Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 2022

https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1990028

Theoretical frameworks in climate change adaptation planning:

a comparative study in coastal cities of developing countries1
Tu Dam Ngoc Lea,b

a
Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University at Buffalo – The State University of
New York, Buffalo, New York, USA; bFaculty of Architecture, Mientrung University of Civil
Engineering, Tuy Hoa, Viet Nam

(Received 3 October 2019; revised 20 June 2021; final version received 29 September 2021)

Climate change adaptation has shifted from a single-dimension to an integrative

approach that aligns with vulnerability and resilience concepts. Adaptation
planning, correspondingly, is guided by three frameworks categorized as the
hazard-based, the vulnerability-based, and the urban resilience framework.
Exploring in which ways these frameworks affect the proposed adaptation
initiatives is crucial for planners to justify the well-fit approach for adaptation
planning. This study seeks to examine the influence of these theoretical
frameworks on the formulation of adaptation initiatives with a sample of 45 coastal
cities in developing countries. The vulnerability framework is found to tackle the
issues of climate change sufficiently while the hazard-based approach shares
resources for both climate change and other matters, and the urban resilience
framework puts more effort into other issues rather than climate change. From
these findings, the study offers implications for adaptation planning in applying
each of these three frameworks.
Keywords: Climate change; adaptation planning; theoretical frameworks; coastal
cities; developing countries

1. Introduction
Climate change is happening and local municipalities have an urgent need to conduct
planning for climate change adaptation. For nearly two decades, national and inter-
national programs have assisted local municipalities in developing local climate action
plans across countries. Among them, many programs are supporting developing and
least-developed countries. For instance, the program Cities and Climate Change
Initiative, launched by the United Nations Human Settlement Programme (UN-Habitat)
in 2009, promotes climate change mitigation and adaptation in cities in developing and
least-developed countries (Dodman 2012; Sierra, Flores, and Zamora 2009). The Asian
Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) has sponsored the process of
climate action planning and implementation initiatives in Asian cities since 2008
(Tyler et al. 2014). The global network Local Government for Sustainability (ICLEI)
in Africa has assisted in building climate resilience in African cities. As a result of
these local efforts, assisted by developed countries, international agencies, and corpora-
tions, numerous cities in developing countries have made significant progress in shap-
ing their climate adaptation plans.

Corresponding author. Email: ledamngoctu@muce.edu.vn

ß 2022 Newcastle University

2 T. D. N. Le

Along with the development of adaptation scholarship and related concepts, such
as vulnerability and resilience, multiple theoretical frameworks have been developed to
guide the planning process. Climate change adaptation has evolved from a single-
dimension to an integrative approach. The first generation, hazard-based approach, is
a linear cause-effect chain or a top-down approach that is driven by climate change
scenarios (Carter et al. 1994; F€ussel 2007a; Smit and Wandel 2006). This model and
its extension, the risk management approach, take climate change and climate variabil-
ity impacts as the main objectives (Funfgeld and McEvoy 2011). The vulnerability-
based approach develops a more inclusive approach to assess future climate change in
the context of existing climate risks and non-climatic factors. This approach considers
vulnerability as the combination of biophysical exposure, socio-economic sensitivity,
and adaptive capacity, which can alleviate overall vulnerability (Adger 2006; F€ussel
and Klein 2006; IPCC 2007). The urban resilience approach emphasizes capacity
building for the social or ecological system to cope with a disturbance or an external
event (IPCC 2014). Resilience refers to the ability of a system to recover to a stable
state after a shock (e.g. a natural disaster) or the ability to absorb the disturbance
before the system changes or reorganizes its structure (Holling 1996).
A body of literature argues the important role of theoretical framing on planning
outcomes (Funfgeld and McEvoy 2011; McEvoy, F€unfgeld, and Bosomworth 2013;
O’Brien et al. 2007). Conceptual framing will lead to the choice of operational frames,
the assessment method, and thereby, affect the outcome of adaptation planning
(Funfgeld and McEvoy 2011). For instance, framing the problem of climate change
either in the language of natural hazards or environmental harm significantly influen-
ces the extent of adaptation in the planning documents (Koski and Siulagi 2016). The
interpretation of vulnerability as an outcome of climate change impacts or a contextual
factor of the interaction of a socio-economic-political process will influence the selec-
tion of adaptation options (O’Brien et al. 2007; Pelling 2011). However, empirical
studies to examine the influence of theoretical frameworks on planning outcomes are
still scarce. Given the importance of framing in guiding the planning process, explor-
ing in which ways different frameworks affect the proposed adaptation initiatives is
crucial for planners to justify the well-fit approach. This article aims to elaborate on
the role of theoretical frameworks in climate change adaptation planning and explore
the ways these frameworks affect the outcome of adaptation planning.
Since coastal cities of developing countries are affected significantly by climate
change, this study takes this local context as the research setting. The study seeks to
answer the questions of how and in which ways theoretical frameworks influence the
formulation of adaptation options in the context of coastal cities in developing coun-
tries. The article starts with a summary of the theoretical framework of climate change
adaptation planning, followed by the methodology, research findings using quantitative
and qualitative analysis, discussion, and conclusions.

2. Theoretical framework of climate change adaptation planning

Adaptation is defined as “the process of adjustment to actual or expected climate and
its effects. In human systems, adaptation seeks to moderate or avoid harm or exploit
beneficial opportunities. In some natural systems, human intervention may facilitate
adjustment to expected climate and its effects” (IPCC 2014, 1758). Climate change
agendas have shifted from being a problem of a single science (climate science) to an
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 3

interdisciplinary science, including physical, social, biological, health, and engineering

