From Case Studies to Climate Adaptation Policy: a Framework for Dialogue Between Local Professionals and Decision Makers

This policy brief from the Stockholm Environment Institute proposes a methodological framework to improve the dialogue between local climate adaptation professionals and policy makers. It examines how the design and epistemology of case study research determine whether the resulting insights support planned, regulatory policy or non-coercive, self-organised adaptation.

• Mainstreaming climate adaptation into sectoral policies frequently employs an 'upscaling' model. In this approach, lessons derived from local change processes are used to inform decision-making at higher administrative levels, requiring a dialogue between those designing regulatory policy—who seek generalised conclusions—and professionals conducting research on community-based adaptation in various contexts.
• The choice of research methodology in case studies is not merely academic but political, as it determines the type of policy the research supports. Methodological decisions dictate whether a case study serves planned policy, characterized by coercion and regulation, or non-coercive policy, which facilitates self-organised adaptation.
• Case studies can function as platforms to surface the practical capacities and experiences of stakeholders, potentially driving the reconstitution of existing institutions. Due to the political nature of this research, it is essential to balance the benefits of the work among community members, researchers, and non-case recipients such as policy makers.
• The document introduces a framework for sense-making in case study research based on two axes: epistemology (Realism vs. Constructionism) and intent of inquiry (Universalism vs. Contextualism). Realism views cases as objective units, while Constructionism sees them as learning platforms. Universalism seeks generalisations to predicate actions in other localities, whereas Contextualism focuses on robust, context-specific knowledge.
• An analysis of three projects—Mistra-SWECIA in Sweden, ACRM&CCA in Canada, and the MANGROVE project in Indonesia—demonstrates how research journeys shift between these perspectives. While all began with realist-universalist definitions, Mistra-SWECIA and ACRM&CCA focused on informing planned policy via meta-analysis, whereas the MANGROVE project moved toward a contextualist-constructionist perspective to foster self-organised action.

APA

Stockholm Environment Institute (n.d.). From Case Studies to Climate Adaptation Policy: a Framework for Dialogue Between Local Professionals and Decision Makers. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-PolicyBrief-Larsen-FromCaseStudiesToClimateAdaptationPolicy-2011.pdf

Chicago

Stockholm Environment Institute. From Case Studies to Climate Adaptation Policy: a Framework for Dialogue Between Local Professionals and Decision Makers. n.d. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-PolicyBrief-Larsen-FromCaseStudiesToClimateAdaptationPolicy-2011.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Stockholm Environment Institute |title=From Case Studies to Climate Adaptation Policy: a Framework for Dialogue Between Local Professionals and Decision Makers |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-PolicyBrief-Larsen-FromCaseStudiesToClimateAdaptationPolicy-2011.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{stockholmenvironmentinstitutendfrom, author = {{Stockholm Environment Institute}}, title = {{From Case Studies to Climate Adaptation Policy: a Framework for Dialogue Between Local Professionals and Decision Makers}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-PolicyBrief-Larsen-FromCaseStudiesToClimateAdaptationPolicy-2011.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }