Introduction

''Climate change is currently affecting all countries on all continents'' ^{(United Nations, 2019}). From melting permafrost and heavy precipitation to droughts, floods and wildfires, these are just a few of the plethora of consequences that have already begun to be experienced around the world and will continue to worsen in the impending future (^{Pietrapertosa et al., 2018}). Since it is no longer about avoiding climate change (CC) at this point, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasizes the urgency of adaptation, recognizing that precautionary and anticipatory measures are more efficient and cost-effective than last-minute emergency solutions ^{(Maslin, 2014}).

Taking this into account, Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) policies that aim to guide response to the risks and impacts caused by CC (^{McNeeley & Lazrus, 2014}) have become particularly popular (^{Pietrapertosa et al., 2018}). Notwithstanding, only recently has adaptation gained momentum and become important in national public policies ^{(Pietrapertosa et al., 2018}). This trend has also reached Central American countries with a growing number of approved policies (^{Segura, Van Zeijl-Rozema, & Martens, 2022}).

When conducting CCA and risk management processes, decision-makers must answer questions such as whether to adapt, what to adapt to, when, how, who should adapt, and who should pay for the costs of adaptation. These and other questions that appear in the process are laden with normativity, where the participating actors in these processes interact to guide the answer to these questions according to their own frames of reference.

^{Schön and Rein (1994}, p. 23) define frames of reference as ''structures of belief, perception, and appreciation''; ^{McEvoy et al., (2013}, p. 281) conceptualize them as a process where ''people with different knowledge, experiences, and personal backgrounds consider a common challenge and try to understand it from their individual or organizational viewpoint.'' ''Framing'' or constructing a frame of reference is connected with how an actor comprehends a situation, process, or even a problem. Understanding is directly related to prior knowledge, values, and the perspective of the actor himself. Two actors are perfectly capable of understanding the same situation very differently, even with the same information available, because of different backgrounds, values, or perspectives.

When actors face a situation in which they approach it with completely different and even opposing frames, intractable controversies arise (^{Schön & Rein, 1994}); these are conceived by ^{Hisschemoller and Hoppe (1995}) as unstructured problems, or moderately structured problems, based on the (un)certainty of relevant knowledge and the agreement (or lack of it) on norms and values. Actors who frame the problem with opposing viewpoints generally disagree on the relevant knowledge or the norms and values associated with it, often turning the policymaking process into an unstructured problem.

In this sense, adaptation processes have been shown to encounter a growing number of barriers, many of which are especially focused on the social and institutional dimensions of adaptation. These barriers have been defined as the arrangement of climatic and non-climatic factors that emerge from the actors, the governance system, or the system under study. Thus, studying frames of reference could give us clues into how they affect the relationship between actors and the governance system that facilitates or hampers the implementation of CCA measures and strategies.

This article intends to study the frames that actors bring to the decision-making processes, where the inclusion of risk management and adaptation to climate change measures are assessed. That is to say, the present article analyzes the management of a variety of actors and their frames as well as their influence on the adoption of said measures.

To achieve this objective, the article consists of two case studies. First and foremost is the adoption process of a land-use plan in Upala, Alajuela, Costa Rica, and the second one is the adoption process of the Municipal Development Plan of San Francisco del Valle de Ocotepeque, Honduras. In both cases, local actors deliberated and valued aspects of risk management and adaptation to climate change. In the first case, various social groups pressured local authorities to reject the implementation of the plan, whereas in the second case, the interest of social actors aided in the incorporation of risk management and adaptation elements - which in turn - caused the approval and implementation of the plan.

In this way, both processes show how frames devised by the actors determined the process of constructing public policy with different results. The adaptation processes are determined and constructed locally. Even if States and the international community influence said adaptation processes via national policies, international agreements, or through international cooperation (as it was reported in both cases), it is still the local actors and their local governance processes that will most influence their success or failure (^{Nalau, J. et al., 2015}).

Adaptation case studies allow an understanding of how these processes are developed, and by making use of theoretical instruments, it is possible to understand trends and patterns which can be used to guide future adaptation processes more effectively by integrating them inside international cooperation processes, which is a hallmark element of the study of international relationships.

Methodology

According to ^{Schön and Rein (1994}), there are three different levels of action frames. First is the macro level, which comprises the metacultural frames based on a system of values or beliefs (^{McEvoy et al., 2013}). This framing level refers to values and beliefs often seen through media. These influence research, policies, and decision-making (^{Funfgeld & McEvoy, 2011}).

The second framing level is political or conceptual, where actors ''construct the problem'', that is to say, they define the problem, concepts, and theories on how to approach and solve said problem (^{McEvoy et al., 2013}; ^{Schön & Rein, 1994}). This level is related to different communities or institutional networks that share values, concepts, and methods, among other elements that allow them to evaluate a topic, define the problem, and construct a solution. Public domains like climate change adaptation and public planning are vast enough that different communities or institutional networks compete to lead the process with their own concepts, theories, and methods.

The third level is defined as institutional or operational framing, ^{Schön and Rein (1994}) describe it as ''naturally complex and hybrid'' because of the lack of a general framework, practically different related frames interact at this level, they are the ''local expression of metacultural frames''. For ^{McEvoy et al. (2013}), this is the practical level where ''decisions and actions are taken''. This framing level is directly related to the design of the planning process, the strategies, and tools chosen to implement it, the products and results of the process, as well as the definitions of the actions to be taken subsequently. Table 1 summarizes the theoretical framework followed by its application to the case studies.

To apply a frame analysis to the case studies, it was determined that the macro level would be analyzed through culture theory (CT), which sees culture as essential for explaining social life (^{Mamadouh, 1999}) while it is also perceived as an effective tool for classifying, analyzing, and interpreting people's behavior based on their ways of life (^{Offermans, 2012}). Culture can be defined as ''the range of learned ideas and behavior patterns that people acquire, share, and modify as members of a society'' (^{McNeeley & Lazrus, 2014}, p. 506).

CT presents two different dimensions of social life called group and grid. Group and grid analysis is relevant to understanding how different types of cultures perceive CC at the meta-level of framing. Group dimension analyzes ''the extent to which a primary commitment to a social unit restricts individuals' thought and action'' (^{Douglas, Thompson, and Verweij, 2003}, p. 100). See Figure 1.

Conversely, the grid is related to the ''level of restrictive prescriptions; life is less open to individual negotiation the more restrictive the prescriptions are'' (^{Offermans, 2012}, p.37). In other words, the group analyzes how many people are integrated into a wider social environment while the grid studies how many people are classified and regulated (^{Verweij et al., 2011}). After understanding if these dimensions are registered as high or low, it is possible to draw four perspectives to understand society and its cultural diversity representation (^{Mamadouh, 1999}). Precisely, one of the statements of CT is that the four possible combinations of the two dimensions are both universal and representative of the nature of a social being ^{(Mamadouh, 1999}).

Source: Adapted from ^{Thompson (1990})

Figure 1: The Grid-Group Analysis of Cultural Theory 

Figure 1 is comprised of four quadrants, each representing four ways of living discerned according to the strength of the group and the grid: hierarchism, egalitarianism, individualism, and fatalism (^{Offermans, 2012}). Each way of living has a specific topic approach such as natural resources and human nature, including even for Climate Change and Climate Change Adaptation. Group and grid analysis employment along with nature and weather myths are key for exploring how different types of cultures understand climate change on the meta-level of the frame. Figure 2 summarizes the aforementioned information.

The works of ^{Eakin et al (2009}); ^{Funfgeld and Mc Evoy (2011}); ^{McEvoy et al. (2013}) were instrumental in the effort of approaching the conceptual level. Their work allowed the classification and portrayal of the main conceptual frames of reference which are made to drive the development of policies and adaptation procedures. Chart 2 summarizes and compares all three conceptual frames of reference. The first, and most dominant, is the adaptation based on risk management; the second is the adaptation established on vulnerability linked to the school of studies for development; and the third conceptual frame is the adaptation based on resilience.

In practice, the combination of CT with conceptual framing allows the establishment of relationships between them by uniting different macro-level perspectives with conceptual levels based on their main elements. In this way, the following relationships emerge: a) individualistic, it has strong ties with the adaptation approach relying on risk management, preferring tools and solutions connected with incentives or risk reduction strategies as well as the possibility to transfer adaptation; b) hierarchy, is strongly linked to resilience adaptation methods by focusing on regulation and control processes; c) egalitarian, connected with an emphasis grounded on vulnerability, as such, it will promote transformation that specifically serves vulnerable groups and nature; d) fatalistic, it doesn't associate with any approach in particular since it does not believe that is worth acting; e) Individualistic, it couples lightly with adaptation based on resilience, giving great emphasis to public-private alliances, self-regulation, and incentives for innovation; f) hierarchical, lightly tied with adaptation established on risk while emphasizing zoning instruments, construction codes among other regulations, and actions regarding risk reduction. Figure 2 depicts these relationships.

Source: Own elaboration

Figure 2: Relationships between TC perspectives and ACC approaches. 

