Adaptation Theory

The second theory that forms the theoretical roots of CBA is adaptation theory⁴⁵. CBA’s  very  name  directs  it  to  adaptation  theory,  and  therefore  rather  than  to  argue   the relationship (which has been described under Sub-section 1.2.5 in Chapter 1), this section will lay out the framework of adaptation by defining what adaptation is, what are its typologies and characteristics, and how adaptation theory has evolved over time.

Sub-section 1.2.5 highlights that adaptation to climate is not a new phenomenon because societies worldwide have responded and adapted to their local climate in order to maximise their benefits and minimise their harm throughout history (Füssel, 2007; Leary et al., 2008). Contemporary examples of this include urban planning (e.g. building codes), spatial planning (e.g. flood zone protection), and disaster risk management (e.g. early warning systems) (Füssel, 2007, p. 268). Yet, compared to adaptation to a relatively stable climate, the adaptation referred to herein reflects a planned adaptation that responds to climate conditions and future impacts that are unpredictable and of unprecedented scale and frequency as a result of anthropogenic climate change. Surrounding almost any concept that has significance on the policy agenda is dispute regarding its definition. To avoid going into this, as it is beyond the scope of this thesis, the definition of planned adaptation chosen here is taken from the IPCC  Fourth  Assessment  Report  that  states:  “Adaptation  is  initiatives  and  measures   to reduce the vulnerability of natural and human systems against actual or expected climate   change   effects”   (IPCC, 2007a). In other words, planned adaptation uses

“information   about   present   and   future   climate   change   [in   order]   to   review   the   suitability of current and future planned practices,   policies,   and   infrastructure”  

(Füssel, 2007, p. 268).

45 Although adaptation theory has been documented by the   likes   of   Schipper   (2004)   in   her   PhD   thesis   “Exploring   adaptation  to  climate  change:  a  development  perspective”  and  her  2006  paper  “Conceptual  history  of  adaptation  in  the   UNFCCC  process”,  Schipper  and  Burton  confess  that  the  search  continues  for  the  development of a coherent theory of   adaptation   (2009).     Therefore   this   section’s   focus   on   adaptation   theory   draws   upon   what   has been written on adaptation theory and not on what has not, as this is not the role of this thesis.

Schipper states that there are three schools of thought in response to climate change:

the  ‘limitationist’  view  that  believes  in  mitigation  to  reduce  the  core  inputs  to  climate   change;;  the  ‘adaptationist’  view  that  believes  no  explicit  actions  are  needed  as  either   natural selection or market forces will ensure societies adjust to future changes; and the   ‘realist’   view   whereby   climate   change   is   “considered   a   fact,   uncertainty   of   impacts  acknowledged,  and  adaptation  is  considered  a  ‘crucial  and  realistic  response   option  along  with  mitigation”  (2006, p. 84). Adaptation theory has progressed from this  ‘adaptationist’  view,  which  is  founded  in  ecological  and  evolutionary  biology   – believing that spontaneous adjustments by humans will determine the limits of climate  change,  to  the  ‘realist’  view  that  acknowledges  the  importance  of  planned  and   anticipatory (as opposed to reactionary) adaptive strategies in order to minimize the negative and maximize the positive impacts of climate change and promote the attainment of sustainable development goals (Schipper, 2006).

Typologies of Adaptation

The table below by Schipper (2004) shows that adaptation is not only typified by its purpose – for example, to be planned or autonomous – but also by its timing, duration, and location (see Table 14). Thus adaptation may either be reactive (ex post) or anticipatory (ex ante), strategic (long-term) or tactical (short-term), and localized (national) or widespread (international). Adger and others (2003) argue that there is little evidence that adaptation will be taken autonomously, and therefore planned adaptation is necessary to avoid mal-adaptations (this reflects   the   ‘realist’  

view above). However currently, the most common form of planned adaptation is reactive and not anticipatory (J. B. Smith, Klein, & Huq, 2003).

