Full Terms amp Conditions of access and use can be found athttpswwwtandfonlinecomactionjournalInformationjournalCode=tcld20

Climate and Development

ISSN 1756-5529 (Print) 1756-5537 (Online) Journal homepage httpswwwtandfonlinecomloitcld20

Revisiting the Local Adaptive Capacity frameworklearning from the implementation of a researchand programming framework in Africa

Lindsey Jones Eva Ludi Helen Jeans amp Margaret Barihaihi

To cite this article Lindsey Jones Eva Ludi Helen Jeans amp Margaret Barihaihi (2019)Revisiting the Local Adaptive Capacity framework learning from the implementation of aresearch and programming framework in Africa Climate and Development 111 3-13 DOI1010801756552920171374237

To link to this article httpsdoiorg1010801756552920171374237

Published online 12 Oct 2017

Submit your article to this journal

Article views 191

View Crossmark data

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Revisiting the Local Adaptive Capacity framework learning from the implementationof a research and programming framework in Africa

Lindsey Jonesabc Eva Ludia Helen Jeansd and Margaret Barihaihide

aOverseas Development Institute London UK bLondon School of Economics and Political Science Department of Geography andEnvironment London UK cLondon School of Economics and Political Science Grantham Research Institute for Climate Change and theEnvironment London UK dOxfam GB Oxford UK eAfrica Climate Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA) Kampala Uganda

(Received 15 April 2016 accepted 20 August 2017)

While adaptation to climate change has emerged as a key area of development research little is known about the enablers andconstraints to implementing adaptation-oriented frameworks for research and development programming This paperdocuments lessons learned from the Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (ACCRA) programme ndash a multi-stakeholder consortium comprised of four large international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and a researchorganization It revisits the development and implementation of the conceptual framework that guided ACCRArsquos workthe Local Adaptive Capacity (LAC) framework Between 2009 and 2013 ACCRArsquos research used the LAC to understandthe impact of development interventions on levels of adaptive capacity at community and household levels This in turninformed targeting of NGO and government programming Challenges such as definitional overlaps between resilienceand adaptation difficulties in articulating the intangible elements of LACrsquos five characteristics of adaptive capacity anddiffering interpretations of commonly used terms between academic and practitioner partners each had to be grappledwith Experiences from ACCRArsquos research highlight the LACrsquos utility as a unifying framework However they also pointto the need to ensure that certain elements of the LAC are not under-represented (such as gender power and politics) Inaddition the need for improved guidance in describing how the conceptual elements of the LAC can be operationalizedand ensuring greater levels of collaboration between all stakeholders were identified It is hoped that the lessons fromACCRA not only help to shape future applications of the LAC but the large number of other adaptation and resilience-oriented frameworks that guide development research and practice

Keywords adaptation resilience climate change disaster risk management adaptive capacity

1 Introduction

The development community is increasingly aware of therole their interventions and investments can play in enhan-cing the ability of communities to deal with climate variabil-ity and change (Gitay et al 2013 Mitchell 2013) As suchboth the development and research communities haveshifted towards the promotion of unifying concepts suchas resilience Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and ClimateChange Adaptation (CCA) (Schipper amp Langston 2015)Despite this our understanding of how current developmentinterventions are supporting peoplersquos ability to deal with andrespond to current and future climate change remains poor(Schipper amp Pelling 2006) Moreover few tools exist forassessing how development interventions affect commu-nitiesrsquo capacity to deal with risk (Levine 2014)

It is against this backdrop that a consortium of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) (comprising OxfamGB Care International Save the Children UK and World

Vision UK) and a research organization (the OverseasDevelopment Institute [ODI]) formed the Africa ClimateChange Resilience Alliance (ACCRA) in 2009ACCRArsquos research sought to assess if and how differenttypes of development interventions ndash whether in the formof DRR social protection (SP) or livelihoods programmesndash influence the adaptive capacity of rural communities (seeLevine Ludi amp Jones 2011) While a number of overarch-ing frameworks for describing adaptive capacity and resili-ence were available at the time (Brooks Adger amp Kelly2005 Gupta et al 2010 Pahl-Wostl 2009 Vincent2007 Yohe amp Tol 2002) none were felt to sufficientlybreak adaptive capacity into its constituent parts and lendthemselves to assessing the roles that development inter-ventions play in supporting (or inhibiting) a communityrsquosability to adapt As such the Local Adaptive Capacity(LAC) framework was developed tested and applied

copy 2017 Informa UK Limited trading as Taylor amp Francis Group

Corresponding author Email ljonesodiorguk

Climate and Development 2019Vol 11 No 1 3ndash13 httpsdoiorg1010801756552920171374237

across eight field sites in three countries (Ethiopia Ugandaand Mozambique) The LAC has since been adopted and isused as a framework in research and programming by awide range of actors spanning academia policy and prac-tice (see Ashley Zhumanova Isaeva amp Dear 2016Folkema Ibrahim amp Wilkinson 2013 Frank amp PenroseBuckley 2012 Williams Fenton amp Huq 2015)

Discourse around CCA and risk reduction have pro-gressed considerably since the LACrsquos development in2010 (Jones Ludi amp Levine 2010 Olsson JerneckThoren Persson amp OrsquoByrne 2015) With this in mindthis paper aims to elaborate on the LACrsquos conceptualunderpinnings and the theoretical and methodological ten-sions in assessing adaptive capacity and resilience in prac-tice We interrogate how learnings from the LACrsquosapplication over five years of research activities can feedinto rapidly evolving discourses around adaptive capacityresilience and risk reduction Finally we detail a numberof lessons learned in coordinating a large multi-stakeholderalliance focused on supporting research and influencingCCA planning processes with multiple overlapping goalsThe discussion on lesson learning focuses on howACCRArsquos alliance partners have used the LAC frameworkAn assessment of how successful the framework has beenin supporting local actors including local governmentand communities to better anticipate manage and planfor change is not within the remit of this paper though war-rants future research

The paper is intended primarily as an internally-reflec-tive piece It synthesizes the wealth of knowledge amassedthrough the course of ACCRArsquos research activities between2009 and 2013 Inputs to the paper are manifold andinclude document analysis of ACCRArsquos various researchoutputs (see Jones et al 2010 Levine et al 2011 LudiJones amp Levine 2012) and reports derived from an inde-pendent evaluation of the projectrsquos programmatic oper-ations and outputs collation of outputs from dialogueworkshops held with ACCRA staff in each of the threehost countries in addition to a final consolidation workshopheld in 2013 and gathering of inputs from a number of keyinformants from stakeholders working with ACCRAduring various stages of the programme The followinginsights are based on the authorrsquos synthesis of theseinputs and their collective learning in having engaged inthe project since its inception

2 The evolution of resilience and its relationshipwith adaptive capacity

ACCRArsquos research sought to assess the influence thatdevelopment interventions have on communitiesrsquo abilityto deal with and respond to future change and uncertaintyThe need for a well-defined framework that enabled anunderstanding of local complex situations and assessingthe outcomes of development interventions on adaptive

capacity was therefore clear from the start Given that lsquoresi-liencersquo was built into the alliancersquos initial approachACCRArsquos research team had intended on using a resilienceframework to guide its research from its inception in 2009However the understanding and application of resiliencewas at that time rapidly evolving and the resulting diversityof definitions interpretations and applications (Brand ampJax 2007 Cutter et al 2008 Gallopiacuten 2006) presenteda practical challenge for the programmersquos action research

The conceptual evolution of resilience within the socialsciences is well illustrated by the changing length andnature of its definition in the Intergovernmental Panel onClimate Change (IPCC)rsquos successive Assessment ReportsAs seen in Table 1 the definition has evolved from a rela-tively short and simple concept centred around the abilityto maintain the same state and function in the ThirdAssessment Report (IPCC 2001) to one that is noticeablemore complex and contested in the Fifth Assessment(Agard et al 2014b) Here it encompasses capacities notonly associated with maintaining function but adaptingand transforming to change By comparison the IPCCrsquosdefinitions of adaptive capacity have remained relativelyconsistent

The rapid proliferation of frameworks related to resili-ence and the termrsquos discussion within the academic litera-ture in subsequent years (Bahadur amp Pichon 2016) hasdone little to make the task easier (Aldunce BeilinHandmer amp Howden 2014 Aldunce Beilin Howden ampHandmer 2015 Alexander 2013) if anything theprocess of understanding and describing resilienceamongst the social sciences has become harder

It is clear that resilience thinking describes important attri-butes of ecosystems of materials and of human beingsthat is the ability to cope with and recover after disturb-ance shocks and stress However with popularity comesthe risk of blurring and diluting the meaning (Olssonet al 2015)

Despite this the evolving meaning and application ofresilience have inspired dialogue and debate in the develop-ment community and helped the innovation of develop-ment interventions that support the wide range ofcapacities assets and functions needed to build local resili-ence (Miller et al 2010) And the wide range of resiliencepathways lsquoprovides different perspectives from which toexplore a broader set of policy and practice optionsrsquo(Aldunce et al 2014) However this same diversitymakes real time research including the assessment of devel-opment interventions fiendishly difficult More specificallyuncertainty over the characteristics of resilience can meanthat the same outcome of a development intervention canbe interpreted in multiple contrasting ways ndash whether itcontributes positively or negatively to a communityrsquos resi-lience It is for these reasons that the ACCRA research teammade a conscious decision to use adaptive capacity rather

4 L Jones et al

than resilience as the conceptual basis for ACCRArsquosresearch given the comparative definitional concisenessand greater level of clarity regarding the conceptrsquos scope

Broadly speaking adaptive capacity is concerned withthe preconditions and capabilities needed to enable adap-tation and the ability to mobilize them (Nelson Adgeramp Brown 2007) It relates closely to peoplesrsquo agency andtheir capabilities with strong overlaps with the capabilitiesapproach developed by Sen and Nussbaum (Nussbaum2000 Sen 1985 1999) More precisely it denotes thecapacity of a system to adjust modify or change its charac-teristics or actions to moderate potential damage takeadvantage of opportunities or cope with the consequencesof shock or stress (Brooks 2003 Agard et al 2014bJones et al 2010)

A number of different interpretations exist with regardsto the relationship between resilience and adaptivecapacity Many are dependent on the extent to which resi-lience is considered as lsquobouncing backrsquo or as lsquobouncingback and transformingrsquo (Olsson et al 2015) The firstviewpoint sees resilience and adaptive capacity as separateentities they are associated primarily with the ability tocope and maintain the same function The second view-point is concerned with adapting to changing risks by trans-forming a systemrsquos core functions (Berman Quinn ampPaavola 2012 Tschakert Oort St Clair amp LaMadrid2013) Adaptive capacity is therefore seen as situatedwithin a wider framework of a resilient system one thatencompasses various different capacities ndash including boun-cing back adapting and transforming Despite its contestedconceptual definition and diverse interpretations it is thissecond interpretation that has gained most tractionamongst the development and humanitarian communities(Beacuteneacute Wood Newsham amp Davies 2012) This relatesnot only to programming activities but also to academicassessments of adaptive capacity (Bahadur amp Pichon

2016) With this in mind we discuss adaptive capacity inrelation to the ACCRA programme as an integral com-ponent of a wider resilient system

The exact determinants of adaptive capacity are highlycontext specific (Vincent 2007) what supports the abilityof pastoralists in north-western Kenya to adapt to changingrainfall patterns may not be the same that supports thecapacity of a community of fishers in Bangladesh toadapt to the same threat However a number of studieshave found that similar patterns and broad characteristicsof adaptive capacity can relate to different groups ofpeople (Eriksen Brown amp Kelly 2005 Nelson et al2007) Though few overarching frameworks exist thatbring together the constituent parts of adaptive capacity anumber of core characteristics have been identified Effec-tive institutions and governance (Folke et al 2002Pahl-Wostl 2009) social learning (Pahl-Wostl et al2007 Pelling High Dearing amp Smith 2008) trust(Gupta et al 2010) collective action (Adger 2003) andthe availability of assets (Adger amp Vincent 2005) haveeach been associated with the adaptive capacity ofpeople communities and nations The characteristics ofadaptive capacity are however by no means limited tothese and the determinants under each are likely to bedifferent depending on the scale and context (Vincent2007) Returning to the example of the pastoralist andfisher while the presence of diverse and sufficient assetsis undoubtedly important for adaptation at all geographicscales and across different livelihoods the mixture ofassets that support a pastoralist will not be the same asthose needed to support a fisher

It is upon this premise that the LAC framework wasdeveloped Namely that the broad characteristics of adap-tive capacity at the local level have commonality acrosssocial groups while actual determinates of each is likelyto be different depending on the context Below we

Table 1 The definitional evolution of lsquoResiliencersquo and lsquoAdaptive Capacityrsquo in successive IPCC assessment reports

Term TAR (2001) AR4 (2007) AR5 (2014)

Resilience lsquoAmount of change a system canundergo without changing statersquo

lsquoThe ability of a social or ecologicalsystem to absorb disturbances whileretaining the same basic structureand ways of functioning thecapacity for self-organisation andthe capacity to adapt to stress andchangersquo

lsquoThe capacity of social economic andenvironmental systems to cope with ahazardous event or trend ordisturbance responding orreorganizing in ways that maintaintheir essential function identity andstructure while also maintaining thecapacity for adaptation learning andtransformationrsquo

Adaptivecapacity

lsquoThe ability of a system to adjust toclimate change (including climatevariability and extremes) tomoderate potential damages to takeadvantage of opportunities or tocope with the consequencesrsquo

lsquoThe ability of a system to adjust toclimate change (including climatevariability and extremes) tomoderate potential damages to takeadvantage of opportunities or tocope with the consequencesrsquo

lsquoThe ability of systems institutionshumans and other organisms toadjust to potential damage to takeadvantage of opportunities or torespond to consequencesrsquo

Sources IPCC (2001) IPCC (2007) Agard et al (2014a)

Climate and Development 5

briefly describe the process behind the LACrsquos developmentand the justification behind the frameworkrsquos five character-istics (for further details see Jones et al 2010 Ludi et al2012 and Levine et al 2011)

3 Developing the LAC framework

An extensive process of consultation with academics andpractitioners in the UK and ACCRArsquos three focal countries(see Levine et al 2011) was conducted in 2009 The pro-grammersquos review process concluded that few if any avail-able conceptual frameworks of adaptive capacity weresuited to ACCRArsquos objectives observing the impact ofdevelopment interventions on the ability of differentsocial groups ndash including gender ethnicity and age ndash toadapt

Early frameworks for the conceptualization of adaptivecapacity focused largely on the availability of a sufficientand diverse set of livelihood assets or capitals (Brookset al 2005 Yohe amp Tol 2002) Although it is clear thatthe assets available to an individual household or commu-nity are likely to support their ability to adapt (BryanDeressa Gbetibouo amp Ringler 2009) they generally failto capture many of the processes and contextual factorsthat influence adaptive capacity They are not thereforean effective reflection of adaptive capacity at the levelwhere most adaptation actions take place (Eriksen ampKelly 2007 Jones et al 2010) For example behavioursnorms and institutional arrangements each play an impor-tant role in shaping LAC yet are inherently intangibleand difficult to observe (Adger 2003) With this in minda holistic understanding of adaptive capacity should alsorecognize and incorporate various process-based elements

In practice these processes may take the form of learn-ing innovation experimentation and the ability to exploitopportunity (Berkes 2009 Folke 2006 Pahl-Wostlet al 2007) promoting flexible decision-making processesand systems of governance that allow for future change anduncertainty to be incorporated into planning processes(Berkes 2009 Pahl-Wostl 2009) or ensuring an enablinginstitutional environment that allows those most vulnerableto have access to key safety nets and resources during timesof need Given the failure of existing frameworks to ade-quately capture many of the process elements of adaptivecapacity and a scarcity of frameworks of adaptive capacityfocusing at the local level the ACCRA research team saw aclear need for the development of a new framework (Joneset al 2010) The focus on lsquolocalrsquo was chosen becausemuch of the attention of existing frameworks was givento characteristics and indicators at national level (egWorld Resources Institute [WRI] 2009) whereas littleresearch and analysis has been done on adaptive capacityat household and community levels

Using these inputs as a starting point a workshopbrought practitioners from the alliance together to

develop a draft framework of adaptive capacity andbroadly agree on its constituent characteristics Thisinitial draft was further refined by researchers from theODI The draft framework was then presented at a publicmeeting in early 2010 and refined in a consolidation work-shop held with range of academics and development prac-titioners (ACCRA 2010)

The draft framework of the LAC framework wasfurther developed and validated through field visits pilotstudies and consultation with national DRR and CCAexperts in Ethiopia Mozambique and Uganda throughout2010 Using the consolidated framework research wasthen conducted in each of the three countries betweenlate 2010 and 2011 In each country two or three researchsites representing different livelihoods different agro-eco-logical characteristics and different types of project inter-vention were identified where one of the alliancemembers implements development interventions Inaddition to the research teamrsquos evaluation work the LACframework was subsequently used by the wider ACCRAalliance as an operational tool to engage with governmentsand NGOs in guiding CCA-related investments and sup-porting capacity building and influencing activities at dis-trict national and international levels The implications ofthe LACrsquos transition from research to programming are dis-cussed further in Section 4

