Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation (13 page)

The SES science base that has come to influence thinking about resilience in the climate change literature (Gunderson and Holling, 2002) is closely connected to the adaptive management literature outlined in
Chapter 2
. SES offers a rich
and elegant theoretical landscape and one that continues to expand (Liu
et al
., 2007). Some have pushed resilience theory towards a recognition of transitional adaptation (for example, Olsson
et al
., 2006) but in this chapter we focus on SES resilience theory contributions to understanding how valued functions can be helped to persist. SES theory emphasises that ecological and social systems are inextricably linked and that their long-term health is dependent upon change, including periods of growth, collapse and reorganisation (Walker
et al.
, 2006b). In addition to space and time, sociological conceptions of scale also consider how humans symbolise and make sense of reality at different organisational levels (Pritchard and Sanderson, 2002; Cumming
et al.
2006).

Both a strength and weakness of SES is its presentation as an apparently value neutral, realist epistemology, a product of its origins in systems theory. This has produced a rational and structured framework for understanding human action, one that is particularly attractive to climate change research in offering an approach for integrating human and environmental elements into quantitative modelling of futures scenarios under climate change (Jannsen
et al.
, 2006). A parallel literature that has more recently been brought into an understanding of resilience is that from organisational theory which shares a realist and apparently value neutral epistemology, but is otherwise a much looser body of work sometimes reflecting individual views without being explicitly grounded in a philosophical tradition of enquiry. Organisational theory is reviewed at the end of this chapter, and both literatures are combined in
Chapter 6
to analyse the production of adaptive capacity within two contrasting organisational forms.

In thinking through a framework for examining adaptation as resilience built from SES and organisational management theory two limitations inherent in the epistemologies of both approaches must be considered. First, while power is acknowledged, in particular by SES, both literatures are infused with a sense of technical optimism that can downplay the contested character of social life and socio-nature relations. The messiness of decision-making (O’Brien, 2009) is not easily captured. Apparent value neutrality in both cases conspires with technical optimism to emphasise technological innovation and efficiency over critical analysis that might place more weight on the political-economy and cultural root causes of risk and its perception. In this way SES theory has been criticised for a weak integration of social science theory and a tendency to allow for an oversimplification of complex social phenomena (Harrison, 2003; Jannsen
et al.
, 2006). Second, and related, both approaches focus on relational social space but limit analysis to the outer world of interactions between individuals, groups and institutions. Inner worlds of emotion and affect – value, identity, desire, fear – that give shape or meaning to, as well as being drivers for, public actions including adaptation choices (Grothmann and Patt, 2005) are difficult to include.

Thinking on resilience within climate change has been influenced by two schools: disaster risk and SES. Disaster risk itself includes varied interpretations
of resilience including as a capacity for absorbing disturbances and shocks (Birkmann, 2006) and as the opposite of vulnerability, capturing all those acts and capacities that seek to reduce vulnerability to risk (Adger
et al.
, 2005c). More recently both disaster risk and climate change have been influenced by SES theory so that an additional reading of resilience in the face of natural disasters and climate change has become associated with systems regenerative abilities and capacity to maintain desired functions in the face of shocks and stress (Birkmann, 2006), the meaning used here. In this way SES has acted as a bridge between climate change adaptation and disaster risk theory (and with wider literature on natural resource management). Both interpret adaptation as a process as well as a product of social relations and as a dynamic property such that adaptive capacity can change over time in response to shifting risks and capacities (Pelling, 2003b; Young
et al.
, 2006). Arguably another commonality is a failure to question the framing values and political context of decision-making and fall short of addressing adaptation as transformation (Manuel-Navarrete
et al.
, 2009).

Adaptive capacity then is best indicated not by goodness of fit to current or predicted future threats but by flexibility in the face of unexpected as well as predicted hazards, vulnerabilities and their impacts (Janssen
et al.
, 2007). This opens questions about the trade-offs to be made between flexibility, adaptation and welfare (Nelson
et al.
, 2007). Walker
et al.
(2006a) argue that adaptation can undermine net resiliency by shifting resources and so decreasing capacity or increasing risk in another place or sector, and through over-adaptation and lock-in such that a system becomes unable to adapt to novel threats. For example, in southeastern Australia rounds of engineering based solutions have been used by government to respond to a rising water table and salination. This has created a state of lock-in, making it increasingly difficult for the management system to conceive or invest in a non-engineering response. A highly adapted but fragile system is the result – one that is vulnerable to collapse through dependent coevolution (Anderies
et al.
, 2006), an example of Handmer and Dovers’ (1996) account of resilience as resistance and maintenance.

SES theory on resilience applies thresholds to describe movement from one systems state to another (see
Chapter 2
). This helps theorise what it is that leads one system to respond to the local impacts of climate change risk through resilience and another through transition or even transformation. Empirical work shows that identifying the location of thresholds before change is difficult because of the multiple and non-linear feedback mechanisms active within SES, so that the ways discourse, institutions and practical action interact are not always transparent or predictable (Nelson
et al
., 2007). However, evidence does indicate that to activate adaptive capacity requires a social or environmental trigger (a change in attitudes, policy, market conditions or environmental risk and impact) and the appropriate institutional framework.