An analytical framework was created by making use of the previous elements. This framework explores the influence of the three levels of analysis present in the frames (meta, conceptual, and operational) in public policy and CCA inclusion. Qualitative data was gathered by studying national policies regarding CCA, risk management, and land-use planning of Costa Rica and Honduras, including that of the municipalities of Upala and San Francisco. The selection of these cases followed several criteria. First, it was decided to select a case with a successful approach (San Francisco) and one with a failed approach (Upala). This would allow comparing the results with the help of the previously formulated conceptual theoretical instrument. Plus, both Upala and San Francisco are rural municipalities near the border with a proportionally-similar territory size in terms of population and levels of economic growth. Moreover, both planning processes were supported by international cooperation institutions, including Japan's International Cooperation Agency (JICA) in the case of Honduras. Costa Rica received aid from the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID).

Interviews with relevant actors were performed throughout the research project. To be more precise, 11 actors were interviewed for each municipality, including local authorities such as mayors, municipal committee members, district advisors, community representatives, municipal technicians, national-level authorities, and local leaders. Interviews followed a semi-structured process by following a shared guide among all conducted interviews, in which questions about the planning process, the chosen approach, participative processes, and results and limitations of the process were integrated. Moreover, direct questions regarding the actors' CC perception were added to provide a clear identification of the CT perspective on the topic. A survey to discern the relationship between distinct frames and environmental topics was included, which has been developed and applied in multiple environment study cases (^{Meader, 2002}).

In regards to the interview analysis, all interview transcriptions were firstly encoded based on the 4 aforementioned CT perspectives by making use of the last section as a descriptor. Each researcher recognized in the transcriptions the references that are linked with a particular perspective (to exemplify, the egalitarian perspective). These references were then copied and incorporated into a chart that also had the associated perspective and a researcher's comment explaining why that perspective was assigned. To accomplish validation of this method, a randomly chosen transcription was processed by a different researcher, but making sure the researcher followed the same analysis method. The results of the analyses were then contrasted in hopes of identifying result differences that could hamper the study.

The interviews with each actor could show references related to several perspectives. Thus, it was imperative to discern if the interviewee had a preference for a specific perspective (to illustrate, the interviewee's answers could be more related to the hierarchical perspective than to the other perspectives). Based on the work of ^{Beumer et al (2018}), the percentage that each perspective received in all transcriptions was calculated, then, it was considered that each world vision could have 25% of the reference total, attaining a perfect balance. For this reason, in the present study, a perspective will be considered dominant when it obtains a score over 37,5% and secondary if the score is lower than 12,5% (12,5 ± (25*0,5&)).

Secondly, the present work was based on ^{Meader's work (2002}) who applied questionnaires in his research on environmental worldviews using CT. Every interviewee answered the survey consisting of four items for each perspective (16 in total). The interviewees had to mark each item on a five-point Likert scale with the following categories: completely disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, and completely agree. The percentage of each cosmovision was determined and then the same grading values previously described were applied in hopes to identify which perspective was dominant and which perspectives were secondary. Then, to test the trustworthiness of the CT analysis made on each interviewee, the results of both research instruments were compared.

Results for each case

Conclusions

It is relevant to delve into how different people frame a problem. This is a tool to better comprehend the development of policies and how different frames of reference influence their design (^{Dupuis & Knoepfel, 2013}). Therefore, frame theory allows a better comprehension of how people define what is CCA and its effect on local agendas (^{McEvoy et al., 2013}).

In this article, it was possible to appreciate how the perspectives of the actors influence the design processes and approval of the public policy where they seek to integrate elements of CCA and risk management. It is important to take into account some of the differentiating particularities in both cases. Even if the instruments in both cases comprehend elements of land-use planning, it is clear that in the case of San Francisco, this was not a typical instrument which it is highly likely to influence a lower possibility to create conflict or opposition among stakeholders.

Being Upala's case a process to draft and approve a land-use plan, this affected the interests of different economic groups. These initially did not pay a lot of attention to the process until they identified that the zoning by the risk of flooding could have a direct impact on the value of properties and economical activities (for example, increased insurance costs, loss of property value, etc.).

In both cases, it can be noted a strong hierarchical tradition in both countries of establishing norms and national policies which influences the local processes of design and approval of the local public policy. An example of that was the development of the strategy of CC in Costa Rica, which is directly managed by the presidency with a strong emphasis on CCM. In Honduras' case, this is reflected in the national normative which obligates the municipalities to have a PDM using the national methodology if they want to opt for receiving the economic transfers from the central government.

A critical aspect is that in both cases the national policies identified the management and drafting of land-use plans as critical for the process of risk management and CCA, in both cases the operative instrument (the normative and technical guidelines) are very ambiguous and therefore it is up to the local actors to decide how to board the CCA or if addressing it at all.