Given ACCRArsquos emphasis on assessing a wide range ofdevelopment interventions (not just those identified asclimate specific) the LAC framework drew on insightsfrom across the DRR CCA livelihoods and SP literatureThe framework is structured around 5 core characteristicsnamely assets institutions and entitlement knowledge andinformation innovation and flexible and forward-lookingdecision-making and governance These characteristicsinfluence the degree to which people and communitiesare prepared for and able to respond to changes in theirexternal environment As shown in Figure 1 these charac-teristics are interdependent For example flexible forward-looking decision-making often requires accurate and appli-cable knowledge information and expertise successfulinnovation may derive from effective and supportive insti-tutions Yet they each serve a very important and distinctrole in helping to promote the ability of people or commu-nities in adapting to shock and stress In Table 2 we brieflyoutline each of the five characteristics of LAC

4 Reflections and lessons learned

ACCRA carried out observational and evaluative researchusing the LAC framework in eight districts across EthiopiaMozambique and Uganda In so doing the ACCRA teamlearnt a considerable amount about what works and whatdoesnrsquot in applying a conceptual framework and translat-ing it into practice Important insights emerged as to howthe LAC fits into evolving academic debates around

6 L Jones et al

resilience and adaptive capacity as well as how a concep-tual framework can inform research programming andpolicy engagement

41 Development interventions can support adaptivecapacity (even if not explicit intended)

One important aspect when appraising the use of the LACis the differences between the frameworkrsquos evaluative andprogrammatic applications From both academic and prac-titioner perspectives the LAC helps to break down adap-tive capacity into its constituent parts The overlapsbetween each of the five characteristics (as shown inFigure 1) assist in emphasizing the interrelated nature ofcontributory factors that support LAC For example forlocal governance processes to ensure flexible forward-looking decision-making often requires accurate and appli-cable knowledge information and technical expertise to beeffectively integrated and taken up (Cornell et al 2013Polasky Carpenter Folke amp Keeler 2011) successfulinnovation often necessitates supportive institutionalenabling environments (Rodima-Taylor Olwig ampChhetri 2012) This holistic conceptualization of the termis important in stressing the complexity of different assetsand processes that contribute towards a household or com-munityrsquos capacity to respond to change Seen from this per-spective adaptive capacity can neither be assessed norbuilt by looking at a single characteristic all five character-istics need to be taken into consideration together albeitwith different weight depending on the specific context

The implications of this holistic view of adaptivecapacity for development interventions in a changingenvironment are profound Not only does it suggest thatmany different types of development interventions ndash

including those that are not traditionally associated withCCA ndash may contribute to particular characteristics ofadaptive capacity but it encourages a more systemic andjoined-up approach to the implementation of developmentstrategies Rather than concentrating on lsquosiloedrsquo themeslike SP DRR or livelihood support programmes theLAC encourages development actors to support greatercoordination and cross-fertilization of different types ofapproaches recognizing the important role that eachplays on different characteristics of adaptive capacityThis is in line with the more recent push towards lsquoresilienceprogrammingrsquo within the development community thatseeks to support resilience of people and the sustainabilityof development interventions by incentivizing cross-sec-toral planning coordination and programme delivery(Davoudi et al 2012 World Bank 2013)

42 The importance of entry-points

The challenge of incorporating all five elements of the LACinto the delivery of programmatic interventions quicklybecomes apparent when considering the wide scope ofactivities that fall under each Government and NGO staffcan find it difficult to identify activities that address mul-tiple characteristics under the LAC and risk diluting theimpact of their interventions by attempting to incorporatemany overlapping activities and deliverables in anattempt to cover all five characteristics ACCRArsquos NGOpartners often engaged with stakeholders by using asingle characteristic of adaptive capacity as an entry pointfrom which they sought to maximize the potentialimpacts and overlaps with the other four characteristics(Jones Ludi Carabine amp Grist 2014) For example Flex-ible Forward-looking Decision Making (FFDM) waschosen as the entry for many of ACCRArsquos programmeactivities from 2012 to 2014 While seeking to developcapacity building tools for local government officials inEthiopia Uganda and Mozambique ACCRArsquos partnersdemonstrated how the promotion of FFDM is not onlydependent on but can help to support the enhancementof the other characteristics such as an effective institutionalenvironment robust knowledge and understanding offuture threats and uncertainties a diverse asset base andsupport for innovation or trialling of new livelihood activi-ties (Jones et al 2014)

From a research perspective one helpful quality of theLAC is that it is based on concepts that many researchersare familiar with For example it draws heavily on thelsquoSustainable Livelihoods frameworkrsquo (DFID 2011)which has strong overlaps with properties outlined underlsquoasset basersquo and lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo By bringingtogether elements from frameworks researchers are to alarge degree familiar with helped in allowing more sea-soned researchers grasp the focus of ACCRArsquos researchaim quickly and kept training efforts of more junior

Figure 1 The five characteristics of the LAC framework andtheir interconnectedness

Climate and Development 7

Table 2 A summary of the five characteristics of the LAC framework

Characteristic Summary Brief description and supportive literature

Asset base The availability of a diverse range of keylivelihood assets that allowhouseholds or communities torespond to evolving circumstances

The ability of people or communities to cope with and respond to change depends heavily on access toand control over key assets (Daze Amborse amp Ehrhart 2009) Adaptive capacity is not onlyinfluenced by the quantity and quality of assets available but whether some of the assets can besubstituted in the case of disruption or degradation As a result asset diversity and the ability to accessassets that are in some sense surplus and interchangeable may each be as important as lsquoassetabundancersquo (Ospina amp Heeks 2010)

Institutions and entitlements The existence of an appropriate andevolving institutional environmentthat allows for access and entitlementto key assets and capitals

Access to and control of assets is typically mediated through institutions and entitlements Given thatentitlements to lsquoelements of adaptive capacity are socially differentiated along the lines of ageethnicity class religion and genderrsquo (Adger Agrawala amp Mirza 2007 p730) it is often thought thatinstitutions that ensure equitable opportunities to access resources are likely to promote adaptivecapacity The adaptive capacity of societies depends on the ability to act collectively which in turndepends on institutions that govern social relations at multiple scales Norms rules and behaviour mayform social barriers that can influence how and which individuals are able to cope or adapt to climatevariability and change

Knowledge and information The ability households and communitieshave to generate receive assess anddisseminate knowledge andinformation in support of appropriateadaptation options

Successful adaptation can benefit from an understanding of likely future change in one system (eg theclimate system) its interactions with other systems (eg the land use system) knowledge aboutadaptation options and the capacity to evaluate suitable interventions (Frankhauser amp Tol 1997)Relevant information needs to reach key stakeholders to ensure that actions are effective in the longterm and prevent maladaptive practices (ie actions or processes that may deliver short-term gains butultimately increase vulnerability in the longer term) Knowledge can also play a role in ensuring localempowerment and raising awareness of the needs of particular groups within a community (Ospina ampHeeks 2010)

Innovation The presence of an enablingenvironment to foster innovationexperimentation and learning in orderto take advantage of newopportunities

As social and environmental changes continue people and communities will need to alter existingpractices resources and behaviours or in some cases adopt completely new ones Moreoverinnovation is crucial to enable a system to remain dynamic and functioning ndash though the willingnessand capacity to foster innovation (and to accept failure) vary greatly Innovation is not only aboutlsquohigh-techrsquo and large-scale but equally about spontaneous autonomous and micro-level initiatives(WongtschowskiVerburg amp Waters-Bayer 2009) Such local experimentation and innovations areoften not recognized under current paradigms that favour more technological or infrastructuralinnovations ndash though care should be taken not to lsquoromanticisersquo traditional local practices

Flexible Forward-lookingDecision Making (FFDM)

The ability to anticipate incorporate andrespond to changes with regard togovernance structure and futureplanning

Decision-making and governance that is flexible collaborative and learning-based may be better able tocope with evolving circumstances This recognizes the importance of dynamic institutions and theentitlements and assets they control in response to changing future threats (SmithKlein amp Huq 2003)Moreover decision-making systems can gain from being flexible and including new informationregarding changing environmental social and political conditions Taking a longer-term approachwithin governance and decision-making is crucial in order to prevent maladaptive interventions (Ayersamp Huq 2009)

8LJones

etal

researchers low By using existing frameworks and alanguage many are familiar with in the LAC communi-cation of research findings and their relevance for program-ming or policy making was made easier especially whendealing with practitioners who are not necessarily versantin climate change terminology

43 Navigating differences in knowledge andterminology

Despite this familiarity difficulties in relation to terminol-ogy still presented major barriers to the LACrsquos implemen-tation and uptake The framework was initially designedwith an evaluative objective in mind to provide a concep-tual framework to qualitatively assess the impact of devel-opment interventions on adaptive capacity Theterminology in the frameworkrsquos background material there-fore reflects that of a research-orientated communityHowever its subsequent adoption by programmatic NGOstaff revealed notable contrasts in how researchers andpractitioners relate to specific terms within the frameworkFor example the lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo character-istic is considered a central element of the LAC relatingto existence of an appropriate and evolving institutionalenvironment that allows fair access and entitlement tokey assets and capitals Drawing on the wider developmentliterature institutions here refers to the rules that governbelief systems behaviour and organisational structure(Ostrom 2005) Yet a major obstacle and source of con-fusion came from the very specific interpretation of insti-tutions adopted by many NGO and developmentpractitioners that most commonly relates to organizationslsquogroups of individuals bound together by some commonpurpose to achieve certain objectivesrsquo (North 1994p 361)

While these terms are by no means contradictory theyrelate to two different aspects The former encompassingthe many formal and informal rules and constraints thatgovern social relations and structures the latter a specificform of institution lsquothat involves (a) criteria to establishtheir boundaries and to distinguish their members fromnon-members (b) principles of sovereignty concerningwho is in charge and (c) chains of command delineatingresponsibilities within the organizationrsquo (Hodgson 2006p 18) As informal institutional elements are critical tounderstanding and enhancing LAC (Agrawal 2010) con-siderable care was needed in building a shared understand-ing of key terms and in improving the communication andtranslation of the LAC into agreed and user-friendlylanguage Similar difficulties in communicating abstractterms related to the other five characteristics such asFFDM or innovation required researchers and practitionersto come together and discuss their respective understand-ings to reach a shared understanding that supports pro-gramme implementation and policy engagement Others

such as assets generated higher levels of consensus andclarity given their common interpretation and applicationacross academic and practitioner communities Indeedmisunderstandings of key concepts were not only limitedto programmatic staff as a number of the research partnersused in carrying out the assessment of development activi-ties using the LAC demonstrated similar misgivings ndashdemonstrating the need to invest resources in developinga shared approach and for careful communication andalignment when using the LAC amongst a wide range ofdifferent stakeholders

44 Preventing elements of the LAC from beingunderemphasized

Relatedly important lessons were learned in understandingelements of the LAC that that were underemphasized ormissing Two such examples are especially evidentpower and agency It is of little surprise that both are atthe heart of a person or communityrsquos adaptive capacity(Grothmann amp Patt 2005 Tschakert amp Dietrich 2010)

Without agency there is no adaptive capacity and withoutadaptive capacity there is no sustainability or ongoingdevelopment (Levine et al 2011 p 31)

Yet given that power and agency runs throughout each ofthe five characteristics ndash for example a womanrsquo or manrsquosentitlement to key assets and resources during times ofneed can be largely seen an issue of power (Baumann ampSinha 2001) ndash a decision was made from the outset tohave power and agency as a cross-cutting theme Inevita-bly and somewhat understandably this diluted their impor-tance when it came to prioritizing actions formainstreaming the LAC into development programmes Itrequired special attention by the ACCRA programmaticteam to ensure power was mainstreamed in the Alliancersquosactivities through ongoing training Upon reflection andin considering the LACrsquos roll out amongst other pro-grammes of work it is clear that greater care needs to betaken to ensure that such cross-cutting issues continue tobe emphasized This is especially pertinent given theirabsence from the headline table and graphic depicting theLAC In practice few people have the time or interest toread the full technical reports detailing the conceptualiz-ation of the LAC and hence frequently miss reference tothe cross-cutting themes

The implications of these omissions are profound Forexample they had clear knock on effects on promotingthe role of gender equity and justice in adaptive capacitydespite their centrality to core characteristics like lsquoinsti-tutions and entitlementsrsquo Although ACCRArsquos programma-tic team took conscious steps to embed gender equity andjustice into the alliancersquos work it was generally felt thatmore explicit consideration for power and gender justice

Climate and Development 9

and its implication across all five LAC elements wouldhave facilitated quicker and clearer engagement withpolicy-makers on issues of gender With this in mindfuture iterations of the LAC may be better served by expli-citly depicting power and agency alongside the five charac-teristics in the LACrsquos headline table and graphic

In addition issues of dilution amongst processes withineach individual characteristic are important Experiencefrom applying the LAC suggests that careful considerationneeds to be given to specifying how the LACrsquos character-istics are broken down in each given context (this relatesstrongly to issues of indicator or characteristic weighting)For example natural capital may play a strong role in ruralenvironments or areas where livelihoods are stronglydependent on environmental goods or services This depen-dence may not be as high or as pronounced in certain urbancontexts (though this will certainly not always be thecase) Indeed these considerations go somewhat beyondthe remit of the initial framework as it was merely intendedas a guiding tool What is however clear is that identifyingrigorous and collaborative processes for taking the LACpast a simple conceptual framework to one that islocally-meaningful and nuanced is not only challengingbut necessary to deliver impact This requires time andinput from all relevant stakeholders and may often resultin an application of the LAC that is far more expanded itmay even look radically different from the originalframework itself

45 Recognizing the importance of context anddialogue

The LAC deliberately highlights higher-level character-istics that are common across most contexts Given the con-textual nature of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007) thisnecessitated that each characteristic remains open to arange of different applications For example whileFFDM is undoubtedly key to enabling people and commu-nities to adapt to change and uncertainty what it translatesinto in practice in terms of defining development interven-tions will be different from one location to the next oracross different scales The factors that promote FFDM inthe context of a local government in Uganda whoseprimary aim may be to prepare for increasingly variablerainfall owing to climate change will be different tothose that help a farmerrsquos collective in rural India anticipateand buffer seasonal food price shocks Operationalizationof each of the five characteristics needed to be workedout by ACCRArsquos NGO partners in each context based onthe insights gained from the research and ongoing learningand reflection in each of the countries and the ACCRA pro-gramme as a whole

Key to this was bringing together a wider range of sta-keholders (whether researchers development practitionersgovernment or local communities) to discuss how each

element of the LAC can be applied in their context givenexisting needs capacities and resources Experience fromACCRArsquos NGO partners demonstrates that interactiveand two-way processes of social learning and stakeholderengagement (such as participatory scenario planninglsquoserious gamesrsquo and role play) can prove to be far moreeffective than top down forms of knowledge exchange incontextualizing and operationalizing conceptual andnovel ideas that support adaptive capacity (ArmitageBerkes Dale Kocho-Schellenberg amp Patton 2011 Joneset al 2014 Lemos Kirchhoff amp Ramprasad 2012) TheLAC framework is most effectively used as a tool forguiding and facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions andcan help to identify the broader types of actions that maybe required to support adaptive capacity thorough pro-cesses of local engagement and embeddedness withinlocal institutional and political contexts

5 Future directions for conceptualizing adaptivecapacity and the application of the LAC

From the outset a decision by ACCRA alliance partnerswas taken not to use the LAC framework as a means ofquantifying the adaptive capacity of households and com-munities during the programmersquos research activitiesOthers have however used it to inform their measurementefforts for example Oxfam GB in its work on measuringresilience (Hughes amp Bushell 2013) Given that many ofthe processes identified in the framework are relativelyintangible and difficult to reduce into quantifiable variablesqualitative methods were preferred at the time Since theLACrsquos formulation however there has been considerablepressure to develop robust methods for measuring qualitiessuch as resilience and adaptive capacity ndash particularly inlight of prominence given to resilience in the SustainableDevelopment Goals Much of this can be ascribed togrowing pressure from donors to demonstrate the impactof development interventions and showcase value formoney in their activities (Constas Frankenberger amp Hod-dinott 2014)

With this in mind provided that adequate methods forevaluating many of the process-based elements of theLAC can be identified there should not be any large impe-diments to the application of the LAC as a tool for quanti-fication Yet while a number of recent advances have beenmade in the design of research tools for evaluating softerelements of adaptive capacity (Frank Eakin amp Lopez-Carr 2011 Nguyen amp James 2013) and subjective resili-ence (Jones amp Tanner 2015 Marshall 2010) to date theauthors do not see evidence for suitably robust approachesthat lend themselves to adequately quantify the five charac-teristics of adaptive capacity ndash either individually or incombination Further methodological challenges relate tothe ability of measurement tools to adequately accountfor the contextual elements of adaptive capacity as well

