Adaptive capacity and its assessment
01 May 2011-Global Environmental Change-human and Policy Dimensions (Pergamon)-Vol. 21, Iss: 2, pp 647-656
TL;DR: In this article, the concept of adaptive capacity and various approaches to assess it are reviewed, particularly with respect to climate variability and change, and several assessment approaches for possible future development that draw from both vulnerability and resilience frameworks are suggested.
Abstract: This paper reviews the concept of adaptive capacity and various approaches to assessing it, particularly with respect to climate variability and change. I find that adaptive capacity is a relatively under-researched topic within the sustainability science and global change communities, particularly since it is uniquely positioned to improve linkages between vulnerability and resilience research. I identify opportunities for advancing the measurement and characterization of adaptive capacity by combining insights from both vulnerability and resilience frameworks, and I suggest several assessment approaches for possible future development that draw from both frameworks and focus on analyzing the governance, institutions, and management that have helped foster adaptive capacity in light of recent climatic events.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: A review of resilience literature in its widest context and later its application at an organisational level context is provided in this article, where the origins of the concept are reported and consequently, the various fields of research are analysed.
Abstract: In an ever-more interconnected world (social, technological and environmental), no organisation can retain a competitive position and survive disruptions as an independent entity. This article provides a review of resilience literature in its widest context and later its application at an organisational level context. The origins of the concept are reported and consequently, the various fields of research are analysed. The concept is shown to remain essentially constant regardless of its field of enquiry and has much to inform the fields of organisation theory, strategy and operations management. This article identifies a number of areas for advancing resilience research, in particular: the relationship between human and organisational resilience; understanding interfaces between organisational and infrastructural resilience.
943 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors synthesize knowledge on agency, capacity, and resilience across human development, well-being, and disasters literature to provide insights to support more integrated and human-centered approaches to understand environmental change.
Abstract: Human agency is considered a key factor in determining how individuals and society respond to environmental change. This article synthesizes knowledge on agency, capacity, and resilience across human development, well-being, and disasters literature to provide insights to support more integrated and human-centered approaches to understanding environmental change. It draws out the key areas of agreement across these diverse fields and identifies the main points of contestation and uncertainty. This highlights the need to consider subjective and relational factors in addition to objective measures of capacity and to view these as reflexive and dynamic, as well as differentiated socially and temporally. These findings can help distinguish between coping, adaptation, and transformation as responses to environmental and other stressors.
540 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, a collaborative research project, EcoCities, was presented to investigate climate change hazards, vulnerabilities and adaptation responses in the conurbation of Greater Manchester, UK.
487 citations
Cites background from "Adaptive capacity and its assessmen..."
...Assets associated with planning and management are central to a city’s adaptive capacity (Engle, 2011; Rosenzweig, Solecki, Hammer, et al., 2011)....
[...]
...The literature emphasises that as our climate envelope is set to shift radically, learning from and acting on historic records of extreme events sits at odds with the magnitude of future projections (Engle, 2011)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors propose an approach to build adaptive capacity across five domains: the assets that people can draw upon in times of need; the flexibility to change strategies; the ability to organize and act collectively; learning to recognize and respond to change; and the agency to determine whether to change or not.
Abstract: To minimize the impacts of climate change on human wellbeing, governments, development agencies, and civil society organizations have made substantial investments in improving people's capacity to adapt to change Yet to date, these investments have tended to focus on a very narrow understanding of adaptive capacity Here, we propose an approach to build adaptive capacity across five domains: the assets that people can draw upon in times of need; the flexibility to change strategies; the ability to organize and act collectively; learning to recognize and respond to change; and the agency to determine whether to change or not
373 citations
TL;DR: The concept of resilience has become a popular catchphrase used by government, international finance organisations, NGOs, community groups and activists all over the globe as mentioned in this paper. But despite its widespread use, there remains confusion over what resilience is and the purpose it serves.
