The Missing Movement on Climate Adaptation: A Comparative Study of Non-Mobilization in Four European Cities

Even though many climate activists no longer believe severe climate change can be prevented, their campaigns remain focused on mitigation ‘as if the crucial window for effective action had not closed’ (Foster 2015, p. 5). As more and more citizens become directly exposed to the consequences of climate change, it becomes increasingly puzzling that, at least in Europe, we see little to no social movement activity around climate adaptation. This is especially remarkable since adaptation is not only urgent, but also deeply contentious (Eriksen et al. 2015). Adaptation poses fundamental political questions about who is entitled to what kind of protection and who should provide it, as well as about the right to the city when reshaping urban space in the context of climate change. Because there is little evidence of mobilizations about adaptation, scholarship on climate activism has so far ignored the topic as well (de Moor, 2019). However, it thereby overlooks the importance of studying why citizens sometimes do not take collective action on urgent and contentious matters, limiting our understanding of the distinct pathways that can lead to different patterns of non-mobilization (McAdam and Boudet 2012). This paper presents findings from a project that addresses this gap in the literature by focusing on the issue of adaptation to increased flood risks. Specifically, it presents a comparative study of four European cities (Malmö, Hamburg, Antwerp and Bristol) that, due to the increasing flood risks they face, as well as strong traditions of urban and environmental social movements, represent most likely cases to find mobilization on adaptation. Why do we find little to no mobilization even in the most likely cases? Findings are drawn from ~35 interviews with local activists and city officials, as well as participant observations. They suggest that while activists do consider adaptation to be an important and contentious topic, they find it difficult to prioritize over climate mitigation. The latter indicates the predominance of a logic of appropriateness over a logic of consequences in strategic decision making. Where social movement organizations do address climate adaptation, they do so in the largely depoliticized style of ‘co-creation’, leaving thorny questions of climate justice and inclusiveness largely unaddressed.