sciences (National Research Council 2010). Adaptation planning, as a result, has
moved from a single-dimension to an integrative approach that interacts with the con-
cept of vulnerability and resilience.
An earlier approach in adaptation planning, a hazard-based approach or an impact
assessment, is a top-down approach that is driven by climate change scenarios. In this
model, adaptation is part of a climate impact assessment to estimate proper adaptation
options for future climate impacts (Carter et al. 1994; F€ussel 2007a; Smit and Wandel
2006). This model is crucial for risk assessment and raising public awareness, but fails
to address non-climatic factors such as socio-economic conditions, or entitlements that
are essential for the system to cope with new stimuli (F€ussel 2007b).
The vulnerability-based approach assesses future climate change more inclusively
in the context of existing climate risks and non-climatic factors. This approach argues
that climate variability and change might impact variously different groups or com-
munities due to their prior socio-economic conditions (Adger 1999; F€ussel 2007b;
F€ussel and Klein 2006). Thus, this approach focuses strongly on social factors, takes
into account the involvement of stakeholders from the outset and the past experiences
of communities for the formulation of adaptation decisions. Vulnerability is an inter-
action of three dimensions: exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (Adger 2006;
F€ussel and Klein 2006; IPCC 2007). Exposure refers to the physical presence of peo-
ple, livelihoods, species, or socio-economic, cultural, and natural resources in places
that experience, or are potentially affected by, climate variation and change (Burton,
Kates, and White 1993; IPCC 2014). Sensitivity indicates the predisposing conditions
or inherent attributes of a system that determines the degree to which a system is
affected directly or indirectly, adversely or beneficially, by climate variability or
change (Cutter et al. 2009; IPCC 2007). Adaptive capacity represents the system’s
ability to adjust to a disturbance to moderate potential damages, exploit opportunities,
or cope with the consequences (Adger 2006; Gallopın 2006; IPCC 2014). This is an
inherent attribute of the system that exists before the disturbance; thus, building adap-
tive capacity is necessary for the system to prepare and respond to projected stress.
Given the increasingly important role of adaptive capacity in alleviating overall vulner-
ability, adaptation planning emphasizes building the capacity of the city. As such, the
concept of resilience has grown to guide planning practices.
The urban climate resilience framework is based on the resilience concept influ-
enced by the systems thinking perspective. Resilience considers the deficiency of cog-
nition and capability within the socio-ecological system as the causes of poor
performance, organizational failure, and inability to adapt (Davoudi et al. 2012; Senge
and Sterman 1992). Two distinct definitions of resilience include: engineering resili-
ence is the system’s capacity to bounce back to a stable condition after a disturbance
(could be a natural disaster); ecological resilience is “the magnitude of the disturbance
that can be absorbed before the system changes its structure” (Holling 1996, 33).
Davoudi et al. (2012), in acknowledgment of the complexity and interconnectivity of
the socio-ecological system, suggested the concept of evolutionary resilience. Contrary
to ecological resilience that acknowledges the existence of multiple equilibria, evolu-
tionary resilience advocates the evolving nature and the uncertainties of a socio-
ecological system and searches for transformation.
The development of a system from engineering resilience to ecological resilience,
and evolutionary resilience goes through three theorized levels, correspondingly to
4 T. D. N. Le

Figure 1. Theoretical framework of adaptation planning.

Source: Adapted from Holling (1996); IPCC (2007); and Pelling (2011).

three potential adaptation pathways, namely resilience – transition – transformation

(Davoudi et al. 2012; Gallopın 2006; Holling 1996; Meerow, Newell, and Stults 2016;
Pelling 2011). Adaptation as resilience includes three discrete attributes: functional
persistence, the ability of social learning, and the ability of self-organization
(McEvoy, F€ unfgeld, and Bosomworth 2013; Pelling 2011). Persistence is the ability to
absorb the disturbance within the current functional system. Social learning refers to
the capacity and processes to disseminate, popularize, and make dominant new values,
ideas, and practices. Self-organization refers to the tendency to form social collectives,
formally or informally, without direction from higher-level actors (Pelling 2011).
Adaptation as transition refers to incremental reform in governance undertaken at sep-
arate policy sectors or specific geographical areas. For instance, the promotion of
stakeholder participation in the decision-making process will add new perspectives and
values in policy formulation (Pelling 2011). Transformation is a radical change in
socio-political regime, which requires the rebalancing of rights and responsibilities
between actors, the citizenry, and states, and accounts for future generations’ interests
that are held on a promise of human security (Davoudi et al. 2012; Pelling 2011;
Pelling, O’Brien, and Matyas 2015). These requirements place climate change adapta-
tion as embedded within ongoing development struggles for rights and powers
(Pelling 2011).
Compliant with the conceptual linkages between climate change, climate variabil-
ity, vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience, it can be generalized into three main the-
oretical frameworks that are used to guide the adaptation planning practices, including
the (1) hazard-based or impact assessment approach, (2) the vulnerability-based
approach, and (3) the urban resilience approach (Figure 1). A different model will
frame the issue of adaptation differently and is expected to require a distinctive com-
bination of actions to tackle climate change. Climate change impacts and vulnerabil-
ities will serve as the driver to trigger the adaptation process in the hazard and
vulnerability approaches. Meanwhile, the resilience vision, which situates climate
change among other development goals and policy contexts, will be the anchor of the
resilience approach. Different perspectives between the three theoretical frameworks
are expected to influence the formulation of adaptation planning differently.
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 5

Figure 2. Map of case studies (45 cities in 26 countries on four continents).

3. Methodology
3.1. Sample selection
This study reviews and analyzes data compiled during a content analysis, conducted in
Le (2020), in which adaptation plans in 45 coastal cities in developing countries were
evaluated (Figure 2). The primary data include climate change vulnerability assessments,
climate action or adaptation plans, and city resilience strategies. The study uses the set
of municipal documents as the unit of analysis, since some cities have completed more
than one adaptation plan with different points in time and study approaches. There have
been some shifts in social vulnerability and adaptive capacity, which might emphasize
different priorities. A set of documents can be a single document of vulnerability assess-
ment, adaptation plan, or resilience strategy, or a combination of these documents (if
available). For instance, vulnerability assessment and adaptation plans are often com-
bined into a set of documents if the former is used to develop the latter. Also, to avoid
confusion, when a document published in a prior year is nested within documents pub-
lished later, this study will strive to exclude the documents that have many parts with
similar content and study approach. After reviewing all the possible documents, there
are 51 sets of planning documents analyzed in this study
This study places attention on the small and medium-sized cities since these cities
are assumed to have limited capacity for climate change adaptation, but likely to be
similarly or more vulnerable than larger cities. Although the study aimed to recruit an
equal number of small and medium-sized cities as large cities in the analysis, the sam-
ple consists of 17 small cities (a population less than 200,000), 16 medium cities (a
population from 200,000 to 1.5 million), and 12 large cities (a population from 1.5 to
10 million). The study examines the role of city size in adaption planning for cli-
mate change.