Different types of adaptation

Typology Main descriptive term Additional / alternative terms

Purposeful Planned Public, Purposeful, Intentional, Policy, Active or Strategic

Autonomous Private, Spontaneous, Passive, Natural, Incidental or Automatic

Timing Reactive Responsive or ex post

Anticipatory Proactive or ex ante Duration Strategic Long term or Cumulative

Tactical Short term, Instantaneous, Contingency or Routine

Location Localised National

Wide-spread International Table 14. Different types of adaptation

Source: Schipper (2004, p. 80). For a similar table see Smith and others (2003) on page 19.

Characteristics of Planned Adaptation

In addition to the typologies of adaptation, Füssel (2007) pin points nine key characteristics of planned adaptation that, among other things, relate to its time span, target systems and scale, effectiveness, and actor benefits. These can be seen to contrast with the characteristics of mitigation in Table 15.

Characteristics Mitigation Adaptation

Target systems All systems Selected systems

Scale of effect Global Local to regional

Lifetime Centuries Years to centuries

Lead time Decades Immediate to decades

Effectiveness Certain Generally less certain

Ancillary benefits Sometimes Often

Polluter pays Typically Not necessarily

Actor benefits Only little Almost fully

Monitoring Relatively easy More difficult

Table 15. Characteristics of mitigation and adaptation Source: Füssel (2007, p. 266)

This characterization of planned adaptation reveals that whereas mitigation targets whole systems, planned adaptation is more context-specific. As Smith, Klein and Huq   emphasise:   “adaptation   measures   are   very   specific   to   a   particular   location   and   situation. What may work in one place or with one socioeconomic group may not work   or   may   not   be   feasible   elsewhere”   (2003, p. 19). This concept has become foundational to CBA and emphasizes the importance of local action. In relation to lifetime and leadtime, contrary to common understanding, planned adaptation can respond to both current climate variations (e.g. specific climate events be they minor

or extreme) and future climate change (e.g. a broader phenomenon within which the frequency and intensity or climatic conditions are changed) (Smithers & Smit, 1997).

And just like reactionary adaptation is more common, so too is adaptation to current climate variations. However rather than being a flaw, Leary and others (2008) and Schipper and Burton (2009) claim that adapting to current climate variations is a pre-condition for adaptation to future climate change; furthermore it is less risky (because it uses current climate information rather than predictions) and is much more urgent (because it also addresses current needs). In spite of this, Ayers and Dodman (2010) urge that planned adaptation must extend beyond a current understanding of vulnerability to assessing future climate trends and incorporating this information into plans. Whereas responses to current climate variability are the responsibility of the sovereign state, there is a degree of globally-shared responsibility for responses to future climate change (Schipper & Burton, 2009).

In relation to its effectiveness, planned adaptation is often hard to judge because its benefits are generally in the future and also are influenced by other contextual factors beyond its remit and control. Nevertheless planned adaptation does often give benefits beyond its primary purpose because of its general contribution to reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience to risk. Furthermore, planned adaptation typically benefits the actors involved. However, unlike in mitigation, in general the polluter does not pay in planned adaptation; in fact, the contrary is often true (for example, now the poor are viewed to be most at risk from climate change meanwhile they have done least to cause it).

Pre-requisites for Planned Adaptation

Before looking at how planned adaptation has evolved theoretically over time to arrive at the current framework, let us look at six prerequisites that Füssel (2007) identifies are necessary for planned adaptation to work (see Box 2). The first is an awareness of the problem (that is, vulnerability to climate change). This awareness

can be inherent within, or can be introduced by external agencies that bring outside information to, a community or system. Often in the case of climate change, communities are aware of changes in climatic patterns however they do not have outside knowledge and science to enable them to articulate it within the theory of climate change. NGOs and development agencies can therefore use current climate risks as an entry point to educate communities about future climate risks associated with anthropogenic climate change. But in the end, the community itself must recognise and feel the need to address the problem. The second pre-requisite is that effective adaptation measures must be available to the community or system. If there are no possible adaptation measures then it completely negates any planned adaptation strategy. Thirdly, information about these effective adaptation measures needs to be accessible to community members be it through endogenous or exogenous sources. In close relation to information there also needs to be an availability of resources to implement the adaptation measures and a cultural acceptance of the adaptation measures that are selected. Lastly, there must be some incentives and tangible benefits for the community or system to implement the chosen adaptation measures; without these it is very unlikely to achieve success and sustainability. (Füssel, 2007)