Abstract: Resilience has fast become a popular catchphrase used by government, international finance organisations, NGOs, community groups and activists all over the globe. Despite its widespread use, there remains confusion over what resilience is and the purpose it serves. Resilience can, in some cases, speak to a desire to successfully respond and adapt to disruptions outside of the status quo. However, this conceptualisation of resilience is far from uncontested. Emerging research has shown a lack of consideration for power, agency and inequality in popular and academic use of these frameworks. Criticism has also been raised regarding the use of resilience to justify projects informed by neoliberal ideologies that aim to decrease state involvement, increase community self-reliance and restructure social services. Despite this, resilience is being used by community and activist groups that aim to address local and global environmental and social issues.With this critical insight, the need has arisen to question what is being maintained, for whom and by whom, through these discourses of resilience. In this review, I trace the evolution of the concept in the literature. Building on this, I discuss three interpretations of the resilience paradigm in current academic, political and activist arenas. I conclude by discussing possible future directions for critical geographic perspectives of resilience.
344 citations
Cites background from "Adaptive capacity and its assessmen..."
...As noted by Engle (2011), these terms are highly socially constructed; depending on the values of a society, different system states will be considered undesirable....
[...]
...This has led to resilience being applied to similar issues as sustainability, most notably, climate change (Engle 2011)....
[...]
...As a result, developing countries could be at a significant disadvantage in this regard due to the inequitable distribution of resources globally, a point which goes unacknowledged in wider resilience theory (Engle 2011)....
[...]
...Transformation, in broad SES theory, is considered the complete shift of a system from one set of parameters to another when the system is considered undesirable or untenable (Engle 2011; Walker et al. 2004)....
[...]
...It is also important to more fully comprehend the theoretical background to socio-ecological resilience as the foundation of most popular theoretical understandings of resilience (Cote andNightingale 2012; Cutter et al. 2008; Engle 2011)....
[...]
References
More filters
TL;DR: The traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience.
Abstract: Individuals die, populations disappear, and species become extinct. That is one view of the world. But another view of the world concentrates not so much on presence or absence as upon the numbers of organisms and the degree of constancy of their numbers. These are two very different ways of viewing the behavior of systems and the usefulness of the view depends very much on the properties of the system concerned. If we are examining a particular device designed by the engineer to perform specific tasks under a rather narrow range of predictable external conditions, we are likely to be more concerned with consistent nonvariable performance in which slight departures from the performance goal are immediately counteracted. A quantitative view of the behavior of the system is, therefore, essential. With attention focused upon achieving constancy, the critical events seem to be the amplitude and frequency of oscillations. But if we are dealing with a system profoundly affected by changes external to it, and continually confronted by the unexpected, the constancy of its behavior becomes less important than the persistence of the relationships. Attention shifts, therefore, to the qualitative and to questions of existence or not. Our traditions of analysis in theoretical and empirical ecology have been largely inherited from developments in classical physics and its applied variants. Inevitably, there has been a tendency to emphasize the quantitative rather than the qualitative, for it is important in this tradition to know not just that a quantity is larger than another quantity, but precisely how much larger. It is similarly important, if a quantity fluctuates, to know its amplitude and period of fluctuation. But this orientation may simply reflect an analytic approach developed in one area because it was useful and then transferred to another where it may not be. Our traditional view of natural systems, therefore, might well be less a meaningful reality than a perceptual convenience. There can in some years be more owls and fewer mice and in others, the reverse. Fish populations wax and wane as a natural condition, and insect populations can range over extremes that only logarithmic
13,447 citations
Book•
01 Jul 2001
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors set the stage for impact, adaptation, and vulnerability assessment of climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity, and developed and applied scenarios in Climate Change Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Assessment.
Abstract: Summary for policymakers Technical summary Part I. Setting the Stage for Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Assessment: 1. Overview 2. Methods and tools 3. Development and application of scenarios in Climate Change Impact, Adaptation, and Vulnerability Assessment Part II. Sectors and Systems: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: 4. Hydrology and water resources 5. Natural and managed ecosystems 6. Coastal zones and marine ecosystems 7. Energy, industry, and settlements 8. Financial services 9. Human health Part III. Regional Analyses: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: 10. Africa 11. Asia 12. Australasia 13. Europe 14. Latin America 15. North America 16. Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) 17. Small island states Part IV. Global Issues and Synthesis: 18. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity 19. Synthesis and integration of impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability Index.