3.2. Study approach

The study consists of three main steps, analyzing 51 sets of planning documents. The
first step was the coding process to generate variables (Le 2020). The second step
6 T. D. N. Le

Figure 3. Hypothesized model with variables of interest.

utilized a multiple multivariate regression to examine the impact of theoretical frame-

works on the formulation of adaptation options controlling for the planning content
variable (the extent of climate change projection as the proxy), planning method vari-
able (the diversity of stakeholders), and the contextual variables (the city size and the
published year of the planning document) (Figure 3). Finally, the study conducted a
content analysis across studied cities to explore in which ways theoretical frameworks
explain different focuses of the proposed adaptation strategies based on forms, levels
of action, and target objectives.
Proposed adaptation measures: This study examines multiple outcomes as a way to
explore potential meaningful dependent variables for adaptation tracking. Dependent
variables are the total number of adaptation initiatives and the number of adaptation
initiatives classified based on forms, levels of action, and target objectives. Discrete
adaptation initiatives are extracted from the planning documents and coded in two dif-
ferent methods of classification as reported in (Le 2020). The first classification, fol-
lowing Noble et al. (2014), categorizes adaptation options into structural or physical,
social, and institutional measures. The second classification, adapted from Dupuis and
Biesbroek (2013), classifies adaptation initiatives into contiguous, contributive, sym-
bolic, and concrete policies (Table 1 for the description of terminology).
Four typologies of policies are grouped following their levels of action and target
objectives. Regarding the levels of action, contiguous and symbolic policies, measures
having limited impact on vulnerability reduction but able to contribute to enabling neces-
sary conditions for adaptation, are grouped as groundwork, while contributive and con-
crete policies, measures that work substantially to enhance resilience or reduce
vulnerability associated with climate change as well as other shocks and stressors, are
grouped as adaptation actions (Dupuis and Biesbroek 2013; Le 2020; Lesnikowski et al.
2015). Regarding the target objectives, contiguous and contributive policies, which are
designed to cope with other objectives rather than climate change, are grouped as the
baseline adaptation policies, while symbolic and concrete policies, which aim to manage
climate change impacts, are grouped as the climate change adaptation policies.
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 7

Table 1. Description of the classification measures

Classification Description

Forms of measures
 Structural and
physical measure
 Social measure
 Institutional measure
Typologies of policies
 Contiguous policy
 Contributive policy
 Symbolic policy
 Concrete policy
Measures include hard structural and engineering, built
environment options, the application of distinct technologies,
the use of ecosystem and their services, and specific
service delivery.
Measures target the vulnerability of disadvantaged groups and
overall people, including education, knowledge sharing,
awareness raising, informational strategies, and
behavioral change.
Measures include economic instruments, laws, regulations, and
planning measures, government policies, and programs such
as integrated planning, urban upgrading programs.
Measures aim to address other objectives and have a limited
impact on vulnerability reduction but can enable necessary
conditions for adaptation.
Measures aim to reduce vulnerability and build resilience but
are planned to tackle other objectives rather than
climate change.
Measures aim to address climate change and enable necessary
conditions for adaptation but not directly reduce vulnerability
or enhance resilience.
Measures aim directly to reduce vulnerability and build
resilience to climate change impact.

Source: Adapted from Noble et al. (2014) and Dupuis and Biesbroek (2013).

Theoretical framework: the planning documents were coded based on the concep-
tual framework guiding the planning process. The planning process that was guided by
analyzing exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity was classified as vulnerability-
based frameworks (VBF). The planning processes built with resilience vision were
grouped as urban resilience frameworks (URF), and the ones started by analyzing the
impacts of climate change and climate variability on exposure units, such as sectors or
segment of the population, were classified as hazard-based or impact assessment
frameworks (HBF). Conceptual framing has been an indicator of adaptation outcomes,
such as how framing the issue of climate change and vulnerability can affect the extent
of adaptation strategies integrated into climate action plans and the character of pro-
posed adaptation options, either incremental or transformative (Koski and Siulagi
2016; Pelling 2011).

H1. Theoretical frameworks impact significantly the formulation of adaptation options,

in which documents with the hazard-based approach might generate a higher number of
structural adaptation actions, and climate change adaptation measures, while the
vulnerability and resilience framework might generate more social, institutional,
groundworks, and baseline adaptation measures.

Climate change projection is the ranking value of the extent to which climate
change is projected and incorporated in the planning documents on a scale of 1–3. The
value is 1 if the document mentions climate change and its associated phenomenon
8 T. D. N. Le

(such as the projection of temperature, precipitation or rainfall, sea-level rise, and

extreme climate events) as a threat without explicit detail. The value is 2 if climate
change is projected using regional models, and the value is 3 if climate change is
downscaled with a timeframe to 2025, 2050, or further. It is logical to expect that
more accurate climate change projections will have a significant impact on the formu-
lation of adaptation measures.

H2. Planning documents with long-term and finer-scale climate change projections are
expected to formulate a higher number of adaptation actions and climate change
adaptation initiatives.

Diversity of stakeholders is a proxy of the planning approach that refers to the

extent of participatory planning. Planning to combat climate change is traditionally an
expert-led approach as driven by climate change scenarios (Carter et al. 1994). With
significant climate change impacts on many aspects in local communities, the partici-
patory and community-based approaches are prevalent in developing countries, since
these approaches help to empower local and vulnerable communities and are useful in
places that lack scientific data (Ayers and Forsyth 2009; Broto, Boyd, and Ensor
2015). This variable is a count variable. It refers to the number of types of stakehold-
ers involved in the assessment and planning process, including NGOs (Non-
Governmental Organizations), municipal governments, higher-level governments
(including state/provincial/regional governments and intergovernmental/international
governments), research or educational institutions, civil societies, families or commu-
nity residents. Participation of a type of stakeholder in the planning process is coded
as 1, otherwise coded as 0.

H3. Higher diversity of stakeholder involvement in the planning process is expected to

formulate a higher number of adaptation measures.

Planning year is the year the plan was published, which might have some impact
on adaptation planning followed by the accumulation of experiences and lessons
learned from previous planning or adaptation activities (Woodruff and Stults 2016).
Also, with the later involvement of the vulnerability and resilience concepts into the
adaptation realm, the later published plans might place more attention on social and
institutional measures. To ease the interpretation, the variable of planning year is con-
verted into a ranking variable, in which the year before 2009 is assigned a 1, and the
variable increases by 1 for each subsequent year.

H4. A planning document that is published in more recent years is expected to

formulate a higher number of social, institutional measures, adaptation actions, and
climate change adaptation initiatives.

City size refers to the size of the city’s population classified following the OECD
(2019)2. The code is 1 for the small urban areas (a population less than 200,000, called
small cities in this study), 2 for the medium and large-size urban areas (a population
from 200,000 to 1.5 million, called medium cities), and 3 for the large metropolitan
areas (a population over 1.5 million, called large or metropolitan cities).
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 9

H5. Larger cities might formulate a higher number of adaptation measures than smaller
cities because they might encounter more issues, be more vulnerable due to the higher
concentration of population, and have a higher capacity to respond to these problems.

Table 2 illustrates the summary of variables, including their description, mean,

max, and min value.
The study tests separately each group of dependent variables, DV1 – DV4 and
DV5 – DV8. Since the variables in each group are highly correlated, this study utilizes
the method of multivariate analysis. To satisfy the assumption of normality, the
dependent variables are transformed using the natural logarithm. In an additional ana-
lysis, this study runs a discriminant analysis to examine how the theoretical frame-
works are discriminated on dependent variables. The results from this test denote a
significant discriminant with 82.4% of original grouped planning documents correctly
classified. This result validates that the coding process is reliable in classifying the
types of theoretical frameworks. Given the small sample size of the study, the test was
run with the bootstrapping option. Two models were tested, the first one with only the
theoretical framework as the independent variable and the second with the full model.
The models are written as below:

Model 1: The test with the theoretical framework as the predictor with VBF, then HBF
as the reference group.