10 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

than resilience as the conceptual basis for ACCRArsquosresearch given the comparative definitional concisenessand greater level of clarity regarding the conceptrsquos scope

Broadly speaking adaptive capacity is concerned withthe preconditions and capabilities needed to enable adap-tation and the ability to mobilize them (Nelson Adgeramp Brown 2007) It relates closely to peoplesrsquo agency andtheir capabilities with strong overlaps with the capabilitiesapproach developed by Sen and Nussbaum (Nussbaum2000 Sen 1985 1999) More precisely it denotes thecapacity of a system to adjust modify or change its charac-teristics or actions to moderate potential damage takeadvantage of opportunities or cope with the consequencesof shock or stress (Brooks 2003 Agard et al 2014bJones et al 2010)

A number of different interpretations exist with regardsto the relationship between resilience and adaptivecapacity Many are dependent on the extent to which resi-lience is considered as lsquobouncing backrsquo or as lsquobouncingback and transformingrsquo (Olsson et al 2015) The firstviewpoint sees resilience and adaptive capacity as separateentities they are associated primarily with the ability tocope and maintain the same function The second view-point is concerned with adapting to changing risks by trans-forming a systemrsquos core functions (Berman Quinn ampPaavola 2012 Tschakert Oort St Clair amp LaMadrid2013) Adaptive capacity is therefore seen as situatedwithin a wider framework of a resilient system one thatencompasses various different capacities ndash including boun-cing back adapting and transforming Despite its contestedconceptual definition and diverse interpretations it is thissecond interpretation that has gained most tractionamongst the development and humanitarian communities(Beacuteneacute Wood Newsham amp Davies 2012) This relatesnot only to programming activities but also to academicassessments of adaptive capacity (Bahadur amp Pichon

2016) With this in mind we discuss adaptive capacity inrelation to the ACCRA programme as an integral com-ponent of a wider resilient system

The exact determinants of adaptive capacity are highlycontext specific (Vincent 2007) what supports the abilityof pastoralists in north-western Kenya to adapt to changingrainfall patterns may not be the same that supports thecapacity of a community of fishers in Bangladesh toadapt to the same threat However a number of studieshave found that similar patterns and broad characteristicsof adaptive capacity can relate to different groups ofpeople (Eriksen Brown amp Kelly 2005 Nelson et al2007) Though few overarching frameworks exist thatbring together the constituent parts of adaptive capacity anumber of core characteristics have been identified Effec-tive institutions and governance (Folke et al 2002Pahl-Wostl 2009) social learning (Pahl-Wostl et al2007 Pelling High Dearing amp Smith 2008) trust(Gupta et al 2010) collective action (Adger 2003) andthe availability of assets (Adger amp Vincent 2005) haveeach been associated with the adaptive capacity ofpeople communities and nations The characteristics ofadaptive capacity are however by no means limited tothese and the determinants under each are likely to bedifferent depending on the scale and context (Vincent2007) Returning to the example of the pastoralist andfisher while the presence of diverse and sufficient assetsis undoubtedly important for adaptation at all geographicscales and across different livelihoods the mixture ofassets that support a pastoralist will not be the same asthose needed to support a fisher

It is upon this premise that the LAC framework wasdeveloped Namely that the broad characteristics of adap-tive capacity at the local level have commonality acrosssocial groups while actual determinates of each is likelyto be different depending on the context Below we

Table 1 The definitional evolution of lsquoResiliencersquo and lsquoAdaptive Capacityrsquo in successive IPCC assessment reports

Term TAR (2001) AR4 (2007) AR5 (2014)

Resilience lsquoAmount of change a system canundergo without changing statersquo

lsquoThe ability of a social or ecologicalsystem to absorb disturbances whileretaining the same basic structureand ways of functioning thecapacity for self-organisation andthe capacity to adapt to stress andchangersquo

lsquoThe capacity of social economic andenvironmental systems to cope with ahazardous event or trend ordisturbance responding orreorganizing in ways that maintaintheir essential function identity andstructure while also maintaining thecapacity for adaptation learning andtransformationrsquo

Adaptivecapacity

lsquoThe ability of a system to adjust toclimate change (including climatevariability and extremes) tomoderate potential damages to takeadvantage of opportunities or tocope with the consequencesrsquo

lsquoThe ability of a system to adjust toclimate change (including climatevariability and extremes) tomoderate potential damages to takeadvantage of opportunities or tocope with the consequencesrsquo

lsquoThe ability of systems institutionshumans and other organisms toadjust to potential damage to takeadvantage of opportunities or torespond to consequencesrsquo

Sources IPCC (2001) IPCC (2007) Agard et al (2014a)

Climate and Development 5

briefly describe the process behind the LACrsquos developmentand the justification behind the frameworkrsquos five character-istics (for further details see Jones et al 2010 Ludi et al2012 and Levine et al 2011)

3 Developing the LAC framework

An extensive process of consultation with academics andpractitioners in the UK and ACCRArsquos three focal countries(see Levine et al 2011) was conducted in 2009 The pro-grammersquos review process concluded that few if any avail-able conceptual frameworks of adaptive capacity weresuited to ACCRArsquos objectives observing the impact ofdevelopment interventions on the ability of differentsocial groups ndash including gender ethnicity and age ndash toadapt

Early frameworks for the conceptualization of adaptivecapacity focused largely on the availability of a sufficientand diverse set of livelihood assets or capitals (Brookset al 2005 Yohe amp Tol 2002) Although it is clear thatthe assets available to an individual household or commu-nity are likely to support their ability to adapt (BryanDeressa Gbetibouo amp Ringler 2009) they generally failto capture many of the processes and contextual factorsthat influence adaptive capacity They are not thereforean effective reflection of adaptive capacity at the levelwhere most adaptation actions take place (Eriksen ampKelly 2007 Jones et al 2010) For example behavioursnorms and institutional arrangements each play an impor-tant role in shaping LAC yet are inherently intangibleand difficult to observe (Adger 2003) With this in minda holistic understanding of adaptive capacity should alsorecognize and incorporate various process-based elements

In practice these processes may take the form of learn-ing innovation experimentation and the ability to exploitopportunity (Berkes 2009 Folke 2006 Pahl-Wostlet al 2007) promoting flexible decision-making processesand systems of governance that allow for future change anduncertainty to be incorporated into planning processes(Berkes 2009 Pahl-Wostl 2009) or ensuring an enablinginstitutional environment that allows those most vulnerableto have access to key safety nets and resources during timesof need Given the failure of existing frameworks to ade-quately capture many of the process elements of adaptivecapacity and a scarcity of frameworks of adaptive capacityfocusing at the local level the ACCRA research team saw aclear need for the development of a new framework (Joneset al 2010) The focus on lsquolocalrsquo was chosen becausemuch of the attention of existing frameworks was givento characteristics and indicators at national level (egWorld Resources Institute [WRI] 2009) whereas littleresearch and analysis has been done on adaptive capacityat household and community levels

Using these inputs as a starting point a workshopbrought practitioners from the alliance together to

develop a draft framework of adaptive capacity andbroadly agree on its constituent characteristics Thisinitial draft was further refined by researchers from theODI The draft framework was then presented at a publicmeeting in early 2010 and refined in a consolidation work-shop held with range of academics and development prac-titioners (ACCRA 2010)

The draft framework of the LAC framework wasfurther developed and validated through field visits pilotstudies and consultation with national DRR and CCAexperts in Ethiopia Mozambique and Uganda throughout2010 Using the consolidated framework research wasthen conducted in each of the three countries betweenlate 2010 and 2011 In each country two or three researchsites representing different livelihoods different agro-eco-logical characteristics and different types of project inter-vention were identified where one of the alliancemembers implements development interventions Inaddition to the research teamrsquos evaluation work the LACframework was subsequently used by the wider ACCRAalliance as an operational tool to engage with governmentsand NGOs in guiding CCA-related investments and sup-porting capacity building and influencing activities at dis-trict national and international levels The implications ofthe LACrsquos transition from research to programming are dis-cussed further in Section 4

Given ACCRArsquos emphasis on assessing a wide range ofdevelopment interventions (not just those identified asclimate specific) the LAC framework drew on insightsfrom across the DRR CCA livelihoods and SP literatureThe framework is structured around 5 core characteristicsnamely assets institutions and entitlement knowledge andinformation innovation and flexible and forward-lookingdecision-making and governance These characteristicsinfluence the degree to which people and communitiesare prepared for and able to respond to changes in theirexternal environment As shown in Figure 1 these charac-teristics are interdependent For example flexible forward-looking decision-making often requires accurate and appli-cable knowledge information and expertise successfulinnovation may derive from effective and supportive insti-tutions Yet they each serve a very important and distinctrole in helping to promote the ability of people or commu-nities in adapting to shock and stress In Table 2 we brieflyoutline each of the five characteristics of LAC

4 Reflections and lessons learned

ACCRA carried out observational and evaluative researchusing the LAC framework in eight districts across EthiopiaMozambique and Uganda In so doing the ACCRA teamlearnt a considerable amount about what works and whatdoesnrsquot in applying a conceptual framework and translat-ing it into practice Important insights emerged as to howthe LAC fits into evolving academic debates around

6 L Jones et al

resilience and adaptive capacity as well as how a concep-tual framework can inform research programming andpolicy engagement

41 Development interventions can support adaptivecapacity (even if not explicit intended)

One important aspect when appraising the use of the LACis the differences between the frameworkrsquos evaluative andprogrammatic applications From both academic and prac-titioner perspectives the LAC helps to break down adap-tive capacity into its constituent parts The overlapsbetween each of the five characteristics (as shown inFigure 1) assist in emphasizing the interrelated nature ofcontributory factors that support LAC For example forlocal governance processes to ensure flexible forward-looking decision-making often requires accurate and appli-cable knowledge information and technical expertise to beeffectively integrated and taken up (Cornell et al 2013Polasky Carpenter Folke amp Keeler 2011) successfulinnovation often necessitates supportive institutionalenabling environments (Rodima-Taylor Olwig ampChhetri 2012) This holistic conceptualization of the termis important in stressing the complexity of different assetsand processes that contribute towards a household or com-munityrsquos capacity to respond to change Seen from this per-spective adaptive capacity can neither be assessed norbuilt by looking at a single characteristic all five character-istics need to be taken into consideration together albeitwith different weight depending on the specific context

The implications of this holistic view of adaptivecapacity for development interventions in a changingenvironment are profound Not only does it suggest thatmany different types of development interventions ndash

including those that are not traditionally associated withCCA ndash may contribute to particular characteristics ofadaptive capacity but it encourages a more systemic andjoined-up approach to the implementation of developmentstrategies Rather than concentrating on lsquosiloedrsquo themeslike SP DRR or livelihood support programmes theLAC encourages development actors to support greatercoordination and cross-fertilization of different types ofapproaches recognizing the important role that eachplays on different characteristics of adaptive capacityThis is in line with the more recent push towards lsquoresilienceprogrammingrsquo within the development community thatseeks to support resilience of people and the sustainabilityof development interventions by incentivizing cross-sec-toral planning coordination and programme delivery(Davoudi et al 2012 World Bank 2013)

42 The importance of entry-points

The challenge of incorporating all five elements of the LACinto the delivery of programmatic interventions quicklybecomes apparent when considering the wide scope ofactivities that fall under each Government and NGO staffcan find it difficult to identify activities that address mul-tiple characteristics under the LAC and risk diluting theimpact of their interventions by attempting to incorporatemany overlapping activities and deliverables in anattempt to cover all five characteristics ACCRArsquos NGOpartners often engaged with stakeholders by using asingle characteristic of adaptive capacity as an entry pointfrom which they sought to maximize the potentialimpacts and overlaps with the other four characteristics(Jones Ludi Carabine amp Grist 2014) For example Flex-ible Forward-looking Decision Making (FFDM) waschosen as the entry for many of ACCRArsquos programmeactivities from 2012 to 2014 While seeking to developcapacity building tools for local government officials inEthiopia Uganda and Mozambique ACCRArsquos partnersdemonstrated how the promotion of FFDM is not onlydependent on but can help to support the enhancementof the other characteristics such as an effective institutionalenvironment robust knowledge and understanding offuture threats and uncertainties a diverse asset base andsupport for innovation or trialling of new livelihood activi-ties (Jones et al 2014)

From a research perspective one helpful quality of theLAC is that it is based on concepts that many researchersare familiar with For example it draws heavily on thelsquoSustainable Livelihoods frameworkrsquo (DFID 2011)which has strong overlaps with properties outlined underlsquoasset basersquo and lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo By bringingtogether elements from frameworks researchers are to alarge degree familiar with helped in allowing more sea-soned researchers grasp the focus of ACCRArsquos researchaim quickly and kept training efforts of more junior

Figure 1 The five characteristics of the LAC framework andtheir interconnectedness

Climate and Development 7

Table 2 A summary of the five characteristics of the LAC framework

Characteristic Summary Brief description and supportive literature

Asset base The availability of a diverse range of keylivelihood assets that allowhouseholds or communities torespond to evolving circumstances

The ability of people or communities to cope with and respond to change depends heavily on access toand control over key assets (Daze Amborse amp Ehrhart 2009) Adaptive capacity is not onlyinfluenced by the quantity and quality of assets available but whether some of the assets can besubstituted in the case of disruption or degradation As a result asset diversity and the ability to accessassets that are in some sense surplus and interchangeable may each be as important as lsquoassetabundancersquo (Ospina amp Heeks 2010)

Institutions and entitlements The existence of an appropriate andevolving institutional environmentthat allows for access and entitlementto key assets and capitals

Access to and control of assets is typically mediated through institutions and entitlements Given thatentitlements to lsquoelements of adaptive capacity are socially differentiated along the lines of ageethnicity class religion and genderrsquo (Adger Agrawala amp Mirza 2007 p730) it is often thought thatinstitutions that ensure equitable opportunities to access resources are likely to promote adaptivecapacity The adaptive capacity of societies depends on the ability to act collectively which in turndepends on institutions that govern social relations at multiple scales Norms rules and behaviour mayform social barriers that can influence how and which individuals are able to cope or adapt to climatevariability and change

Knowledge and information The ability households and communitieshave to generate receive assess anddisseminate knowledge andinformation in support of appropriateadaptation options

Successful adaptation can benefit from an understanding of likely future change in one system (eg theclimate system) its interactions with other systems (eg the land use system) knowledge aboutadaptation options and the capacity to evaluate suitable interventions (Frankhauser amp Tol 1997)Relevant information needs to reach key stakeholders to ensure that actions are effective in the longterm and prevent maladaptive practices (ie actions or processes that may deliver short-term gains butultimately increase vulnerability in the longer term) Knowledge can also play a role in ensuring localempowerment and raising awareness of the needs of particular groups within a community (Ospina ampHeeks 2010)

Innovation The presence of an enablingenvironment to foster innovationexperimentation and learning in orderto take advantage of newopportunities

As social and environmental changes continue people and communities will need to alter existingpractices resources and behaviours or in some cases adopt completely new ones Moreoverinnovation is crucial to enable a system to remain dynamic and functioning ndash though the willingnessand capacity to foster innovation (and to accept failure) vary greatly Innovation is not only aboutlsquohigh-techrsquo and large-scale but equally about spontaneous autonomous and micro-level initiatives(WongtschowskiVerburg amp Waters-Bayer 2009) Such local experimentation and innovations areoften not recognized under current paradigms that favour more technological or infrastructuralinnovations ndash though care should be taken not to lsquoromanticisersquo traditional local practices

Flexible Forward-lookingDecision Making (FFDM)

The ability to anticipate incorporate andrespond to changes with regard togovernance structure and futureplanning

Decision-making and governance that is flexible collaborative and learning-based may be better able tocope with evolving circumstances This recognizes the importance of dynamic institutions and theentitlements and assets they control in response to changing future threats (SmithKlein amp Huq 2003)Moreover decision-making systems can gain from being flexible and including new informationregarding changing environmental social and political conditions Taking a longer-term approachwithin governance and decision-making is crucial in order to prevent maladaptive interventions (Ayersamp Huq 2009)

8LJones

etal

researchers low By using existing frameworks and alanguage many are familiar with in the LAC communi-cation of research findings and their relevance for program-ming or policy making was made easier especially whendealing with practitioners who are not necessarily versantin climate change terminology

43 Navigating differences in knowledge andterminology

Despite this familiarity difficulties in relation to terminol-ogy still presented major barriers to the LACrsquos implemen-tation and uptake The framework was initially designedwith an evaluative objective in mind to provide a concep-tual framework to qualitatively assess the impact of devel-opment interventions on adaptive capacity Theterminology in the frameworkrsquos background material there-fore reflects that of a research-orientated communityHowever its subsequent adoption by programmatic NGOstaff revealed notable contrasts in how researchers andpractitioners relate to specific terms within the frameworkFor example the lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo character-istic is considered a central element of the LAC relatingto existence of an appropriate and evolving institutionalenvironment that allows fair access and entitlement tokey assets and capitals Drawing on the wider developmentliterature institutions here refers to the rules that governbelief systems behaviour and organisational structure(Ostrom 2005) Yet a major obstacle and source of con-fusion came from the very specific interpretation of insti-tutions adopted by many NGO and developmentpractitioners that most commonly relates to organizationslsquogroups of individuals bound together by some commonpurpose to achieve certain objectivesrsquo (North 1994p 361)

