Bridges and Barriers to Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 197

investigated bridges and barriers at different stages or phases of the adaptation
process (Moser and Eckstrom 2010 ), across both mitigation and adaption response
(Burch 2010 ) or at different scales of adaptation (Crabbé and Robin 2006 ) . Dovers
& Hezri ( 2010 ) in their summary of barriers included the following categories;
physical and ecological, financial, informational and cognitive, social and cultural
(e.g. short termism, ignorance).
Often these bridges and barriers are used interchangeably with common indica-
tors of adaptive capacity, by looking at what can stop, delay, hinder, or help actors
at different stages of the adaptation process (Moser and Eckstrom 2010 ) . While
indicators of adaptive capacity may be framed as bridges in some studies, the inverse
may be seen as barriers. A difference in framing specific issues as bridges or barri-
ers rather than indicators is that it allows a more nuanced identification of specific
lever points that could be exploited to make targeted interventions to develop more
integrative and adaptive responses in water management. Becoming aware of what
the bridges and barriers are, even those that may seem imaleable, can also be seen
as a first step in defining key factors that can transform barriers into 'enablers of the
translation of capacity into action ' (Burch 2010 , p 290).
The investigation of mechanisms for dealing with hydro-climatic extremes
allowed an analysis of the factors that enabled or hindered the mobilisation of capac-
ity to respond and adapt to the hydrological events. Other studies that have investi-
gated barriers to mobilising effective responses to climate change have also
recognised the role played by shocks to the system, by providing opportunities to
re-orient institutional pathways (Burch 2010 ; Folke et al. 2002, 2010 ; Herrfahrdt-
Pähle 2010 ; Gelcich et al. 2010 ). However, according to Pierson ( 2004 ) , the 'seeds
for a particular (i.e. sustainable, or climate change resilient) path must be planted
prior to the shock in order for that path to merge during the readjustment period that
follows the shock ' (Burch 2010 , p 292). While the analysis focusses on barriers to
specific needs of adaptation and adaptive capacity building, it also drew on findings
from the governance assessments and concepts such as IWRM as a starting point
from which adaptation to climate related aggravations could be better navigated.

11.2 Bridges and Barriers Across Scales

Tables 11.1 and 11.2 present some of the key bridges and barriers to adaptation in
each of the case areas with respect to relevant extreme events examined. The results
are drawn from the coding and analysing of interviews, which identified points made
about the challenges and ability of the systems to respond to both the case extreme
events and climate change impacts. The tables represent the bridges and barriers
across the different governance scales, rather than according to categories employed
by other studies such as regulatory, operational, technical and behavioural (Burch
2009, 2010 ; Yohe 2001 ). Since the focus was on identifying the challenges posed at
different levels and to different scales of change, rather than across the determinants
of adaptive capacity most often cited in the literature (Keskitalo et al. 2010 ; Smit