DVi ¼ a0i þ a1i
URF þ a2i
HBF (M1A, i ¼ 1-4; M1B, i ¼ 5-8)

DVi ¼ a’0i þ a’1i
URF þ a’2i
VBF

where VBF: the vulnerability-based framework, URF: the urban resilience framework,
and HBF: the hazard-based framework.

Model 2: The full model with theoretical framework, climate change projection,
diversity of stakeholders, city size, and planning year as the predictors.

DVi ¼ b0i þ b1i
URF þ b2i
HBF þ b3i
CCProj þ b4i
Stakeholder þ b5i
SmallCity þ

b6i
MediumCity þ b7i
Year (M2A, i ¼ 1-4; M2B, i ¼ 5-8)

DVi ¼ b’0i þ b’1i
URF þ b’2i
VBF þ b’3i
CCProj þ b’4i
Stakeholder þ

b’5i
LargeCity þ b’6i
MediumCity þ b’7i
Year

4. Influence of theoretical framework and controlling variables on the

formulation of adaptation measures
Results from multiple multivariate regression illustrate that all models are significant
except the full model tested with institutional measures (Table 3). It shows an
improvement of adjusted R square, i.e. the explanatory power of a regression model,
in the full model compared to the baseline model with only the theoretical framework
as the independent variable. The inclusion of new terms improves the model more
than would be expected by chance. Five general findings emerge from the regression
results corresponding to the proposed hypotheses.
10 T. D. N. Le

Table 2. Description of variables

Name of Mean
Variable variable Description (s.d.) Range

Dependent variables*
Group A: Total proposed adaptation measures and classified by form
Total adaptation DV1 The total number of adaptation 33.94 7 – 90
measures is proposed in the
Measures planning documents. (20.45)
Structural DV2 The proposed measures include 12.64 1 – 50
and physical engineered and
measures built environment, technological, (8.77)
ecosystem-based,
and service-related interventions.
Social DV3 The proposed measures relate 11.98 2 – 40
measures to education,
information, and behavior such (9.09)
as awareness-
raising, climate change
education, improved
forecast, dataset, or behavior changes.
Institutional DV4 The measures include economic 9.33 2 – 31
measures initiatives, laws
and regulations, and government (6.78)
policies and
programs.
Group B. Proposed adaptation measures classified by levels of action and target goals
Groundwork DV5 Groundworks consist of policies that 10.35 0 – 38
do not directly
reduce vulnerability but enable (8.75)
adaptation to take
place.
Adaptation DV6 Adaptation actions are policies 23.59 2 – 71
actions that contribute
directly to reduce vulnerability (14.34)
or enhance
resilience.
Baseline DV7 The measures are designed to 24.20 2 – 64
adaptation address other
objectives rather than climate change, (16.32)
such as
existing socio-economic issues
and climate
variability.
Climate change DV8 The measures are designed to respond 9.75 0 – 59
to additional
adaptation impacts of climate change. (10.17)
Independent variables
Theoretical VBF URF Dummy variables of type of 2.1 (0.831) 1 – 3
framework HBF frameworks: the vulnerability-based
framework (VBF), the urban
resilience framework (URF), and
the hazard-based framework (HBF).
Climate change CCProj The extent to which climate change is 2.1 (0.78) 1 – 3
projection projected and incorporated in the
planning documents
(Continued)
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 11

Table 2. (Continued).
Name of Mean
Variable variable Description (s.d.) Range

Stakeholder Stakeholder The number of types of stakeholders 5.41 (1.49) 3 – 8

diversity involving in the assessment and
planning process
Planning year Year The year when the planning document 2013.37 2006 –
is published.
(2.28) 2017
City size SmallCity Dummy variables refer to the size of 1.94 (0.79) 1 – 3
MediumCity the city’s population classified as
LargeCity small, medium, and large or
metropolitan cities.

N ¼ 51.
the dependent variables will be transformed using the natural logarithm.

First, the finding supports the first hypothesis that the theoretical framework sig-
nificantly predicts the formulation of adaptation initiatives to respond to climate
change. The VBF framework proposes significantly fewer adaptation measures while
the URF framework recommends the highest adaptation measures among the three
frameworks (see Table 3. Model 1 A.DV1). When controlled by other variables, plan-
ning documents guided by the HBF framework formulates a significantly higher num-
ber of structural measures than those guided by the VBF framework (see Table 3.
Model 2 A.DV2). The URF proposes a substantially higher number of institutional
measures than the other two (see Table 3. Model 2 A.DV4). Regarding the influence
on social measures, despite URF and HBF framework formulates a significantly higher
number of social measures than the VBF framework in the baseline model; the full
model shows a non-significant difference between these three frameworks (see Table
3. Model 1 A.DV3 and Model 2 A.DV3).
Regarding the levels of actions and target goals, while there is no statistically sig-
nificant difference between frameworks on proposed groundwork initiatives, the URF
and HBF frameworks formulate a significantly higher number of adaptation actions
and baseline adaptation initiatives than the VBF framework (see Table 3. Model
2B.DV5, DV6, DV7). The URF framework, however, proposes the significantly fewest
climate change adaptation initiatives among the three frameworks (see Table 3.
Model 2B.DV8).
These findings reveal that while the VBF framework tackles the issues of climate
change directly and tends to propose fewer measures, the HBF framework shares
resources for both climate change and other matters and utilizes primarily structural
measures to solve the problems. On the contrary, the URF puts more effort into other
issues rather than climate change impacts with a higher emphasis on using institutional
measures than two other frameworks. Regardless of the framework, social measures
are considered essential.
Second, the planning content variable, which takes the extent of climate change
projection as a proxy, has a significant impact on adaptation measures (Hypothesis 2).
This study found that a more accurate climate change projection is likely to produce a
higher number of institutional measures and adaptation actions (see Table 3. Model
2 A.DV4 and Model 2B.DV6). It also yields a positive relationship between the extent
of projection and climate change adaptation initiatives (see Table 3). The downscaled
 12

Table 3. Multiple multivariate regression on the formulation of adaptation measures

Model 1A: Baseline model Model 2A: Full model Model 1B: Baseline model Model 2B: Full model Variables

Variables DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV1 DV2 DV3 DV4 DV5 DV6 DV7 DV8 DV5 DV6 DV7 DV8

