplier and
compounds risks across scales as well as across borders, something
which invalidates the ways other environmental issues have tradition­
ally been managed (Wellstead and Stedman, 2014). As policy- and
decision-makers are faced with the challenge of managing increasingly
complex systems in ways that optimize their use of limited human and
financial resources, it is relevant to look back and assess the progress
made so far in efforts to effectively integrate climate policy with other
policy domains and across jurisdictions.
The review concludes that effective integration remains elusive and
most countries have at best only achieved partial success, with 73 case
studies (40 % of total case studies) specifically documenting evidence
for lack of integration. Often, the process of CPI happens by retrofitting
and analysing risks that interact with existing policies, meaning that the
process is carried out after goals and policies have already being
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
developed and legislated (Pham Thu et al., 2014). Consequently, there
are limited opportunities for these new policy instruments to initiate
substantive change or even drastically transform current systems and
power structures (Faling, 2020). Besides seeking to improve institu­
tional efficiency, the leading goal of CPI should therefore be to achieve
the substantive and urgent changes that need to occur to deliver social,
economic and environmental transformations (Wamsler et al., 2014).
However, the review has identified how current governance structures,
legislation and institutions in most countries significantly limit the
possibilities of tangible and transformative integration.
Improving planning processes to allow for integration and policy
coherence is important, but there is no point in attempting to integrate
climate change considerations into poorly designed policies, or ones
lagging in implementation (Uppanunchai et al., 2018). This concern
remains a significant barrier for countries with less mature governance
systems and planning cultures and is one which needs to be addressed so
that the issue of integration can be taken into consideration. In addition,
vertical integration requires the support of governance mechanisms that
allow a free flow of information, capacities and resources across juris­
dictions (Rosendo et al., 2018). While many countries are moving to­
wards greater decentralization, the sharing of responsibilities need to be
accompanied by the capacity to establish and enforce legal frameworks
and to mobilize funding for implementation. Otherwise decentralized
systems become voids of diluted responsibilities with no actionable ca­
pacities, which seems to be a common characteristic of smaller and more
remote local governments (Forino et al., 2018; Musah-Surugu et al.,
2019). Furthermore, for the developing and least developed countries
that have adhered to the UNFCCC process of developing NAPAs, a
challenge exists to engage in these externally driven processes with the
needed buy-in from national authorities and institutions (Gwimbi, 2017;
Nagoda, 2015).
Several approaches supported by the international development
community like ecosystem-based adaptation, climate smart agriculture,
and the water-energy-food nexus are being highlighted in the literature
as frameworks used to promote integration in the food systems and land-
use sectors (Lipper et al., 2014; Scanlon et al., 2017w; Vignola et al.,
2015). Advancing these approaches from theory to practice is limited by
siloed governance structures (Lyles et al., 2018; Oseland, 2019). In the
land-use and natural resource management disciplines, it is clear that
traditional governance models are often challenged by management and
utilization of cross-boundary resources, such as transboundary water­
sheds and ecosystems that extend over multiple countries (Pittock et al.,
2013; Tigre, 2019). This review has found that in many cases, autono­
mous adaptive practices at household and community levels focus on
supporting livelihoods and improving food security in ways that take a
more integrative approach than policy processes specifically intended to
promote climate adaptation goals (Stringer et al., 2010; Yiran and
Stringer, 2017).
This review also highlights knowledge gaps that need to be
addressed. There is still a need to develop, implement and test tools to
facilitate the policy development process. In addition, these tools need
to favour methods that can be used to assess the levels and effectiveness
of climate policy integration. Moreover, further research is needed to
identify and characterize types of governance mechanisms for trans­
boundary and complex issues to overcome the barriers inherent in in­
stitutions and organizational structures. There is also a need to better
determine how different policy formulation processes and types of
participation and communication mechanisms can be used to catalyse
integration. One aspect that seems to be lacking the most is the moni­
toring and evaluation of adaptation strategies to assess the effectiveness
of planning instruments as a whole, instead of looking at the effective­
ness of individual adaptation actions. This effort is needed to provide
more systematic and standardized international, national, and subna­
tional monitoring of adaptation planning. This includes more targeted
evaluations of the role of processes like NAPA in solving contextual
barriers that limit development in the countries where the process is
493
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
being utilized.
