Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-19T12:42:58.069Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Assessing the Adaptive Capacity of Collaborative Governance Institutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2021

By
Pedro Fidelman
Edited by
Riyanti Djalante  and
Bernd Siebenhüner
Riyanti Djalante
Affiliation:
United Nations University, Tokyo
Bernd Siebenhüner
Affiliation:
Carl V. Ossietzky Universität Oldenburg, Germany
Get access

Summary

This chapter presents an approach to assess the adaptive capacity of collaborative governance institutions. The approach links institutions and attributes believed to support societies in responding to social-ecological change. The application of such an approach to empirical studies demonstrates how adaptive capacity can be assessed and compared in a systematic fashion. It also sheds light on how different political, economic, and social factors enable or constrain adaptive capacity. By investigating the complex and interrelated nature of institutions and interdependence of adaptive capacity attributes, the chapter offers insights into the kinds of governance qualities that are conducive to adaptive capacity. Further, it underscores the role of contextual factors and power relations in shaping adaptive capacity and points out the need to consider such roles in future adaptive capacity assessments.

Keywords

adaptive capacitycollaborative governanceinstitutional analysisIAD frameworkcoastal resourcesmarine conservationAsia-Pacific
Type
Chapter
Information
Adaptiveness: Changing Earth System Governance , pp. 69 - 82
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adger, N.W., Arnell, N.W., & Tompkins, E.L. (2005). Successful adaptation to climate change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15, 77–86.Google Scholar
Agrawal, A. (2008). The Role of Local Institutions in Livelihoods Adaptation to Climate Change. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergsma, E., Gupta, J., & Jong, P. (2012). Does individual responsibility increase the adaptive capacity of society? The case of local water management in the Netherlands. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 64, 13–22.Google Scholar
Biermann, F., Betsill, M.M., Gupta, J. et al. (2009). Earth System Governance: People, Places, and the Planet. Science Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Bonn: International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change.Google Scholar
Carlsson, L. & Berkes, F. (2005). Co-management: concepts and methodological implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 75, 65–76.Google Scholar
Clement, F. (2010). Analysing decentralised natural resource governance: proposition for a ‘politicised’ institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Sciences, 43, 129–56.Google Scholar
Clement, F. (2012). For critical social-ecological system studies: integrating power and discourses to move beyond the right institutional fit. Environmental Conservation, 40, 1–4.Google Scholar
Eakin, H.C., Lemos, M.C., & Nelson, D.R. (2014). Differentiating capacities as a means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change, 27, 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earth System Governance (ESG) Project (2018). Earth System Governance: Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Utrecht: Earth System Governance Project.Google Scholar
Engle, N.L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental Change, 21, 647–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engle, N.L. & Lemos, M.C. (2010). Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 20, 4–13.Google Scholar
Fidelman, P. (2019). Climate change in the Coral Triangle: enabling institutional adaptive capacity. In Harris, P., ed., Ocean Governance and Climate Change: Politics and Policy for Threatened Seas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 274–89.Google Scholar
Fidelman, P., Evans, L., Fabinyi, M. et al. (2012). Governing large-scale marine commons: contextual challenges in the Coral Triangle. Marine Policy, 36, 42–53.Google Scholar
Fidelman, P., Truong van, T., Nong, K., & Nursey-Bray, M. (2017). The institutions–adaptive capacity nexus: insights from coastal resources co-management in Cambodia and Vietnam. Environmental Science & Policy, 76, 103–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grecksch, K. (2014). Adaptive capacity and regional water governance in north-western Germany. Water Policy, 15, 794–815.Google Scholar
Grothmann, T., Grecksch, K., Winges, M., & Siebenhüner, B. (2013). Assessing institutional capacities to adapt to climate change: integrating psychological dimensions in the Adaptive Capacity Wheel. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences, 13, 3369–84.Google Scholar
