THE ROLE OF SOCIAL CAPITAL IN BUILDING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY TO
CLIMATE CHANGE.
Alla Berberyan
Aygestan 7th Str, 1st b, 47 apt, Yerevan, 0070, Armenia
Phone: +37491638571
E-mail: alla.berberyan@gmail.com
ABSTRACT. Climate change impacts continue to exacerbate the situation of the world’s vulnerable
populations mostly belonging in low- and middle-income countries, mainly due to scarcity of resources and low
adaptive capacity of those countries and their vulnerable groups, particularly the urban poor (Satterthwaite, 2011).
In recent years community-based adaptation (CBA) has risen in popularity to compete with the failing top-down
approaches to the needs of vulnerable communities (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009). This article shows that social
capital (both horizontal and vertical) is a vital resource for shaping the adaptive capacity of communities to
climate change. Social relationships based on reciprocity, trust and cooperation form the core of social capital.
Self-organizing communities that effectively use their social capital become more sustainable, effective, and
resilient than those with adaptation mechanisms designed and imposed by external entities. This article presents
case studies from East Africa and Vietnam where social capital is central to building the adaptive capacity to
climate change.
Keywords: Social Capital, Climate Change, Community-Based Adaptation.
Introduction
It has been widely recognized that climate change is one of the most serious challenges facing humanity
today. Despite this broad recognition the severe impacts of climate change continue to exacerbate the
situation of the world’s vulnerable populations. The largest share of vulnerable population groups belongs
in low-income and middle-income countries, mainly due to the profound lack of resources and low
adaptive capacity of the countries as a whole and the vulnerable population groups, in particular (Dodman
and Mitlin, 2011).
Today more than half of the world’s population lives in urban settings. Large cities of low- and middleincome countries contain a large proportion of people that are most at risk for climate change impacts.
The continuing urbanization exhausts the carrying capacity of urban settlements in terms of availability
and distribution of vital resources such as infrastructure, housing, healthcare, and others. This situation is
further exacerbated by climate change and ever-increasing exposures of the urban populations,
particularly the urban poor, to a variety of hazards. Thus, the risks posed by climate change upon the most
vulnerable urban settlements in low- and middle-income countries deserve attention (Satterthwaite, 2011).
Since the concept of adaptation came to the international policy agenda two decades ago, communitybased adaptation (CBA) has been among the most popular approaches (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009). Its
emergence is often seen as a response to the failure of top-down approaches to the needs of vulnerable
communities (Dodman and Mitlin, 2011). The importance of considering the local knowledge and
community experience in the development of climate change adaptation strategies and respective policymaking is often stressed in climate change discourse. However, in doing so it is vital to identify and
exploit the right resources that can help communities to self-organize, build their adaptive capacity,
enhance resilience and security, and make themselves properly heard to gain external support and
establish partnerships with public authorities and organizations.
Moser et al. (2010) mention that the amount and diversity of assets in the community’s possession
determine the degree of vulnerability or resilience to climate change. An asset is defined as a “stock of
financial, human, natural or social resources that can be acquired, developed, improved and transferred
across generations. It generates flows or consumption, as well as additional stock” (Moser, et al., 2010, p.
60). Larger amounts and diversity of assets increase the resilience of the communities to climate change.
In the climate change asset adaptation framework, Moser, et al. (2010) mentions the following classes of
capital assets of communities, households, and individuals: physical capital, financial capital, human
capital, social capital, and natural capital.
This paper focuses on the social capital asset and is aimed at demonstrating that social capital is a vital
resource with an important role in shaping the adaptive capacity of the communities to climate change.
The first part of the paper provides a general review of the concept of “social capital” and discusses it in
relation to the adaptive capacity. The second part of the essay offers examples of social capital’s role in
building the adaptive capacity of communities in the face of climate change impacts. Besides discussing
the social capital in the framework of community-based adaptation to climate change, the paper also
recognizes the synergetic or networking social capital that assures collaboration between communities,
and other entities.
1
Building a Rationale for Social Capital to Shape Adaptive Capacity
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as part of its mission, assesses the possible
options for adapting to the consequences of climate change or mitigating its effects. The IPCC Fourth
Assessment Report (2007) gives the following definition for adaptation: “adjustment in natural or
human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates
harm or exploits beneficial opportunities”. Adaptive capacity is a necessary condition for planning and
implementing effective adaptation strategies in order to decrease the negative impacts of climate change
(IPCC, 2007). The report gives the following definition for adaptive capacity: “the ability or potential of a
system to respond successfully to climate variability and change.”