The results and recommendations of this review have a few limita­
tions. Only articles published in English in academic journals were
considered. Yet, there is a growing body of grey literature being devel­
oped by international cooperation agencies focused on systematizing
policy development processes and supporting CPI efforts in many re­
gions of the world. A good example of this is the work being undertaken
by the NAP Global Network (International Institute for Sustainable
Development, 2020). An additional limitation of this review is the
relatively small sub-sample of articles retrieved in which there was a
clear focus on issues of land-use sectors and food security. Even if some
of the opportunities and challenges identified in the larger sample of
articles also apply to the food systems and food security domain,
research studies explicitly focused on food systems and food security
were limited in comparison to other areas of CPI, such as vertical inte­
gration or integration with sectors such as water resources.
5. Conclusion
This systematic review concludes that, although climate policy
integration is increasingly discussed as a preferred strategy to deal more
effectively with complex and multiple policy domains, existing institu­
tional and governance structures remain the most frequently mentioned
barrier for the effective integration of climate goals across sectors, ap­
proaches and jurisdictions. Case studies in developed-country contexts
focus more on vertical integration issues and integration of climate
adaptation and mitigation goals. In developing-country and LDC con­
texts, the biggest concerns are centred on aligning national climate
adaptation strategies with national development goals and processes.
Several case studies also identified that in certain contexts, (dis) inte­
gration approaches are preferred and stand-alone climate policies have
shown to reduce policy implementation gaps.
This review also identified specific opportunities and challenges for
planning processes aimed at supporting a more integrative approach for
food systems and food security. Among these opportunities are the
conceptual compatibility which can be derived from land-use strategies
that produce synergies between adaptation, mitigation and sustainable
development goals. In addition, the agricultural sector has often devel­
oped vertical structures for the delivery of support services, such as rural
extension officers, which can be utilized to facilitate vertical integration
and implementation of strategies. In contrast, the legislative legacy and
often complicated processes of policy layering, drift and conversion in
land-use sectors challenge the achievement of policy coherence.
This review indicates several gaps in existing research. These include
the development of frameworks to assess the effectiveness of planning
processes, focusing on policy design and implementation, with an
emphasis on policy coherence outcomes. In addition, there is a need to
identify alternative forms of governance that are conducive to the
adoption and implementation of integrative approaches. In the sample
of articles reviewed there were no studies focusing on the alignment and
coherence between land use, climate, food security and health out­
comes. As food systems are increasingly being used as entry-points for
development interventions, an opportunity arises to co-develop food
systems and CPI research areas.
The results from the review indicate that CPI is being primarily
assessed by conducting content analysis of existing policies. This point to
the opportunity to further develop other methods, such as participatory
approaches and collection of primary data to understand practitioners
and policy-makers perspectives of what types of mechanisms or ap­
proaches could lead to better policy alignment. Even if important con­
nections have been established between all these areas at the conceptual
level, there is still a need to further understand and document the con­
crete institutional and policy processes used to facilitate integration.
Lastly, the themes identified in this review can be used as a guideline to
identify and characterize contextually relevant barriers and opportu­
nities for climate policy integration in future case studies or when
D. Medina Hidalgo et al. Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495

initiating a policy and planning process. adaptation and sustainable development linkages. Environ. Sci. Policy 67 (C), 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.004.
Di Gregorio, M., Nurrochmat, D.R., Paavola, J., Sari, I.M., Fatorelli, L., Pramova, E.,
Declaration of Competing Interest et al., 2017b. Climate policy integration in the land use sector: mitigation,
adaptation and sustainable development linkages. Environ. Sci. Policy 67, 35–43.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.004.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. Di Gregorio, M., Fatorelli, L., Paavola, J., Locatelli, B., Pramova, E., Nurrochmat, D.R.,
et al., 2019. Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks.
Glob. Environ. Change 54, 64–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Acknowledgement gloenvcha.2018.10.003.