While these terms are by no means contradictory theyrelate to two different aspects The former encompassingthe many formal and informal rules and constraints thatgovern social relations and structures the latter a specificform of institution lsquothat involves (a) criteria to establishtheir boundaries and to distinguish their members fromnon-members (b) principles of sovereignty concerningwho is in charge and (c) chains of command delineatingresponsibilities within the organizationrsquo (Hodgson 2006p 18) As informal institutional elements are critical tounderstanding and enhancing LAC (Agrawal 2010) con-siderable care was needed in building a shared understand-ing of key terms and in improving the communication andtranslation of the LAC into agreed and user-friendlylanguage Similar difficulties in communicating abstractterms related to the other five characteristics such asFFDM or innovation required researchers and practitionersto come together and discuss their respective understand-ings to reach a shared understanding that supports pro-gramme implementation and policy engagement Others

such as assets generated higher levels of consensus andclarity given their common interpretation and applicationacross academic and practitioner communities Indeedmisunderstandings of key concepts were not only limitedto programmatic staff as a number of the research partnersused in carrying out the assessment of development activi-ties using the LAC demonstrated similar misgivings ndashdemonstrating the need to invest resources in developinga shared approach and for careful communication andalignment when using the LAC amongst a wide range ofdifferent stakeholders

44 Preventing elements of the LAC from beingunderemphasized

Relatedly important lessons were learned in understandingelements of the LAC that that were underemphasized ormissing Two such examples are especially evidentpower and agency It is of little surprise that both are atthe heart of a person or communityrsquos adaptive capacity(Grothmann amp Patt 2005 Tschakert amp Dietrich 2010)

Without agency there is no adaptive capacity and withoutadaptive capacity there is no sustainability or ongoingdevelopment (Levine et al 2011 p 31)

Yet given that power and agency runs throughout each ofthe five characteristics ndash for example a womanrsquo or manrsquosentitlement to key assets and resources during times ofneed can be largely seen an issue of power (Baumann ampSinha 2001) ndash a decision was made from the outset tohave power and agency as a cross-cutting theme Inevita-bly and somewhat understandably this diluted their impor-tance when it came to prioritizing actions formainstreaming the LAC into development programmes Itrequired special attention by the ACCRA programmaticteam to ensure power was mainstreamed in the Alliancersquosactivities through ongoing training Upon reflection andin considering the LACrsquos roll out amongst other pro-grammes of work it is clear that greater care needs to betaken to ensure that such cross-cutting issues continue tobe emphasized This is especially pertinent given theirabsence from the headline table and graphic depicting theLAC In practice few people have the time or interest toread the full technical reports detailing the conceptualiz-ation of the LAC and hence frequently miss reference tothe cross-cutting themes

The implications of these omissions are profound Forexample they had clear knock on effects on promotingthe role of gender equity and justice in adaptive capacitydespite their centrality to core characteristics like lsquoinsti-tutions and entitlementsrsquo Although ACCRArsquos programma-tic team took conscious steps to embed gender equity andjustice into the alliancersquos work it was generally felt thatmore explicit consideration for power and gender justice

Climate and Development 9

and its implication across all five LAC elements wouldhave facilitated quicker and clearer engagement withpolicy-makers on issues of gender With this in mindfuture iterations of the LAC may be better served by expli-citly depicting power and agency alongside the five charac-teristics in the LACrsquos headline table and graphic

In addition issues of dilution amongst processes withineach individual characteristic are important Experiencefrom applying the LAC suggests that careful considerationneeds to be given to specifying how the LACrsquos character-istics are broken down in each given context (this relatesstrongly to issues of indicator or characteristic weighting)For example natural capital may play a strong role in ruralenvironments or areas where livelihoods are stronglydependent on environmental goods or services This depen-dence may not be as high or as pronounced in certain urbancontexts (though this will certainly not always be thecase) Indeed these considerations go somewhat beyondthe remit of the initial framework as it was merely intendedas a guiding tool What is however clear is that identifyingrigorous and collaborative processes for taking the LACpast a simple conceptual framework to one that islocally-meaningful and nuanced is not only challengingbut necessary to deliver impact This requires time andinput from all relevant stakeholders and may often resultin an application of the LAC that is far more expanded itmay even look radically different from the originalframework itself

45 Recognizing the importance of context anddialogue

The LAC deliberately highlights higher-level character-istics that are common across most contexts Given the con-textual nature of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007) thisnecessitated that each characteristic remains open to arange of different applications For example whileFFDM is undoubtedly key to enabling people and commu-nities to adapt to change and uncertainty what it translatesinto in practice in terms of defining development interven-tions will be different from one location to the next oracross different scales The factors that promote FFDM inthe context of a local government in Uganda whoseprimary aim may be to prepare for increasingly variablerainfall owing to climate change will be different tothose that help a farmerrsquos collective in rural India anticipateand buffer seasonal food price shocks Operationalizationof each of the five characteristics needed to be workedout by ACCRArsquos NGO partners in each context based onthe insights gained from the research and ongoing learningand reflection in each of the countries and the ACCRA pro-gramme as a whole

Key to this was bringing together a wider range of sta-keholders (whether researchers development practitionersgovernment or local communities) to discuss how each

element of the LAC can be applied in their context givenexisting needs capacities and resources Experience fromACCRArsquos NGO partners demonstrates that interactiveand two-way processes of social learning and stakeholderengagement (such as participatory scenario planninglsquoserious gamesrsquo and role play) can prove to be far moreeffective than top down forms of knowledge exchange incontextualizing and operationalizing conceptual andnovel ideas that support adaptive capacity (ArmitageBerkes Dale Kocho-Schellenberg amp Patton 2011 Joneset al 2014 Lemos Kirchhoff amp Ramprasad 2012) TheLAC framework is most effectively used as a tool forguiding and facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions andcan help to identify the broader types of actions that maybe required to support adaptive capacity thorough pro-cesses of local engagement and embeddedness withinlocal institutional and political contexts

5 Future directions for conceptualizing adaptivecapacity and the application of the LAC

From the outset a decision by ACCRA alliance partnerswas taken not to use the LAC framework as a means ofquantifying the adaptive capacity of households and com-munities during the programmersquos research activitiesOthers have however used it to inform their measurementefforts for example Oxfam GB in its work on measuringresilience (Hughes amp Bushell 2013) Given that many ofthe processes identified in the framework are relativelyintangible and difficult to reduce into quantifiable variablesqualitative methods were preferred at the time Since theLACrsquos formulation however there has been considerablepressure to develop robust methods for measuring qualitiessuch as resilience and adaptive capacity ndash particularly inlight of prominence given to resilience in the SustainableDevelopment Goals Much of this can be ascribed togrowing pressure from donors to demonstrate the impactof development interventions and showcase value formoney in their activities (Constas Frankenberger amp Hod-dinott 2014)

With this in mind provided that adequate methods forevaluating many of the process-based elements of theLAC can be identified there should not be any large impe-diments to the application of the LAC as a tool for quanti-fication Yet while a number of recent advances have beenmade in the design of research tools for evaluating softerelements of adaptive capacity (Frank Eakin amp Lopez-Carr 2011 Nguyen amp James 2013) and subjective resili-ence (Jones amp Tanner 2015 Marshall 2010) to date theauthors do not see evidence for suitably robust approachesthat lend themselves to adequately quantify the five charac-teristics of adaptive capacity ndash either individually or incombination Further methodological challenges relate tothe ability of measurement tools to adequately accountfor the contextual elements of adaptive capacity as well

10 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

briefly describe the process behind the LACrsquos developmentand the justification behind the frameworkrsquos five character-istics (for further details see Jones et al 2010 Ludi et al2012 and Levine et al 2011)

3 Developing the LAC framework

An extensive process of consultation with academics andpractitioners in the UK and ACCRArsquos three focal countries(see Levine et al 2011) was conducted in 2009 The pro-grammersquos review process concluded that few if any avail-able conceptual frameworks of adaptive capacity weresuited to ACCRArsquos objectives observing the impact ofdevelopment interventions on the ability of differentsocial groups ndash including gender ethnicity and age ndash toadapt

Early frameworks for the conceptualization of adaptivecapacity focused largely on the availability of a sufficientand diverse set of livelihood assets or capitals (Brookset al 2005 Yohe amp Tol 2002) Although it is clear thatthe assets available to an individual household or commu-nity are likely to support their ability to adapt (BryanDeressa Gbetibouo amp Ringler 2009) they generally failto capture many of the processes and contextual factorsthat influence adaptive capacity They are not thereforean effective reflection of adaptive capacity at the levelwhere most adaptation actions take place (Eriksen ampKelly 2007 Jones et al 2010) For example behavioursnorms and institutional arrangements each play an impor-tant role in shaping LAC yet are inherently intangibleand difficult to observe (Adger 2003) With this in minda holistic understanding of adaptive capacity should alsorecognize and incorporate various process-based elements

In practice these processes may take the form of learn-ing innovation experimentation and the ability to exploitopportunity (Berkes 2009 Folke 2006 Pahl-Wostlet al 2007) promoting flexible decision-making processesand systems of governance that allow for future change anduncertainty to be incorporated into planning processes(Berkes 2009 Pahl-Wostl 2009) or ensuring an enablinginstitutional environment that allows those most vulnerableto have access to key safety nets and resources during timesof need Given the failure of existing frameworks to ade-quately capture many of the process elements of adaptivecapacity and a scarcity of frameworks of adaptive capacityfocusing at the local level the ACCRA research team saw aclear need for the development of a new framework (Joneset al 2010) The focus on lsquolocalrsquo was chosen becausemuch of the attention of existing frameworks was givento characteristics and indicators at national level (egWorld Resources Institute [WRI] 2009) whereas littleresearch and analysis has been done on adaptive capacityat household and community levels

Using these inputs as a starting point a workshopbrought practitioners from the alliance together to

develop a draft framework of adaptive capacity andbroadly agree on its constituent characteristics Thisinitial draft was further refined by researchers from theODI The draft framework was then presented at a publicmeeting in early 2010 and refined in a consolidation work-shop held with range of academics and development prac-titioners (ACCRA 2010)

The draft framework of the LAC framework wasfurther developed and validated through field visits pilotstudies and consultation with national DRR and CCAexperts in Ethiopia Mozambique and Uganda throughout2010 Using the consolidated framework research wasthen conducted in each of the three countries betweenlate 2010 and 2011 In each country two or three researchsites representing different livelihoods different agro-eco-logical characteristics and different types of project inter-vention were identified where one of the alliancemembers implements development interventions Inaddition to the research teamrsquos evaluation work the LACframework was subsequently used by the wider ACCRAalliance as an operational tool to engage with governmentsand NGOs in guiding CCA-related investments and sup-porting capacity building and influencing activities at dis-trict national and international levels The implications ofthe LACrsquos transition from research to programming are dis-cussed further in Section 4

Given ACCRArsquos emphasis on assessing a wide range ofdevelopment interventions (not just those identified asclimate specific) the LAC framework drew on insightsfrom across the DRR CCA livelihoods and SP literatureThe framework is structured around 5 core characteristicsnamely assets institutions and entitlement knowledge andinformation innovation and flexible and forward-lookingdecision-making and governance These characteristicsinfluence the degree to which people and communitiesare prepared for and able to respond to changes in theirexternal environment As shown in Figure 1 these charac-teristics are interdependent For example flexible forward-looking decision-making often requires accurate and appli-cable knowledge information and expertise successfulinnovation may derive from effective and supportive insti-tutions Yet they each serve a very important and distinctrole in helping to promote the ability of people or commu-nities in adapting to shock and stress In Table 2 we brieflyoutline each of the five characteristics of LAC

4 Reflections and lessons learned

ACCRA carried out observational and evaluative researchusing the LAC framework in eight districts across EthiopiaMozambique and Uganda In so doing the ACCRA teamlearnt a considerable amount about what works and whatdoesnrsquot in applying a conceptual framework and translat-ing it into practice Important insights emerged as to howthe LAC fits into evolving academic debates around

6 L Jones et al

resilience and adaptive capacity as well as how a concep-tual framework can inform research programming andpolicy engagement

41 Development interventions can support adaptivecapacity (even if not explicit intended)

One important aspect when appraising the use of the LACis the differences between the frameworkrsquos evaluative andprogrammatic applications From both academic and prac-titioner perspectives the LAC helps to break down adap-tive capacity into its constituent parts The overlapsbetween each of the five characteristics (as shown inFigure 1) assist in emphasizing the interrelated nature ofcontributory factors that support LAC For example forlocal governance processes to ensure flexible forward-looking decision-making often requires accurate and appli-cable knowledge information and technical expertise to beeffectively integrated and taken up (Cornell et al 2013Polasky Carpenter Folke amp Keeler 2011) successfulinnovation often necessitates supportive institutionalenabling environments (Rodima-Taylor Olwig ampChhetri 2012) This holistic conceptualization of the termis important in stressing the complexity of different assetsand processes that contribute towards a household or com-munityrsquos capacity to respond to change Seen from this per-spective adaptive capacity can neither be assessed norbuilt by looking at a single characteristic all five character-istics need to be taken into consideration together albeitwith different weight depending on the specific context

The implications of this holistic view of adaptivecapacity for development interventions in a changingenvironment are profound Not only does it suggest thatmany different types of development interventions ndash

including those that are not traditionally associated withCCA ndash may contribute to particular characteristics ofadaptive capacity but it encourages a more systemic andjoined-up approach to the implementation of developmentstrategies Rather than concentrating on lsquosiloedrsquo themeslike SP DRR or livelihood support programmes theLAC encourages development actors to support greatercoordination and cross-fertilization of different types ofapproaches recognizing the important role that eachplays on different characteristics of adaptive capacityThis is in line with the more recent push towards lsquoresilienceprogrammingrsquo within the development community thatseeks to support resilience of people and the sustainabilityof development interventions by incentivizing cross-sec-toral planning coordination and programme delivery(Davoudi et al 2012 World Bank 2013)

42 The importance of entry-points

The challenge of incorporating all five elements of the LACinto the delivery of programmatic interventions quicklybecomes apparent when considering the wide scope ofactivities that fall under each Government and NGO staffcan find it difficult to identify activities that address mul-tiple characteristics under the LAC and risk diluting theimpact of their interventions by attempting to incorporatemany overlapping activities and deliverables in anattempt to cover all five characteristics ACCRArsquos NGOpartners often engaged with stakeholders by using asingle characteristic of adaptive capacity as an entry pointfrom which they sought to maximize the potentialimpacts and overlaps with the other four characteristics(Jones Ludi Carabine amp Grist 2014) For example Flex-ible Forward-looking Decision Making (FFDM) waschosen as the entry for many of ACCRArsquos programmeactivities from 2012 to 2014 While seeking to developcapacity building tools for local government officials inEthiopia Uganda and Mozambique ACCRArsquos partnersdemonstrated how the promotion of FFDM is not onlydependent on but can help to support the enhancementof the other characteristics such as an effective institutionalenvironment robust knowledge and understanding offuture threats and uncertainties a diverse asset base andsupport for innovation or trialling of new livelihood activi-ties (Jones et al 2014)

From a research perspective one helpful quality of theLAC is that it is based on concepts that many researchersare familiar with For example it draws heavily on thelsquoSustainable Livelihoods frameworkrsquo (DFID 2011)which has strong overlaps with properties outlined underlsquoasset basersquo and lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo By bringingtogether elements from frameworks researchers are to alarge degree familiar with helped in allowing more sea-soned researchers grasp the focus of ACCRArsquos researchaim quickly and kept training efforts of more junior

Figure 1 The five characteristics of the LAC framework andtheir interconnectedness

Climate and Development 7

Table 2 A summary of the five characteristics of the LAC framework

Characteristic Summary Brief description and supportive literature

Asset base The availability of a diverse range of keylivelihood assets that allowhouseholds or communities torespond to evolving circumstances

The ability of people or communities to cope with and respond to change depends heavily on access toand control over key assets (Daze Amborse amp Ehrhart 2009) Adaptive capacity is not onlyinfluenced by the quantity and quality of assets available but whether some of the assets can besubstituted in the case of disruption or degradation As a result asset diversity and the ability to accessassets that are in some sense surplus and interchangeable may each be as important as lsquoassetabundancersquo (Ospina amp Heeks 2010)

Institutions and entitlements The existence of an appropriate andevolving institutional environmentthat allows for access and entitlementto key assets and capitals

