«Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? W. Neil Adger · Suraje Dessai · Marisa Goulden · Mike Hulme · Irene Lorenzoni · Donald R. ...»
The valuing of places and cultures does not imply that adaptation is the same as conservation. Cultures are never static as individuals and societies initiate change or respond to new sets of external conditions. Whether a result of a changing physical environment, emigrations, the inﬂux of immigrants, or local innovations, cultures are always in ﬂux. Place names in Nunavut, for example, are often descriptive of the environment and are important references for navigation. However, place names are also slow to change and the environmental conditions of the past are not the same as today, leaving a legacy of place names that do not correspond to the current environment (Henshaw 2003). These apparent misnomers highlight that populations in the region have been able to accommodate environmental change and adapt to new conditions. The dynamic nature of culture does not discount the value of a particular culture, especially when change is involuntary and, as in the case of climate change, results from anthropogenic emissions for which others are largely responsible. The projected changes associated with a warming climate will be irreversible and highly signiﬁcant.
Landscapes are dynamic social constructions which reﬂect process and change through historical and contextual experience. As a result of the complex interactions of cultural, political, and ecological processes landscapes assume symbolic meaning and may have profound cultural implications (Baker 1992). Historical and contextual experience also leads to the development of rules, norms, and forms of governance to manage and interact with the environment (Young and Lipton 2006).
Thus, part of the order and structure of societies is designed to interact with the physical environment and any change in the physical environment will inﬂuence these structures as well as the larger social system. The range of this inﬂuence varies in accord with the proximity of a society to the natural environment. For example, for some cultures a physical landscape provides social order by helping to deﬁne and regulate kinship relationships (Gow 1995). Nevertheless, all societies have affective ties between individuals, communities, and their material environments, and changes Climatic Change (2009) 93:335–354 349 in the environment affect individual and collective constructions of reality (OliverSmith 1991; Pretty 2007). The implications of a changing physical environment touch the core of how individuals and cultures may deﬁne themselves and their interactions with the world around them.
There is increasing evidence that particular places in the world will be transformed and, in effect, lost through the impacts of a changing climate. In the South Paciﬁc, for example, there are signiﬁcant concerns that sea level rise will force people to leave their islands (Adger et al. 2009). Migration is an adaptation, but involuntary migration may be undesirable to those leaving their homeland, and the disruptive impacts on economies, social order, cultural identity, knowledge, and traditions belie successful transitions (Adger et al. 2009). Modern history provides numerous examples of peoples who were forced to migrate as a consequence of dam construction, social reorganization, and national security. The outcomes of these movements have been strikingly similar and contain few successes. Amongst other problems, the severing of attachment to place may have devastating repercussions for individuals and societies strongly anchored to a particular region (Trudelle-Schwarz 1996; Oliver-Smith 1991).
For cultures and the physical environment climate change implies irreversible loss.
Change is not inherently negative. However, the current metrics of accounting for loss do not include mechanisms for evaluating the cultural and symbolic value of the landscape. These impacts are systematically undervalued and do not enter into the decision making calculus for adaptation responses. Whether slow and incremental or fast and abrupt, climate change is and will continue to modify the relationships of societies with the environment. The loss of physical places and transformed ecological systems will often be irreversible, with associated environmental, cultural, and social implications. These changes are associated with limits to certain possible adaptation pathways. While many of the changes are unavoidable, the way in which we choose to plan for, and respond to, change is subject to discretion.
This paper challenges the implicit assumption that successful adaptation to climate change will be bound by limiting factors beyond which adaptation will not be possible. The propositions in effect challenge this view and maintain that societal adaptation is not necessarily limited by exogenous forces outside its control. More often, adaptation to climate change is limited by the values, perceptions, processes and power structures within society. What may be a limit in one society may not be in another, depending on the ethical standpoint, the emphasis placed on scientiﬁc projections, the risk perceptions of the society, and the extent to which places and cultures are valued.
The purpose of this paper is to examine the assumptions underlying current notions of limits to adaptation and the associated concept of thresholds. We suggest that four elements inherent in any society contribute to limiting the successful adaptive response of society. The role of ethics and its manifestation in the diverse goals of adaptation of different actors is critical. What may be interpreted as a limit or a failure of adaptation may in fact be a successful adaptation for another actor, resulting from the different priorities and values held within society. Lack 350 Climatic Change (2009) 93:335–354 of precise knowledge about future climate impacts is often cited as a reason for delaying adaptation actions. It becomes a limit in itself, whereas we argue that greater foresight will not facilitate adaptation. Instead, robust decision-making circumvents the need for precise knowledge. Adaptation decisions depend on the perceptions of risk held by society, which may act as limiting factors if the society does not believe the risk is great enough to justify action. And fourth, the undervaluing of places and cultures may limit the range of adaptation actions. The current methods of valuing loss do not include cultural and symbolic values, leading to an undervaluation in comparison with more easily valued and tangible assets.