Dovers, S.R., Hezri, A.A., 2010. Institutions and policy processes: the means to the ends
DMH is supported by an Australian Government Research Training of adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 1 (2), 212–231. https://doi.org/
10.1002/wcc.29.
Program Scholarship and a Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Eisenack, K., Moser, S.C., Hoffmann, E., Klein, R.J.T., Oberlack, C., Pechan, A., et al.,
Research Organisation (CSIRO) Postgraduate Scholarship. 2014. Explaining and overcoming barriers to climate change adaptation. Nat. Clim.
Change 4, 867. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2350.
Faling, M., 2020. Framing agriculture and climate in Kenyan policies: a longitudinal
Appendix A. Supplementary data perspective. Environ. Sci. Policy 106, 228–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2020.01.014.
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the Fanzo, J., Hood, A., Davis, C., 2020. Eating our way through the Anthropocene. Physiol.
Behav. 222, 112929 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.112929.
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.07.017.
Forino, G., Von Meding, J., Brewer, G.J., 2018. Challenges and opportunities for
Australian local governments in governing climate change adaptation and disaster
References risk reduction integration. Int. J. Disaster Resil. Built Environ. 9 (3), 258–272.
https://doi.org/10.1108/ijdrbe-05-2017-0038.
Garcia Hernandez, A.L., Bolwig, S., 2020. Understanding climate policy integration in
Adelle, C., Russel, D., 2013. Climate policy integration: a case of deja vu? Environ. Policy
the global South through the multiple streams framework. Clim. Dev. https://doi.
Gov. 23 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1601.
org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1723471.
Aleksandrova, M., 2019. Principles and considerations for mainstreaming climate change
Glass, L.-M., Newig, J., 2019. Governance for achieving the Sustainable Development
risk into national social protection frameworks in developing countries. Clim. Dev.
Goals: how important are participation, policy coherence, reflexivity, adaptation and
https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2019.1642180.
democratic institutions? Earth Syst. Govern. 2 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Amjath-Babu, T.S., Aggarwal, P.K., Vermeulen, S., 2019. Climate action for food security
esg.2019.100031.
in South Asia? Analyzing the role of agriculture in nationally determined
Golcher, C.S., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., 2018. Framing and integration in the global
contributions to the Paris agreement. Clim. Policy 19 (3), 283–298. https://doi.org/
forest, agriculture and climate change nexus. Environ. Plann. C 36 (8), 1415–1436.
10.1080/14693062.2018.1501329.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418788566.
Antwi-Agyei, P., Dougill, A.J., Agyekum, T.P., Stringer, L.C., 2018. Alignment between
Groven, K., Aall, C., van den Berg, M., Carlsson-Kanyama, A., Coenen, F., 2012.
nationally determined contributions and the sustainable development goals for West
Integrating climate change adaptation into civil protection: comparative lessons
Africa. Clim. Policy 18 (10), 1296–1312. https://doi.org/10.1080/
from Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Local Environ. 17 (6-7), 679–694.
14693062.2018.1431199.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665859.
Atela, J.O., Quinn, C.H., Minang, P.A., Duguma, L.A., Houdet, J.A., 2016. Implementing
Gwimbi, P., 2017. Mainstreaming national adaptation programmes of action into
REDD plus at the national level: stakeholder engagement and policy coherences
national development plans in Lesotho lessons and needs. Int. J. Clim. Change
between REDD plus rules and Kenya’s sectoral policies. For. Policy Econ. 65, 37–46.
Strateg. Manag. 9 (3), 299–315. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijccsm-11-2015-0164.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2016.01.003.
Hafezi, M., Sahin, O., Stewart, R.A., Mackey, B., 2018. Creating a novel multi-layered
Barnett, J., Evans, L.S., Gross, C., Kiem, A.S., Kingsford, R.T., Palutikof, J.P., et al., 2015.
integrative climate change adaptation planning approach using a systematic
From barriers to limits to climate change adaptation: path dependency and the speed
literature review. Sustainability 10 (11). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114100.
of change. Ecol. Soc. 20 (3), 5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07698-200305.