Access to and control of assets is typically mediated through institutions and entitlements Given thatentitlements to lsquoelements of adaptive capacity are socially differentiated along the lines of ageethnicity class religion and genderrsquo (Adger Agrawala amp Mirza 2007 p730) it is often thought thatinstitutions that ensure equitable opportunities to access resources are likely to promote adaptivecapacity The adaptive capacity of societies depends on the ability to act collectively which in turndepends on institutions that govern social relations at multiple scales Norms rules and behaviour mayform social barriers that can influence how and which individuals are able to cope or adapt to climatevariability and change

Knowledge and information The ability households and communitieshave to generate receive assess anddisseminate knowledge andinformation in support of appropriateadaptation options

Successful adaptation can benefit from an understanding of likely future change in one system (eg theclimate system) its interactions with other systems (eg the land use system) knowledge aboutadaptation options and the capacity to evaluate suitable interventions (Frankhauser amp Tol 1997)Relevant information needs to reach key stakeholders to ensure that actions are effective in the longterm and prevent maladaptive practices (ie actions or processes that may deliver short-term gains butultimately increase vulnerability in the longer term) Knowledge can also play a role in ensuring localempowerment and raising awareness of the needs of particular groups within a community (Ospina ampHeeks 2010)

Innovation The presence of an enablingenvironment to foster innovationexperimentation and learning in orderto take advantage of newopportunities

As social and environmental changes continue people and communities will need to alter existingpractices resources and behaviours or in some cases adopt completely new ones Moreoverinnovation is crucial to enable a system to remain dynamic and functioning ndash though the willingnessand capacity to foster innovation (and to accept failure) vary greatly Innovation is not only aboutlsquohigh-techrsquo and large-scale but equally about spontaneous autonomous and micro-level initiatives(WongtschowskiVerburg amp Waters-Bayer 2009) Such local experimentation and innovations areoften not recognized under current paradigms that favour more technological or infrastructuralinnovations ndash though care should be taken not to lsquoromanticisersquo traditional local practices

Flexible Forward-lookingDecision Making (FFDM)

The ability to anticipate incorporate andrespond to changes with regard togovernance structure and futureplanning

Decision-making and governance that is flexible collaborative and learning-based may be better able tocope with evolving circumstances This recognizes the importance of dynamic institutions and theentitlements and assets they control in response to changing future threats (SmithKlein amp Huq 2003)Moreover decision-making systems can gain from being flexible and including new informationregarding changing environmental social and political conditions Taking a longer-term approachwithin governance and decision-making is crucial in order to prevent maladaptive interventions (Ayersamp Huq 2009)

8LJones

etal

researchers low By using existing frameworks and alanguage many are familiar with in the LAC communi-cation of research findings and their relevance for program-ming or policy making was made easier especially whendealing with practitioners who are not necessarily versantin climate change terminology

43 Navigating differences in knowledge andterminology

Despite this familiarity difficulties in relation to terminol-ogy still presented major barriers to the LACrsquos implemen-tation and uptake The framework was initially designedwith an evaluative objective in mind to provide a concep-tual framework to qualitatively assess the impact of devel-opment interventions on adaptive capacity Theterminology in the frameworkrsquos background material there-fore reflects that of a research-orientated communityHowever its subsequent adoption by programmatic NGOstaff revealed notable contrasts in how researchers andpractitioners relate to specific terms within the frameworkFor example the lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo character-istic is considered a central element of the LAC relatingto existence of an appropriate and evolving institutionalenvironment that allows fair access and entitlement tokey assets and capitals Drawing on the wider developmentliterature institutions here refers to the rules that governbelief systems behaviour and organisational structure(Ostrom 2005) Yet a major obstacle and source of con-fusion came from the very specific interpretation of insti-tutions adopted by many NGO and developmentpractitioners that most commonly relates to organizationslsquogroups of individuals bound together by some commonpurpose to achieve certain objectivesrsquo (North 1994p 361)

While these terms are by no means contradictory theyrelate to two different aspects The former encompassingthe many formal and informal rules and constraints thatgovern social relations and structures the latter a specificform of institution lsquothat involves (a) criteria to establishtheir boundaries and to distinguish their members fromnon-members (b) principles of sovereignty concerningwho is in charge and (c) chains of command delineatingresponsibilities within the organizationrsquo (Hodgson 2006p 18) As informal institutional elements are critical tounderstanding and enhancing LAC (Agrawal 2010) con-siderable care was needed in building a shared understand-ing of key terms and in improving the communication andtranslation of the LAC into agreed and user-friendlylanguage Similar difficulties in communicating abstractterms related to the other five characteristics such asFFDM or innovation required researchers and practitionersto come together and discuss their respective understand-ings to reach a shared understanding that supports pro-gramme implementation and policy engagement Others

such as assets generated higher levels of consensus andclarity given their common interpretation and applicationacross academic and practitioner communities Indeedmisunderstandings of key concepts were not only limitedto programmatic staff as a number of the research partnersused in carrying out the assessment of development activi-ties using the LAC demonstrated similar misgivings ndashdemonstrating the need to invest resources in developinga shared approach and for careful communication andalignment when using the LAC amongst a wide range ofdifferent stakeholders

44 Preventing elements of the LAC from beingunderemphasized

Relatedly important lessons were learned in understandingelements of the LAC that that were underemphasized ormissing Two such examples are especially evidentpower and agency It is of little surprise that both are atthe heart of a person or communityrsquos adaptive capacity(Grothmann amp Patt 2005 Tschakert amp Dietrich 2010)

Without agency there is no adaptive capacity and withoutadaptive capacity there is no sustainability or ongoingdevelopment (Levine et al 2011 p 31)

Yet given that power and agency runs throughout each ofthe five characteristics ndash for example a womanrsquo or manrsquosentitlement to key assets and resources during times ofneed can be largely seen an issue of power (Baumann ampSinha 2001) ndash a decision was made from the outset tohave power and agency as a cross-cutting theme Inevita-bly and somewhat understandably this diluted their impor-tance when it came to prioritizing actions formainstreaming the LAC into development programmes Itrequired special attention by the ACCRA programmaticteam to ensure power was mainstreamed in the Alliancersquosactivities through ongoing training Upon reflection andin considering the LACrsquos roll out amongst other pro-grammes of work it is clear that greater care needs to betaken to ensure that such cross-cutting issues continue tobe emphasized This is especially pertinent given theirabsence from the headline table and graphic depicting theLAC In practice few people have the time or interest toread the full technical reports detailing the conceptualiz-ation of the LAC and hence frequently miss reference tothe cross-cutting themes

The implications of these omissions are profound Forexample they had clear knock on effects on promotingthe role of gender equity and justice in adaptive capacitydespite their centrality to core characteristics like lsquoinsti-tutions and entitlementsrsquo Although ACCRArsquos programma-tic team took conscious steps to embed gender equity andjustice into the alliancersquos work it was generally felt thatmore explicit consideration for power and gender justice

Climate and Development 9

and its implication across all five LAC elements wouldhave facilitated quicker and clearer engagement withpolicy-makers on issues of gender With this in mindfuture iterations of the LAC may be better served by expli-citly depicting power and agency alongside the five charac-teristics in the LACrsquos headline table and graphic

In addition issues of dilution amongst processes withineach individual characteristic are important Experiencefrom applying the LAC suggests that careful considerationneeds to be given to specifying how the LACrsquos character-istics are broken down in each given context (this relatesstrongly to issues of indicator or characteristic weighting)For example natural capital may play a strong role in ruralenvironments or areas where livelihoods are stronglydependent on environmental goods or services This depen-dence may not be as high or as pronounced in certain urbancontexts (though this will certainly not always be thecase) Indeed these considerations go somewhat beyondthe remit of the initial framework as it was merely intendedas a guiding tool What is however clear is that identifyingrigorous and collaborative processes for taking the LACpast a simple conceptual framework to one that islocally-meaningful and nuanced is not only challengingbut necessary to deliver impact This requires time andinput from all relevant stakeholders and may often resultin an application of the LAC that is far more expanded itmay even look radically different from the originalframework itself

45 Recognizing the importance of context anddialogue

The LAC deliberately highlights higher-level character-istics that are common across most contexts Given the con-textual nature of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007) thisnecessitated that each characteristic remains open to arange of different applications For example whileFFDM is undoubtedly key to enabling people and commu-nities to adapt to change and uncertainty what it translatesinto in practice in terms of defining development interven-tions will be different from one location to the next oracross different scales The factors that promote FFDM inthe context of a local government in Uganda whoseprimary aim may be to prepare for increasingly variablerainfall owing to climate change will be different tothose that help a farmerrsquos collective in rural India anticipateand buffer seasonal food price shocks Operationalizationof each of the five characteristics needed to be workedout by ACCRArsquos NGO partners in each context based onthe insights gained from the research and ongoing learningand reflection in each of the countries and the ACCRA pro-gramme as a whole

Key to this was bringing together a wider range of sta-keholders (whether researchers development practitionersgovernment or local communities) to discuss how each

element of the LAC can be applied in their context givenexisting needs capacities and resources Experience fromACCRArsquos NGO partners demonstrates that interactiveand two-way processes of social learning and stakeholderengagement (such as participatory scenario planninglsquoserious gamesrsquo and role play) can prove to be far moreeffective than top down forms of knowledge exchange incontextualizing and operationalizing conceptual andnovel ideas that support adaptive capacity (ArmitageBerkes Dale Kocho-Schellenberg amp Patton 2011 Joneset al 2014 Lemos Kirchhoff amp Ramprasad 2012) TheLAC framework is most effectively used as a tool forguiding and facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions andcan help to identify the broader types of actions that maybe required to support adaptive capacity thorough pro-cesses of local engagement and embeddedness withinlocal institutional and political contexts

5 Future directions for conceptualizing adaptivecapacity and the application of the LAC

From the outset a decision by ACCRA alliance partnerswas taken not to use the LAC framework as a means ofquantifying the adaptive capacity of households and com-munities during the programmersquos research activitiesOthers have however used it to inform their measurementefforts for example Oxfam GB in its work on measuringresilience (Hughes amp Bushell 2013) Given that many ofthe processes identified in the framework are relativelyintangible and difficult to reduce into quantifiable variablesqualitative methods were preferred at the time Since theLACrsquos formulation however there has been considerablepressure to develop robust methods for measuring qualitiessuch as resilience and adaptive capacity ndash particularly inlight of prominence given to resilience in the SustainableDevelopment Goals Much of this can be ascribed togrowing pressure from donors to demonstrate the impactof development interventions and showcase value formoney in their activities (Constas Frankenberger amp Hod-dinott 2014)

With this in mind provided that adequate methods forevaluating many of the process-based elements of theLAC can be identified there should not be any large impe-diments to the application of the LAC as a tool for quanti-fication Yet while a number of recent advances have beenmade in the design of research tools for evaluating softerelements of adaptive capacity (Frank Eakin amp Lopez-Carr 2011 Nguyen amp James 2013) and subjective resili-ence (Jones amp Tanner 2015 Marshall 2010) to date theauthors do not see evidence for suitably robust approachesthat lend themselves to adequately quantify the five charac-teristics of adaptive capacity ndash either individually or incombination Further methodological challenges relate tothe ability of measurement tools to adequately accountfor the contextual elements of adaptive capacity as well

10 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

resilience and adaptive capacity as well as how a concep-tual framework can inform research programming andpolicy engagement

41 Development interventions can support adaptivecapacity (even if not explicit intended)

One important aspect when appraising the use of the LACis the differences between the frameworkrsquos evaluative andprogrammatic applications From both academic and prac-titioner perspectives the LAC helps to break down adap-tive capacity into its constituent parts The overlapsbetween each of the five characteristics (as shown inFigure 1) assist in emphasizing the interrelated nature ofcontributory factors that support LAC For example forlocal governance processes to ensure flexible forward-looking decision-making often requires accurate and appli-cable knowledge information and technical expertise to beeffectively integrated and taken up (Cornell et al 2013Polasky Carpenter Folke amp Keeler 2011) successfulinnovation often necessitates supportive institutionalenabling environments (Rodima-Taylor Olwig ampChhetri 2012) This holistic conceptualization of the termis important in stressing the complexity of different assetsand processes that contribute towards a household or com-munityrsquos capacity to respond to change Seen from this per-spective adaptive capacity can neither be assessed norbuilt by looking at a single characteristic all five character-istics need to be taken into consideration together albeitwith different weight depending on the specific context

The implications of this holistic view of adaptivecapacity for development interventions in a changingenvironment are profound Not only does it suggest thatmany different types of development interventions ndash

including those that are not traditionally associated withCCA ndash may contribute to particular characteristics ofadaptive capacity but it encourages a more systemic andjoined-up approach to the implementation of developmentstrategies Rather than concentrating on lsquosiloedrsquo themeslike SP DRR or livelihood support programmes theLAC encourages development actors to support greatercoordination and cross-fertilization of different types ofapproaches recognizing the important role that eachplays on different characteristics of adaptive capacityThis is in line with the more recent push towards lsquoresilienceprogrammingrsquo within the development community thatseeks to support resilience of people and the sustainabilityof development interventions by incentivizing cross-sec-toral planning coordination and programme delivery(Davoudi et al 2012 World Bank 2013)

42 The importance of entry-points

The challenge of incorporating all five elements of the LACinto the delivery of programmatic interventions quicklybecomes apparent when considering the wide scope ofactivities that fall under each Government and NGO staffcan find it difficult to identify activities that address mul-tiple characteristics under the LAC and risk diluting theimpact of their interventions by attempting to incorporatemany overlapping activities and deliverables in anattempt to cover all five characteristics ACCRArsquos NGOpartners often engaged with stakeholders by using asingle characteristic of adaptive capacity as an entry pointfrom which they sought to maximize the potentialimpacts and overlaps with the other four characteristics(Jones Ludi Carabine amp Grist 2014) For example Flex-ible Forward-looking Decision Making (FFDM) waschosen as the entry for many of ACCRArsquos programmeactivities from 2012 to 2014 While seeking to developcapacity building tools for local government officials inEthiopia Uganda and Mozambique ACCRArsquos partnersdemonstrated how the promotion of FFDM is not onlydependent on but can help to support the enhancementof the other characteristics such as an effective institutionalenvironment robust knowledge and understanding offuture threats and uncertainties a diverse asset base andsupport for innovation or trialling of new livelihood activi-ties (Jones et al 2014)

From a research perspective one helpful quality of theLAC is that it is based on concepts that many researchersare familiar with For example it draws heavily on thelsquoSustainable Livelihoods frameworkrsquo (DFID 2011)which has strong overlaps with properties outlined underlsquoasset basersquo and lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo By bringingtogether elements from frameworks researchers are to alarge degree familiar with helped in allowing more sea-soned researchers grasp the focus of ACCRArsquos researchaim quickly and kept training efforts of more junior

Figure 1 The five characteristics of the LAC framework andtheir interconnectedness

Climate and Development 7

Table 2 A summary of the five characteristics of the LAC framework

Characteristic Summary Brief description and supportive literature

Asset base The availability of a diverse range of keylivelihood assets that allowhouseholds or communities torespond to evolving circumstances

The ability of people or communities to cope with and respond to change depends heavily on access toand control over key assets (Daze Amborse amp Ehrhart 2009) Adaptive capacity is not onlyinfluenced by the quantity and quality of assets available but whether some of the assets can besubstituted in the case of disruption or degradation As a result asset diversity and the ability to accessassets that are in some sense surplus and interchangeable may each be as important as lsquoassetabundancersquo (Ospina amp Heeks 2010)

Institutions and entitlements The existence of an appropriate andevolving institutional environmentthat allows for access and entitlementto key assets and capitals

Access to and control of assets is typically mediated through institutions and entitlements Given thatentitlements to lsquoelements of adaptive capacity are socially differentiated along the lines of ageethnicity class religion and genderrsquo (Adger Agrawala amp Mirza 2007 p730) it is often thought thatinstitutions that ensure equitable opportunities to access resources are likely to promote adaptivecapacity The adaptive capacity of societies depends on the ability to act collectively which in turndepends on institutions that govern social relations at multiple scales Norms rules and behaviour mayform social barriers that can influence how and which individuals are able to cope or adapt to climatevariability and change

Knowledge and information The ability households and communitieshave to generate receive assess anddisseminate knowledge andinformation in support of appropriateadaptation options

Successful adaptation can benefit from an understanding of likely future change in one system (eg theclimate system) its interactions with other systems (eg the land use system) knowledge aboutadaptation options and the capacity to evaluate suitable interventions (Frankhauser amp Tol 1997)Relevant information needs to reach key stakeholders to ensure that actions are effective in the longterm and prevent maladaptive practices (ie actions or processes that may deliver short-term gains butultimately increase vulnerability in the longer term) Knowledge can also play a role in ensuring localempowerment and raising awareness of the needs of particular groups within a community (Ospina ampHeeks 2010)

Innovation The presence of an enablingenvironment to foster innovationexperimentation and learning in orderto take advantage of newopportunities