Regarding the analysis of the perspectives of the stakeholders, it can be noticed a strong representation of the hierarchical perspective (this was expected) followed closely by the egalitarian perspective (which is usually a mobilizing actor and actively participates in the processes). In both cases, the great majority of actors concentrate on both perspectives. However, it is important to note that when the instruments are mainly regulative (as in Upala's case), it is expected the reaction of stakeholders with an individualist perspective, which may feel their interests are being affected.

In this sense, it is possible to discern a thoroughly narrow approach to these processes with an emphasis on hierarchical measures such as rules, taxes, and regulations. This emphasis is prone to cause conflict against other perspectives that do not include more favorable solutions. To illustrate, San Francisco's case sheds light on this situation by giving an array of measures beyond solely relying on hierarchical approaches, which attributed to the success of public policy instruments.

Both processes had a participative design. Although in Upala's case, an external actor - the technical team hired, UNA (Universidad Nacional) - in unison with the municipality of Upala conducted the process design. Whereas in the San Francisco case, the task required local leaders to manage local implementation with ample community participation, assuring a more effective representation of contrasting perspectives in the approval of research instruments, contrary to Upala's case, where the quality of the participative processes was strongly criticized.

In Upala's case, the emphasis of the approach was greatly influenced by the conceptual level of risk management which was clearly linked to the hierarchical perspective. On the other hand, in San Francisco's case, elements linked with the conceptual approach of vulnerability were identified, such as ample references to CC as a threat and its impact on diverse areas of the municipality were included in the PDM. This shows a marked influence of the egalitarian perspective.

By using frame theory, it was possible to discern operative elements of great interest that could aid local adaptation procedures. Firstly, it allows recognition of different perspectives competing and or cooperating as a means to lead the process of creation and approval of public laws and policies. Secondly, starting from a macro level, these perspectives show essential preferences necessary to approach the issue at a conceptual and operational level; in other words, if these processes of public policy drafting are highly focused on stakeholders with the same perspective, their frame will greatly influence which operational and conceptual instruments will be used. To exemplify, Upala's predilection to accept risk management instruments started at a national level and finished at a local level without further questioning. Conversely, by permitting a plethora of perspectives, a more inclusive design can be created as seen in San Francisco's case, where the process was highly participative allowing to assess vulnerability, risk management, and development aspects.

Third, making visible the different perspectives present in the various actors that participate in these processes, and attending to the differentiated orientations on how to approach them and from which measures to integrate, could lead to the construction of more comprehensive policies that allow further progress and results. San Francisco's case is a quintessential example of how a wide arrange of actions to satisfy a bigger number of participants proved beneficial for the project. These are widely known as ''clumsy solutions'', answers to problems that require a high level of skill and planning (^{Beumer, 2014}; ^{Verweij et al.,2006}).

These three aspects are key to understanding how to guide the creation of adaptation policies. As mentioned in the introduction, our current climate crisis bounds every country in the world to make advancements in the formulation of effective adaptation policies. Aspects such as resources, regulations, and investment priorities demand important decisions at a local level while negative effects of CC cause a rise in damage and losses. Thus, the edification of wellmade and feasible plans based on socially acceptable adaptation instruments is critical at a local scale.

The research instruments used in this analysis allowed a clear understanding of the good practices and the constraints these adaptation procedures are having. For international studies, it is critical to understand how governance processes related to adaptation policies are developed in several countries by making use of theoretical and conceptual research instruments that give room to better compare and comprehend them. Frame theory proves to be a useful tool for the cases presented in this research, which could be applied, in the future, to cases with bigger differences between them such as comparing developed and developing countries, simple and complex municipalities, and urban and rural municipalities.

Adaptation, as previously discussed, requires a strong local involvement; however, it is not developed in isolation. It is influenced by an international agenda of regimes ever-growing in complexity and stakeholders that gain influence through technical and financial cooperation (as documented in the cases of Upala and San Francisco). The national governments also shape parameters and conditions to develop local planning, through the creation of policies and legislation. For this reason, seen from the perspective of international studies, it is vital to deepen the study of adaptation processes in several countries, and doing so through new and diverse methods. Frame theory is valued as an interesting alternative.

However, this theory, like others, brings forth a range of limitations such as not studying the power relations between the stakeholders. This was evident in Upala's case where private sector actors used their economic capacity to mobilize a sector of the population and to pressure decision-makers, paralyzing the approval of the land-use plan as a consequence. Additionally, this research intended to study both the macro and conceptual perspectives in the acting of authorities, leaving aside the power and the capacity of the actors. Other research instruments such as actor analysis viewed from the MACTOR method could be complementary to this study