“Adaptation can considerably reduce many potentially dangerous impacts of climate change and the risk
of many key vulnerabilities" (IPCC, Chapter 19, 2007). However, in many regions of the world,
particularly in low and middle-income countries adaptive capacity is limited by weak technical, financial,
institutional mechanisms and resource base, poor infrastructure, inadequate housing, and poor
governance. This largely hinders the implementation of effective adaptation (Kithiia, 2010; IPCC,
Chapter 19, 2007). In addition, the development and adaptation needs are often considered by national or
municipal planning authorities in separation from each other. In reality, development problems often
overlap with those that increase the vulnerability of people to climate change. A more developmentfocused approach to adaptation calls for the synergy of these needs (Kithiia, 2010; Ayers and Forsyth,
2009). As mentioned by Ayers and Forsyth (2009), the approach of adaptation as development is reflected
in community-based adaptation.
It is the inherent capacity of the communities to adapt to climate change; individuals and communities
have been able to adapt throughout history (Adger, 2003). The community action, however, is limited as
it lacks financial resources and organization to create or operate large-scale infrastructure and services,
nor can it develop or enforce building codes or land use regulations (Satterthwaite, 2010). Thus, it
becomes important to explore what enhances the inherent adaptive capacity of communities and how this
capacity could be improved and strengthened until it is able to achieve additional external support.
Adger (2003) argues that this inherent capacity to adapt is interlinked with the ability to act in a collective
way. Environmental management has witnessed numerous examples of collective resource management
for the common good. Central to such management of resources and collective action have been the social
relationships, the networking, the information exchange as well as “social learning”, i.e., building
knowledge and skills for eco-system management and for developing adaptive expertise (Adger, 2003;
Folke, et al., 2005). This form of common decision-making and networks used for the collective good
has thus been recognized as an asset and has been named as “social capital” (Adger, 2003; Moser, et al.,
2010).
Over the recent twenty-five years, the concept of “social capital” has gained a large momentum among
scientists and practitioners of social science disciplines (Brunie, 2009). The multiplicity of definitions for
social capital, and the pluralism of interpretations and approaches existing around the concept is due to its
context- and history-specific nature. Different case studies have put the concept of social capital into
different analytical frameworks. Scientists have called for the specification of the concept, and for
2
building a common ground for it in order to increase its usefulness in policy-making (Brunie, 2009;
Pelling and High, 2005).
The definition of social capital proposed by Putnam (one of the originators of the concept) has become
one of the most popular in literature: “…features of social life – networks, norms and trust – that enable
participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives” (Pelling and High, 2005, p. 310).
Moser, et al. (2010, p. 7) gives the following definition: “Social capital is an intangible asset, defined as
the rules, norms, obligations, reciprocity and trust embedded in social relations, social structures, and
societies’ institutional arrangements. It is embedded at the micro-institutional level (communities and
households) as well as in the rules and regulations governing formalized institutions in the marketplace,
political system and civil society”. As explained by Kithiia (2010), any community or group of people
that can self-organize to work together towards a new common challenge is endowed by the social capital
resource.
However, extensive debates on the definitions of the concept are outside the scope of this paper. In order
to define the role of social capital in shaping adaptive capacity, it is important to look at the common
elements of social capital in relation to adaptive capacity that is emerging from the bottom-up, and
eventually engaging other actors.
Despite the variety of definitions and dimensions of social capital, several elements of it are common in
literature relating social capital to adaptive capacity. It has already been implicitly stated in the above
discussion that these are social trust, reciprocity, and interpersonal relationships (Pelling and High, 2005).
The strength of social capital largely depends on trust and reciprocity. Mutual trust supports cooperation
and information flow, and it derives from reciprocity norms and networks (Brunie, 2009). Trust allows
participants to cooperate more effectively as they work towards a common objective (Leonard and
Pelling, 2010, etc.).