As social and environmental changes continue people and communities will need to alter existingpractices resources and behaviours or in some cases adopt completely new ones Moreoverinnovation is crucial to enable a system to remain dynamic and functioning ndash though the willingnessand capacity to foster innovation (and to accept failure) vary greatly Innovation is not only aboutlsquohigh-techrsquo and large-scale but equally about spontaneous autonomous and micro-level initiatives(WongtschowskiVerburg amp Waters-Bayer 2009) Such local experimentation and innovations areoften not recognized under current paradigms that favour more technological or infrastructuralinnovations ndash though care should be taken not to lsquoromanticisersquo traditional local practices

Flexible Forward-lookingDecision Making (FFDM)

The ability to anticipate incorporate andrespond to changes with regard togovernance structure and futureplanning

Decision-making and governance that is flexible collaborative and learning-based may be better able tocope with evolving circumstances This recognizes the importance of dynamic institutions and theentitlements and assets they control in response to changing future threats (SmithKlein amp Huq 2003)Moreover decision-making systems can gain from being flexible and including new informationregarding changing environmental social and political conditions Taking a longer-term approachwithin governance and decision-making is crucial in order to prevent maladaptive interventions (Ayersamp Huq 2009)

8LJones

etal

researchers low By using existing frameworks and alanguage many are familiar with in the LAC communi-cation of research findings and their relevance for program-ming or policy making was made easier especially whendealing with practitioners who are not necessarily versantin climate change terminology

43 Navigating differences in knowledge andterminology

Despite this familiarity difficulties in relation to terminol-ogy still presented major barriers to the LACrsquos implemen-tation and uptake The framework was initially designedwith an evaluative objective in mind to provide a concep-tual framework to qualitatively assess the impact of devel-opment interventions on adaptive capacity Theterminology in the frameworkrsquos background material there-fore reflects that of a research-orientated communityHowever its subsequent adoption by programmatic NGOstaff revealed notable contrasts in how researchers andpractitioners relate to specific terms within the frameworkFor example the lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo character-istic is considered a central element of the LAC relatingto existence of an appropriate and evolving institutionalenvironment that allows fair access and entitlement tokey assets and capitals Drawing on the wider developmentliterature institutions here refers to the rules that governbelief systems behaviour and organisational structure(Ostrom 2005) Yet a major obstacle and source of con-fusion came from the very specific interpretation of insti-tutions adopted by many NGO and developmentpractitioners that most commonly relates to organizationslsquogroups of individuals bound together by some commonpurpose to achieve certain objectivesrsquo (North 1994p 361)

While these terms are by no means contradictory theyrelate to two different aspects The former encompassingthe many formal and informal rules and constraints thatgovern social relations and structures the latter a specificform of institution lsquothat involves (a) criteria to establishtheir boundaries and to distinguish their members fromnon-members (b) principles of sovereignty concerningwho is in charge and (c) chains of command delineatingresponsibilities within the organizationrsquo (Hodgson 2006p 18) As informal institutional elements are critical tounderstanding and enhancing LAC (Agrawal 2010) con-siderable care was needed in building a shared understand-ing of key terms and in improving the communication andtranslation of the LAC into agreed and user-friendlylanguage Similar difficulties in communicating abstractterms related to the other five characteristics such asFFDM or innovation required researchers and practitionersto come together and discuss their respective understand-ings to reach a shared understanding that supports pro-gramme implementation and policy engagement Others

such as assets generated higher levels of consensus andclarity given their common interpretation and applicationacross academic and practitioner communities Indeedmisunderstandings of key concepts were not only limitedto programmatic staff as a number of the research partnersused in carrying out the assessment of development activi-ties using the LAC demonstrated similar misgivings ndashdemonstrating the need to invest resources in developinga shared approach and for careful communication andalignment when using the LAC amongst a wide range ofdifferent stakeholders

44 Preventing elements of the LAC from beingunderemphasized

Relatedly important lessons were learned in understandingelements of the LAC that that were underemphasized ormissing Two such examples are especially evidentpower and agency It is of little surprise that both are atthe heart of a person or communityrsquos adaptive capacity(Grothmann amp Patt 2005 Tschakert amp Dietrich 2010)

Without agency there is no adaptive capacity and withoutadaptive capacity there is no sustainability or ongoingdevelopment (Levine et al 2011 p 31)

Yet given that power and agency runs throughout each ofthe five characteristics ndash for example a womanrsquo or manrsquosentitlement to key assets and resources during times ofneed can be largely seen an issue of power (Baumann ampSinha 2001) ndash a decision was made from the outset tohave power and agency as a cross-cutting theme Inevita-bly and somewhat understandably this diluted their impor-tance when it came to prioritizing actions formainstreaming the LAC into development programmes Itrequired special attention by the ACCRA programmaticteam to ensure power was mainstreamed in the Alliancersquosactivities through ongoing training Upon reflection andin considering the LACrsquos roll out amongst other pro-grammes of work it is clear that greater care needs to betaken to ensure that such cross-cutting issues continue tobe emphasized This is especially pertinent given theirabsence from the headline table and graphic depicting theLAC In practice few people have the time or interest toread the full technical reports detailing the conceptualiz-ation of the LAC and hence frequently miss reference tothe cross-cutting themes

The implications of these omissions are profound Forexample they had clear knock on effects on promotingthe role of gender equity and justice in adaptive capacitydespite their centrality to core characteristics like lsquoinsti-tutions and entitlementsrsquo Although ACCRArsquos programma-tic team took conscious steps to embed gender equity andjustice into the alliancersquos work it was generally felt thatmore explicit consideration for power and gender justice

Climate and Development 9

and its implication across all five LAC elements wouldhave facilitated quicker and clearer engagement withpolicy-makers on issues of gender With this in mindfuture iterations of the LAC may be better served by expli-citly depicting power and agency alongside the five charac-teristics in the LACrsquos headline table and graphic

In addition issues of dilution amongst processes withineach individual characteristic are important Experiencefrom applying the LAC suggests that careful considerationneeds to be given to specifying how the LACrsquos character-istics are broken down in each given context (this relatesstrongly to issues of indicator or characteristic weighting)For example natural capital may play a strong role in ruralenvironments or areas where livelihoods are stronglydependent on environmental goods or services This depen-dence may not be as high or as pronounced in certain urbancontexts (though this will certainly not always be thecase) Indeed these considerations go somewhat beyondthe remit of the initial framework as it was merely intendedas a guiding tool What is however clear is that identifyingrigorous and collaborative processes for taking the LACpast a simple conceptual framework to one that islocally-meaningful and nuanced is not only challengingbut necessary to deliver impact This requires time andinput from all relevant stakeholders and may often resultin an application of the LAC that is far more expanded itmay even look radically different from the originalframework itself

45 Recognizing the importance of context anddialogue

The LAC deliberately highlights higher-level character-istics that are common across most contexts Given the con-textual nature of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007) thisnecessitated that each characteristic remains open to arange of different applications For example whileFFDM is undoubtedly key to enabling people and commu-nities to adapt to change and uncertainty what it translatesinto in practice in terms of defining development interven-tions will be different from one location to the next oracross different scales The factors that promote FFDM inthe context of a local government in Uganda whoseprimary aim may be to prepare for increasingly variablerainfall owing to climate change will be different tothose that help a farmerrsquos collective in rural India anticipateand buffer seasonal food price shocks Operationalizationof each of the five characteristics needed to be workedout by ACCRArsquos NGO partners in each context based onthe insights gained from the research and ongoing learningand reflection in each of the countries and the ACCRA pro-gramme as a whole

Key to this was bringing together a wider range of sta-keholders (whether researchers development practitionersgovernment or local communities) to discuss how each

element of the LAC can be applied in their context givenexisting needs capacities and resources Experience fromACCRArsquos NGO partners demonstrates that interactiveand two-way processes of social learning and stakeholderengagement (such as participatory scenario planninglsquoserious gamesrsquo and role play) can prove to be far moreeffective than top down forms of knowledge exchange incontextualizing and operationalizing conceptual andnovel ideas that support adaptive capacity (ArmitageBerkes Dale Kocho-Schellenberg amp Patton 2011 Joneset al 2014 Lemos Kirchhoff amp Ramprasad 2012) TheLAC framework is most effectively used as a tool forguiding and facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions andcan help to identify the broader types of actions that maybe required to support adaptive capacity thorough pro-cesses of local engagement and embeddedness withinlocal institutional and political contexts

5 Future directions for conceptualizing adaptivecapacity and the application of the LAC

From the outset a decision by ACCRA alliance partnerswas taken not to use the LAC framework as a means ofquantifying the adaptive capacity of households and com-munities during the programmersquos research activitiesOthers have however used it to inform their measurementefforts for example Oxfam GB in its work on measuringresilience (Hughes amp Bushell 2013) Given that many ofthe processes identified in the framework are relativelyintangible and difficult to reduce into quantifiable variablesqualitative methods were preferred at the time Since theLACrsquos formulation however there has been considerablepressure to develop robust methods for measuring qualitiessuch as resilience and adaptive capacity ndash particularly inlight of prominence given to resilience in the SustainableDevelopment Goals Much of this can be ascribed togrowing pressure from donors to demonstrate the impactof development interventions and showcase value formoney in their activities (Constas Frankenberger amp Hod-dinott 2014)

With this in mind provided that adequate methods forevaluating many of the process-based elements of theLAC can be identified there should not be any large impe-diments to the application of the LAC as a tool for quanti-fication Yet while a number of recent advances have beenmade in the design of research tools for evaluating softerelements of adaptive capacity (Frank Eakin amp Lopez-Carr 2011 Nguyen amp James 2013) and subjective resili-ence (Jones amp Tanner 2015 Marshall 2010) to date theauthors do not see evidence for suitably robust approachesthat lend themselves to adequately quantify the five charac-teristics of adaptive capacity ndash either individually or incombination Further methodological challenges relate tothe ability of measurement tools to adequately accountfor the contextual elements of adaptive capacity as well

10 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

Table 2 A summary of the five characteristics of the LAC framework

Characteristic Summary Brief description and supportive literature

Asset base The availability of a diverse range of keylivelihood assets that allowhouseholds or communities torespond to evolving circumstances

The ability of people or communities to cope with and respond to change depends heavily on access toand control over key assets (Daze Amborse amp Ehrhart 2009) Adaptive capacity is not onlyinfluenced by the quantity and quality of assets available but whether some of the assets can besubstituted in the case of disruption or degradation As a result asset diversity and the ability to accessassets that are in some sense surplus and interchangeable may each be as important as lsquoassetabundancersquo (Ospina amp Heeks 2010)

Institutions and entitlements The existence of an appropriate andevolving institutional environmentthat allows for access and entitlementto key assets and capitals

Access to and control of assets is typically mediated through institutions and entitlements Given thatentitlements to lsquoelements of adaptive capacity are socially differentiated along the lines of ageethnicity class religion and genderrsquo (Adger Agrawala amp Mirza 2007 p730) it is often thought thatinstitutions that ensure equitable opportunities to access resources are likely to promote adaptivecapacity The adaptive capacity of societies depends on the ability to act collectively which in turndepends on institutions that govern social relations at multiple scales Norms rules and behaviour mayform social barriers that can influence how and which individuals are able to cope or adapt to climatevariability and change

Knowledge and information The ability households and communitieshave to generate receive assess anddisseminate knowledge andinformation in support of appropriateadaptation options

Successful adaptation can benefit from an understanding of likely future change in one system (eg theclimate system) its interactions with other systems (eg the land use system) knowledge aboutadaptation options and the capacity to evaluate suitable interventions (Frankhauser amp Tol 1997)Relevant information needs to reach key stakeholders to ensure that actions are effective in the longterm and prevent maladaptive practices (ie actions or processes that may deliver short-term gains butultimately increase vulnerability in the longer term) Knowledge can also play a role in ensuring localempowerment and raising awareness of the needs of particular groups within a community (Ospina ampHeeks 2010)

Innovation The presence of an enablingenvironment to foster innovationexperimentation and learning in orderto take advantage of newopportunities

As social and environmental changes continue people and communities will need to alter existingpractices resources and behaviours or in some cases adopt completely new ones Moreoverinnovation is crucial to enable a system to remain dynamic and functioning ndash though the willingnessand capacity to foster innovation (and to accept failure) vary greatly Innovation is not only aboutlsquohigh-techrsquo and large-scale but equally about spontaneous autonomous and micro-level initiatives(WongtschowskiVerburg amp Waters-Bayer 2009) Such local experimentation and innovations areoften not recognized under current paradigms that favour more technological or infrastructuralinnovations ndash though care should be taken not to lsquoromanticisersquo traditional local practices

Flexible Forward-lookingDecision Making (FFDM)

The ability to anticipate incorporate andrespond to changes with regard togovernance structure and futureplanning

Decision-making and governance that is flexible collaborative and learning-based may be better able tocope with evolving circumstances This recognizes the importance of dynamic institutions and theentitlements and assets they control in response to changing future threats (SmithKlein amp Huq 2003)Moreover decision-making systems can gain from being flexible and including new informationregarding changing environmental social and political conditions Taking a longer-term approachwithin governance and decision-making is crucial in order to prevent maladaptive interventions (Ayersamp Huq 2009)

8LJones

etal

researchers low By using existing frameworks and alanguage many are familiar with in the LAC communi-cation of research findings and their relevance for program-ming or policy making was made easier especially whendealing with practitioners who are not necessarily versantin climate change terminology

43 Navigating differences in knowledge andterminology

Despite this familiarity difficulties in relation to terminol-ogy still presented major barriers to the LACrsquos implemen-tation and uptake The framework was initially designedwith an evaluative objective in mind to provide a concep-tual framework to qualitatively assess the impact of devel-opment interventions on adaptive capacity Theterminology in the frameworkrsquos background material there-fore reflects that of a research-orientated communityHowever its subsequent adoption by programmatic NGOstaff revealed notable contrasts in how researchers andpractitioners relate to specific terms within the frameworkFor example the lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo character-istic is considered a central element of the LAC relatingto existence of an appropriate and evolving institutionalenvironment that allows fair access and entitlement tokey assets and capitals Drawing on the wider developmentliterature institutions here refers to the rules that governbelief systems behaviour and organisational structure(Ostrom 2005) Yet a major obstacle and source of con-fusion came from the very specific interpretation of insti-tutions adopted by many NGO and developmentpractitioners that most commonly relates to organizationslsquogroups of individuals bound together by some commonpurpose to achieve certain objectivesrsquo (North 1994p 361)

While these terms are by no means contradictory theyrelate to two different aspects The former encompassingthe many formal and informal rules and constraints thatgovern social relations and structures the latter a specificform of institution lsquothat involves (a) criteria to establishtheir boundaries and to distinguish their members fromnon-members (b) principles of sovereignty concerningwho is in charge and (c) chains of command delineatingresponsibilities within the organizationrsquo (Hodgson 2006p 18) As informal institutional elements are critical tounderstanding and enhancing LAC (Agrawal 2010) con-siderable care was needed in building a shared understand-ing of key terms and in improving the communication andtranslation of the LAC into agreed and user-friendlylanguage Similar difficulties in communicating abstractterms related to the other five characteristics such asFFDM or innovation required researchers and practitionersto come together and discuss their respective understand-ings to reach a shared understanding that supports pro-gramme implementation and policy engagement Others

such as assets generated higher levels of consensus andclarity given their common interpretation and applicationacross academic and practitioner communities Indeedmisunderstandings of key concepts were not only limitedto programmatic staff as a number of the research partnersused in carrying out the assessment of development activi-ties using the LAC demonstrated similar misgivings ndashdemonstrating the need to invest resources in developinga shared approach and for careful communication andalignment when using the LAC amongst a wide range ofdifferent stakeholders

44 Preventing elements of the LAC from beingunderemphasized

Relatedly important lessons were learned in understandingelements of the LAC that that were underemphasized ormissing Two such examples are especially evidentpower and agency It is of little surprise that both are atthe heart of a person or communityrsquos adaptive capacity(Grothmann amp Patt 2005 Tschakert amp Dietrich 2010)

Without agency there is no adaptive capacity and withoutadaptive capacity there is no sustainability or ongoingdevelopment (Levine et al 2011 p 31)

Yet given that power and agency runs throughout each ofthe five characteristics ndash for example a womanrsquo or manrsquosentitlement to key assets and resources during times ofneed can be largely seen an issue of power (Baumann ampSinha 2001) ndash a decision was made from the outset tohave power and agency as a cross-cutting theme Inevita-bly and somewhat understandably this diluted their impor-tance when it came to prioritizing actions formainstreaming the LAC into development programmes Itrequired special attention by the ACCRA programmaticteam to ensure power was mainstreamed in the Alliancersquosactivities through ongoing training Upon reflection andin considering the LACrsquos roll out amongst other pro-grammes of work it is clear that greater care needs to betaken to ensure that such cross-cutting issues continue tobe emphasized This is especially pertinent given theirabsence from the headline table and graphic depicting theLAC In practice few people have the time or interest toread the full technical reports detailing the conceptualiz-ation of the LAC and hence frequently miss reference tothe cross-cutting themes