12,541 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a cross-chapter case study on climate change and sustainability in natural and managed systems and assess key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change, and assess adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity.
Abstract: Foreword Preface Introduction Summary for policymakers Technical summary 1. Assessment of observed changes and responses in natural and managed systems 2. New assessment methodologies and the characterisation of future conditions 3. Fresh water resources and their management 4. Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services 5. Food, fibre and forest products 6. Coastal systems and low-lying areas 7. Industry, settlement and society 8. Human health 9. Africa 10. Asia 11. Australia and New Zealand 12. Europe 13. Latin America 14. North America 15. Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) 16. Small islands 17. Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity 18. Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation 19. Assessing key vulnerabilities and the risk from climate change 20. Perspectives on climate change and sustainability - 811 Cross-chapter case studies Appendix I. Glossary Appendix II. Contributors to the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report Appendix III. Reviewers of the IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report Appendix IV. Acronyms and abbreviations Appendix V. Index and database of regional content Index CD-ROM.
8,465 citations
01 Jan 2007
TL;DR: Drafting Authors: Neil Adger, Pramod Aggarwal, Shardul Agrawala, Joseph Alcamo, Abdelkader Allali, Oleg Anisimov, Nigel Arnell, Michel Boko, Osvaldo Canziani, Timothy Carter, Gino Casassa, Ulisses Confalonieri, Rex Victor Cruz, Edmundo de Alba Alcaraz, William Easterling, Christopher Field, Andreas Fischlin, Blair Fitzharris.
Abstract: Drafting Authors: Neil Adger, Pramod Aggarwal, Shardul Agrawala, Joseph Alcamo, Abdelkader Allali, Oleg Anisimov, Nigel Arnell, Michel Boko, Osvaldo Canziani, Timothy Carter, Gino Casassa, Ulisses Confalonieri, Rex Victor Cruz, Edmundo de Alba Alcaraz, William Easterling, Christopher Field, Andreas Fischlin, Blair Fitzharris, Carlos Gay García, Clair Hanson, Hideo Harasawa, Kevin Hennessy, Saleemul Huq, Roger Jones, Lucka Kajfež Bogataj, David Karoly, Richard Klein, Zbigniew Kundzewicz, Murari Lal, Rodel Lasco, Geoff Love, Xianfu Lu, Graciela Magrín, Luis José Mata, Roger McLean, Bettina Menne, Guy Midgley, Nobuo Mimura, Monirul Qader Mirza, José Moreno, Linda Mortsch, Isabelle Niang-Diop, Robert Nicholls, Béla Nováky, Leonard Nurse, Anthony Nyong, Michael Oppenheimer, Jean Palutikof, Martin Parry, Anand Patwardhan, Patricia Romero Lankao, Cynthia Rosenzweig, Stephen Schneider, Serguei Semenov, Joel Smith, John Stone, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, David Vaughan, Coleen Vogel, Thomas Wilbanks, Poh Poh Wong, Shaohong Wu, Gary Yohe
7,720 citations
TL;DR: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling's (1973) seminal paper as discussed by the authors and different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion, and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow.
