The Assessment of Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 60

framework. More open indicators such as knowledge and levels of decision making
are less prescriptive and therefore predisposed to be more iteratively developed
through the research process, both theoretical and empirical exploration. While this
distinction should be recognised, and normative bias to the analytical framework
should be avoided where possible, it should not be seen as a major impediment to the
development of more robust indicators.
Secondly, there is a difference between the process indicators as described in many
of the studies, and the more outcome associated determinants in others. Requirements
such as 'enabling legislation that creates social space for ecosystem management'
(Olsson et al. 2004a ) and institutional capacity (UNECE 2009 ), can be seen as requisite
for both an enabling environment for adaptive capacity, but also as an outcome of
sufficient adaptive capacity. A key issue is therefore how questions relating to enabling
legislation and institutional capacity could be integrated into more open indicators. Or,
are such concepts in fact outcomes of indicators such as 'levels of decision making' and
'networks', and therefore should not be separately tackled within the adaptive capacity
assessment per se? More specifically regarding institutional capacity, one could
perhaps infer that if indicators such as transparency, knowledge, networks, resources,
decentralisation and subsidiarity as well as experience are met, then institutional
capacity should be strengthened, and therefore it could be taken as an output.
Similarly, the issue of 'process vs. outcome' is pertinent to IWRM. While IWRM
is not considered an indicator, its component parts could be seen as useful determi-
nants of adaptive capacity. An indicator for 'integration' could encapsulate a key
element of IWRM. Normative prescriptions could be avoided by not suggesting that
an ideal level or type of integration pre-exists, but that different levels and types may
enable adaptive capacity in varying sectors or geographies. Additionally, considering
that numerous studies have shown that 'a substantial gap exists between promise and
practice' (Ingram 2011 , p 2) in IWRM, it would be make more sense to focus on how
different types of integration rather than IWRM per se contribute adaptive capacity,
rather than testing normative assumptions based on the criteria of IWRM.
The concept of environmental integrity or ecological system resilience (Nelson
et al. 2007 ) appears regularly as a key determinant for adaptive capacity in the adap-
tive management discourse. Since the capacity of aquatic ecosystems to produce
many of the goods and services on which societies depend is rapidly declining, the
provision of water for nature or nature as a buffer can be seen as a key indicator of
adaptive capacity in a system under stress. If the biological component of the sys-
tem is already under stress, then adaption to more extreme conditions may be lim-
ited. Principles purported within the adaptive governance literature are linked with
achieving these outputs, but again the question arises of how to define the relation-
ship between ecological integrity and resilience with adaptive capacity.
Thirdly, preferences concerning the right mix of modes of governance (hierarchy/
state, market/private and decentralisation/civil society) are rife within the literature on
adaptation and vulnerability, despite the recognition by many that what matters is that
prescriptions fit contexts (Ingram 2011 ). The focus on full participation and decen-
tralisation in water management as desirable norms is reflected across a broad swath
of the literature (Hurlbert 2009 ; Nelson et al. 2007 ; UNDP 1997 ; UNECE 2009 ;