4 Integration into Development: Translating International …
59
permit society at large (institutions, local groups, individuals, etc) access to and use of
social, economic, psychological, cultural, and livelihood-related natural resources,
as well as access to the information and the institutions of governance necessary
to reduce vulnerability and deal with the consequences of disaster” (IPCC 2012).
While widely contested on how the practical application of adaptive capacity translates, a key part is considered to be the active involvement of the individual, community or society involved in the process (Pettengell 2010). Access to resources is
widely considered to be a key determinant of adaptive capacity (see Adger 2003b;
Phillips 2003). However, it is also determined by societal decision-making structures
(Adger et al. 2009), given that capacity resides in actors, both individual and collective (Bebbington et al. 2006). Factors such as the influence of other actors, social
structures and institutions mirror wider societal debates between the dichotomy of
agency and structures in determining actions (Giddens 1984, Bebbington 2000).
Asset approaches assume that availability (of capital) automatically means usage and
neglect to factor in the processes of decision-making and governance into adaptive
capacity and other elements such as innovation, opportunities, beneficial exploitation
and the sociocultural factors that both bound and provide beneficial institutional and
cultural systems of governing (McGray 2009). Assets, are not only physical assets
but account as sources of power via the way that people transform several types
of assets or capitals (natural, human, financial, physical, cultural and social) into
livelihood outcomes (Bebbington et al. 2006).
Other conceptualisations of adaptation seek to encompass beyond just what each
system has to enable it to adapt—instead focusing on what a system does to enable it
to adapt (McGray 2009). Conceptualisations based on increasing resilience, emphasise communities becoming more resilient and self-reliant, with the conceptualisation accentuating the agency of local people in making their own communities more
resilient. Also understood as a (non-quantifiable) process, rather than a concept,
‘resourcefulness’, is an alternative term that has been picked up. The concept is
poised as a response to the overly nebulous use of resilience framings, and in which
to both problematise and redress ‘recognition and redistribution’, based on cultivating
community conditions to conditions which develop social relations. Resourcefulness
was proposed as a concept to transcend in practice, the applications of systems theory
and resilience thinking with learning and mobilisation as local priorities and needs
identified and developed by community actors (MacKinnon and Derickson 2012).
Rather than being applied externally by agencies and experts (and donors), the application of resourcefulness emphasises learning and mobilisation as local priorities and
needs that are both identified and developed by community activists (MacKinnon and
Derickson 2012). Resourcefulness is applied by MacKinnon and Derickson (2012)
to four key areas—(1) resources, (2) skills and technical knowledge, (3) indigenous
and ‘folk’ knowledge/alternative ways of knowing and of knowledge production,
and (4) recognition (in terms of rights, access and resources). Similar to adaptation,
Mackinnon and Derickson (2012) conceive of the resourcefulness concept, as being
understood as a process, rather than a condition that can be measured or quantified.
Agency as a concept has received much more attention and application in practice
than resourcefulness. The term is used widely in interlinkage with resilience, and
59
permit society at large (institutions, local groups, individuals, etc) access to and use of
social, economic, psychological, cultural, and livelihood-related natural resources,
as well as access to the information and the institutions of governance necessary
to reduce vulnerability and deal with the consequences of disaster” (IPCC 2012).
While widely contested on how the practical application of adaptive capacity translates, a key part is considered to be the active involvement of the individual, community or society involved in the process (Pettengell 2010). Access to resources is
widely considered to be a key determinant of adaptive capacity (see Adger 2003b;
Phillips 2003). However, it is also determined by societal decision-making structures
(Adger et al. 2009), given that capacity resides in actors, both individual and collective (Bebbington et al. 2006). Factors such as the influence of other actors, social
structures and institutions mirror wider societal debates between the dichotomy of
agency and structures in determining actions (Giddens 1984, Bebbington 2000).
Asset approaches assume that availability (of capital) automatically means usage and
neglect to factor in the processes of decision-making and governance into adaptive
capacity and other elements such as innovation, opportunities, beneficial exploitation
and the sociocultural factors that both bound and provide beneficial institutional and
cultural systems of governing (McGray 2009). Assets, are not only physical assets
but account as sources of power via the way that people transform several types
of assets or capitals (natural, human, financial, physical, cultural and social) into
livelihood outcomes (Bebbington et al. 2006).
Other conceptualisations of adaptation seek to encompass beyond just what each
system has to enable it to adapt—instead focusing on what a system does to enable it
to adapt (McGray 2009). Conceptualisations based on increasing resilience, emphasise communities becoming more resilient and self-reliant, with the conceptualisation accentuating the agency of local people in making their own communities more
resilient. Also understood as a (non-quantifiable) process, rather than a concept,
‘resourcefulness’, is an alternative term that has been picked up. The concept is
poised as a response to the overly nebulous use of resilience framings, and in which
to both problematise and redress ‘recognition and redistribution’, based on cultivating
community conditions to conditions which develop social relations. Resourcefulness
was proposed as a concept to transcend in practice, the applications of systems theory
and resilience thinking with learning and mobilisation as local priorities and needs
identified and developed by community actors (MacKinnon and Derickson 2012).
Rather than being applied externally by agencies and experts (and donors), the application of resourcefulness emphasises learning and mobilisation as local priorities and
needs that are both identified and developed by community activists (MacKinnon and
Derickson 2012). Resourcefulness is applied by MacKinnon and Derickson (2012)
to four key areas—(1) resources, (2) skills and technical knowledge, (3) indigenous
and ‘folk’ knowledge/alternative ways of knowing and of knowledge production,
and (4) recognition (in terms of rights, access and resources). Similar to adaptation,
Mackinnon and Derickson (2012) conceive of the resourcefulness concept, as being
understood as a process, rather than a condition that can be measured or quantified.
Agency as a concept has received much more attention and application in practice
than resourcefulness. The term is used widely in interlinkage with resilience, and