Nelson
et al.
(2007) contrast deliberate and inadvertent crossing of thresholds from resilience into transition. They argue that deliberate crossing is an indication of both greater adaptive capacity and higher levels of resilience. Two case studies are compared to reach this conclusion. Deliberate transition from agriculture to
tourism is exemplified through the actions taken by a local authority in Arizona, USA, in changing its development strategy and support from local agriculture to tourism base. Inadvertent transition is noted in the abandonment of an agricultural economy in Jordan precipitated by unsustainable resource use. The Arizona case shows an actor overcoming the inertia inherent in an established system to move into a more advantageous economic position. No clear point of movement is identified, however, to mark the change from resilience to transitional adaptation, although it is suggested that while both resilience and transitional adaptation rely on the same kind of adaptive capacities it is social systems with greater intensity of vertical organisation (such as a functioning system for information exchange and participation in development planning from local to regional and national levels of government) that are more likely to be able to cross thresholds into transitional adaptation.

Two elements of SES resilience theory that deserve closer attention are social learning and self-organisation. These ideas have been paralleled in other literatures – for example, self-organisation in social movements, participatory and communicative planning (Pugh and Potter, 2003) – and much of the emphasis on trust and relationships that underlies social learning echoes work on social capital which has also been applied to adaptation (Adger, 2003; Pelling and High, 2005). To this extent these ideas represent widely accepted social phenomena key to the understanding of any collective dynamic. They are at work within transitional and transformative as well as resilient adaptations; the distinction between these levels being the subject and context rather than the object of analysis.

Social learning is a property of social collectives. It describes the capacity and processes through which new values, ideas and practices are disseminated, popularised and become dominant in society or a sub-set such as an organisation or local community. The outcomes of rounds of social learning are the common values, beliefs and behavioural norms that shape the institutional architecture of social life (Wenger, 1999). Social learning is also ascribed to the socialised process of learning and associated change. This is clearly seen in differences over scale where local worldviews or value systems fit uneasily within dominant discourses of development or culture (Argyris and Schön, 1996). Such diversity can be a resource when alternative behaviour is well suited to meet the challenge of changing environments, but also a compounding factor in institutional inertia and potential barrier to the flexibility needed for resilience (Olsson
et al.
, 2004). At the heart of the contribution of social learning to studies of adaptation lies a tension between dominant and alternative or novel ways of seeing and being, and the potential this opens for individual social actors to shape the trajectory and content of collective learning (challenges for the use of social learning as an analytical tool are discussed in the case studies presented in
Chapter 6
).

Much of the literature on social learning is interested in improving the efficiency of established practices rather than seeking new practices to resolve
underlying sustainability challenges, and in this way it meets the goals of resilience (Armitage
et al.
, 2008). A smaller literature examines the role of social learning in enabling transitional and transformational adaptation. According to Diduck
et al.
(2005) such changes that focus on reform of institutions and organisational frameworks are characterised by:

• high levels of trust,

• willingness to take risks in order to extend learning opportunities,

• transparency required to test and challenge embedded values,

• active engagement with civil society, and

• high citizen participation.

Transformative adaptation that builds on alternative values connects individual to social learning – personal beliefs to culture. In thinking through the relationship between learning and political change, Freire (2000 [1969]) calls for critical reasoning. This, Freire argues, is not the default orientation for problem-solving held by the marginalised or powerful – both prefer to make adjustments within the confines of established norms and structures. Freire terms this kind of problem-solving adaptive ingenuity – finding new ways to fit within and gain advantage from dominant structures without challenging them. Thus critical reasoning is a necessary factor in transformational adaptation but will be absent or marginalised into silence in resilience. There are significant obstacles to be overcome in promoting critical reasoning. The powerful as well as marginalised and vulnerable can be frightened by the uncertainty of change, and change itself can be captured by vested interests. To offset this Freire calls for transformation to come from a dialogue between the marginal and powerful and also between ideas and practice (Freire, 1970). Notions of transformation that have shaped participatory development and specific tools including citizen’s fora, citizen’s budgets and deliberative decision-making and polycentric governance (Bicknell
et al.
, 2009).

Responding to the novel hazards of climate change requires social learning systems that can respond to the multiple scale and sectors through which risk is felt and adaptations undertaken. Not least to address the challenge of integrating local community level and scientific knowledge and balance strategic thinking with local needs so that decisions are taken at an appropriate level in the organisational hierarchy (Cash and Moser, 2000). Bringing together and making use of local and scientific knowledges is not easy. It is difficult for individuals and organisations to handle both kinds of knowledge and this is exacerbated by inbuilt power imbalances that tend to give greater weight to science over local knowledge (Kristjanson
et al
., 2009). In response, Wenger (2000) has called for organisations, individuals or tools that can work across this epistemic divide – so called boundary objects.

Self-organisation refers to the propensity for social collectives to form without direction from the state or other higher-level actors. This can include new canonical (formal) organisational forms such as registered community development groups or trade associations, and shadow (informal) organisations such as networks of friends and neighbours that work independently to or cross-cut canonical organisation. Most research on organisations and adaptation focuses on canonical forms which are visible and easy to access, exemplified by the literature on adaptive management outlined in
Chapter 2
. However, the generation of novel ideas or practices that are in conflict with or undervalued by canonical organisation often first emerges from the unmanaged space of shadow organisations. Shadow systems are supportive of innovation because they are typically rich in trust, cut across canonical organisational structures and are hidden from formal oversight, allowing experimentation and risk-taking with novel ideas and practices (Shaw, 1997). Successful experiments in shadow systems may in turn become coopted and formalised within the canonical system. This can provide opportunities for the replication of adaptations, but through formalisation of individual roles and relational commitments will limit flexibility and change the social relations which led to the original innovation and potentially undermine long-term sustainability. Alternatively, shadow systems can remain marginalised and informal, operating in parallel with canonical systems. This is especially so under transitional and transformative adaptation where emergent forms are a site for the challenging of established discursive and material power (Pelling
et al
., 2007).