Abstract. Several case studies show that "soft social factors" (e.g. institutions, perceptions, social capital) strongly affect social capacities to adapt to climate change. Many soft social factors can probably be changed faster than "hard social factors" (e.g. economic and technological development) and are therefore particularly important for building social capacities. However, there are almost no methodologies for the systematic assessment of soft social factors. Gupta et al. (2010) have developed the Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) for assessing the adaptive capacity of institutions. The ACW differentiates 22 criteria to assess six dimensions: variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous change, leadership, availability of resources, fair governance. To include important psychological factors we extended the ACW by two dimensions: "adaptation motivation" refers to actors' motivation to realise, support and/or promote adaptation to climate. "Adaptation belief" refers to actors' perceptions of realisability and effectiveness of adaptation measures. We applied the extended ACW to assess adaptive capacities of four sectors – water management, flood/coastal protection, civil protection and regional planning – in North Western Germany. The assessments of adaptation motivation and belief provided a clear added value. The results also revealed some methodological problems in applying the ACW (e.g. overlap of dimensions), for which we propose methodological solutions.

Abstract. Several case studies show that social factors like institutions, perceptions and social capital strongly affect social capacities to adapt to climate change. Together with economic and technological development they are important for building social capacities.However, there are almost no methodologies for the systematic assessment of social factors. After reviewing existing methodologies we identify the Adaptive Capacity Wheel (ACW) by Gupta et al. (2010), developed for assessing the adaptive capacity of institutions, as the most comprehensive and operationalised framework to assess social factors. The ACW differentiates 22 criteria to assess 6 dimensions: variety, learning capacity, room for autonomous change, leadership, availability of resources, fair governance.To include important psychological factors we extended the ACW by two dimensions: "adaptation motivation" refers to actors' motivation to realise, support and/or promote adaptation to climate; "adaptation belief" refers to actors' perceptions of realisability and effectiveness of adaptation measures.We applied the extended ACW to assess adaptive capacities of four sectors -water management, flood/coastal protection, civil protection and regional planning -in northwestern Germany. The assessments of adaptation motivation and belief provided a clear added value. The results also revealed some methodological problems in applying the ACW (e.g. overlap of dimensions), for which we propose methodological solutions.

Attention is increasing in academia towards the governance of adaptation, specifically how state and non-state actors are defining the adaptation ‘problematique’ and crafting public policies to address it. Adaptation is the ‘adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities’. The challenge for governments is taking this rather vague concept and turning it into viable and implementable public policies. This implies that they have to make choices as to the types of polices to create, the sectors they should cover, ministerial jurisdictions and funding. This article contributes to the discussion on the adaptation governance by presenting a conceptual framework that outlines policy choices governors need to make, by applying this framework to a number of countries, and starting the debate on which choice or choices were particularly instrumental in shaping adaptation policy in particular countries as a whole. It focuses on four countries traditionally seen to be adaptation leaders: Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom.

No abstract

Klimaanpassung ist eine komplexe Herausforderung für die Gesellschaft und ihre Akteure. Mit Nach haltigkeit soll „(…) etwas bewahrt werden zum Wohl der zukünftigen Generationen“, so Bernd Klauer. Gleiches gilt für die Anpassung an den Klimawandel und trotz dieser ähnlichen Ziele wird bisher in diesem Rahmen zu wenig auf Nachhaltigkeit geachtet.