Adaptive Capacity, Adaptive Governance and Resilience - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 44

that are defined as having components that interact in a manner that drive the system
to adapt and adjust in response to changing conditions (Chapin et al. 2009 , p 14).
Framing resource related issues in terms of how SES are impacted and adjust allows
such problems to be analysed and remediated in a more integrated manner.
Within the specific context of river basins, scholars have pointed to the need to
focus more attention on understanding and managing a transition from current man-
agement regimes to more adaptive regimes that 'take into account environmental,
technological, economic, institutional and cultural characteristics of the basin' (Pahl-
Wostl 2007b , p 49). Transformations or transitions to more adaptive governance
approaches include shifts in social and governance features of SES in order to redi-
rect attention and resources to “restoring, sustaining and developing the capacity of
ecosystems to generate essential services” (Olsson et al. 2006 , p 2). Three broad
categories of outcomes are recognised in terms of directional changes that occur in
the governance of SES; transformation, adaptation and passive (Herrfahrdt-Pähle
2010b ; Chapin et al. 2009 ) .
Transformation of SES into trajectories that sustain and enhance ecosystem
services, societal development and human well-being (Folke et al. 2010 ) may occur
through innovation and enhanced adaptive capacity, allowing the system to transition
to a different, potentially more desirable state (Chapin et al. 2009 ) . Transformability
has also been described as the 'capacity to create a fundamentally new system when
ecological, economic, or social structure makes the existing system untenable'
(Walker et al. 2004 ) , transitioning it onto a trajectory that enhances ecosystem services,
societal development and human well-being (Folke et al. 2010 ) . Transformations
are particularly needed when an SES is locked into a highly resistant state, where
adaptation no longer seems an option (Herrfahrdt-Pähle 2010b ; Walker et al. 2006 ) .
Transformational outcomes are also associated with triple loop learning in adaptive
management terminology (Herrfahrdt-Pähle 2010b ; Pahl-Wostl 2009 ) .
Outcomes that allow for the 'persistence of the fundamental properties of the
current system through adaptation' (Chapin et al. 2009 , p 20) are termed 'adapta-
tion'. Such outcomes can be adjustments in either the social or ecological systems
of an SES in response to experienced or expected climatic stimuli (Smit and Wandel
2006 ), revealing an indication of mobilised adaptive capacity. These definitions of
adaptation and persistence have been used interchangeably to imply sustainability
of properties of the system (Chapin et al. 2009 ), but for the purposes of this piece of
research, 'persistent adaptation' shall be used for this category. This outcome alludes
to the capacity of actors within a system to influence the resilience of it, in terms of
its adaptability (Walker et al. 2004 ) and has been related to double loop learning
(Pahl-Wostl 2009 ; Herrfahrdt-Pähle 2010a ) . Folke et al. ( 2010 ) associates an adap-
tive outcome with the 'capacity of a SES to learn, combine experience and knowl-
edge, adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal processes and
continue developing within the current stability domain or basin of attraction'.
In addition to the above two categories of adaptive responses, a third category,
passive, captures outcomes that contribute to the degradation of the system to a less
favourable state, resulting from either a failure to transform or adapt (Chapin et al. 2009 ,
p 20), or even maladaptation. This can include unintended or forced transformations,