1. Awareness of the problem

2. Availability of effective adaptation measures 3. Information about these measures

4. Availability of resources to implement these measures 5. Cultural acceptability of these measures

6. Incentives for implementing these measures

Box 2. Prerequisites for Planned Adaptation Source: Füssel (2007, p. 270)

Evolution of Adaptation Theory

The history of contemporary adaptation (that is, planned adaptation) can usefully illustrate two significant theoretical and practical shifts. The first significant shift is

how adaptation moved from being subordinate to, and competitive with, mitigation to being equal and complementary to mitigation and rising to a central place on the climate policy agenda. The second significant shift in thinking surrounds how adaptation theory has moved from a purely impacts-led approach (based on hard infrastructural strategies), to incorporate a vulnerability-led social science approach.

These shifts represent what Burton and others (2002) call the first (Type 1) and second (Type 2) generations of adaptation research. They explain that in the first generation adaptation research was based in the physical and biological sciences and focused   on   an   “impacts-led”   adaptation   that   was   carried   out   in   relation   to   its   contribution  to  the  ‘greater’  mitigation  policy  agenda   (Burton et al., 2002, pp. 145-148). The second generation of adaptation research, by contrast they assert, oriented adaptation   towards   “the   social   and   economic   determinants   of   vulnerability   in   a   development   context”   and  to   respond  “explicitly   to   the   needs   of   adaptation   policy”  

rather than to mitigation (Ibid., p. 145 and 148). CBA falls within this second generation of adaptation.

The evolution of contemporary adaptation that is marked by these two shifts may be traced from the 1960s⁴⁶ to the current day in close correlation with the climate change discourse; it is to this we now turn. In the 1960s the study of climate change, which was mainly the domain of the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and climate scientists, focused on weather observations and climate modeling to determine if climate change was of concern and what potential impacts on weather it could have. After concluding that climate change would have an effect on weather systems, thinking in the 1970s to the early 1980s focused on individual adaptation and   to   related   questions   such   as,   “How   can   we   respond   to   climate   change?”   “Will   systems   adapt   automatically   to   climate   change?”   and   “What   will   be   the   ecological  

46 Even though many academics trace adaptation from the 1960s discourse and experimentation around the impacts of increasing greenhouse gases on climate and subsequently weather patterns started much earlier (see Hulme, M.

(2009),   “Chapter   2:   The   Discovery   of   Climate   Change”.   In:   Why We Disagree about Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 35-71).

limits  to  human  development  and  growth?”  This  thinking  coincided  with  the  Club  of   Rome’s   “Limits   to   Growth”   essay   by   Meadows   and   others   in   1972,   which reintroduced   Malthusian   theory   about   the   earth’s   limited   capacity   to   cope   with   environmental deterioration caused by population increase and industrialization. In the late 1980s, this thinking of individual adaptation shifted to ecological adaptation as  questions  turned  to  “What  will  the  impacts  of  climate  change  be?”  and  “How  much   capacity do society and ecosystems possess to  adapt?” (Summarised from Table 1 in Schipper, 2006, p. 87) One response and outcome of this thinking was the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 by the WMO and United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in  order  to  “assess  the   scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced  climate  change”   (UNF, 2011). Not long afterwards, the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted at  the  Rio  Earth  Summit  in  1992  as  “the  basis  for  a  global  response  to  the  problem”  of   climate   change   and   with   the   “ultimate   objective…   to   stabilise   greenhouse   gas   concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference   with   the   climate   system”   (UNFCCC, 2011b). The mandate of the UNFCCC strongly reflects the climate change discourse in the early 1990s that believed that adaptation was subsidiary to mitigation responses.

