Adaptive capacity and resilience

A starting-point interpretation of vulnerability puts more emphasis on people’s capacity to respond to climate stimuli rather than their propensity to be exposed and sensitive to them. End-point interpretations tend to frame people affected as ‘passive victims’ (‘exposed’, ‘sensitive’) in the face of active threats and hazards (Campbell, 2003; Hilhorst and Bankoff, 2004). In contrast, starting-point vulnerability frames people as ‘active agents’ (Hewitt, 1983; Wisner et al., 2004) who are ‘adaptive’, possessing ‘capacity’ and ‘resilience’ with which to withstand and respond to climate change. Eriksen and Kelly (2007) note that a common question emerging from starting-point interpretations of vulnerability to climate change is “what can be done to strengthen people’s own capacity to respond and adapt?”, rather than “what can be done to protect the population?” as in an end-point interpretation (Eriksen and Kelly, 2007: 505). Most conceptualisations of vulnerability in the social science sphere relate in some way to people’s capacity to cope with stress (Brooks, 2003; Eriksen et al., 2005).

Much research on vulnerability to climate change, particularly in a developing country context, focuses on weaknesses that exacerbate exposure (Barnett and Adger, 2003; Barnett and Campbell, 2010). A primary focus on response capacity explicitly recognises human ability to manage exposure, rather than exclusively viewing people as ‘victims’ of biophysical and socio-economic processes (Adger et al., 2003; Gaillard, 2010). Starting-point interpretations recognise that societies have developed and employed mechanisms and strategies for coping with climatic variability and extremes (and other physical hazards and stresses) for centuries (Hay et al., 2003; Yamin et al., 2004; Adger and Vincent, 2005;

Heijmans, 2004; Campbell, 2006). In the climate change context specifically, this potentially moderates notions of fatalism that can prevail from vulnerability interpretations that over-emphasize exposure (Barnett, 2001).

46

Adaptive and coping capacity

Starting-point vulnerability focuses primarily on the factors and processes shaping the ability of human systems to respond to a range of physical hazards and stresses rather than on the exposure characteristics of the hazard itself (Brooks, 2003; O’Brien et al., 2004). In the climate change field, this is commonly referred to as adaptive capacity; vulnerability and adaptive capacity are integrally linked (Smit and Pilifosova, 2001; Smit and Pilifosova, 2003;

Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Brooks and Adger, 2004; Smit and Wandel, 2006;

Adger et al., 2007; Ensor and Berger, 2009). The general consensus in the literature is that enhancing adaptive capacity reduces vulnerability and vice-versa.

‘Adaptive capacity’, as applied in the climate change field, is derived from previous applications of the concept of ‘capacity’ in the disasters literature (Davis et al., 2004; Wisner et al., 2004). Capacity refers to two things (Gaillard, 2010:

220):

a) The resources and assets people possess to respond to hazards, and, b) The ability to use and access the necessary resources.

Thus, adaptive capacity refers to not only to resource and asset availability, but to the social and political structures through which distribution of resources takes place (Nelson, et al., 2007; Ensor and Berger, 2009).

Smit and Pilifosova (2003) describe adaptive capacity as the ability to a) prepare for, b) avoid or moderate and c) recover from, the effects of exposure. Like the concept of vulnerability more broadly, however, interpretations of adaptive capacity vary among the climate change researchers, particularly in regard to how it differs from coping capacity, a concept applied in the disasters field (Thywissen, 2006). Some authors attribute coping capacity to shorter term responses to climatic variability and extremes, and adaptive capacity to longer

47

term adjustments (Smit and Wandel, 2006; Vasquez-Leon et al., 2003; Berkes and Jolly, 2001). Gaillard (2010) refers to coping strategies as an expression of capacity; as the ways in which capacities are mobilised in times of crisis. The APF defines adaptive capacity as:

… the property of a system to adjust its characteristics or behaviour in order to expand its coping range under existing climate variability , or future climate conditions (Brooks and Adger, 2004: 168).

This interpretation is in line with Bohle et al. (1994) who state that adaptive capacity is the present ability of a human system to cope with stress, which is an important indicator of its capacity to adapt to future stress, and Brooks’ (2003: 8) observation that it refers to “adjustments in a system’s behaviour and characteristics that enhance its ability to cope with external stresses”.

Building adaptive capacity is a key component of adaptation within a vulnerability-led approach. The emphasis of analysis is usually on the factors and processes that determine and constrain adaptive capacity and these are frequently framed in the literature as being a product of people’s everyday risks, arising from everyday life (Few, 2003; Allen, 2003; Lavell, 2004; Reid and Vogel, 2006; O’Brien et al., 2009; Lopez-Marrero, 2010).

The factors and processes shaping adaptive capacity are context and scale dependent. Smit and Wandel (2006) and Brooks and Adger (2004), emphasise there can be no certain or universal determinants of adaptive capacity beyond broad categories, because these exist and function differently in different contexts. However, broad types of factors and processes that determine adaptive capacity are classified throughout the literature. Factors and processes that are commonly referenced include: social institutions and networks, governance structures, political rights, risk perceptions, education, literacy, skills, traditional knowledge, information flows, and health (Adger and Kelly, 1999;

Smit and Pilifosova, 2001; Yohe and Tol, 2002; Adger et al., 2003; Ford and Smit, 2004; Brooks and Adger, 2004; Adger and Vincent, 2006; Adger et al., 2007;

48

Lopez-Marrero, 2010; Nelson et al., 2010). Importantly, adaptive capacity – like starting-point vulnerability more broadly – is ‘nested’ (Smit and Wandel, 2006).

Local scale determinants are shaped by higher scale factors and processes at a national, regional and global level (see Figure 5).

