Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 309

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 66 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context

Open access
Gorddard, Russell, Colloff, Matthew J., Wise, Russell M., Ware, Dan, Dunlop, Michael·2016·Environmental Science & Policy

Abstract

Responding to global change represents an unprecedented challenge for society. Decision makers tend to address this challenge by framing adaptation as a decision problem, whereby the responses to impacts of change are addressed within existing decision processes centred on defining the decision problem and selecting options. However, this ‘decision-making perspective’ is constrained by societal values and principles, regulations and norms and the state of knowledge. It is therefore unsuitable for addressing complex, contested, cross-scale problems. In this paper we argue that simply broadening the decision-making perspective to account for institutions and values is not enough. We contend the decision-making perspective needs to be connected with a broader ‘decision-context perspective’ that focuses on how the societal system of decision processes affects the manner in which a particular problem is addressed. We describe the decision context as an interconnected system of values, rules and knowledge ( vrk ). The interaction of systems of vrk both creates and limits the set of practical, permissible decisions; the types of values, rules and knowledge that influence the decision and the capacity for change and transformation in the decision context. We developed a framework to analyse the interactions between values, rules and knowledge and their influence on decision making and decision contexts of adaptation initiatives, and applied it retrospectively to three projects on adaptation to sea-level rise. Our analysis revealed: (1) specific examples of how interactions between vrk systems constrained existing framings of decision making and the development of options for coastal adaptation; (2) limitations in the adaptive management strategies that underpinned the projects and (3) how the linked systems of vrk can allow adaptation practitioners to structure adaptation as a process of co-evolutionary change that enables a broader set of social issues and change processes to be considered. Adaptation projects that focus on the decision context represent a pragmatic alternative to existing decision-focused adaptation. By using the vrk model to diagnose constraints in decision processes, we show how the reframing of adaptation initiatives can reveal new approaches to developing adaptation responses to complex global change problems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004

Cites

66 of 66 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Cited by

See all 309

Metadata

Authors
Gorddard, R., Colloff, M. J., Wise, R. M., Ware, D., & Dunlop, M.
Venue
Environmental Science & Policy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-03
Volume
57
Pages
60-69
ISSN
1462-9011 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2215082281
Cited by
309
References
66
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004
The paper
Gorddard, R., Colloff, M. J., Wise, R. M., Ware, D., & Dunlop, M. (2016). Values, rules and knowledge: Adaptation as change in the decision context. Environmental Science & Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.