Hardee, K., Mutunga, C., 2010. Strengthening the link between climate change
Bauer, A., Steurer, R., 2015. National adaptation strategies, what else? Comparing
adaptation and national development plans: lessons from the case of population in
adaptation mainstreaming in German and Dutch water management. Reg. Environ.
National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
Change 15 (2), 341–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0655-3.
Change 15 (2), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-009-9208-3.
Béné, C., Oosterveer, P., Lamotte, L., Brouwer, I.D., de Haan, S., Prager, S.D., et al., 2019.
Hassanali, K., 2017. Challenges in mainstreaming climate change into productive coastal
When food systems meet sustainability – current narratives and implications for
sectors in a Small Island State - the case of Trinidad and Tobago. Ocean Coast.
actions. World Dev. 113, 116–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Manag. 142, 136–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2017.04.001.
worlddev.2018.08.011.
Holden, M., Larsen, M.T., 2015. Institutionalizing a policy by any other name: in the City
Bizikova, L., Parry, J.-E., Karami, J., Echeverria, D., 2015. Review of key initiatives and
of Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Plan, does climate change policy or
approaches to adaptation planning at the national level in semi-arid areas. Reg.
sustainability policy smell as sweet? Urban Res. Pract. 8 (3), 354–370. https://doi.
Environ. Change 15 (5), 837–850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-014-0710-0.
org/10.1080/17535069.2015.1051382.
Bramer, W.M., Rethlefsen, M.L., Kleijnen, J., Franco, O.H., 2017. Optimal database
Hori, T., Shaw, R., 2011. Incorporation of potential climate change impacts into local
combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory
disaster risk management in Costa Rica. Risk Hazards Crisis Public Policy 2 (4).
study. Syst. Rev. 6 (1), 245. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y.
https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-4079.1094.
Burley, J.G., McAllister, R.R.J., Collins, K.A., Lovelock, C.E., 2012. Integration, synthesis
International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2020. NAP Global Network.
and climate change adaptation: a narrative based on coastal wetlands at the regional
Retrieved from. http://napglobalnetwork.org/.
scale. Reg. Environ. Change 12 (3), 581–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-
Keller, M., Zamudio, A.N., Bizikova, L., Rivera Sosa, A., Murillo Gough, A., 2018. Food
0271-4.
security and climate change from a systems perspective: community case studies
Caron, P., Ferrero y de Loma-Osorio, G., Nabarro, D., Hainzelin, E., Guillou, M.,
from Honduras. Clim. Dev. 10 (8), 742–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Andersen, I., et al., 2018. Food systems for sustainable development: proposals for a
17565529.2018.1447901.
profound four-part transformation. Off. J. Inst. Natl. Recherche Agron. (INRA) 38
Kim, D., Kang, J.E., 2018. Integrating climate change adaptation into community
(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-018-0519-1.
planning using a participatory process: the case of Saebat Maeul community in
Casado-Asensio, J., Steurer, R., 2014. Integrated strategies on sustainable development,
Busan, Korea. Environ. Plann. B 45 (4), 669–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/
climate change mitigation and adaptation in Western Europe: communication rather
0265813516683188.
than coordination. J. Public Policy 34 (3), 437–473. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Kim, Y., Smith, J.B., Mack, C., Cook, J., Furlow, J., Njinga, J.-L., Cote, M., 2017.
s0143814x13000287.
A perspective on climate-resilient development and national adaptation planning
Clark, M.A., Domingo, N.G.G., Colgan, K., Thakrar, S.K., Tilman, D., Lynch, J., et al.,
based on USAID’s experience. Clim. Dev. 9 (2), 141–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/
2020. Global food system emissions could preclude achieving the 1.5◦ and 2◦ C
17565529.2015.1124037.
climate change targets. Science 370 (6517), 705–708. https://doi.org/10.1126/
Korhonen-Kurki, K., Brockhaus, M., Bushley, B., Babon, A., Gebara, M.F., Kengoum, F.,
science.aba7357.
et al., 2016. Coordination and cross-sectoral integration in REDD plus: experiences
Clarke, V., Braun, V., 2017. Thematic analysis. J. Posit. Psychol. 12 (3), 297–298.
from seven countries. Clim. Dev. 8 (5), 458–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2016.1262613. Edited by Kate Hefferon and
17565529.2015.1050979.
Arabella Ashfield.
Lafferty, W., Hovden, E., 2003. Environmental policy integration: towards an analytical
Dany, V., Lebel, L., 2020. Integrating concerns with climate change into local
framework. Environ. Polit. 12 (3), 1–22.
development planning in Cambodia. Rev. Policy Res. 37 (2), 221–243. https://doi.
Lamine, C., 2015. Sustainability and resilience in agrifood systems: reconnecting
org/10.1111/ropr.12367.
agriculture, food and the environment. Sociol. Ruralis 55 (1), 41–61. https://doi.
de Andrade Guerra, J.B.S.O., Berchin, I.I., Garcia, J., da Silva Neiva, S., Jonck, A.V.,
org/10.1111/soru.12061.
Faraco, R.A., et al., 2020d. A literature-based study on the water-energy-food nexus
Larsen, R.K., Swartling, A.G., Powell, N., May, B., Plummer, R., Simonsson, L.,
for sustainable development. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. https://doi.org/
Osbeck, M., 2012. A framework for facilitating dialogue between policy planners and
10.1007/s00477-020-01772-6.
local climate change adaptation professionals: cases from Sweden, Canada and
Di Gregorio, M., Nurrochmat, D.R., Paavola, J., Sari, I.M., Fatorelli, L., Pramova, E.,
et al., 2017a. Climate policy integration in the land use sector: mitigation,

494
D. Medina Hidalgo et al.
Indonesia. Environ. Sci. Policy 23, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2012.06.014.
Lawrence, J., Sullivan, F., Lash, A., Ide, G., Cameron, C., McGlinchey, L., 2015. Adapting
to changing climate risk by local government in New Zealand: institutional practice
barriers and enablers. Local Environ. 20 (3), 298–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13549839.2013.839643.
Leach, M., Nisbett, N., Cabral, L., Harris, J., Hossain, N., Thompson, J., 2020. Food
politics and development. World Dev. 134 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
worlddev.2020.105024.
Lioubimtseva, E., da Cunha, C., 2020. Local climate change adaptation plans in the US
and France: comparison and lessons learned in 2007-2017. Urban Clim. 31 https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2019.100577.
Lipper, L., Thornton, P., Campbell, B.M., Baedeker, T., Braimoh, A., Bwalya, M., et al.,
2014. Climate-smart agriculture for food security. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 1068.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2437.
Loboguerrero, A.M., Campbell, B.M., Cooper, P.J.M., Hansen, J.W., Rosenstock, T.,
Wollenberg, E., 2019. Food and earth systems: priorities for climate change
adaptation and mitigation for agriculture and food systems. Sustainability (Basel,
Switzerland) 11 (5), 1372. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11051372.
Lyles, W., Berke, P., Overstreet, K.H., 2018. Where to begin municipal climate adaptation
planning? Evaluating two local choices. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 61 (11),
1994–2014. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1379958.
McElwee, P., Van Hai Thi, N., Dung Viet, N., Nghi Huu, T., Hue Van Thi, L., Tuyen
Phuong, N., Huong Dieu Thi, V., 2017. Using REDD plus policy to facilitate climate
adaptation at the local level: synergies and challenges in Vietnam. Forests 8 (1).
https://doi.org/10.3390/f8010011.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., 2009. Preferred reporting items for
systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151
(4), 264. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135.
Musah-Surugu, I.J., Ahenkan, A., Bawole, J.N., 2019. Too weak to lead: motivation,
agenda setting and constraints of local government to implement decentralized
climate change adaptation policy in Ghana. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 21 (2), 587–607.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-017-0049-z.
Nagoda, S., 2015. New discourses but same old development approaches? Climate
change adaptation policies, chronic food insecurity and development interventions
in northwestern Nepal. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 570–579. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.08.014.
Nemakonde, L.D., Van Niekerk, D., 2017. A normative model for integrating
organisations for disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation within SADC
member states. Disaster Prev. Manag. 26 (3), 361–376. https://doi.org/10.1108/
dpm-03-2017-0066.
Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E., Moules, N.J., 2017. Thematic analysis: striving to
meet the trustworthiness criteria. Int. J. Qual. Methods 16 (1). https://doi.org/
10.1177/1609406917733847.
Oseland, S.E., 2019. Breaking silos: can cities break down institutional barriers in climate
planning? J. Environ. Policy Plan. 21 (4), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/
1523908x.2019.1623657.
Papadimitriou, L., Holman, I.P., Dunford, R., Harrison, P.A., 2019. Trade-offs are
unavoidable in multi-objective adaptation even in a post-Paris Agreement world. Sci.
Total Environ. 696 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.134027.
Pardoe, J., Conway, D., Namaganda, E., Vincent, K., Dougill, A.J., Kashaigili, J.J., 2018.
Climate change and the water-energy-food nexus: insights from policy and practice
in Tanzania. Clim. Policy 18 (7), 863–877. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2017.1386082.
Pasquini, L., Cowling, R.M., Ziervogel, G., 2013. Facing the heat: barriers to
mainstreaming climate change adaptation in local government in the Western Cape
Province, South Africa. Habitat Int. 40, 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
habitatint.2013.05.003.
Pham Thu, T., Moeliono, M., Locatelli, B., Brockhaus, M., Di Gregorio, M., Mardiah, S.,
2014. Integration of adaptation and mitigation in climate change and forest policies
in Indonesia and Vietnam. Forests 5 (8), 2016–2036. https://doi.org/10.3390/
f5082016.
Pilato, G., Sallu, S.M., Gaworek-Michalczenia, M., 2018. Assessing the integration of
climate change and development strategies at local levels: insights from Muheza
District, Tanzania. Sustainability 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010174.
Pittock, J., Hussey, K., McGlennon, S., 2013. Australian climate, energy and water
policies: conflicts and synergies. Aust. Geogr. 44 (1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00049182.2013.765345.
Pramova, E., Locatelli, B., Brockhaus, M., Fohlmeister, S., 2012. Ecosystem services in
the national adaptation programmes of action. Clim. Policy 12 (4), 393–409. https://
doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2011.647848.
Regmi, B.R., Star, C., 2015. Exploring the policy environment for mainstreaming
community-based adaptation (CBA) in Nepal. Int. J. Clim. Change Strateg. Manag. 7
(4), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijccsm-04-2014-0050.
Regmi, B.R., Star, C., Leal Filho, W., 2016. Effectiveness of the local adaptation plan of
action to support climate change adaptation in Nepal. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob.
Change 21 (3), 461–478. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9610-3.
Rosendo, S., Celliers, L., Mechisso, M., 2018. Doing more with the same: a reality-check
on the ability of local government to implement integrated coastal management for
climate change adaptation. Mar. Policy 87, 29–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
marpol.2017.10.001.
495
Environmental Science and Policy 124 (2021) 485–495
Russel, D.J., den Uyl, R.M., de Vito, L., 2018. Understanding policy integration in the EU-
Insights from a multi-level lens on climate adaptation and the EU’s coastal and
marine policy. Environ. Sci. Policy 82, 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.12.009.
Sabel, C.F., Victor, D.G., 2017. Governing global problems under uncertainty: making
bottom-up climate policy work. Clim. Change 144 (1), 15–27. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10584-015-1507-y.
Saito, N., 2013. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation in least developed countries in
South and Southeast Asia. Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Change 18 (6), 825–849.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-012-9392-4.
Scanlon, B.R., Ruddell, B.L., Reed, P.M., Hook, R.I., Zheng, C.M., Tidwell, V.C.,
Siebert, S., 2017w. The food-energy-water nexus: transforming science for society.
Water Resour. Res. 53 (5), 3550–3556. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017wr020889.
Schmidt, N.M., Fleig, A., 2018. Global patterns of national climate policies: analyzing
171 country portfolios on climate policy integration. Environ. Sci. Policy 84,
177–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.03.003.
Somorin, O.A., Visseren-Hamakers, I.J., Arts, B., Tiani, A.-M., Sonwa, D.J., 2016.