Urban resilience 0.643


0.581

0.839


0.426
0.544
0.496 0.534 0.555 0.805


0.601

1.060


0.604

0.319 0.680

0.900

0.868

Hazard-based 0.488

0.848


0.452
0.073 0.380
0.746


0.376 0.168 0.17 0.631


0.539

0.344 0.068 0.457

0.529

0.019
Urban resilience 0.155 0.267 0.387
0.499

0.165 0.250 0.158 0.723
0.822

0.031 0.521

0.947


0.387 0.223 0.371 0.849

Climate change 0.152 0.103 0.070 0.302
0.140 0.276
0.102 0.141
projection
Stakeholder 0.052 0.096 0.041 0.016 0.036 0.079 0.115 0.037
diversity
Planning year 0.036 0.015 0.088 0.047 0.106 0.006 0.033 0.056
Small city 0.231 0.219 0.271 0.055 0.323 0.274 0.084 0.821


T. D. N. Le

(ref: Large city)

Medium city 0.305 0.379 0.351 0.105 0.450 0.290 0.168 0.834



(ref: Large city)
Medium city 0.074 0.160 0.080 0.050 0.127 0.016 0.084 0.013
(ref: Small city)
F-value (p-value) 6.008


7.993


5.674


3.104
2.567

3.047

2.442

1.649 5.011

6.089


10.570


5.248


2.126
2.853

3.524


3.466



(0.005) (0.001) (0.006) (0.054) (0.027) (0.011) (0.034) (0.148) (0.011) (0.004) (0.000) (0.009) (0.061) (0.016) (0.004) (0.005)
R Squared 0.200 0.250 0.191 0.115 0.295 0.332 0.284 0.212 0.173 0.202 0.306 0.179 0.257 0.317 0.365 0.361
Adjusted 0.167 0.219 0.157 0.078 0.180 0.223 0.168 0.083 0.138 0.169 0.277 0.145 0.136 0.206 0.261 0.257
R Squared
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 13

climate change model might contribute to the formulation of a higher number of cli-
mate change adaptation initiatives. The significance of this variable, however, is weak.
Nevertheless, the result of this study suggests it may be useful in the future with more
extensive data to focus more on this variable in the study of climate change adapta-
tion tracking.
Third, the planning approach, with stakeholder diversity as a proxy, is not found to
be statistically significant in the formulation of adaptation measures (H3). There is an
observation that a higher diversity of stakeholders is likely to formulate a higher num-
ber of adaptation measures. The co-production of knowledge might produce a higher
number of adaptation actions and baseline adaptation measures, but fewer climate
change adaptation initiatives (see Table 3, line Stakeholder diversity). It might be that
climate change is a ‘super wicked’ problem (Levin et al. 2009) that involves a vast
array of actors and is challenging to handle, especially in the context of developing
countries with limited resources and knowledge of climate change. These statistics,
however, are not significant. Nonetheless, diversity of stakeholders would be a poten-
tial predictor of adaptation planning since responding to climate change always needs
the co-production of multilevel government, local knowledge, and expertise
(Homsy 2014).
Fourth, findings from this study do not support the hypothesis of the effect of the
planning year on the planning outcome (H4). Nonetheless, it denotes a positive trend
in the total number of adaptation measures, social, and institutional measures, but a
negative trend in structural measures (see Table 3, line Planning year). The more
recent the adaptation planning documents, the higher number of social and institutional
measures are formulated in the adaptation planning documents, but lesser structural
measures. This means that planners are increasingly putting more focus on social and
institutional initiatives for climate change adaptation and resilience-building than in
earlier years.
Last, city size does influence the outcome of adaptation planning (H5). There is a
trend that large-size cities (with populations over 1.5 million) propose a higher number
of adaptation initiatives than small and medium cities. They utilize a significantly
higher number of measures that are designed directly for climate change adaptation
(see Table 3. Model 2B.DV8). City size may influence the pursuit and accomplishment
of climate actions because of inequality of capacity (Paterson et al. 2017). Larger cit-
ies may be able to mobilize more resources and produce a stronger institutional effort
in addressing climate change (Morsch 2010).

5. Comparing the influence of theoretical frameworks on adaptation measures

In order to explore how the theoretical framework influences the formulation of adap-
tation measures, this study examines the frequency of each typology of adaptation
measures by theoretical frameworks across case studies. Findings from this content
analysis provide a comparison between three guided frameworks, as illustrated in
Table 4.
The classification by forms showcases a distinction in the main focus between the
three frameworks. The VBF shares relatively equal attention on the three forms of
adaptation initiatives. Social and institutional measures account for 34  35% of the
total number of adaptation measures. Structural or physical measures take a slightly
lesser percentage at 31%. Meanwhile, planning documents guided by the URF
 14

Table 4. Influence of theoretical frameworks on adaptation measures across case studies

Forms of adaptation measures

(Number/Percentage) Levels of action Target goals
Average
No. of Ground- Adaptation Baseline CC number of
Framework cases Structural Social Institutional work Actions Adaptation Adaptation Total measures/city

Vulnerability- 15 109 121 124 118 236 216 138 354 23.60
based (30.79%) (34.18%) (35.03%) (33.33%) (66.67%) (61.02%) (38.98%) (20.45%)
T. D. N. Le

Urban 16 198 255 (39.17%) 198 235 416 564 87 651 40.69
resilience (30.41%) (30.41%) (36.1%) (63.9%) (86.64%) (13.36%) (37.61%)
Hazard- 20 337 235 (32.37%) 154 175 551 454 272 726 36.30
based (46.42%) (21.21%) (24.1%) (75.9%) (62.53%) (37.47%) (41.94%)
Total 51 644 611 476 528 1203 1234 497 1731 33.94
(37.2%) (35.3%) (27.5%) (30.5%) (69.5%) (71.29%) (28.71%) 100.00%
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 15

framework are more focused on social measures with 39% of the total proposed meas-
ures and share equal concentration on structural and institutional measures. On the
contrary, the HBF framework takes structural measures as the primary means to adapt
to climate change (46%) with less attention to institutional initiatives (only 21%).
Conversely, there is a consistency between the three frameworks in terms of levels
of action and target goals. All three frameworks dominantly propose adaptation actions
as the primary tools for climate change adaptation and resilience-building, but these
interventions focus more on baseline adaptation rather than tackling climate change.
The HBF framework takes the highest rate of adaptation actions – to – groundwork
(about 3:1), while other frames’ rate is nearly 2:1. To effectively reduce vulnerability
or enhance resilience, adaptation actions are crucial, but groundwork actions are also
essential to create a facilitating environment. The URF framework proposes the highest
average number of initiatives per city. Problematically, 87% of these initiatives are
baseline adaptations, which are not designed to deal with climate change impacts as
the target goal. Given that ‘climate change resilience’ is an ambiguous and often
misunderstood term (Fisichelli, Schuurman, and Hoffman 2016), there might be a
divergence in applying this framework. It raises the question as to whether URF is a
well-fitted conceptual framework for climate change adaptation. Therefore, cities when
applying the resilience concept should need to be clear of what resilience means, what
its principles are, and how this term is related to climate change responses.
The VBF, however, proposes the least average number of measures but the highest
percentage of climate change adaptation initiatives among the three frameworks. This
implies that applying the VBF framework results in a planning process that has nar-
rowed down areas of intervention. The adaptation process, therefore, might require a
lower number of measures but more directly focused on climate change. Standing in
between these three frameworks, the HBF also has a high average number of measures
per city (36 measures/city). Nearly 40% of these initiatives are to combat climate
change while the remaining 60% address existing socio-economic issues and disaster
management. This framework, however, tends to focus on structural or physical meas-
ures while focusing less on institutional change.

