The administrator’s dilemma: Closing the gap between climate adaptation justice in theory and practice

Justice theory is intended to guide practical choices, but justice theories struggle to inform many decisions that must be made in climate change adaptation practice. This paper highlights gaps between theory and practice by analyzing the justice dimensions of dilemmas routinely faced by adaptation administrators, using the example of property acquisitions to ground the analysis. Justice theories struggle to assist decision-makers in: prioritizing distribution of resources; distributing programs that cause both harms and benefits; weighing uncertain harms and benefits; identifying participants and resolving conflicts in participatory processes; and redressing historic injustices. Proposals to improve adaptation justice that do not address one or more of the practical dilemmas faced by administrators are unlikely to advance the cause. Absent theoretical or policy guidance, decisions are often shaped by administrators’ unconscious heuristics such as views on the role of government and the purpose of buyouts. Tailoring justice-relevant decisions to local contexts may provide greater benefits than a universal approach to justice, but a relative approach is most likely to be just when justice-relevant decisions are transparent and informed by theoretical and empirical work. Transparency is critical for accountability, evaluation, and policy learning. Justice decisions are often constrained by limited authority, resources, and institutional goals, so achieving greater justice in climate adaptation may require changes in the larger governance systems within which adaptation decisions are made. More nuanced evaluations of adaptation justice, more comparative analyses, enabled by greater transparency in practice, and more holistic approaches to adaptation governance are recommended moving forward. •Major gaps persist between justice theories and adaptation practice.•Proposals to improve adaptation justice should specifically address dilemmas.•Transparency in justice decisions improves accountability, evaluation, and policy learning.•Justice heuristics may enable local tailoring if explicit and evidence-informed.