The implications of these omissions are profound Forexample they had clear knock on effects on promotingthe role of gender equity and justice in adaptive capacitydespite their centrality to core characteristics like lsquoinsti-tutions and entitlementsrsquo Although ACCRArsquos programma-tic team took conscious steps to embed gender equity andjustice into the alliancersquos work it was generally felt thatmore explicit consideration for power and gender justice

Climate and Development 9

and its implication across all five LAC elements wouldhave facilitated quicker and clearer engagement withpolicy-makers on issues of gender With this in mindfuture iterations of the LAC may be better served by expli-citly depicting power and agency alongside the five charac-teristics in the LACrsquos headline table and graphic

In addition issues of dilution amongst processes withineach individual characteristic are important Experiencefrom applying the LAC suggests that careful considerationneeds to be given to specifying how the LACrsquos character-istics are broken down in each given context (this relatesstrongly to issues of indicator or characteristic weighting)For example natural capital may play a strong role in ruralenvironments or areas where livelihoods are stronglydependent on environmental goods or services This depen-dence may not be as high or as pronounced in certain urbancontexts (though this will certainly not always be thecase) Indeed these considerations go somewhat beyondthe remit of the initial framework as it was merely intendedas a guiding tool What is however clear is that identifyingrigorous and collaborative processes for taking the LACpast a simple conceptual framework to one that islocally-meaningful and nuanced is not only challengingbut necessary to deliver impact This requires time andinput from all relevant stakeholders and may often resultin an application of the LAC that is far more expanded itmay even look radically different from the originalframework itself

45 Recognizing the importance of context anddialogue

The LAC deliberately highlights higher-level character-istics that are common across most contexts Given the con-textual nature of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007) thisnecessitated that each characteristic remains open to arange of different applications For example whileFFDM is undoubtedly key to enabling people and commu-nities to adapt to change and uncertainty what it translatesinto in practice in terms of defining development interven-tions will be different from one location to the next oracross different scales The factors that promote FFDM inthe context of a local government in Uganda whoseprimary aim may be to prepare for increasingly variablerainfall owing to climate change will be different tothose that help a farmerrsquos collective in rural India anticipateand buffer seasonal food price shocks Operationalizationof each of the five characteristics needed to be workedout by ACCRArsquos NGO partners in each context based onthe insights gained from the research and ongoing learningand reflection in each of the countries and the ACCRA pro-gramme as a whole

Key to this was bringing together a wider range of sta-keholders (whether researchers development practitionersgovernment or local communities) to discuss how each

element of the LAC can be applied in their context givenexisting needs capacities and resources Experience fromACCRArsquos NGO partners demonstrates that interactiveand two-way processes of social learning and stakeholderengagement (such as participatory scenario planninglsquoserious gamesrsquo and role play) can prove to be far moreeffective than top down forms of knowledge exchange incontextualizing and operationalizing conceptual andnovel ideas that support adaptive capacity (ArmitageBerkes Dale Kocho-Schellenberg amp Patton 2011 Joneset al 2014 Lemos Kirchhoff amp Ramprasad 2012) TheLAC framework is most effectively used as a tool forguiding and facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions andcan help to identify the broader types of actions that maybe required to support adaptive capacity thorough pro-cesses of local engagement and embeddedness withinlocal institutional and political contexts

5 Future directions for conceptualizing adaptivecapacity and the application of the LAC

From the outset a decision by ACCRA alliance partnerswas taken not to use the LAC framework as a means ofquantifying the adaptive capacity of households and com-munities during the programmersquos research activitiesOthers have however used it to inform their measurementefforts for example Oxfam GB in its work on measuringresilience (Hughes amp Bushell 2013) Given that many ofthe processes identified in the framework are relativelyintangible and difficult to reduce into quantifiable variablesqualitative methods were preferred at the time Since theLACrsquos formulation however there has been considerablepressure to develop robust methods for measuring qualitiessuch as resilience and adaptive capacity ndash particularly inlight of prominence given to resilience in the SustainableDevelopment Goals Much of this can be ascribed togrowing pressure from donors to demonstrate the impactof development interventions and showcase value formoney in their activities (Constas Frankenberger amp Hod-dinott 2014)

With this in mind provided that adequate methods forevaluating many of the process-based elements of theLAC can be identified there should not be any large impe-diments to the application of the LAC as a tool for quanti-fication Yet while a number of recent advances have beenmade in the design of research tools for evaluating softerelements of adaptive capacity (Frank Eakin amp Lopez-Carr 2011 Nguyen amp James 2013) and subjective resili-ence (Jones amp Tanner 2015 Marshall 2010) to date theauthors do not see evidence for suitably robust approachesthat lend themselves to adequately quantify the five charac-teristics of adaptive capacity ndash either individually or incombination Further methodological challenges relate tothe ability of measurement tools to adequately accountfor the contextual elements of adaptive capacity as well

10 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

researchers low By using existing frameworks and alanguage many are familiar with in the LAC communi-cation of research findings and their relevance for program-ming or policy making was made easier especially whendealing with practitioners who are not necessarily versantin climate change terminology

43 Navigating differences in knowledge andterminology

Despite this familiarity difficulties in relation to terminol-ogy still presented major barriers to the LACrsquos implemen-tation and uptake The framework was initially designedwith an evaluative objective in mind to provide a concep-tual framework to qualitatively assess the impact of devel-opment interventions on adaptive capacity Theterminology in the frameworkrsquos background material there-fore reflects that of a research-orientated communityHowever its subsequent adoption by programmatic NGOstaff revealed notable contrasts in how researchers andpractitioners relate to specific terms within the frameworkFor example the lsquoinstitutions and entitlementsrsquo character-istic is considered a central element of the LAC relatingto existence of an appropriate and evolving institutionalenvironment that allows fair access and entitlement tokey assets and capitals Drawing on the wider developmentliterature institutions here refers to the rules that governbelief systems behaviour and organisational structure(Ostrom 2005) Yet a major obstacle and source of con-fusion came from the very specific interpretation of insti-tutions adopted by many NGO and developmentpractitioners that most commonly relates to organizationslsquogroups of individuals bound together by some commonpurpose to achieve certain objectivesrsquo (North 1994p 361)

While these terms are by no means contradictory theyrelate to two different aspects The former encompassingthe many formal and informal rules and constraints thatgovern social relations and structures the latter a specificform of institution lsquothat involves (a) criteria to establishtheir boundaries and to distinguish their members fromnon-members (b) principles of sovereignty concerningwho is in charge and (c) chains of command delineatingresponsibilities within the organizationrsquo (Hodgson 2006p 18) As informal institutional elements are critical tounderstanding and enhancing LAC (Agrawal 2010) con-siderable care was needed in building a shared understand-ing of key terms and in improving the communication andtranslation of the LAC into agreed and user-friendlylanguage Similar difficulties in communicating abstractterms related to the other five characteristics such asFFDM or innovation required researchers and practitionersto come together and discuss their respective understand-ings to reach a shared understanding that supports pro-gramme implementation and policy engagement Others

such as assets generated higher levels of consensus andclarity given their common interpretation and applicationacross academic and practitioner communities Indeedmisunderstandings of key concepts were not only limitedto programmatic staff as a number of the research partnersused in carrying out the assessment of development activi-ties using the LAC demonstrated similar misgivings ndashdemonstrating the need to invest resources in developinga shared approach and for careful communication andalignment when using the LAC amongst a wide range ofdifferent stakeholders

44 Preventing elements of the LAC from beingunderemphasized

Relatedly important lessons were learned in understandingelements of the LAC that that were underemphasized ormissing Two such examples are especially evidentpower and agency It is of little surprise that both are atthe heart of a person or communityrsquos adaptive capacity(Grothmann amp Patt 2005 Tschakert amp Dietrich 2010)

Without agency there is no adaptive capacity and withoutadaptive capacity there is no sustainability or ongoingdevelopment (Levine et al 2011 p 31)

Yet given that power and agency runs throughout each ofthe five characteristics ndash for example a womanrsquo or manrsquosentitlement to key assets and resources during times ofneed can be largely seen an issue of power (Baumann ampSinha 2001) ndash a decision was made from the outset tohave power and agency as a cross-cutting theme Inevita-bly and somewhat understandably this diluted their impor-tance when it came to prioritizing actions formainstreaming the LAC into development programmes Itrequired special attention by the ACCRA programmaticteam to ensure power was mainstreamed in the Alliancersquosactivities through ongoing training Upon reflection andin considering the LACrsquos roll out amongst other pro-grammes of work it is clear that greater care needs to betaken to ensure that such cross-cutting issues continue tobe emphasized This is especially pertinent given theirabsence from the headline table and graphic depicting theLAC In practice few people have the time or interest toread the full technical reports detailing the conceptualiz-ation of the LAC and hence frequently miss reference tothe cross-cutting themes

The implications of these omissions are profound Forexample they had clear knock on effects on promotingthe role of gender equity and justice in adaptive capacitydespite their centrality to core characteristics like lsquoinsti-tutions and entitlementsrsquo Although ACCRArsquos programma-tic team took conscious steps to embed gender equity andjustice into the alliancersquos work it was generally felt thatmore explicit consideration for power and gender justice

Climate and Development 9

and its implication across all five LAC elements wouldhave facilitated quicker and clearer engagement withpolicy-makers on issues of gender With this in mindfuture iterations of the LAC may be better served by expli-citly depicting power and agency alongside the five charac-teristics in the LACrsquos headline table and graphic

In addition issues of dilution amongst processes withineach individual characteristic are important Experiencefrom applying the LAC suggests that careful considerationneeds to be given to specifying how the LACrsquos character-istics are broken down in each given context (this relatesstrongly to issues of indicator or characteristic weighting)For example natural capital may play a strong role in ruralenvironments or areas where livelihoods are stronglydependent on environmental goods or services This depen-dence may not be as high or as pronounced in certain urbancontexts (though this will certainly not always be thecase) Indeed these considerations go somewhat beyondthe remit of the initial framework as it was merely intendedas a guiding tool What is however clear is that identifyingrigorous and collaborative processes for taking the LACpast a simple conceptual framework to one that islocally-meaningful and nuanced is not only challengingbut necessary to deliver impact This requires time andinput from all relevant stakeholders and may often resultin an application of the LAC that is far more expanded itmay even look radically different from the originalframework itself

45 Recognizing the importance of context anddialogue

The LAC deliberately highlights higher-level character-istics that are common across most contexts Given the con-textual nature of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007) thisnecessitated that each characteristic remains open to arange of different applications For example whileFFDM is undoubtedly key to enabling people and commu-nities to adapt to change and uncertainty what it translatesinto in practice in terms of defining development interven-tions will be different from one location to the next oracross different scales The factors that promote FFDM inthe context of a local government in Uganda whoseprimary aim may be to prepare for increasingly variablerainfall owing to climate change will be different tothose that help a farmerrsquos collective in rural India anticipateand buffer seasonal food price shocks Operationalizationof each of the five characteristics needed to be workedout by ACCRArsquos NGO partners in each context based onthe insights gained from the research and ongoing learningand reflection in each of the countries and the ACCRA pro-gramme as a whole

Key to this was bringing together a wider range of sta-keholders (whether researchers development practitionersgovernment or local communities) to discuss how each

element of the LAC can be applied in their context givenexisting needs capacities and resources Experience fromACCRArsquos NGO partners demonstrates that interactiveand two-way processes of social learning and stakeholderengagement (such as participatory scenario planninglsquoserious gamesrsquo and role play) can prove to be far moreeffective than top down forms of knowledge exchange incontextualizing and operationalizing conceptual andnovel ideas that support adaptive capacity (ArmitageBerkes Dale Kocho-Schellenberg amp Patton 2011 Joneset al 2014 Lemos Kirchhoff amp Ramprasad 2012) TheLAC framework is most effectively used as a tool forguiding and facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions andcan help to identify the broader types of actions that maybe required to support adaptive capacity thorough pro-cesses of local engagement and embeddedness withinlocal institutional and political contexts

5 Future directions for conceptualizing adaptivecapacity and the application of the LAC

From the outset a decision by ACCRA alliance partnerswas taken not to use the LAC framework as a means ofquantifying the adaptive capacity of households and com-munities during the programmersquos research activitiesOthers have however used it to inform their measurementefforts for example Oxfam GB in its work on measuringresilience (Hughes amp Bushell 2013) Given that many ofthe processes identified in the framework are relativelyintangible and difficult to reduce into quantifiable variablesqualitative methods were preferred at the time Since theLACrsquos formulation however there has been considerablepressure to develop robust methods for measuring qualitiessuch as resilience and adaptive capacity ndash particularly inlight of prominence given to resilience in the SustainableDevelopment Goals Much of this can be ascribed togrowing pressure from donors to demonstrate the impactof development interventions and showcase value formoney in their activities (Constas Frankenberger amp Hod-dinott 2014)

With this in mind provided that adequate methods forevaluating many of the process-based elements of theLAC can be identified there should not be any large impe-diments to the application of the LAC as a tool for quanti-fication Yet while a number of recent advances have beenmade in the design of research tools for evaluating softerelements of adaptive capacity (Frank Eakin amp Lopez-Carr 2011 Nguyen amp James 2013) and subjective resili-ence (Jones amp Tanner 2015 Marshall 2010) to date theauthors do not see evidence for suitably robust approachesthat lend themselves to adequately quantify the five charac-teristics of adaptive capacity ndash either individually or incombination Further methodological challenges relate tothe ability of measurement tools to adequately accountfor the contextual elements of adaptive capacity as well

10 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

and its implication across all five LAC elements wouldhave facilitated quicker and clearer engagement withpolicy-makers on issues of gender With this in mindfuture iterations of the LAC may be better served by expli-citly depicting power and agency alongside the five charac-teristics in the LACrsquos headline table and graphic

In addition issues of dilution amongst processes withineach individual characteristic are important Experiencefrom applying the LAC suggests that careful considerationneeds to be given to specifying how the LACrsquos character-istics are broken down in each given context (this relatesstrongly to issues of indicator or characteristic weighting)For example natural capital may play a strong role in ruralenvironments or areas where livelihoods are stronglydependent on environmental goods or services This depen-dence may not be as high or as pronounced in certain urbancontexts (though this will certainly not always be thecase) Indeed these considerations go somewhat beyondthe remit of the initial framework as it was merely intendedas a guiding tool What is however clear is that identifyingrigorous and collaborative processes for taking the LACpast a simple conceptual framework to one that islocally-meaningful and nuanced is not only challengingbut necessary to deliver impact This requires time andinput from all relevant stakeholders and may often resultin an application of the LAC that is far more expanded itmay even look radically different from the originalframework itself

45 Recognizing the importance of context anddialogue

The LAC deliberately highlights higher-level character-istics that are common across most contexts Given the con-textual nature of adaptive capacity (Vincent 2007) thisnecessitated that each characteristic remains open to arange of different applications For example whileFFDM is undoubtedly key to enabling people and commu-nities to adapt to change and uncertainty what it translatesinto in practice in terms of defining development interven-tions will be different from one location to the next oracross different scales The factors that promote FFDM inthe context of a local government in Uganda whoseprimary aim may be to prepare for increasingly variablerainfall owing to climate change will be different tothose that help a farmerrsquos collective in rural India anticipateand buffer seasonal food price shocks Operationalizationof each of the five characteristics needed to be workedout by ACCRArsquos NGO partners in each context based onthe insights gained from the research and ongoing learningand reflection in each of the countries and the ACCRA pro-gramme as a whole

Key to this was bringing together a wider range of sta-keholders (whether researchers development practitionersgovernment or local communities) to discuss how each

element of the LAC can be applied in their context givenexisting needs capacities and resources Experience fromACCRArsquos NGO partners demonstrates that interactiveand two-way processes of social learning and stakeholderengagement (such as participatory scenario planninglsquoserious gamesrsquo and role play) can prove to be far moreeffective than top down forms of knowledge exchange incontextualizing and operationalizing conceptual andnovel ideas that support adaptive capacity (ArmitageBerkes Dale Kocho-Schellenberg amp Patton 2011 Joneset al 2014 Lemos Kirchhoff amp Ramprasad 2012) TheLAC framework is most effectively used as a tool forguiding and facilitating multi-stakeholder discussions andcan help to identify the broader types of actions that maybe required to support adaptive capacity thorough pro-cesses of local engagement and embeddedness withinlocal institutional and political contexts

5 Future directions for conceptualizing adaptivecapacity and the application of the LAC

From the outset a decision by ACCRA alliance partnerswas taken not to use the LAC framework as a means ofquantifying the adaptive capacity of households and com-munities during the programmersquos research activitiesOthers have however used it to inform their measurementefforts for example Oxfam GB in its work on measuringresilience (Hughes amp Bushell 2013) Given that many ofthe processes identified in the framework are relativelyintangible and difficult to reduce into quantifiable variablesqualitative methods were preferred at the time Since theLACrsquos formulation however there has been considerablepressure to develop robust methods for measuring qualitiessuch as resilience and adaptive capacity ndash particularly inlight of prominence given to resilience in the SustainableDevelopment Goals Much of this can be ascribed togrowing pressure from donors to demonstrate the impactof development interventions and showcase value formoney in their activities (Constas Frankenberger amp Hod-dinott 2014)

