The Assessment of Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change and Water Governance: Adaptive Capacity in Chile and Switzerland - page 62

by suggesting that future approaches should enable systems to have more choices to
draw from in times of uncertainty and crisis. Drawing from the resilience literature,
the inference is that higher adaptive capacity should correlate incrementally with an
ability to transform or adapt to new challenges or states (refer to Sect. 2.4 ) . Therefore
one would expect positive fulfilment of the adaptive capacity indicators to corre-
spond with more transformative and adaptive actions and management approaches,
and negative fulfilment of adaptive capacity indicators to correspond with passive
approaches. One may also then infer that the more transformative the approach, the
better and larger the future choices should be.
To reiterate, transformation is seen as the transition of a system to a fundamen-
tally different, potentially more desirable state (Chapin et al. 2009 ) , onto a trajec-
tory that sustains and enhances ecosystem services, societal development (including
economic security) and human well-being (Folke et al. 2010 ). The concept of triple
loop learning (Pahl-Wostl 2009 ) is associated with transformation. Adaptation
refers to adjustments in response to actual or expected climate impacts, that allows
the SES to persist within the current state or basin of attraction (Folke et al. 2010 ) .
This can be associated with elements of double loop learning and single-loop learn-
ing (Pahl-Wostl 2009 ). Passive change refers to the degradation of a system to a less
favourable state resulting from a failure to adapt or transform (Folke et al. 2010 ) .
Passive change can be seen as the inverse of transformation, so while transforma-
tion is determined to be a positive transition to a more favourable state, passive
change should be seen as transition to a more negative state (i.e. unintended trans-
formation). Deeper operationalisation of these categories will be developed and dis-
cussed in Chap. 6 .
Creating adaptive capacity in water governance regimes should be about creating
options now and in the future, rather than limiting them and allowing a system to
bend rather than break in the face of new challenges, ensuring that change is navi-
gated in a way that leads to transformative and adaptive responses, rather than pas-
sive forced transformations with negative outcomes. Thus, for the purposes of this
piece of research, adaptive capacity is conceptualised through its role in the trans-
formation potential of a system to a more sustainable state as a means to absorb
future shocks and uncertainty, thereby creating not limiting future adaptation
choices .
Different forms of adaptive outcome can therefore be seen as manifestations
of the presence or absence of adaptive capacity. Drawing on the literature and
discussion on governance determinants and indicators of adaptive capacity above,
a list of broad determinants was developed for the exploration of adaptive
capacity across the case areas. These were Knowledge; Networks; Levels of
Decision Making; Integration, Predictability-Flexibility; Experience; Resources;
Leadership. Table 4.1 presents both the determinants and sub-criteria, which
draw on current understanding and the different determinants and indicators
(as often used interchangeably in the literature) in the discipline of adaptive
capacity, adaptive governance and adaptive management, as well as the discourse
on Integrated Water Resources Management. The more prescriptive and norma-
tive indicators employed within the STRIVER/BRAHMATWINN assessment