What are the implications of this set of observations and propositions for policy and individual action to adapt to climate change? The major implication arises from our observations that diverse and contested values—underpinned by ethical, cultural, risk and knowledge considerations—underlie adaptation responses and thus deﬁne mutable and subjective limits to adaptation. Given diverse values of diverse actors, there is, we believe, a compelling need to identify and recognise implicit and hidden values and interests in advance of purposeful adaptation interventions. As a consequence, we suggest that there is a requirement for governance mechanisms that can meaningfully acknowledge and negotiate the complexity arising from the manifestation of diverse values—for example, deliberative platforms for adaptive action involving wide sets of stakeholders. We have argued here that locality, place and cultural icons are likely to loom large in adaptation decisions.
We argue that, notwithstanding physical and ecological limits affecting natural systems, climate change adaptation is not only limited by such exogenous forces, but importantly by societal factors that could possibly be overcome. Based on our review, we suggest that an adaptable society is characterized by awareness of diverse values, appreciation and understanding of speciﬁc and variable vulnerabilities to impacts, and acceptance of some loss through change. The ability to adapt is determined in part by the availability of technology and the capacity for learning but fundamentally by the ethics of the treatment of vulnerable people and places within societal decision-making structures. The issues we raise in this paper represent, we argue, the core problems of adaptation decision-making at all institutional and political scales, and across all cultures.
Acknowledgements The research was funded by NERC, EPSRC and ESRC in the UK through the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. We thank Declan Conway for discussions and Hallie Eakin and two further anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. This version remains our own responsibility.
Adger WN, Barnett J, Ellemor H (2009) Unique and valued places at risk. In: Schneider SH, Rosencranz A, Mastrandrea M (eds) Climate change science and policy. Island, Washington DC (in press) Agrawala S, Fankhauser S (eds) (2008) Economic aspects of adaptation to climate change: costs, beneﬁts and policy instruments. OECD, Paris Apuuli B, Wright J, Elias C, Burton I (2000) Reconciling national and global priorities in adaptation to climate change: with an illustration from Uganda. Environ Monit Assess 61:145–159 Arnell NW, Delaney EK (2006) Adapting to climate change: water supply in England and Wales.
Clim Change 78:227–255 Climatic Change (2009) 93:335–354 351 Baer P (2007) The worth of an ice-sheet: a critique of the treatment of catastrophic impacts in the Stern review. EcoEquity Discussion Paper. www.ecoequity.org/docs/WorthOfAnIceSheet.pdf.
Accessed 18 January 2007 Baker ARH (1992) Introduction: on ideology and landscape. In: Baker ARH, Biger G (eds) Ideology and landscape in historical perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bandura A (1977) Self-efﬁcacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84:
191–215 Berkes F (2002) Epilogue: making sense of Arctic environmental change? In: Krupnik I, Jolly D (eds) The earth is faster now: indigenous observations of arctic environmental change. Arctic Research Consortium of the United States and Smithsonian Institution, Fairbanks AK, pp 335–349 Berkhout F, Hertin J, Gann DM (2006) Learning to adapt: organisational adaptation to climate change impacts. Clim Change 78:135–156 Berman M, Koﬁnas G (2004) Hunting for models: grounded and rational choice approaches to analyzing climate effects on subsistence hunting in an Arctic community. Ecol Econ 49:31–46 Burton I, Kates RW, White GF (1993) The environment as hazard, 2nd edn. Guilford, New York Camﬁeld L, McGregor A (2005) Resilience and well-being in developing countries. In: Ungar M (ed) Handbook for working with children and youth: pathways to resilience across cultures and contexts. Sage, London Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. PNAS 100:8086–8091 Cash DW, Adger WN, Berkes F, Garden P, Lebel L, Olsson P, Pritchard L, Young O (2006) Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multi-level world. Ecology and Society 11(2):8. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art8/ Cruikshank J (2001) Glaciers and climate change: perspectives from oral tradition. Arctic 54:377–393 Dessai S, Hulme M (2004) Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities? Climate Policy 4:107– Dessai S, Adger WN, Hulme M, Turnpenny J, Köhler J, Warren R (2004) Deﬁning and experiencing dangerous climate change. Clim Change 64:11–25 Dessai S, Hulme M, Lempert RJ, Pielke R Jr (2009) Climate prediction: a limit to adaptation?