These determinants are frequently classified as either generic or specific, depending on their relation to particular climate change impacts (Handmer, 2003; Brooks and Adger, 2004; Huq and Reid, 2004; Adger and Vincent, 2005;

Adger et al., 2007). Generic factors are those operating at a broader scale such as economic wealth, livelihoods, education levels, health, literacy and governance that affect vulnerability. Specific factors are those that operate in response to the specific nature of a hazard. These may be factors such as available technology, and extent of information. For instance, cyclone warning systems and weather resistant buildings are integral to adaptive capacity in many parts of the word (Handmer, 2003). Generic and specific determinants are integrally linked, because specific determinants are often influenced strongly by generic factors (Handmer, 2003; Brooks and Adger, 2004; Adger et al., 2007). The factors influencing adaptive capacity are interdependent, and individual determinants can rarely be isolated (Adger and Vincent, 2005; Smit and Wandel, 2006).

The determinants of adaptive capacity facilitate or constrain the development, evolution and deployment of adaptive strategies in a society. Evidentially, the factors and processes influencing adaptive capacity (particularly generic ones) coincide with those that facilitate and constrain sustainable development; “the factors that determine a country’s ability to promote (sustainable) development coincide with the factors that influence adaptive capacity relative to climate change, climate variability and climatic extremes” (Yohe et al., 2007: 816).

Adaptive capacity and development cannot be considered separately. Likewise, vulnerability reduction and development cannot be considered separately.

49

The nested nature of adaptive capacity in the Canadian Arctic

The following figure is simplified from Ford et al. (2007:158), showing the cross-scale linkages between determinants of an element of adaptive capacity – traditional knowledge – important to managing hunting risks in Inuit communities.

International socio-political system

National/Regional policies National/Regional socio-economy

Compulsory education for children Development of cash economy

Time spent on the land Transfer of knowledge between generations

Emerging social conflict

Inuit knowledge and land-based skills

Social networks Hunting flexibility

Community scale

Figure 5 Factors influencing adaptive capacity in Arctic Bay and Igloolik, after Ford et al. (2007:158)

50

Resilience

The term ‘resilience’ is being increasingly applied in relation to climate change adaptation (Nelson et al., 2007; Ensor and Berger, 2009). The concept of resilience originated in ecology (Holling, 1973) with applications in the disasters literature from the 1970’s (Gallopin, 2006; Smit and Wandel, 2006; Turner et al., 2003; Pelling and Uitto, 2001; O’Brien et al., 2006; Gaillard, 2010). Resilience and adaptive capacity are closely linked and the differences between the two concepts are in no way clear. Gallopin (2006) reviews the different ways in which resilience is linked to adaptive capacity and vulnerability across disciplines, revealing that there is little consensus as to the specific relationship between resilience and adaptive capacity, or between resilience, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Manyena (2006) goes further to say that the application of resilience in the social sciences in general is conflicting and as such does not yet provide a comprehensive framework for practice.

Smit and Pilifosova (2003) identify adaptive capacity as reflecting the resilience, (as well as stability, robustness, and flexibility) of a system. Similarly, Barnett (2001: 10) frames resilience as a ‘subset’ of adaptive capacity: “the pursuit of resilience is integral to the development of adaptive capacity”. Conversely, Nelson et al., (2007) frame adaptive capacity as a core feature of resilient systems. Ensor and Berger (2009) differentiate adaptive capacity from resilience:

…adaptive capacity…*is+ understood as the ability to change in response to climate changes, and resilience [is] understood as the ability to absorb or cope with the unexpected.

Resilience, like adaptive capacity, is often framed as the antonym of vulnerability (Gallopin, 2006; Fussel, 2007), but as noted by Gallopin (2006) this is unclear;

while increasing resilience reduces vulnerability, an antonym of vulnerability would imply the ability to simply resist change, rather than change state with it.

51

The ability to change states is the key attribute of a resilient system. Resilience reflects the dynamic nature of adaptive capacity, because it implies the ability to return to an acceptable level of functioning and structure, following a perturbation. To be acceptable, this state need not have the same characteristics as the state preceding the perturbation; this is the key to social science applications of resilience, that systems can change states if this is needed to maintain an acceptable level of structure and functioning (Fussel, 2007; Gallopin, 2006; Manyena, 2006). In this way, a resilient system is generally considered to be flexible, in that it is well equipped to “learn from, and reorganize to meet, changed conditions” (Barnett, 2001: 10). A resilient system therefore, is able to shift its coping range to suit changing conditions such as those resulting from climate change. In this way, the ability of a system to absorb rather than resist stress is emphasised.

The ability to be flexible in the face of uncertainty and surprise is generally the meaning attributed to resilience in the climate change sphere. This implies the ability to learn, re-organize, innovate and transform in the face of changing environmental conditions, based strongly on social factors. Adaptive capacity is often used similarly, but frequently indicates stronger links to specific climate impacts (experienced or anticipatory)¹⁴.

In the context of adaptation to climate change, Nelson et al., (2007) contend that managing systems for flexibility rather than for stability is important since the type and magnitude of change is not always predictable. Building resilience therefore develops sources of resilience (e.g. self-organisation, capacity for learning) in order to maintain flexibility and generate robustness to uncertainty.

End-point interpretations of vulnerability tend to emphasise resistance rather

14 These insights are based on discussions with the ‘terminology and concepts group’ at the Third International Conference on CBA (Charles Erhart, Kathleen Dietrich, Anna Taylor, Rachel Berger, Christina Ruiz and Terry Cannon).

52

than resilience, in that measures to protect against impacts are the focus, rather than measures to increase flexibility to insure against uncertain impacts.

Regardless of the specific relationships between resilience and adaptive capacity building both reduces vulnerability within a starting-point interpretation.

2.4 The vulnerability paradigm in disasters research: political