6. Discussion
Substantial attention has been dedicated to exploring the importance of adaptation
framing (Dupuis and Knoepfel 2013; Funfgeld and McEvoy 2011; Koski and Siulagi
2016; McEvoy, F€unfgeld, and Bosomworth 2013). Contributing to this discourse, this
study has confirmed the hypothesis that different theoretical frameworks will lead to
different focuses on the formulation of solutions to tackle problems. Results of this
analysis illustrate a significant influence of the theoretical framework on the formula-
tion of adaptation initiatives in terms of the number of measures and the focus distri-
bution. The VBF framework is likely to formulate a significantly lower number of
total adaptation measures but the highest rate to tackle climate change adaptation,
while the URF framework formulates the highest number of measures but the lowest
rate of climate change adaptation initiatives. All three frameworks recommend a com-
bination of groundwork and adaptation actions to respond to climate change.
Regarding the form, while the URF framework places the greatest attention on social
measures, the HBF framework emphasizes structural adaptation initiatives, and the
VBF framework shares a relatively equal focus on the three types of adaptation
16 T. D. N. Le

typologies. None of the frameworks show a dominant focus on institutional measures,

although the VBF produces a slightly higher rate of institutional measures.
These findings offer important implications for adaptation planning along with the
area of attention for each framework. Firstly, the VBF framework addresses the prob-
lem more comprehensively in sharing similar efforts on physical, social, and institu-
tional initiatives than the two others. Also, this framework is sufficient to address
climate change impact with 40% of the proposed initiatives targeting climate change
adaptation. Applying this framework, however, encounters potential difficulties. There
are many related terms and techniques, such as exposure, sensitivity, adaptive capacity,
vulnerability mapping, which are difficult for people without a strong research back-
ground to understand and apply. Thus, much effort will be needed in training and
exchanging knowledge. The planning process also requires a sound understanding of
the field to capture the vulnerability of people and places, which is challenging to
apply in large cities with vast and diverse areas.
Lack of sufficiently accurate and fine detailed baseline data has hindered the
selection of proper indicators. This lowers the accuracy of vulnerability mapping
and the efficiency of a vulnerability assessment (Button et al. 2013). A possible
way to overcome these difficulties is the use of indigenous and local knowledge.
For example, Sorsogon (Phillippines), Batticaloa (Sri Lanka), and others have con-
ducted a community survey and practiced community hazard mapping in the
absence of necessary relevant data (Mias-Mamonong and Flores 2010; UN-Habitat
2013). Building a database is another potential starting point for adaptation plan-
ning for cities in developing countries. For instance, Panaji (India) established an
inventory of urban infrastructure in a GIS environment as the first step of risk
assessment and adaptation planning (TERI 2014).
Second, the URF framework tends to offer a larger space for adaptation measures
with the highest average number of initiatives per city. Applying this framework has
great potential to lift the socio-economic conditions of residents, as it emphasizes
social aspects. The efficiency of this framework to the climate change realm, however,
is a question because most of the formulated initiatives address baseline adaptation
while a few deal with climate change. For example, despite identifying climate change
as a main issue in the Resilient Da Nang plan, the majority of the initiatives aim to
resolve existing problems such as promoting basic services for residents’ safety against
disasters, creating diverse job opportunities, improving infrastructure capacity and
information communication for disaster management (Da Nang 2016). While it is
necessary for a city to build their resilience starting from its existing conditions, how
the city effectively allocates its resources for both current issues and climate change is
challenging. Also, what resilience to climate change means needs to be defined exactly
so that the planning process can open opportunities for transformation to tackle climate
change. This study also found that finer downscaled climate change projections con-
tribute positively to the formulation of adaptation measures. Therefore, informing cli-
mate change knowledge, such as climate change modeling and its impacts, and
incorporating climate change vision during the planning process is critically important
when applying the URF framework. Cities in developing countries, in the absence of
technological expertise for climate change downscaling, can benefit from access to
regional or national climate change projections in combination with historical climate
trends to estimate climate change impacts. The vulnerability assessment of Makassar
city in Indonesia is an example of this approach (Taylor 2013).
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 17

Third, the HBF framework, despite proposing a sufficient combination between cli-
mate change and baseline adaptation, is too biased toward structural or physical meas-
ures while addressing the least consideration to institutional measures. Extensive focus
on structural measures, however, can be maladaptive. For instance, the building of sea-
walls can prevent flooding in one place but might exacerbate flooding in nearby areas.
Therefore, applying an analysis framework to minimize maladaptation is crucial.
Barnett and O’Neill (2013) suggest five types of maladaptation, including the measures
that might increase greenhouse gas emissions, excessively burden the most vulnerable,
have a high opportunity cost, reduce incentives to adapt, and actions that commit insti-
tutions and significant capital to paths that are too rigid to adjust in the future. Given
the inherent uncertainty of climate change, adaptation planning will need flexibility for
a long-term planning horizon. Soft strategies such as institutional measures may create
a mechanism to anticipate problems, enable cooperation, resource and knowledge shar-
ing, and regulatory enforcement that are necessary for continuous social and institu-
tional learning (Hallegatte 2009; Pelling 2011). Applying the HBF framework, besides
the structural or physical interventions, should also promote social and institutional ini-
tiatives to leverage climate change adaptation.
Finally, since each framework has its strengths and limitations, the combination of
multiple frameworks can be another approach in adaptation planning. For instance, a
city might want to conduct a study of climate change impacts followed by a vulner-
ability assessment or integrating resilience vision when formulating adaptation initia-
tives. Such a combination will take advantage of each framework but will need
extensive effort to fulfill the requirements of each planning framework.