According to Pelling and High (2005), interpersonal relationships that shape the social capital and derive
from reciprocity can fall under two categories: bridging and bonding. These categories that help to
understand the direction and level of strength of the social capital have been explored by a number
authors in the literature related to social capital and adaptive capacity (Pelling and High, 2005; Jones, et
al., 2012; Brunie, 2009; Adger, 2003, Leonard and Pelling, 2010, etc.). Bonding social relationships are
defined as intra-community relations (Brunie, 2009). Bonding is a feature of a defined socioeconomic
group, for instance common ethnic or religious identity group where the relationships are based on
kinship and friendship (Pelling and High, 2005; Adger, 2003). Bridging social capital refers to intercommunity ties (Brunie, 2009). It means an exchange among those people or groups who have a common
goal but different identities. It is the different arrangements of the bridging and bonding ties that can
facilitate the adaptive capacity of the communities. Nevertheless, in practice it becomes complex to
distinguish between bridging and bonding social capitals (Pelling and High, 2005).
There is a large potential for social capital in the communities to shape their adaptive capacity particularly
in times of crisis and generate bottom-up adaptation measures. This paper brings forward a number of
examples to demonstrate this point.
3
However, before referring to particular case-based examples it is important to note that social capital does
not operate in a politically isolated space (Adger, 2003). Social capital can be embedded not only in
horizontal collaboration, i.e. at the communities or households level, but also at the vertical level (Folke,
et al., 2005). A sub-category of the “bridging ties” called “linking ties” (ties between different social
classes) is often used to describe the vertical relationships (Leonard and Pelling, 2010). Social capital
helps to understand how communities engage in these networks of relationships with other
actors/stakeholders such as the state, or local and external civil society organizations, such as the media,
NGOs, academics, etc. that operate based on trust, cooperation, and reciprocity (Leonard and Pelling,
2010). Adger (2003) argues that such networks can give rise to new forms of institutions such as comanagement. This is often referred to as networking social capital or synergy, meaning that synergistic
relationships between the communities and other actors can be mutually reinforcing and thus, can build
the adaptive capacity of the communities in a more sustainable way (Leonard and Pelling, 2010; Brunie,
2009; Adger; 2003).
Trust and reciprocity are extremely important for the networking social capital to build adaptive capacity.
One of the most crucial reasons is the following. There are a number of uncertainties related to the
predictions of climatic impacts and thereby risks particularly in relation to community-based adaptation
activities that remain unconceptualized by CBA practitioners. Communities can undertake adaptation
responses that might turn out to be wrong because of the incorrect predictions of climate change. Thus,
social relations and communication based on trust and reciprocity between communities and community
leaders or other actors should be established to reveal the level of difficulty of the matter and to allow the
communities to build trust with those actors that support their adaptation strategies (Dodman and Mitlin,
2011).
Thus, for the purposes of this essay, social capital is a building block, or an essential component, of
adaptive capacity and, therefore, an asset that the societies, communities, or individuals should have in
order to enhance their resilience.
Building Adaptive Capacity through Social Capital
The published literature contains ample examples that demonstrate not only the ability of social capital to
provide the needed power for the management of common community property or resources (e.g. water
resources, pastures, forests), but also to build an adaptive capacity to better tolerate climate variability as
well as climatic hazards and extreme events (Kiithia, 2010). Many of these examples pertain to the coastal
urban areas of developing countries as these are known to be especially vulnerable to the risks coming
from climate change (Kiithia, 2010). Some of these examples are discussed below.
Social capital can emerge in a variety of ways and contexts. It can also come out quite spontaneously
(Leonard and Pelling, 2010). Adger (2003) brings a telling example of social capital coming forward to
replace the withdrawn role of a state authority. In this example, the social capital suddenly became
evident in Vietnam in the middle of 1990s, i.e., in the period of decentralization and economic
liberalization. The local hazard planning and coastal defense system, which was previously centralized
and under the socialist state’s responsibility, suddenly got decentralized; besides, the agricultural
4
cooperatives, which were responsible for the management of these defenses, were at the same time
disbanded. Sea defenses were not managed anymore, thus deepening the vulnerability of the coastal
populations to climatic events such as coastal storms. As a result of economic liberalization, social capital
initially emerged in community networks and informal associations to build credit and insurance schemes,
assuring some protection for the households in the face of economic crisis and stress. At the same time,
these new measures brought about by the social capital also facilitated adaptation strategies as the state
planning of coastal defense resumed. This case shows how in the time of crisis the dormant social capital
was suddenly awakened by the communities themselves.