In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien K (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press) Diamond J (2005) Collapse: how societies choose to fail or survive. Penguin, London Dobson A (2003) Citizenship and the environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dow K, Kasperson RE, Bohn H (2006) Exploring the social justice implications of adaptation and vulnerability. In: Adger WN, Paavola J, Huq S, Mace MJ (eds) Fairness in adaptation to climate change. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass, pp 79–96
Eakin H, Tompkins EL, Nelson DR, Anderies JM (2009) Hidden costs and disparate uncertainties:
trade-offs involved in approaches to climate policy. In: Adger WN, Lorenzoni I, O’Brien K (eds) Adapting to climate change: thresholds, values, governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press) Few R, Brown K, Tompkins E (2007) Climate change and coastal management decisions: insights from Christchurch Bay, UK. Coast Manage 35:255–270 Fischlin A, Midgeley G (2007) Ecosystems, their properties, goods and services. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, Hanson CE, van der Linden PJ (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Folke C (2006) Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses.
Glob Environ Change 16:253–267 Fransson N, Gärling T (1999) Environmental concern: conceptual deﬁnitions, measurement methods, and research ﬁndings. J Environ Psychol 19:369–382 Füssel H-M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches and key lessons. Sustainability Science 2:265–275 Gagnon-Lebrun F, Agrawala S (2007) Implementing adaptation in developed countries: an analysis of progress and trends. Climate Policy 7:392–408 Gallopin GC (2006) Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Glob Environ Change 16:293–303 Giddens A (1984) The constitution of society: outline of the theory of structuration. Polity, Cambridge Gordon LJ, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2008) Agricultural modiﬁcations of hydrological ﬂows create ecological surprises. Trends Ecol Evol 23:211–219 352 Climatic Change (2009) 93:335–354 Gow P (1995) Land, people, and paper in Western Amazonia. In: Hirsch E, O’Hanlon M (eds) The anthropology of landscape: perspectives on place and space. Oxford University Press, Oxford Grothmann T, Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process of individual adaptation to climate change. Glob Environ Change 15:199–213 Harley TA (2003) Nice weather for the time of year: the British obsession with the weather.
In: Strauss S, Orlove B (eds) Weather, climate, culture. Berg, Oxford, pp 103–120 Henshaw A (2003) Climate and culture in the North: the interface of archaeology, paleoenvironmental science and oral history. In: Strauss S, Orlove B (eds) Weather, climate, culture. Berg, Oxford Hines JM, Hungerford HR, Tomera AN (1987) Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible environmental behaviour: a meta-analysis. J Environ Educ 18:1–18 Horton D (2005) Demonstrating environmental citizenship? In: Dobson A, Bell DR (eds) Environmental citizenship. MIT Press, Cambridge MA Hulme M, Dessai S (2008) Negotiating future climates for public policy: a critical assessment of the development of climate scenarios for the UK. Environ Sci Policy 11:54–70 Hulme M, Jenkins GJ, Lu X, Turnpenny JR, Mitchell TD, Jones RG, Lowe J, Murphy JM, Hassell D, Boorman P, McDonald R, Hill S (2002) Climate change scenarios for the UK: the UKCIP02 scientiﬁc report. Tyndall, Norwich, 112 pp Huntington E (1915, 2001) Civilisation and climate. Reprinted by the University Press of the Paciﬁc, Hawaii, Hawaii, 333 pp Huntington H, Fox S (2005) The changing arctic: indigenous perspectives. In: Arctic climate impact assessment. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Inglehart R (1997) Modernization and postmodernization: cultural, economic, and political change in forty three societies. Princeton University Press, Princeton Jackson T (2005) Motivating sustainable consumption—a review of evidence on consumer behaviour and behavioural change. A report to the sustainable development research network. Centre for Environmental Strategies, University of Surrey Kates RW, Wilbanks TJ (2003) Making the global local: responding to climate change concerns from the ground up. Environment 45(3):12–23 Knopman DS (2006) Success matters: recasting the relationship among geophysical, biological, and behavioral scientists to support decision making on major environmental challenges. Water Resour Res 42(3):W03S09 Lempert RJ, Groves DG, Popper SW, Bankes SC (2006) A general, analytic method for generating robust strategies and narrative scenarios. Manag Sci 52:514–528 Lord CG et al (1979) Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: the effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37:2098–2109