7. Conclusion
This article examined five hypotheses. Among them, three have been supported by the
data, including the significant influence of theoretical frameworks, the extent of cli-
mate change projection, and the city size on the formulation of adaptation options.
Given the significance of the planning framework, planners and decision-makers
should acknowledge the distinct influence of theoretical frameworks on the planning
outcome and the area of attention of each framework to achieve the planning outcome
better. While vulnerability and hazard-based frameworks are relevant for climate
change, adaptation, urban resilience is still lacking in consideration of climate change.
This concept, as discussed in the literature, however, is a promising concept when evo-
lutionary resilience can open opportunities for social learning, institutional change, and
the potential for transformation (Davoudi et al. 2012; Gaillard 2010; Miller et al.
2010; Nelson, Adger, and Brown 2007). Each city or community with different socio-
ecological conditions and existing issues might be the best fit with an approach of
adaptation planning. Therefore, understanding ‘why’ a framework is relevant to a case
study site is very important. In which case, should a city or community apply which
framework to target substantially to their objectives of either vulnerability reduction,
climate change adaptation, or resilience-building? Additionally, an integration of mul-
tiple frameworks can be another possible approach in adaptation planning. Given the
differences of each framework in targeting climate change adaptation, improving cli-
mate change awareness and incorporating climate change knowledge in the planning
process are critically important so that the planning outcome can balance between
addressing existing and future vulnerabilities and minimize the risk of maladaptation.
18 T. D. N. Le

The study also finds a significant influence of the extent of climate change projection
on the planning outcome. This influence, at a significant level of 0.1, however, is not
very strong. Therefore, downscaled climate change projection at the local level is encour-
aged but is not a must in adaptation planning. Cities with limited capacity for climate
change projection can benefit from using a regional or national climate change model
combined with recorded historical climate data to estimate climate change impacts.
Furthermore, this article seeks to focus attention on smaller cities. The study has
found that city size does matter in the formulation of adaptation measures. Larger cit-
ies tend to formulate a higher number of climate change adaptation initiatives. A
potential reason may be that larger cities have better capacity and resources to afford a
higher number of intervention measures. Nonetheless, since climate change impact is
inevitable regardless of the city size, the smaller cities should receive equal attention
and proportional resources in efforts to combat this global issue.

Notes
1. This paper constitutes chapter [Theoretical frameworks in climate change adaptation
planning: A comparative study in coastal cities of developing countries] of author’s PhD
dissertation [Climate change adaptation in coastal cities of developing countries: An
examination of municipal climate action plans] first published in [ProQuest at https://www.
proquest.com].
2. OECD (2019), Urban population by city size (indicator). doi: 10.1787/b4332f92-en
(Accessed on 12 March 2019)

Acknowledgments
The author would like to acknowledge the Ph.D. fellowship from Vietnam International
Education Development, Ministry of Education and Training, and Prof. G. William Page, Dr.
Zoe Hamstead, Prof. JiYoung Park, Prof. Errol Meidinger, Dr. Emmanuel F. Boamah at the
University at Buffalo, USA, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Supplemental data
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.

References
Adger, W. N. 1999. “Social Vulnerability to Climate Change and Extremes in Coastal
Vietnam.” World Development 27 (2): 249–269. doi:10.1016/S0305-750X.(98)00136-3.
Adger, W. N. 2006. “Vulnerability.” Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 268–281. doi:10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006.
Ayers, J., and T. Forsyth. 2009. “Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change.”
Environment 51 (4): 22–31.
Barnett, J., and S. J. O'Neill. 2013. “Minimising the Risk of Maladaptation: A Framework for
Analysis.” In Climate Adaptation Futures, edited by J. P. Palutikof, S. L. Boulter, A. J.
Ash, M. S. Smith, M. Patty, M. Waschka, and D. Guitart, 87–93. London: John Wiley.
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 19

Broto, V. C., E. Boyd, and J. Ensor. 2015. “Participatory Urban Planning for Climate Change
Adaptation in Coastal Cities: Lessons from a Pilot Experience in Maputo.” Current Opinion
in Environmental Sustainability 13: 11–18. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2014.12.005.
Burton, I., R. W. Kates, and G. F. White. 1993. The Environment as Hazard. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Button, C., M. A. A. Mias-Mamonong, B. Barth, and J. Rigg. 2013. “Vulnerability and
Resilience to Climate Change in Sorsogon City, the Philippines: Learning from an Ordinary
City?” Local Environment 18 (6): 705–722. doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.798632.
Carter, T. R., M. L. Parry, H. Harasawa, and S. Nishioka. 1994. “IPCC Technical Guidelines for
Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations.” In IPCC Special Report to the First
Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change. University College London and National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ipcc-technical-guidelines-for-assessing-climate-change-impacts-and-
adaptations-2/
Cutter, S. L., C. T. Emrich, J. J. Webb, and D. Morath. 2009. “Social Vulnerability to Climate
Variability Hazards: A Review of the Literature.” Final Report to Oxfam America 5. https://
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.458.7614&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Nang, Da. 2016. Resilient Strategy for Da Nang City, Vietnam. Vietnam: Da Nang People's
Committee & 100 Resilient Cities.
Davoudi, S., K. Shaw, L. J. Haider, A. E. Quinlan, G. D. Peterson, C. Wilkinson, H. F€unfgeld,
D. McEvoy, L. Porter, and S. Davoudi. 2012. “Resilience: A Bridging Concept or a Dead
End? ‘Reframing’ Resilience: Challenges for Planning Theory and Practice. Interacting
Traps: Resilience Assessment of a Pasture Management System in Northern Afghanistan.
Urban Resilience: What Does It Mean in Planning Practice? Resilience as a Useful Concept
for Climate Change Adaptation? The Politics of Resilience for Planning: A Cautionary
Note: Edited by Simin Davoudi and Libby Porter.” Planning Theory & Practice 13 (2):
299–333.
Dodman, D. 2012. Developing Local Climate Change Plans: A Guide for Cities in Developing
Countries. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
Dupuis, J., and R. Biesbroek. 2013. “Comparing Apples and Oranges: The Dependent Variable
Problem in Comparing and Evaluating Climate Change Adaptation Policies.” Global
Environmental Change 23 (6): 1476–1487. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.022.
Dupuis, J., and P. Knoepfel. 2013. “The Adaptation Policy Paradox: The Implementation Deficit
of Policies Framed as Climate Change Adaptation.” Ecology and Society 18 (4): 31. doi:10.
5751/ES-05965-180431.
Fisichelli, N. A., G. W. Schuurman, and C. H. Hoffman. 2016. “Is 'Resilience' Maladaptive?
Towards an Accurate Lexicon for Climate Change Adaptation.” Environmental Management
57 (4): 753–758. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0650-6.
Funfgeld, H., and D. McEvoy. 2011. Framing Climate Change Adaptation in Policy and
Practice. Melbourne: Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation Research.
F€ussel, H.-M. 2007a. “Adaptation Planning for Climate Change: Concepts, Assessment
Approaches, and Key Lessons.” Sustainability Science 2 (2): 265–275. doi:10.1007/s11625-
007-0032-y.
F€ussel, H.-M. 2007b. “Vulnerability: A Generally Applicable Conceptual Framework for
Climate Change Research.” Global Environmental Change 17 (2): 155–167. doi:10.1016/j.
gloenvcha.2006.05.002.
F€ussel, H.-M., and R. J. T. Klein. 2006. “Climate Change Vulnerability Assessments: An
Evolution of Conceptual Thinking.” Climatic Change 75 (3): 301–329. doi:10.1007/s10584-
006-0329-3.
Gaillard, J. C. 2010. “Vulnerability, Capacity and Resilience: Perspectives for Climate and
Development Policy.” Journal of International Development 22 (2): 218–232. doi:10.1002/
jid.1675.
Gallopın, G. C. 2006. “Linkages between Vulnerability, Resilience, and Adaptive Capacity.”
Global Environmental Change 16 (3): 293–303. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.004.
Hallegatte, S. 2009. “Strategies to Adapt to an Uncertain Climate Change.” Global
Environmental Change 19 (2): 240–247. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.12.003.
20 T. D. N. Le