The potential of social capital to build adaptive capacity of the vulnerable urban communities have been
brightly demonstrated in some coastal cities of East Africa such as Mombasa and Dar es Salaam. Both
port cities represent national and regional economic development centers and commercial hubs. However,
they face rapid rate of urbanization, high levels of poverty, and high risks from climate change impacts
such as frequent and intense flooding, storms, etc. The urban poor reside in areas of these cities that are
subject to the highest level of risks. National and city governments in East Africa, as in many other lowincome countries, do not possess sufficient resources to build appropriate infrastructure to mitigate the
climate change impacts, or to otherwise reduce the vulnerability of the population groups (Kithiia, 2010).
The collective group actions in Dar es Salaam and Mombasa demonstrate the presence and the
capabilities of social capital. There is a strong level of collaboration among community groups and
federations, particularly among the poor, in these cities. These strong social relationships are reinforced
by trust and reciprocity. For instance, the Mtoni Kijijini Conservation Group in Dar es Salaam monitors
the illegal logging of mangrove trees as well as replants more mangrove trees for the protection of the
coastal eco-system. The local Beach Management Units work in a cooperative system to make sure that
the coastal resources are used in a sustainable manner (Kithiia, 2010).
Kithiia and Lyth (2011) describe how resident groups in Port Reitz, Tudor and Mtongwe in Mombasa
were also involved in mangrove regeneration not only to protect this important source of their livelihood,
but also as an exercise in collective environmental responsibility.
Developing the synergistic or vertical social capital with the state institutions can reinforce this adaptive
capacity built at community level and make it more legitimate. For instance, with the help of an NGO a
partnership was created between the Majaoni Youth Group in Mombasa and Fisheries and Forests
departments to rehabilitate and conserve the mangrove forests of the area. This Youth Group has played
an important role in stopping the logging of mangroves through monitoring activities (Kithiia, 2010).
It is important to mention that all these conservation activities in Mombasa and Dar es Salam have not
been aimed purposefully to build adaptation. However, through these natural resource rehabilitation and
conservation activities they have also built their adaptive capacity since mangrove forests along the coast
play an important role in building adaptive capacity and are considered as “soft engineering” methods of
building adaptation (Kithiia, 2010).
5
Conclusion
It can be concluded that social relationships based on reciprocity, trust and cooperation towards a
common good form the core of social capital that can help to shape adaptive capacity. Scholarly works on
the subject of this essay, as well as examples of the effects of social capital activation and involvement
strongly suggest that building a stronger adaptive capacity requires reinforcement of both horizontal and
vertical social capital. Furthermore, communities self-organizing from within and using their social
capital to build adaptive capacity can be more sustainable, effective, and resilient than those with
adaptation mechanisms designed and imposed by authorities or other outside entities.
These particular case studies have been selected as they are more relevant for the goal of this paper and
directly demonstrate the positive linkage between social capital and adaptive capacity. However, it is
important to mention that numerous case studies exist on community-based adaptation as well as
community-based disaster risk reduction that demonstrate the power of social capital that helps the
communities mobilize, collaboratively work towards a common challenge, and build their adaptive
capacity also creating linking ties with other social actors. The limited scope of this paper does not allow
discussing them; examples include the Baan Mankong Programme in Thailand, the Payatas Scavenger’s
Development Program in the Philippines, the community-based adaptation examples from Bangladesh,
just to name a few (Boonyabancha, 2005; Vincentian Missionaries, 1998; Ayers and Forsyth, 2009).
Again, in many of the existing case studies communities might not be purposefully undertaking
adaptation measures. However, they do so while they attempt to solve other developmental problems.
Still, many of these case studies are not discussed in the framework of social capital. There is a large need
for more specification and elaboration of the concept of social capital in academic literature.
Another issue that could be explored further refers to the substantial overlap between community-based
natural resource management (CBNRM) and community-based adaptation (CBA). Social capital reveals
the links between these two fields and also plays a role in creating additional associations between them.
These linkages appear to be an important subject of further studies, particularly in urban areas of low and
middle-income countries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work has been supported by the Development Planning Unit of UCL and Joint Japan/World
Bank Graduate Scholarship Program.
6
Bibliography
Adger, Neil W, 2003, “Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change”,
Economic Geography, Vol 79, No 4, pp. 387-404.
Awuor, Cynthia Brenda, Victor Ayo Orindi and Andrew Ochieng Adwera, 2008, “Climate
change and coastal cities of Mombasa, Kenya”, Vol 20, No 1, pp. 231-242 (April).
Ayers, Jessica and Tim Forsyth, 2009, “Community-based adaptation to climate change:
strengthening resilience through development”, Environment Magazine, Vol 51, No 4,
pp. 22-31 (July/August).
