Adaptive Capacity - Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Transforming Paradigms and Practices - page 57

This categorization emphasizes the need for risk reduction and adaptation
to address (a) both the natural and societal drivers of risk and (b) all the phases
- before, during and after - of a potential disaster. With risk understood as a
product of hazard and vulnerability (Wisner et al. 2004; UNISDR 2009), the
first activity listed addresses hazards, whereas the following three focus on
location-specific vulnerabilities.
A second dimension involves assessing local strategies for coping and
adaptation in relation to their thematic foci - physical, 7 environmental, socio-
cultural, economic or political/institutional ( Table 4.3 ). Third, the strategies
can be reviewed on the basis of their underlying patterns of social behaviour . This
categorization has been established by Cultural Theory (Thompson et al. 1990;
Thompson 2011). Individualistic behaviour refers to self-help, fixing things
without outside assistance. Communitarian behaviour is based on the view that
everybody sinks or swims together, and is characterized by community efforts.
Hierarchical patterns relate to belief in, and reliance on, authority structures and
strong leadership for assistance, control and organization. Fatalistic behaviour is
based on the view that taking or not taking action has the same (unfavourable)
result: it is a 'non-strategy' for survival.
People do not adapt in a vacuum: practices are constantly shaped and reshaped
by governmental and non-governmental policies and actions (Adger et al. 2005;
Moser et al. 2010; Pelling 2010; Wamsler 2014). Our framework combines three
different dimensions to enable thorough analyses of coping strategies and the
conditions in which they are used - a prerequisite for evaluating the effectiveness
and sustainability of local practices, as well as the provision of related policies that
can assist those most at risk. Effectiveness is described by Adger et al. (2005, p.
81) as 'the capacity of an adaptation action to achieve its expressed objectives'. In
practice, effectiveness may signify a strategy's success in preventing deaths and
injuries, as well as losses and damages to property, environment and livelihoods
related to climate change and variability. Conversely, the sustainability of an
adaptation action can be described as being related to its potential impact from a
systems perspective, in the sense that it should not compromise the adaptation
of others (now or in the future) or further contribute to climate change (see
WCED 1987; Adger et al. 2005; Wamsler 2014). Hence, a sustainable coping
system is here understood as a system that can assist an individual, household or
urban community to reduce their level of risk, whilst maintaining or enhancing
local adaptive capacities both now and in the future, and thus not compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Our analytical framework considers three factors decisive for effective and
sustainable adaptation: inclusiveness, flexibility and equity. Here, inclusiveness
means the inclusion of all four types of risk-reducing activities (described as
the first dimension above) in addressing risk before, during and after a potential
disaster. Flexibility relates to the diversity of measures (with regard to the second
and third dimensions; that is, thematic focus and patterns of social behaviour)
used within the four types ( Table 4.3 ). Equity in adaptations can be evaluated