Gupta, J., Bergsma, E., Termeer, C. et al. (2016). The adaptive capacity of institutions in the spatial planning, water, agriculture and nature sectors in the Netherlands. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change, 21, 883–903.Google Scholar
Gupta, J., Termeer, C., Klotermann, J. et al. (2010). The Adaptive Capacity Wheel: a method to assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive capacity of society. Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 459–71.Google Scholar
Kashwan, P. (2016). Integrating power in institutional analysis: a micro-foundation perspective. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 28, 5–26.Google Scholar
Mcguinnis, M. (2011). An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop: a simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 169–83.Google Scholar
Mandryk, M., Reidsma, P., Kartikasari, K., van Ittersum, M., & Arts, B. (2015). Institutional constraints for adaptive capacity to climate change in Flevoland’s agriculture. Environmental Science & Policy, 48, 148–62.Google Scholar
Marschke, M. (2012). Life, Fish and Mangroves: Resource Governance in Coastal Cambodia. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.Google Scholar
Marschke, M. & Nong, K. (2003). Adaptive co-management: lessons from coastal Cambodia. Canadian Journal of Development Studies/Revue Canadienne d’études du Développement, 24, 369–83.Google Scholar
Munaretto, S. & Klostermann, J. (2011). Assessing adaptive capacity of institutions to climate change: a comparative case study of the Dutch Wadden Sea and the Venice Lagoon Climate Law, 2, 219–50.Google Scholar
Nelson, D.R., Adger, N.W., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32, 395–419.Google Scholar
Nightingale, A. (2017). Power and politics in climate change adaptation efforts: struggles over authority and recognition in the context of political instability. Geoforum, 84, 11–20.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2007). A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 104, 15181–7.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39, 7–27.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. & Cox, M. (2010). Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environmental Conservation, 37, 451–63.Google Scholar
Ostrom, E. & Crawford, S. (2005). Classifying rules. In Ostrom, E., ed., Understanding Institutional Diversity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 186–215.Google Scholar
Plummer, R. & Armitage, D. (2007). Crossing boundaries, crossing scales: the evolution of environment and resource co-management. Geography Compass, 1, 834–49.Google Scholar
Rosen, F. & Olsson, P. (2013). Institutional entrepreneurs, global networks, and the emergence of international institutions for ecosystem-based management: the Coral Triangle Initiative. Marine Policy, 38, 195–204.Google Scholar
Termeer, C., Biesbroek, R., & van den Brink, M. (2011). Institutions for adaptation to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. European Political Science, 1, 1–13.Google Scholar
Participatory Management of Coastal Resources Project. (2008). Learning for Change: Ten Years of Experience on Community-Based Coastal Resource Management and Livelihood Improvement in Koh Kong, Cambodia. Phnom Penh: Ministry of Environment.Google Scholar
Worldfish Centre/USAID. (2010). The US Coral Triangle Initiative (CTI) Support Program: Midterm Program Performance Evaluation Report. Penang: WorldFish Center (WorldFish) and United States Agency for International Development (USAID).Google Scholar
Tuyen, T.V. (2002). Dynamics of property rights in the Tam Giang Lagoon. In Brezeski, V.J. & Newkirk, G.F., eds., Lessons in Resource Management from the Tam Giang Lagoon. Halifax: CoRR, CIDA, and IDRC, 39–52.Google Scholar
Tuyen, T.V., Armitage, D., & Marschke, M. (2010). Livelihoods and co-management in the Tam Giang lagoon, Vietnam. Ocean & Coastal Management, 53, 327–35.Google Scholar
van den Brink, M., Meijerink, S., Termeer, C., & Gupta, J. (2014). Climate-proof planning for flood-prone areas: assessing adaptive capacity of planning institutions in the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change, 14, 981–95.Google Scholar
van den Brink, M., Termeer, C., & Meijerink, S. (2011). Are Dutch water safety institutions prepared for climate change? Journal of Water and Climate Change, 2, 272–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Heland, F., Crona, B., & Fidelman, P. (2014). Mediating science and action across multiple boundaries in the Coral Triangle. Global Environmental Change, 29, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, O.R. (2002). The Institutional Dimensions of Global Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay and Scale. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×