In the late 1990s the shift from the first generation of adaptation research to the second generation of adaptation research, that Burton and others describe, occurred. It became evident that climate change impacts were being felt much sooner than anticipated, and thus climate change received more mainstream attention as it became a more certain and imminent reality. Concomitantly, the concept of adaptation was elevated  in  importance  as  it  was  acknowledged  that  “some  adaptation…  is  inevitable”  

and thus the adaptation discourse turned to questions regarding the role of policy to support adaptation strategies (Burton et al., 2002, p. 148). By the end of the 1990s the

concept of planned adaptation had moved to the frontline. At the same time greater attention was given to issues of vulnerability (taken from the disaster literature) in relation  to  climate  change  and  questions  like  “Who  is  vulnerable  to  climate  change   and   why?”   and   the   role   of   both   impact   and   vulnerability   assessments   became   important (Gaillard, 2010; Schipper, 2006, p. 87). By the 2000s the discourse surrounding adaptation saw a significant increase in topics around vulnerability, in particular in relation to low- and middle-income nations, the poor and adaptive capacity. From what was (and to an extent still is) a predominantly impacts-led approach to adaptation under the UNFCCC, attention rose towards a vulnerability-led approach to adaptation under the influence of development agencies and scholars.

Whereas the impacts-led approach focuses on specific climate change impacts, the vulnerability-led approach seeks to address the things that make people at risk to climate change impacts (Ayers & Dodman, 2010). Consequentially, adaptive capacity became (and remains) the preeminent goal of international and national adaptation policy and programmes (Adger et al., 2003). Although there are other facets of vulnerability – including exposure and sensitivity – it is believed that adaptive capacity is easier to build through planned interventions like adaptation (Adger &

Vincent, 2005). Thus during the 2000s there has been a move from the purely physical aspects of adaptation to the social, cultural, political and economic issues (Ayers & Dodman, 2010). This is similar to the shift that occurred in development theory, from a purely economic focus to a more holistic understanding of development. In addition there has been a growing realization of the interconnected nature of adaptation and development (see Section 4.3). For indeed, development programmes can be instrumental in building adaptive capacity, for example by improving housing quality (even though in the past it may have been incidental and not directed as a climate change response) (Leary et al., 2008).

Time Development theory Adaptation theory Planning

1960s > Dependency Theory Is climate change important?

Potential effects of climate

Table 16. Simplified chronological evolution of development theory, adaptation and planning between the 1940s and 2000s

Source: Pieterse Nedervean (2010), Schipper (2004), Wamsler (2007), and Docherty et al. (2001).

However alongside the growing attention to the links between adaptation and development programmes, scholars caution that climate change adaptation does not detract from existing development priorities (Hulme, 2009; Huq & Ayers, 2008).

Furthermore  questions  have  been  raised  related  to  “How  can  adaptation  be  integrated   into   existing   sustainable   development   plans?”   “What   is   needed   to   mainstream adaptation?”  and  “What  constitutes  adaptive  capacity?”  (Schipper, 2006, p. 87) These are discussed further under Sections 4.2 and 4.3.

This brief review of the historical evolution of contemporary adaptation highlights and explains why CBA, which focuses on building adaptive capacity to reduce vulnerability to climate change at the local level, developed in the early 2000s under Type 2 of adaptation and has gained in popularity and importance as an adaptation response. Table 16 summarises the above section and combines the evolution of development theory and adaptation theory and sets them alongside the shifts in planning theory and practice between the 1940s and 2000s. During this time the government (and hence planning) changed from being viewed as Architect (1940-60s) to an Enabler (1980s), then to a Regulator (1990-2000s) and more recently to that of a Partner and Facilitator in development (2000s>). This visualisation is helpful when conceptualising how theory regarding participation, bottom-up initiatives, decentralisation and adaptive capacity (with a focus on the local level) have gained popularity and thus support the ideology behind the current development of CBA.