With this in mind provided that adequate methods forevaluating many of the process-based elements of theLAC can be identified there should not be any large impe-diments to the application of the LAC as a tool for quanti-fication Yet while a number of recent advances have beenmade in the design of research tools for evaluating softerelements of adaptive capacity (Frank Eakin amp Lopez-Carr 2011 Nguyen amp James 2013) and subjective resili-ence (Jones amp Tanner 2015 Marshall 2010) to date theauthors do not see evidence for suitably robust approachesthat lend themselves to adequately quantify the five charac-teristics of adaptive capacity ndash either individually or incombination Further methodological challenges relate tothe ability of measurement tools to adequately accountfor the contextual elements of adaptive capacity as well

10 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

as how to robustly weight each of the five characteristics ofadaptive capacity Each of these challenges will requirefurther testing research and innovation in order to act asa reliable and holistic measurement tool

A further area for development relates to conceptualclarity between adaptive capacity and resilience If adaptivecapacity is to be seen as a core process that sits within thewider resilience of a system then clarifying its relation-ships with other related processes such as transformationalcapacity and coping capacity will be key to providing prac-tical guidance for applying the LAC Furthermore morecan be done to establish the conceptual nature of adaptivecapacity in contexts outside of those applied in ACCRArsquostwo phases of research For example are the five character-istics equally apparent in a developed country context Arethere elements that are unique to Asian and Latin Americancontexts Moreover as the LAC has predominantly beenapplied in rural areas to date little is known as towhether the same characteristics or cross-cutting themesoperate similarly in urban regions Gaining insights intothese questions will be of considerable relevance to theutility and expansion of the LAC going forward

6 Conclusions

In developing its own framework the ACCRA alliance isin part culpable of contributing to the growing number offrameworks for conceptualizing resilience or adaptivecapacity However experiences from the frameworkrsquosapplication in the pilot countries and its subsequent popu-larity and adoption by other external initiatives suggeststhat there may be merit in a process-orientated frameworkfor assessing adaptive capacity Despite efforts to ensuresimplicity of use and draw on familiar concepts consider-able challenges were faced as researchers and practitionersdid not necessarily share the same understanding of termi-nology or concepts as the designers of the LAC frameworkSuccessful uptake of the framework is therefore largelydependent on the promotion of dialogue and learningprocess amongst all stakeholders in discussing the specificmanifestations of the five characteristics of adaptivecapacity and how they can be tailored to the local context

One benefit of the LAC comes from its flexibility Thisenables the framework to not only be used for evaluativeresearch but facilitate multi-stakeholder discussions thatsupport the development of context specific solutionsThe mutual collaboration of researchers and practitionersis critical to this Whilst researchers are situated at aslight distance to programmatic work they are able toprovide the necessary rigour and clarity to conceptualizea holistic approach to adaptive capacity Equally prac-titioners are embedded in local relationships and politicalprocesses and are able to facilitate its understanding anduptake into national planning processes Each stakeholderhas a lot to bring to the table Above all the frameworkrsquos

future success is likely to be dependent on the ability ofothers to tailor it towards their specific needs This couldbe through providing further clarity on the five character-istics or through embedding aspects of the frameworkinto other conceptualizations of adaptive capacity andresilience

Disclosure statementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors

ReferencesAdger N Agrawala S amp Mirza M M Q (2007) Assessment

of adaptation practices options constraints and capacityClimate change 2007 Impacts adaptation and vulnerabilityContribution of working group II to the fourth assessmentreport of the intergovernmental panel on climate changeGeneva Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Adger W N amp Vincent K (2005) Uncertainty in adaptivecapacity Comptes Rendus Geoscience 337(4) 399ndash410

Adger W N (2003) Social capital collective action and adap-tation to climate change Economic geography 79(4) 387ndash404

Africa Climate Change Resilience Alliance (2010) Consultationdocument The ACCRA Local Adaptive Capacity framework(LAC) Uganda Kampala

Agard J Schipper E L Birkman J Campos M Dubeux CNojiri Y hellip Bilir T E (2014a) IPCC WGII Glossary InBarros V R Field C B Dokken D J Mastrandrea MD Mach K J T E Bilir hellipL L White (Eds) ClimateChange 2014 Impacts adaptation and vulnerability PartB Regional aspects Contribution of working group II tothe fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panelon climate change (pp 1ndash30) Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Agard J Schipper E L F Birkmann J Campos M DubeuxC Nojiri Yhellip Bilir T (2014b)Glossary IPCC fifth assess-ment report Geneva Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange (IPCC)

Agrawal A (2010) Local institutions and adaptation to climatechange Social dimensions of climate change Equity and vul-nerability in a warming world (pp 173ndash198) WashingtonDC World Bank

Aldunce P Beilin R Handmer J amp Howden M (2014)Framing disaster resilience The implications of the diverseconceptualisations of lsquobouncing backrsquo Disaster Preventionand Management An International Journal 23(3) 252ndash270

Aldunce P Beilin R Howden M amp Handmer J (2015)Resilience for disaster risk management in a changingclimate Practitionersrsquo frames and practices GlobalEnvironmental Change 30 1ndash11

Alexander D E (2013) Resilience and disaster risk reductionAn etymological journey Natural Hazards and EarthSystem Science 13(11) 2707ndash2716

Armitage D Berkes F Dale A Kocho-Schellenberg E ampPatton E (2011) Co-management and the co-production ofknowledge Learning to adapt in Canadarsquos Arctic GlobalEnvironmental Change 21(3) 995ndash1004

Ashley L Zhumanova M Isaeva A amp Dear C (2016)Examining changes in local adaptive capacity resultingfrom climate change adaptation programming in ruralKyrgyzstan Climate and Development 8(3) 281ndash287

Climate and Development 11

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

Ayers J M amp Huq S (2009) Supporting adaptation to climatechange What role for official development assistanceDevelopment Policy Review 6 675ndash692

Bahadur A amp Pichon (2016) Analysis of resilience measure-ment frameworks and approaches London OverseasDevelopment Institute Retrieved from httpwwwpreventionwebnetpublicationsview52589

Baumann P amp Sinha S (2001) Linking development with demo-cratic processes in India Political capital and sustainablelivelihoods analysis London Overseas DevelopmentInstitute

Berkes F (2009) Evolution of co-management Role of knowl-edge generation bridging organizations and social learningJournal of Environmental Management 90(5) 1692ndash1702

Berman R Quinn C amp Paavola J (2012) The role of insti-tutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainableadaptive capacity Environmental Development 2 86ndash100

Beacuteneacute C Wood R G Newsham A amp Davies M (2012)Resilience New utopia or new tyranny Reflection aboutthe potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relationto vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers2012(405) 1ndash61

Brand F S amp Jax K (2007) Focusing the meaning(s) of resili-ence Resilience as a descriptive concept and a boundaryobject Ecology and Society 12(1) 23

Brooks N Adger W N amp Kelly P M (2005) The determi-nants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the nationallevel and the implications for adaptation GlobalEnvironmental Change 15(2) 151ndash163

Brooks N (2003) Vulnerability risk and adaptation A concep-tual framework Tyndall Centre for Climate ChangeResearch Working Paper 38 1ndash16

Bryan E Deressa T T Gbetibouo G A amp Ringler C (2009)Adaptation to climate change in Ethiopia and South AfricaOptions and constraints Environmental science amp policy12(4) 413ndash426

Constas M Frankenberger T amp Hoddinott J (2014)Resilience measurement principles Toward an agenda formeasurement design Rome Food Security InformationNetwork (FSIN)

Cornell S Berkhout F Tuinstra W Tagravebara J D Jaumlger JChabay Ihellip van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowl-edge systems for better responses to global environmentalchange Environmental Science amp Policy 28 60ndash70

Cutter S L Barnes L Berry M Burton C Evans E Tate Eamp Webb J (2008) A place-based model for understandingcommunity resilience to natural disasters GlobalEnvironmental Change 18(4) 598ndash606

Davoudi S Shaw K Haider L J Quinlan A E Peterson GD Wilkinson ChellipDavoudi S (2012) Resilience A brid-ging concept or a dead End lsquoReframingrsquo resilienceChallenges for planning theory and practice interactingtraps Resilience assessment of a pasture managementsystem in Northern Afghanistan urban resilience What doesit mean in planning practice Resilience as a useful conceptfor climate change adaptation The politics of resilience forplanning A cautionary note Planning Theory amp Practice13(2) 299ndash333

Daze A Amborse K amp Ehrhart C (2009) Climate vulner-ability and capacity analysis care international LondonhttpwwwcareclimatechangeorgcvcaCARE_CVCAHandbookpdf

DFID (2011) Defining disaster resilience A DFID approachpaper London UK Department for InternationalDevelopment

Eriksen S H Brown K amp Kelly P M (2005) The dynamics ofvulnerability Locating coping strategies in Kenya andTanzania The Geographical Journal 171 287ndash305

Eriksen S H amp Kelly P M (2007) Developing credible vulner-ability indicators for climate adaptation policy assessmentMitigation and adaptation strategies for global change 12(4) 495ndash524

Folke C (2006) Resilience The emergence of a perspective forsocialndashecological systems analyses Global EnvironmentalChange 16(3) 253ndash267

Folke C Carpenter S Elmqvist T Gunderson L Holling CS amp Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable develop-ment Building adaptive capacity in a world of transform-ations AMBIO A Journal of the Human Environment 31(5) 437ndash440

Folkema J Ibrahim M amp Wilkinson E (2013) World visionrsquosresilience programming adding value to development(Working Paper) London ODI

Frank E Eakin H amp Lopez-Carr D (2011) Social identityperception and motivation in adaptation to climate risk inthe coffee sector of Chiapas Mexico Global EnvironmentalChange 21(1) 66ndash76

Frank J amp Penrose Buckley C (2012) Small-scale farmers andclimate change How can farmer organisations and Fairtradebuild the adaptive capacity of smallholders London IIED

Frankhauser S amp Tol R S J (1997) The social costs of climatechange The IPCC second assessment report and beyondMitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 1385ndash403

Gallopiacuten G C (2006) Linkages between vulnerability resili-ence and adaptive capacity Global Environmental Change16(3) 293ndash303

Gitay H Bettencourt S Kull D Reid R McCall KSimpson A hellip Wielinga D (2013) Building resilienceIntegrating climate and disaster risk into development ndashlessons from World Bank Group experience WashingtonDC World Bank

Grothmann T amp Patt A (2005) Adaptive capacity and humancognition The process of individual adaptation to climatechange Global Environmental Change 15(3) 199ndash213

Gupta J Termeer C Klostermann J Meijerink S van denBrink M Jong PhellipBergsma E (2010) The adaptivecapacity wheel A method to assess the inherent character-istics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity ofsociety Environmental Science amp Policy 13(6) 459ndash471

Hodgson G (2006) What are institutions Journal of EconomicIssues 40(1) 1ndash25

Hughes K amp Bushell H (2013) A multidimensional approachto measuring resilience Oxford Oxfam Retrieved fromhttppolicy-practiceoxfamorgukpublicationsa-multidimensional-approach-to-measuring-resilience-302641

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Glossary ofterms In J J McCarthy O F Canziani N A LearyD J Dokken amp K S White (Eds) Climate change 2001Impacts adaptation and vulnerability CambridgeCambridge University Press

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Appendix IGlossary In M L Parry O F Canziani J P Palutikof P Jvan der Linden amp C E Hanson (Eds) Climate change 2007Impacts adaptation and vulnerability contribution ofworking group II to the fourth assessment report of theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp 869ndash883)Cambridge Cambridge University Press

Jones L Ludi E Carabine E amp Grist N (2014) Planning foran uncertain future London Overseas Development Institute

12 L Jones et al

Jones L Ludi E amp Levine S (2010) Towards a characteris-ation of adaptive capacity A framework for analysing adap-tive capacity at the local level London OverseasDevelopment Institute

Jones L amp Tanner T (2015) Measuring lsquosubjective resiliencersquoUsing peoplersquos perceptions to quantify household resilienceLondon Overseas Development Institute

Lemos M C Kirchhoff C J amp Ramprasad V (2012)Narrowing the climate information usability gap NatureClimate Change 2(11) 789ndash794

Levine S Ludi E amp Jones L (2011) Rethinking support foradaptive capacity to climate change The role of developmentinterventions London Overseas Development Institute

Levine S (2014) Assessing resilience Why quantification missesthe point London Overseas Development Institute

Ludi E Jones L amp Levine S (2012) Changing focus How tostart taking adaptive capacity seriously London OverseasDevelopment Institute

Marshall N A (2010) Understanding social resilience to climatevariability in primary enterprises and industries GlobalEnvironmental Change 20(1) 36ndash43

Miller F Osbahr H Boyd E Thomalla F Bharwani SZiervogel GhellipNelson D (2010) Resilience and vulner-ability Complementary or conflicting concepts Ecologyand Society 15(3) 11 [Online] Retrieved from httpwwwecologyandsocietyorgvol15iss3art11

Mitchell A (2013) Risk and resilience From good idea to goodpractice (No 13) Paris OECD

Nelson D R Adger W N amp Brown K (2007) Adaptation toenvironmental changeContributions of a resilience frameworkAnnual Review of Environment and Resources 32(1) 395

Nguyen K V amp James H J (2013) Measuring household resi-lience to floods A case study in the Vietnamese Mekong riverdelta Ecology and Society 18(3) 13

North D C (1994 June) Economic performance through timeAmerican Economic Review 84(3) 359ndash367

Nussbaum M C (2000) Women and human development Thecapabilities approach Cambridge CambridgeUniversity Press

Olsson L Jerneck A Thoren H Persson J amp OrsquoByrne D(2015) Why resilience is unappealing to social scienceTheoretical and empirical investigations of the scientific useof resilience Science Advances 1(4) e1400217

Ospina A amp Heeks R (2010) Linking ICTs and climate changeadaptation Manchester University of Manchester

Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity (Vol241) New Jersey Princeton University Press

Pahl-Wostl C (2009) A conceptual framework for analysingadaptive capacity and multi-level learning processes inresource governance regimes Global EnvironmentalChange 19(3) 354ndash365

Pahl-Wostl C Craps M Dewulf A Mostert E Tabara D ampTaillieu T (2007) Social learning and water resources man-agement Ecology and Society 12(2) 5

Pelling M High C Dearing J amp Smith D (2008) Shadowspaces for social learning A relational understanding of adap-tive capacity to climate change within organisationsEnvironment and Planning A 40(4) 867ndash884

Polasky S Carpenter S R Folke C amp Keeler B (2011)Decision-making under great uncertainty Environmentalmanagement in an era of global change Trends in Ecologyamp Evolution 26(8) 398ndash404

Rodima-Taylor D Olwig M F amp Chhetri N (2012)Adaptation as innovation innovation as adaptation An insti-tutional approach to climate change Applied Geography 33107ndash111

Schipper E L F amp Langston L (2015) A comparative over-view of resilience measurement frameworks Analysing indi-cators and approaches ODI Working Paper 422 LondonOverseas Development Institute

Schipper L amp Pelling M (2006) Disaster risk climate changeand international development Scope for and challenges tointegration Disasters 30(1) 19ndash38

Sen A (1985) Commodities and capabilities Oxford OxfordUniversity Press

Sen A (1999) Development as freedom New York NY KnopfSmith J B Klein R J T amp Huq S (2003) Climate change

adaptive capacity and development London ImperialCollege Press

Tschakert P amp Dietrich K A (2010) Anticipatory learning forclimate change adaptation and resilience Ecology andSociety 15(2) 11

Tschakert P Oort van B St Clair A L amp LaMadrid A(2013) Inequality and transformation analyses A comp-lementary lens for addressing vulnerability to climatechange Climate and Development 5(4) 340ndash350

Vincent K (2007) Uncertainty in adaptive capacity and theimportance of scale Global Environmental Change 17(1)12ndash24

Williams C Fenton A amp Huq S (2015) Knowledge and adap-tive capacity Nature Climate Change 5(2) 82ndash83

Wongtschowski M Verburg M amp Waters-Bayer A (2009)Strengthening local adaptive capacities The role of localinnovation in supporting climate-change adaptation (ppclimatendashchange) Prolinnova httpwwwprolinnovanetDownloadable_files07323720Prolinnova20working20paper20on20Climate20Change20100209pdf

World Bank (2013) Building resilience Integrating climate anddisaster risk into development ndash lessons from world bankgroup experience Washington DC Author

World Resources Institute (2009) lsquoThe national adaptivecapacity framework Pilot draftrsquo Washington DCAuthor

Yohe G amp Tol R S (2002) Indicators for social and economiccoping capacitymdashmoving toward a working definition ofadaptive capacity Global Environmental Change 12(1)25ndash40

Climate and Development 13