Applying a capitals framework to measuring coping and adaptive capacity in integrated assessment models

Abstract

In Integrated Assessment modelling of climate change impacts and adaptation, there are two main uses for measures of capacity to adapt to climate change. The first is to represent the capacity for proactive adaptation: this can be termed adaptive capacity. The second is to represent the capacity for reactive or instantaneous coping: this can be termed coping capacity. Adaptive capacity helps to determine which proactive adaptation options are feasible as inputs to the models under any given pair of climate and socioeconomic scenarios. Coping capacity represents the residual ability to react to conditions, and influences vulnerability under any given set of model outputs. Using the example of the CLIMSAVE Integrated Assessment Platform, we explain how these capacities can be represented in integrated assessment. We demonstrate how an index of adaptive and coping capacity can be developed using a five-capitals (human, social, manufactured, natural, financial) model of societal wealth and incorporated in integrated assessment models. We find that for very aggregate applications, but not local or sectoral applications, the same indicators can be used to simulate adaptive and coping capacity. In addition, we argue that it is generally unnecessary to account for the depletion of capacity through adaptation itself, and that natural capital can generally be omitted from capacity measures if it is already directly represented in model outputs.

The relative importance of subjective and structural factors for individual adaptation to climate change by forest owners in Sweden

“…Much of the contemporary scientific literature about climate change adaptation focuses on structural factors that determine the capacity of society and its institutions to adapt to climate change impacts (Brooks et al 2005;Füssel and Klein 2006;Tinch et al 2015). These studies examine the availability and accessibility of certain economic and political resources to explain whether, how and why adaptation takes place.…”

Developing an Instrument to Measure Autonomous Adaptive Capacity to Climate Change among Urban Households

“…We relied on previous studies (Table 1) and analytical techniques (see Data Analysis section) to evaluate whether four separate capitals were measured in the instrument. Natural capital is a traditional component of the rural livelihoods framework, because local natural resources often provide crucial support for rural households especially in times of stress (Twine Brown et al (2010), Ellis (2000), and Tinch et al (2015).…”

“…Questions also focused on market confidence (Ellis, 2000;Gasper et al, 2011) and monetary savings and assets (IPCC, 2001;Tinch et al, 2015). Lastly, financial capital questions focused on the respondent's assessment of their ability to secure, maintain, and utilize different financial assets (Ellis, 2000;Brown et al, 2010).…”

“…These attributes of adaptive capacity are included in the five capitals that comprise the rural livelihoods framework used by researchers to capture the combination of resources utilized to reduce vulnerability (Farrington et al, 1999;Hammill et al, 2005;Park et al, 2012). Economic resources are considered financial capital; technology and infrastructure are products of economic activity and are considered physical capital; institutions and equity are considered social capital; and information and skills that contribute to well-being and productivity are attributes of human capital (Ellis, 2000;Brown et al, 2010;Tinch et al, 2015). This instrument for assessing autonomous adaptation of households, with further refinement and testing, may be used in urban areas to evaluate programs designed to impact resilience to climate change.…”

Developing adaptive capacity in times of climate change in central rural Vietnam: exploring smallholders’ learning and governance

“…Most of the existing capacity frameworks and approaches used to study adaptive capacity focus on the five livelihood capacities (human, social, financial, physical, and natural capital) (see for instance : Jones et al, 2010;Tinch et al, 2015;Warrick et al, 2017), or on other capacities to reduce vulnerability or increase resilience of individuals and the community (Engle, 2011;Gallopín, 2006;Smit & Wandel, 2006). However, these frameworks have concentrated on generic capacities, while in the context of climate change adaptation, the specific capacities are also important but are poorly understood (Eakin et al, 2014).…”