Holling, C. S. 1996. “Engineering Resilience versus Ecological Resilience.” In Engineering

within Ecological Constraints, edited by P. Schulze, 31–44. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.
Homsy, G. C. 2014. “Sustainability and the Small City: Municipal Climate Change Action.”
Ph.D. diss., Cornell University. Proquest Dissertations and Theses Database.
IPCC. 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I, II, III
to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC.
IPCC. 2014. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Group I, II, III
to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva,
Switzerland: IPCC.
Koski, C., and A. Siulagi. 2016. “Environmental Harm or Natural Hazard? Problem
Identification and Adaptation in US Municipal Climate Action Plans.” Review of Policy
Research 33 (3): 270–290. doi:10.1111/ropr.12173.
Le, T. D. N. 2020. “Climate Change Adaptation in Coastal Cities of Developing Countries:
Characterizing Types of Vulnerability and Adaptation Options.” Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 25 (5): 739–761. doi:10.1007/s11027-019-09888-z.
Lesnikowski, A. C., J. D. Ford, L. Berrang-Ford, M. Barrera, and J. Heymann. 2015. “How Are
We Adapting to Climate Change? A Global Assessment.” Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change 20 (2): 277–293. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9491-x.
Levin, K., B. Cashore, S. Bernstein, and G. Auld. 2009. “Playing It Forward: Path Dependency,
Progressive Incrementalism, and the ‘Super Wicked’ Problem of Global Climate Change.”
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 6 (50): 502002. doi:10.1088/
1755-1307/6/50/502002.
McEvoy, D., H. F€unfgeld, and K. Bosomworth. 2013. “Resilience and Climate Change
Adaptation: The Importance of Framing.” Planning Practice and Research 28 (3): 280–293.
doi:10.1080/02697459.2013.787710.
Meerow, S., J. P. Newell, and M. Stults. 2016. “Defining Urban Resilience: A Review.”
Landscape and Urban Planning 147: 38–49. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.11.011.
Mias-Mamonong, A. A., and Y. Flores. 2010. “Sorsogon City Climate Change Vulnerability
Assessment.” http://sorsogoncity.gov.ph/?page_id=1615.
Miller, Fiona, Henny Osbahr, Emily Boyd, Frank Thomalla, Sukaina Bharwani, Gina Ziervogel,
Brian Walker, et al. 2010. “Resilience and Vulnerability: Complementary or Conflicting
Concepts?” Ecology and Society 15 (3): 11. doi:10.5751/ES-03378-150311.
Morsch, A. 2010. “State of the Southeast: How Cities Are Addressing Climate Change.” (S. C.
R. Center, Trans.). Durham, NC: Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions.
National Research Council. 2010. Advancing the Science of Climate Change. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
Nelson, D. R., W. N. Adger, and K. Brown. 2007. “Adaptation to Environmental Change:
Contributions of a Resilience Framework.” Annual Review of Environment and Resources
32 (1): 395–419. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348.
Noble, I. R., S. Huq, Y. A. Anokhin, J. Carmin, D. Goudon, F. P. Lansigan, and A. Villamizar.
2014. “Adaptation Needs and Options.” In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by C. B.
Field, V. R. Barros, D. J. Dokken, K. J. Mach, M. D. Mastrandrea, T. E. Bilir, M.
Chatterjee, K. L. Ebi, Y. O. Estrada, R. C. Genova, et al., 833–868. Cambridge, UK; New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L. P. Nygaard, and A. Schjolden. 2007. “Why Different Interpretations
of Vulnerability Matter in Climate Change Discourses.” Climate Policy, 7 (1): 73–88. doi:
10.1080/14693062.2007.9685639.
Paterson, S. K., M. Pelling, L. H. Nunes, F. de Ara ujo Moreira, K. Guida, and J. A. Marengo.
2017. “Size Does Matter: City Scale and the Asymmetries of Climate Change Adaptation in
Three Coastal Towns.” Geoforum 81: 109–119. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.02.014.
Pelling, M. 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. London:
Routledge.
Pelling, M., K. O’Brien, and D. Matyas. 2015. “Adaptation and Transformation.” Climatic
Change 133 (1): 113–127. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0.
 Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 21

Senge, P. M., and J. D. Sterman. 1992. “Systems Thinking and Organizational Learning: Acting
Locally and Thinking Globally in the Organization of the Future.” European Journal of
Operational Research 59 (1): 137–150. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(92)90011-W.
Sierra, R., S. Flores, and G. Zamora. 2009. Climate Change Assessment for Esmeraldas,
Ecuador. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-Habitat.
Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. “Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability.” Global
Environmental Change 16 (3): 282–292. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008.
Taylor, J. 2013. Makassar, Indonesia: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessement. Nairobi,
Kenya: UN-Habitat.
TERI. 2014. Planning Climate Resilient Coastal Cities: Learnings from Panaji and
Visakhapatnam, India. New Delhi: The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI). https://www.
teriin.org/eventdocs/files/Working-Paper-climate-resilient.pdf.
Tyler, S., E. Nugraha, H. K. Nguyen, N. V. Nguyen, A. D. Sari, P. Thinpanga, T. T. Tran, S. S.
Swanson, and L. Bizikova. 2014. “Developing Indicators of Urban Climate Resilience.” In
Climate Resilience Working Paper Series 3. Institute for Social and Environmental
Transition (ISET).
UN-Habitat. 2013. “Batticaloa Disaster Risk Reduction and Preparedness Plan: Towards a
Sustainable and Resilient City Disaster Resilient City Development Strategies for Sri Lanka
Cities.” http://unhabitat.lk/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/DRRPBtEng.pdf.
Woodruff, S. C., and M. Stults. 2016. “Numerous Strategies but Limited Implementation
Guidance in US Local Adaptation Plans.” Nature Climate Change 6 (8): 796–802. doi:10.
1038/nclimate3012.