Abstract: The concept of resilience has evolved considerably since Holling’s (1973) seminal paper. Different interpretations of what is meant by resilience, however, cause confusion. Resilience of a system needs to be considered in terms of the attributes that govern the system’s dynamics. Three related attributes of social– ecological systems (SESs) determine their future trajectories: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. Resilience (the capacity of a system to absorb disturbance and reorganize while undergoing change so as to still retain essentially the same function, structure, identity, and feedbacks) has four components—latitude, resistance, precariousness, and panarchy—most readily portrayed using the metaphor of a stability landscape. Adaptability is the capacity of actors in the system to influence resilience (in a SES, essentially to manage it). There are four general ways in which this can be done, corresponding to the four aspects of resilience. Transformability is the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic, or social structures make the existing system untenable. The implications of this interpretation of SES dynamics for sustainability science include changing the focus from seeking optimal states and the determinants of maximum sustainable yield (the MSY paradigm), to resilience analysis, adaptive resource management, and adaptive governance. INTRODUCTION An inherent difficulty in the application of these concepts is that, by their nature, they are rather imprecise. They fall into the same sort of category as “justice” or “wellbeing,” and it can be counterproductive to seek definitions that are too narrow. Because different groups adopt different interpretations to fit their understanding and purpose, however, there is confusion in their use. The confusion then extends to how a resilience approach (Holling 1973, Gunderson and Holling 2002) can contribute to the goals of sustainable development. In what follows, we provide an interpretation and an explanation of how these concepts are reflected in the adaptive cycles of complex, multi-scalar SESs. We need a better scientific basis for sustainable development than is generally applied (e.g., a new “sustainability science”). The “Consortium for Sustainable Development” (of the International Council for Science, the Initiative on Science and Technology for Sustainability, and the Third World Academy of Science), the US National Research Council (1999, 2002), and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), have all focused increasing attention on such notions as robustness, vulnerability, and risk. There is good reason for this, as it is these characteristics of social–ecological systems (SESs) that will determine their ability to adapt to and benefit from change. In particular, the stability dynamics of all linked systems of humans and nature emerge from three complementary attributes: resilience, adaptability, and transformability. The purpose of this paper is to examine these three attributes; what they mean, how they interact, and their implications for our future well-being. There is little fundamentally new theory in this paper. What is new is that it uses established theory of nonlinear stability (Levin 1999, Scheffer et al. 2001, Gunderson and Holling 2002, Berkes et al. 2003) to clarify, explain, and diagnose known examples of regional development, regional poverty, and regional CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Arizona State University Ecology and Society 9(2): 5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5 sustainability. These include, among others, the Everglades and the Wisconsin Northern Highlands Lake District in the USA, rangelands and an agricultural catchment in southeastern Australia, the semi-arid savanna in southeastern Zimbabwe, the Kristianstad “Water Kingdom” in southern Sweden, and the Mae Ping valley in northern Thailand. These regions provide examples of both successes and failures of development. Some from rich countries have generated several pulses of solutions over a span of a hundred years and have generated huge costs of recovery (the Everglades). Some from poor countries have emerged in a transformed way but then, in some cases, have been dragged back by higher-level autocratic regimes (Zimbabwe). Some began as localscale solutions and then developed as transformations across scales from local to regional (Kristianstad and northern Wisconsin). In all of them, the outcomes were determined by the interplay of their resilience, adaptability, and transformability. There is a major distinction between resilience and adaptability, on the one hand, and transformability on the other. Resilience and adaptability have to do with the dynamics of a particular system, or a closely related set of systems. Transformability refers to fundamentally altering the nature of a system. As with many terms under the resilience rubric, the dividing line between “closely related” and “fundamentally altered” can be fuzzy, and subject to interpretation. So we begin by first offering the most general, qualitative set of definitions, without reference to conceptual frameworks, that can be used to describe these terms. We then use some examples and the literature on “basins of attraction” and “stability landscapes” to further refine our definitions. Before giving the definitions, however, we need to briefly introduce the concept of adaptive cycles. Adaptive Cycles and Cross-scale Effects The dynamics of SESs can be usefully described and analyzed in terms of a cycle, known as an adaptive cycle, that passes through four phases. Two of them— a growth and exploitation phase (r) merging into a conservation phase (K)—comprise a slow, cumulative forward loop of the cycle, during which the dynamics of the system are reasonably predictable. As the K phase continues, resources become increasingly locked up and the system becomes progressively less flexible and responsive to external shocks. It is eventually, inevitably, followed by a chaotic collapse and release phase (Ω) that rapidly gives way to a phase of reorganization (α), which may be rapid or slow, and during which, innovation and new opportunities are possible. The Ω and α phases together comprise an unpredictable backloop. The α phase leads into a subsequent r phase, which may resemble the previous r phase or be significantly different. This metaphor of the adaptive cycle is based on observed system changes, and does not imply fixed, regular cycling. Systems can move back from K toward r, or from r directly into Ω, or back from α to Ω. Finally (and importantly), the cycles occur at a number of scales and SESs exist as “panarchies”— adaptive cycles interacting across multiple scales. These cross-scale effects are of great significance in the dynamics of SESs.
5,745 citations