Bicknell, Jane, David Dodman, and David Satterthwaite, 2009, Adapting cities to climate
change: understanding and addressing the development challenges, Earthscan, UK,
USA.
Boonyabancha, Somsook. How upgrading of Thailand’s informal settlements is spearheading a
community-driven, city-wide, integrated social development process, Arusha Conference,
“New Frontiers of Social Policy;” 2005 Dec 12-15, Community Organizations Development
Institute (CODI).
Brunie, Aurelie, 2009, “Meaningful distinctions within a concept: relational, collective, and
generalized social capital”, Social Science Research, Vol 38, pp. 251-265.
Dodman, David and David Satterthwaite, 2008, Institutional capacity, climate change adaptation
and the urban poor, Institute of Development Studies Bulletin, Vol 39, No 4, pp. 67-74.
Dodman, David and Diana Mitlin, 2011, “Challenges for community-based adaptation:
discovering the potential for transformation”, Journal of International Development,
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Folke, Carl, Thomas Hahn, Per Olsson, and Jon Norberg, 2005, “Adaptive Governance of
Social-Ecological Systems”, Annual Reviews, Vol 30, pp. 441-473 (July).
Grootaert, Christiaan and Thierry van Bastelaer, 2001, Understanding and measuring social
capital: a synthesis of findings and recommendations from the social capital initiative.
Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 24, The World Bank, Social Development
Family, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development Network (April).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007, IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate
Change, Chapters 17, 18, 19, Working Group II.
Jones, Nikoleta, Julian Clark, Georgia Tribidaki, 2012, “Social risk assessment and social
capital:A significant parameter for the formation of climate change policies”, The Social
Science Journal, Vol 49, pp. 33-41.
7
Kithiia, Justus and Anna Lyth, 2011, “Urban wildscapes and green spaces in Mombasa and their
potential contribution to climate change adaptation and mitigation”, Environment and
Urbanization, Vol 23, No 1, pp. 251-265 (April).
Kithiia, Justus, 2010, “Old notion-new relevance: setting the stage for the use of social capital
resource in adapting east African coastal cities to climate change”, International Journal
of Urban Sustainable Development, Vol 1, Nos. 1-2, pp. 17-32.
Leonard, Llewellyn and Mark Pelling, 2010, “Civil society response to industrial contamination
of groundwater in Durban, South Africa”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol 22, No 2,
pp. 579-595 (October).
Moser, Caroline, Andrew Norton, Alfredo Stein, Sophia Georgieva, 2010, Pro-poor adaptation
to climate change in urban centers: case studies of vulnerability and resilience in Kenya
and Nicaragua, The World Bank, Sustainable Development Network, Social
Development Department. Report No 54947-GLB (June).
Moser, Caroline and Alfredo Stein, 2011, “Implementing urban participatory climate change
adaptation appraisals: a methodological guideline”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol
23, No 2, pp. 463-485 (October).
Pelling, Mark, 1998, “Participation, social capital and vulnerability to urban flooding in
Guyana”, Journal of International Development, Vol 10, pp. 469-486.
Pelling, Mark and Chris High, 2005, “Understanding adaptation: What can social capital offer
assessments of adaptive capacity?” Global Environmental Change, Vol 15, pp. 308-319.
Pelling, Mark, 2011, Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation, Routledge
Taylor and Francis Group, London and New York.
Satterthwaite, David, 2010, “Avoiding the urbanization of disasters”, in McClean, Denis (ed.)
World Disasters Report 2010 - Focus on urban risk, International Federation of Red
Cross and Red Crescent Societies, pp. 11-27.
Satterthwaite, David, 2011, “How urban societies can adapt to resource shortage and climate
change”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol 369, pp. 1762-1783.
Satterthwaite, David, 2011, “Editorial: Why is community action needed for disaster risk
reduction and climate change adaptation?” Environment and Urbanization, Vol 23, No
2, pp. 339-349 (October).
Vincentian Missionaries, 1998, “The Payatas Environmental Development Programme: microenterprise promotion and involvement in solid waste management in Quezon City”,
Environment and Urbanization, Vol 10, No 2, pp. 55-68 (October).
8
Wolf, Johanna, W. Neil Adger, Irene Lorenzoni, Vanessa Abrahamson, Rosalind Raine, 2010,
“Social capital, individual responses to heat waves and climate change adaptation: an
impirical study of two UK cities”, Global Environmental Change, Vol 20, pp. 44-52.
9