Read Online Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation by Mark Pelling - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Mark Pelling
Tags: Development Studies
Ads: Link
the dual interests of adaptation to climate extremes and base-line change. Coping has also been used to explore social change in relation to wider impacts of social violence and personal tragedy (Lee
et al.
, 2009). Despite this wealth of knowledge of direct relevance to climate change adaptation, learning has been limited (Schipper and Pelling, 2006). This makes it important to identify what, if any, are the similarities between coping and adaptation, and what adaptation could usefully take from this literature; and also to make clear the boundaries between these two concepts.
Within the natural disasters and food security literature numerous models for coping have been proposed since the 1970s. These have variously been framed by entitlements (Sen, 1981), human ecology (Hewitt, 1983), game theory (Uphoff, 1993) and livelihoods analysis (Leach
et al.
, 1997). Across these theoretical realms models tend to be agency focused, the majority operating at the household level and to differentiate coping either by stage or sector of action. Burton
et al.
(1993) is one of the most encompassing models, connecting slow cultural change with rapid adjustments. This four-stage model commences with loss absorption where hazard impacts are tolerated, absorbed as part of the ongoing coevolution of socio-ecological systems with no tangible impacts or observed, instrumental adjustments. Stage two, loss acceptance, is reached once the negative effects of a hazard are socially perceived but losses are borne without active mediation. The third stage of loss reduction commences once losses are perceived to be higher than costs for mitigation; this is the focus of most disaster reduction work. A final stage of radical change is reached once hazard impacts can no longer be mitigated and major socio-economic changes are experienced either through impact or attempts to minimise disaster loss. This broad view of coping is useful in identifying coping as simultaneously a long-term (cultural) and short-term (economic) process of realignment to changing environmental conditions. This model also flags the importance of perception on action. The implication of a temporal dimension opens the possibility of tipping points where one stage flips into another through changes in vulnerability or hazard.
Alternative categorisations of coping offer typologies of action; for example, Wisner
et al.
(2004) identify four kinds of coping action: disaster prevention and loss management (for example, hazard mitigation schemes, early warning systems), diversification of production (for example, the promotion of mixedcropping, livelihood diversification), development of social support networks (for example, informal reciprocity or state welfare) and post-disaster actions to contain loss (for example, opportunistic livelihoods, insurance, novel social organisation). This approach has the advantage of providing technical detail but is restricted to Burton
et al.
’s stage of loss reduction and possibly radical change. While these models are designed to accommodate action at multiple spatial scales they less easily reveal the trade-offs and interactions of coping interacting across scale. Livelihoods models are one response to this challenge and explicitly situate agents (normally households) within an institutional context. Coping responses are located at the interface of actors and institutions (Leach
et al.
, 1997).
While a successful concept, coping is ultimately misleading as a metaphor for social responses to environmental change at it implies that actors are getting by, doing okay. This can be the case, with agriculturalists, for example, deploying coping mechanisms to get through the low-productivity periods in the annual agricultural cycle (Davies, 1993). But often, acts labelled as coping require the expenditure or conversion of valuable assets to achieve lower-order outcomes, undermining current capacities and future development options. This ratchet effect
et al.
, 2009). Despite this wealth of knowledge of direct relevance to climate change adaptation, learning has been limited (Schipper and Pelling, 2006). This makes it important to identify what, if any, are the similarities between coping and adaptation, and what adaptation could usefully take from this literature; and also to make clear the boundaries between these two concepts.
Within the natural disasters and food security literature numerous models for coping have been proposed since the 1970s. These have variously been framed by entitlements (Sen, 1981), human ecology (Hewitt, 1983), game theory (Uphoff, 1993) and livelihoods analysis (Leach
et al.
, 1997). Across these theoretical realms models tend to be agency focused, the majority operating at the household level and to differentiate coping either by stage or sector of action. Burton
et al.
(1993) is one of the most encompassing models, connecting slow cultural change with rapid adjustments. This four-stage model commences with loss absorption where hazard impacts are tolerated, absorbed as part of the ongoing coevolution of socio-ecological systems with no tangible impacts or observed, instrumental adjustments. Stage two, loss acceptance, is reached once the negative effects of a hazard are socially perceived but losses are borne without active mediation. The third stage of loss reduction commences once losses are perceived to be higher than costs for mitigation; this is the focus of most disaster reduction work. A final stage of radical change is reached once hazard impacts can no longer be mitigated and major socio-economic changes are experienced either through impact or attempts to minimise disaster loss. This broad view of coping is useful in identifying coping as simultaneously a long-term (cultural) and short-term (economic) process of realignment to changing environmental conditions. This model also flags the importance of perception on action. The implication of a temporal dimension opens the possibility of tipping points where one stage flips into another through changes in vulnerability or hazard.
Alternative categorisations of coping offer typologies of action; for example, Wisner
et al.
(2004) identify four kinds of coping action: disaster prevention and loss management (for example, hazard mitigation schemes, early warning systems), diversification of production (for example, the promotion of mixedcropping, livelihood diversification), development of social support networks (for example, informal reciprocity or state welfare) and post-disaster actions to contain loss (for example, opportunistic livelihoods, insurance, novel social organisation). This approach has the advantage of providing technical detail but is restricted to Burton
et al.
’s stage of loss reduction and possibly radical change. While these models are designed to accommodate action at multiple spatial scales they less easily reveal the trade-offs and interactions of coping interacting across scale. Livelihoods models are one response to this challenge and explicitly situate agents (normally households) within an institutional context. Coping responses are located at the interface of actors and institutions (Leach
et al.
, 1997).
While a successful concept, coping is ultimately misleading as a metaphor for social responses to environmental change at it implies that actors are getting by, doing okay. This can be the case, with agriculturalists, for example, deploying coping mechanisms to get through the low-productivity periods in the annual agricultural cycle (Davies, 1993). But often, acts labelled as coping require the expenditure or conversion of valuable assets to achieve lower-order outcomes, undermining current capacities and future development options. This ratchet effect
Similar Books