Integration through interaction? Synergy between adaptation and mitigation (REDD
plus) in Cameroon. Environ. Plann. C 34 (3), 415–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0263774x16645341.
Stringer, L.C., Mkwambisi, D.D., Dougill, A.J., Dyer, J.C., 2010. Adaptation to climate
change and desertification: perspectives from national policy and autonomous
practice in Malawi. Clim. Dev. 2 (2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.3763/
cdev.2010.0042.
Tendall, D.M., Joerin, J., Kopainsky, B., Edwards, P., Shreck, A., Le, Q.B., et al., 2015.
Food system resilience: defining the concept. Glob. Food Sec. 6, 17–23. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gfs.2015.08.001.
Tigre, M.A., 2019. Building a regional adaptation strategy for Amazon countries. Int.
Environ. Agreem. 19 (4-5), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-019-09443-
w.
UNFCCC, 2020. National Adaptation Programmes of Action. Retrieved from. htt
ps://unfccc.int/topics/resilience/workstreams/national-adaptation-programmes-of-
action/introduction.
United Nations, 2020. Statistical annex. World Economic Situation and Prospects. United
Nations publication, New York.
Uppanunchai, A., Chitmanat, C., Lebel, L., 2018. Mainstreaming climate change
adaptation into inland aquaculture policies in Thailand. Clim. Policy 18 (1), 86–98.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1242055.
Vignola, R., Harvey, C.A., Bautista-Solis, P., Avelino, J., Rapidel, B., Donatti, C.,
Martinez, R., 2015. Ecosystem-based adaptation for smallholder farmers: definitions,
opportunities and constraints. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 211 (C), 126–132. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2015.05.013.
Vij, S., Biesbroek, R., Groot, A., Termeer, K., 2018. Changing climate policy paradigms in
Bangladesh and Nepal. Environ. Sci. Policy 81, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2017.12.010.
Wamsler, C., Pauleit, S., 2016. Making headway in climate policy mainstreaming and
ecosystem-based adaptation: two pioneering countries, different pathways, one goal.
Clim. Change 137 (1), 71–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1660-y.
Wamsler, C., Luederitz, C., Brink, E., 2014. Local levers for change: mainstreaming
ecosystem-based adaptation into municipal planning to foster sustainability
transitions. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2014.09.008.
Wellstead, A., Howlett, M., 2017. Assisted tree migration in North America: policy
legacies, enhanced forest policy integration and climate change adaptation. Scand. J.
For. Res. 32 (6), 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1080/02827581.2016.1249022.
Wellstead, A., Stedman, R., 2014. Addressing the challenges of adaptation to climate
change policy: integrating public administration and public policy studies. Int. J.
Public Adm. 37 (14), 999–1010. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.907313.
Widmer, A., 2018. Mainstreaming climate adaptation in Switzerland: how the national
adaptation strategy is implemented differently across sectors. Environ. Sci. Policy
82, 71–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.01.007.
Willett, W., Rockström, J., Loken, B., Springmann, M., Lang, T., Vermeulen, S., et al.,
2019. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from
sustainable food systems. Lancet 393 (10170), 447–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0140-6736(18)31788-4.
Williams, D.S., Rosendo, S., Sadasing, O., Celliers, L., 2020. Identifying local governance
capacity needs for implementing climate change adaptation in Mauritius. Clim.
Policy 20 (5), 548–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1745743.
Wright, H., Vermeulen, S., Laganda, G., Olupot, M., Ampaire, E., Jat, M.L., 2014.
Farmers, food and climate change: ensuring community-based adaptation is
mainstreamed into agricultural programmes. Clim. Dev. 6 (4), 318–328. https://doi.
org/10.1080/17565529.2014.965654.
Yiran, G.A.B., Stringer, L.C., 2017. Adaptation to climatic hazards in the savannah
ecosystem: improving adaptation policy and action. Environ. Manage. 60 (4),
665–678. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-017-0901-9.
Yoseph-Paulus, R., Hindmarsh, R., 2018. Addressing inadequacies of sectoral
coordination and local capacity building in Indonesia for effective climate change
adaptation. Clim. Dev. 10 (1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17565529.2016.1184609.