58
S. Turner-Walker et al.
assessments are unable to account for microclimates, specific local environments
and needs—and sometimes offer contradictory predictions when downscaled to the
local level (see Ensor 2011; Dessai et al. 2009; Stainforth et al. 2007). Science
data-driven or top-down climate vulnerability assessment processes (also termed
biophysical or outcome vulnerability) are based on an analysis of climate change
and its impacts, while participatory or bottom-up climate vulnerability assessment
approaches (also termed social or context vulnerability) are based upon analysis of
the people affected by climate change impacts (Dessai and Hume 2004; O’brien et al.
2007). The dynamics in linking scientific and local knowledge within climate change
adaptation, remains challenging. Local knowledge tends to be relied upon to ‘ground
truth’ climate modelling predictions and to ‘fill gaps’ in climate data (e.g. ReyesGarcia 2015; Lefale 2010; Green et al. 2010; Green and Raygorodetsky 2010). Yet,
local knowledge does not necessarily translate easily outside of the environments,
cultures and people by which they are known. Nor do local knowledges compare or
reduce well to the ‘language of objectivism’ (e.g. language that is objective, inductive
and absolute rather than subjectivist).
At the centre of local-level targeted climate adaptation programming, is the need
to facilitate and increase adaptive capacity, as a core activity (Jones et al.2010).
When adaptation is perceived as a social process (Thornton and Manafsi 2010:134)
of deliberate change in anticipation or reaction to external stressors (Nelson et al.
2007:387), the adaptation proces involves ongoing learning, as decision-making for
adaptation efforts evolve and improve with newly emerging information and conditions (Tschakert and Dietrich 2010). This process of adaptation consists of an ongoing
stream of activities, actions decisions and attitudes that inform decisions on all angles
and aspects on life. This process is therefore also reflective of the existing social norms
and processes of the (community or social) system (Adger et al. 2005) making local
participation in early programme design crucial. In this sense, adaptation is seen as
providing wider benefits, that are not just to specifically address and cope with climate
change impacts but which are part of the development process (Apuuli et al. 2000).
Adaptation actions are integrated into all aspects of life according to the demographic,
cultural, geographical, ecological, economic, historical and technological contexts.
Adaptation decisions are therefore also difficult to separate as adaptation decisions
and actions from those of decisions and actions triggered by other social, cultural,
political, economic or environmental events (Adger et al. 2005). At the centre of
local-level targeted climate adaptation programming, is the need to facilitate and
increase adaptive capacity, as a core activity (Jones et al. 2010).
Approaches to adaptation informing the implementation of adaptation activities
have a basis in several conceptualisations. These range from the majority of adaptive capacity frameworks, which rely on assets and levels of capital as indicators
for capacity. Building on from the term adaptation, adaptive capacity refers to the
ability to adapt. ‘Capacity is the “power to” do something’ (Bebbington et al. 2006).
Specifically, adaptive capacity is the capacity to adjust, modify or change characteristics or take actions that mitigate or moderate potential damage, as well as to
take advantage of opportunities or cope with the consequences of shocks or stresses
(Brookes 2003). Adaptive capacity includes “the conditions and characteristics that
S. Turner-Walker et al.
assessments are unable to account for microclimates, specific local environments
and needs—and sometimes offer contradictory predictions when downscaled to the
local level (see Ensor 2011; Dessai et al. 2009; Stainforth et al. 2007). Science
data-driven or top-down climate vulnerability assessment processes (also termed
biophysical or outcome vulnerability) are based on an analysis of climate change
and its impacts, while participatory or bottom-up climate vulnerability assessment
approaches (also termed social or context vulnerability) are based upon analysis of
the people affected by climate change impacts (Dessai and Hume 2004; O’brien et al.
2007). The dynamics in linking scientific and local knowledge within climate change
adaptation, remains challenging. Local knowledge tends to be relied upon to ‘ground
truth’ climate modelling predictions and to ‘fill gaps’ in climate data (e.g. ReyesGarcia 2015; Lefale 2010; Green et al. 2010; Green and Raygorodetsky 2010). Yet,
local knowledge does not necessarily translate easily outside of the environments,
cultures and people by which they are known. Nor do local knowledges compare or
reduce well to the ‘language of objectivism’ (e.g. language that is objective, inductive
and absolute rather than subjectivist).
At the centre of local-level targeted climate adaptation programming, is the need
to facilitate and increase adaptive capacity, as a core activity (Jones et al.2010).
When adaptation is perceived as a social process (Thornton and Manafsi 2010:134)
of deliberate change in anticipation or reaction to external stressors (Nelson et al.
2007:387), the adaptation proces involves ongoing learning, as decision-making for
adaptation efforts evolve and improve with newly emerging information and conditions (Tschakert and Dietrich 2010). This process of adaptation consists of an ongoing
stream of activities, actions decisions and attitudes that inform decisions on all angles
and aspects on life. This process is therefore also reflective of the existing social norms
and processes of the (community or social) system (Adger et al. 2005) making local
participation in early programme design crucial. In this sense, adaptation is seen as
providing wider benefits, that are not just to specifically address and cope with climate
change impacts but which are part of the development process (Apuuli et al. 2000).
Adaptation actions are integrated into all aspects of life according to the demographic,
cultural, geographical, ecological, economic, historical and technological contexts.
Adaptation decisions are therefore also difficult to separate as adaptation decisions
and actions from those of decisions and actions triggered by other social, cultural,
political, economic or environmental events (Adger et al. 2005). At the centre of
local-level targeted climate adaptation programming, is the need to facilitate and
increase adaptive capacity, as a core activity (Jones et al. 2010).
Approaches to adaptation informing the implementation of adaptation activities
have a basis in several conceptualisations. These range from the majority of adaptive capacity frameworks, which rely on assets and levels of capital as indicators
for capacity. Building on from the term adaptation, adaptive capacity refers to the
ability to adapt. ‘Capacity is the “power to” do something’ (Bebbington et al. 2006).
Specifically, adaptive capacity is the capacity to adjust, modify or change characteristics or take actions that mitigate or moderate potential damage, as well as to
take advantage of opportunities or cope with the consequences of shocks or stresses
(Brookes 2003). Adaptive capacity includes “the conditions and characteristics that