Explaining Similarities and Differences across the Case Studies

As described, most of the key overarching themes are prioritised similarly across the case studies. Cross-case similarities can be attributed to comparable social issues and challenges within each island community. Figure 6.1 illustrates the major commonalities and differences across the case studies. Each community felt marginalised in some way, whether it was geographically or socially. Community empowerment is a significant priority in all three case studies motivated by similar factors, particularly perceptions of marginalisation on planning agendas. Geographical remoteness also drives priorities in Unst and South Uist. Geographical peripherality appears slightly less significant in Westray although it was alluded to indirectly during the focus groups. Nevertheless, participants in all case studies highlighted the significance of geographical remoteness in comparison to centres of decision-making, be it local authorities in Lerwick, Stornoway and Kirkwall or central and national government in Edinburgh and London. Respondents across the cases also felt that they could offer something to processes of adaptation - that their knowledge and experience could be valuable. Participants used examples of high social capital to justify their ability to work together as a community for enacting positive change, and to contribute to adaptation with local authority and central government support. Community willingness to be involved in adaptation emphasises the significance of empowerment as a priority within the case studies. Perspectives of empowerment were more or less uniform across the cases motivated by experiences of small island marginalisation and peripherality.

Furthermore, all communities felt limited in their capacity to adapt to impacts of climate change. Respondents in each case study voiced the need for assistance from governing bodies for effective adaptation. The factors underpinning community limitations were alike across the cases. Communities felt constrained by a lack of strategic guidance for adaptation, as well as financial and resource limitations. The overarching priority of community empowerment is driven by these constraints. Moreover, respondents in each community believed that enhanced local authority and central government support was needed in order to address community-level limitations and to facilitate effective adaptation in practice. Priorities for operationalizing adaptation are rooted in the desire of the communities to ensure that their islands are safe and sustainable places to live. Each community valued island sustainability through the diversification and enhancement of island lives and livelihoods. However, the requirements for operationalizing adaptation were influenced by differing socioeconomic factors across the cases. The case study communities all value operationalizing adaptation and maintaining island lives and livelihoods in a similar manner. However, the factors motivating these particular priorities are not necessarily uniform across the cases.

182

Figure 6.1: Commonalities and differences in issues and priorities for adaptation across the case studies in relation to the key grounded theory themes

Commonalities across all cases

Community Empowerment

Marginalisation on planning agendas Limited capacity of community

despite willingness and strong horizontal networks

Lives and Livelihoods

Safe and sustainable islands

Protection and development of livelihoods and island economy Operationalizing

Adaptation Need for local authority and central government support

Differences between cases

Community Empowerment

Social peripherality common across case studies but geographical peripherality slightly less significant

in Westray compared with other cases

Safety and Wellbeing

A key priority in Unst and South Uist but not currently significant in

Westray Lives and

Livelihoods

The social and economic issues driving this priority have led to different goals for maintaining and

enhancing lives and livelihoods across the cases

Operationalizing

183 6.2.2.ii. Differences across the Case Studies

The risk of harm posed by climatic events is a major motivation for adaptation in the case studies. However, when asked to identify key hazards that had significantly affected their communities, participant responses differed markedly across the cases: storms were highlighted in Unst, storm surge in South Uist and sea level rise in Westray. Motivations are driven by the fundamental hazards and impacts affecting each community and are therefore different across the cases. The priorities of the case study communities were influenced by the specific climatic hazards that brought impacts and consequences to their respective islands. Additionally, different non-climatic issues and factors motivate each of the priorities identified in the case studies. Social issues such as peripherality and marginalisation, local economy and island sustainability haven driven priorities for adaptation. Social issues are similar in some instances, such as feelings of peripherality and marginalisation. However other issues, such as the particular challenges for island economies, are context-specific within each case. Climate hazards and impacts put extra pressure on existing sensitive non-climatic issues, thus producing significant social drivers behind priorities in adaptation.

Some thematic priorities vary across the communities. There was a marked difference in the way Unst and South Uist respondents prioritised safety and wellbeing in comparison to those in Westray. Westray participants anticipated that safety and wellbeing might become a significant priority depending on how sea level rise manifests in future. However, they felt that it did not require high prioritisation in current adaptation planning for Westray. Instead, they emphasised the maintenance of livelihoods alongside strategic planning and action to deal with erosion and flooding over ensuring community health and safety at the present. However, the theme of safety and wellbeing was strongly emphasised as an important priority by respondents in Unst and South Uist. For instance, Unst respondents prioritised the safety and wellbeing of vulnerable community members during storm events. The focus of concern for the vulnerable and elderly was also illustrated in the results of focus groups employed by Zsamboky et al. (2011) in which the impacts of climate change on disadvantaged coastal communities in the UK were investigated. Although Westray respondents mentioned safety and wellbeing in relation to sea level rise, and recognised that it might become a high priority in future, but they did not perceive this to be an immediate priority for the community at present. Therefore, the key themes were mostly significant across the case studies with the exception of community safety and wellbeing.

Although some themes appear consistently across the case studies, participant interpretation of these themes appears to vary slightly across the communities. For example, operationalizing adaptation is a significant priority in each community. However, it is motivated by different place-based climate hazards

and impacts. Therefore, the matter of ‘operationalizing adaptation’ in practice

means something different for each community. Operationalizing adaptation in South Uist means implementing a long-term adaptive solution to the South Ford

184

causeway to avoid future consequences similar to those of the 2005 storm. In Unst, operationalizing adaptation relates to strategic emergency planning. Operationalizing adaptation in Westray means monitoring and responding to coastal erosion and inundation. The limitations and challenges faced by the case study communities for operationalizing adaptation are noticeably similar but the technical goals for adaptation are different. Although the general thematic priorities for adaptation are similar in some ways across the cases, there are distinct differences in the specific motivations and sub-priorities for adaptation. Priorities and motivations are not entirely uniform. Each case study community has a unique story to tell about impacts and consequences of climate change. 6.2.3. Summary

The priorities for adaptation could be interpreted as consistent, or at least similar, across the case studies. Indeed, in the theme of community empowerment, corresponding priorities are rooted in similar social issues and challenges across the cases. However, when considering the results of the data in greater detail, the picture of adaptation in small island communities becomes more complex. The same general cross-case adaptation themes might be identified. However, the way in which communities perceive and prioritise these themes is markedly different across the cases and is dependent on specific island histories, community experiences and socioeconomic situations. Furthermore, there are unique motivations underpinning community priorities in each case study. As discussed above, all three communities believed lives and livelihoods to be a significant priority for adaptation. However, the specific motivations underpinning this priority were varied and diverse across the communities. Analysis of qualitative data has identified the subtle differences between the case studies that could be crucial to effective planning that upholds the values of island communities. A one- size-fits-all national plan could be successfully applied at the island scale provided that planners and decision-makers at the local authority level acknowledge island- specific issues for adaptation and utilise national adaptation instruments accordingly. However, one-size-fits-all adaptation strategies might overlook the subtle and unique differences of communities within the Scottish Islands. The implications for adaptation theory and planning are further developed in Section 6.6.