Examining responses through adaptive capacity

While the concept of resilience provides a suitable framing to examine social-ecological systems for this thesis, understanding how people respond to environmental change is complex and a multidimensional approach is required that does not solely focus on one concept (such as either resilience or vulnerability) but rather an integrated understanding of responses within social-ecological systems. When referring back to how sustainability is defined in the context of this thesis (see Section 2.2.2), it is a dynamic process that implies people need to continuously adapt so that social systems can deal with change to build towards resilient social-ecological systems. Four key components of adaptation, identified by Bryant et al. (2000) and described by Bryan et al. (2009), are (1) characteristics of the stress; (2) characteristics of the system; (3) multiple scales and (4) adaptive responses. Stressors, or stimuli to which systems respond, can include climate variability, economic drivers, population growth and political policies. System characteristics influence its response to stressors and can include vulnerability, resilience and adaptive capacity. Stressors and responses change over multiple scales – for example on a spatial scale, adaptation can be classified in terms of being localised to widespread (Smit and Wandel, 2006). Adaptive responses can be classified as anticipatory, concurrent or reactive, depending on the temporal scale over which the actions are carried out (Smit and Wandel, 2006).

Within a resilience framing, the concept of adaptability entails sufficient adaptive capacity to respond within the social domain, as well as to respond to and shape ecosystem dynamics in an cognizant manner (Folke, 2006). Under a vulnerability framing adaptation research focuses on the susceptibility to harm (Eakin and Luers, 2006). In the context of climate variability, adaptation is seen as a way to enhance resilience of individuals and systems in the face of global environmental change (Elum et al., 2017). While both resilience and vulnerability can be used as concepts for understanding specific disturbances, focusing on a specific disturbance can be limiting when dealing with uncertainty associated with climate change (Wardekker et al., 2010). Additionally, resilience also is not always considered desirable when considering economic, ecological or social terms – where some system regimes may be undesirable to one segment – which can in turn hinder change or development (Walker et al., 2006b).

35

Adaptive capacity, defined as the ability to adapt, is the common thread that links both resilience and vulnerability, and is widely accepted as a necessary feature in a system for simultaneously reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience (Anderies et al., 2004; Engle, 2011; Dixon et al., 2014). This requires looking at what a system has that enables it to adapt, and what this systems does in order to adapt (Dixon et al., 2014). The interplay of gradual and abrupt change needs to be understood in context to variables and processes that structure ecosystem and social dynamics, in order to understand and actively manage sources of social and ecological resilience. Adaptive capacity is understood as a universally positive system property, that can be shaped or manipulated by people, where adaptive capacity affects both social and ecological systems (Engle, 2011). Dixon et al. (2014) highlight the interconnected nature of resilience and vulnerability through adaptive capacity (see Figure 2.2) to better understand past drivers of adaptations and how they influence adaptive capacity of the examined system.

Figure 2.2: Resilience and vulnerability concepts connected through adaptive capacity (from Dixon et al., 2014)

While it is important to understand factors that enhance or diminish adaptive capacity of social systems (for example Adger and Vincent, 2005), limited attention has been given to the role of motivation in the process of adaptation (Frank et al., 2011). Within

36

processes surrounding human decision-making and action, motivation and perceived abilities are central determinants of human action (Grothmann and Patt, 2005). Regardless of external pressures, individuals base their actions on whether they perceive a need, an ability and motivation to act to external pressures such as climate variability (Frank et al., 2011). Perceptions of risk play an important role as this influences people’s perceived or actual ability to respond (Grothmann and Patt, 2005). Perceived adaptive capacity is influenced by the communication of risk, which could result in avoidant maladaptive responses (like denial of risk) if not complemented with adaptation options that are doable, effective and low cost (Grothmann and Patt, 2005).

Perceived risk is important to consider as it drives decisions around responses to environmental changes, which is often influenced by past experiences (Wiid and Ziervogel, 2012). The perception of risk depends on how it changes one’s prospects and people tend to interpret risks differently, depending on individual circumstances. As noted by Burgman (2005), people tend to be poor judges of risk, and judgements on importance do not necessarily match the estimated magnitude of risk, and are influenced by the social context. Particularly in climate adaptation, the availability of information from scientific data sources could influence local adaptation strategies, which is further complicated as perceptions of climate change may differ from broader scientific understanding (Bryan et al., 2009; Hitayezu et al., 2017).

The requirements for learning and flexibility within social systems confronted with uncertain explanations of ecosystem change are essential to build the capacity of social- ecological systems to adapt to and shape change (Folke, 2006; Cundill et al., 2014). Climate change adaptation studies often neglect historical experiences of climate and other drivers of change; however, this is problematic given that present and future vulnerability is determined by how systems were previously exposed and reacted to stress, or how past experience has implications for resilience based on the assumption that all systems can learn from previous exposures to stress (Dixon et al., 2014). Perception of and response to climate change is largely the result of experience and accumulated knowledge (Wiid and Ziervogel, 2012). Evaluating perception of and response to climate change includes exploring what these perceptions are, how they were formed and how they influence response. These perceptions around climate change and

37

its potential threats are rooted in individual values, trust of public opinions and personal experience. Within the field of climate change adaptation, local climate knowledge within the context of adaptation has the potential to positively impact choices and livelihood outcomes when dealing with weather uncertainty (for example Nyong et al., 2007; King et al., 2008; Wiid and Ziervogel, 2012). However, some studies indicate that climate trends are not necessarily in line with individual perceptions of how climate is changing (for example Osbahr et al., 2011; Muller and Shackleton, 2014; Hitayezu et al., 2017). Consequently, how people perceive global changes like climate change and how they respond is not a straightforward relationship.

Therefore, it is essential to understand why and how farmers and fishers respond to environmental challenges associated with climate variability. Understanding factors that drive decisions around land use practices or fishing methods is important to contextualise in order to understand how farmers or fishers operate in relation to environmental change. It is critically important not to view social-ecological systems in isolation, but rather acknowledge the complexities and risks across multiple facets in to gain a more holistic picture. Hence this thesis examines responses of farming and fishing communities in the southern Cape in relation to climate variability to better understand decision making-processes and associated complexities within these social-ecological systems.

2.5. Responding to uncertainty: Connecting knowledge systems