This article was downloaded by: [University of Stellenbosch]On: 10 October 2014, At: 06:08Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: AnInternational JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Adaptation in Resource-DependentCommunities: A Call for GreaterMethodological Clarity in AdaptationField ResearchFelipe Murtinho a b & Tanya M. Hayes ca Institute for Public Service , Seattle University , Seattle ,Washington , USAb Department of Geography , University of California , SantaBarbara , California , USAc Environmental Studies and Institute for Public Service , SeattleUniversity , Seattle , Washington , USAPublished online: 12 Oct 2011.

To cite this article: Felipe Murtinho & Tanya M. Hayes (2012) Adaptation in Resource-DependentCommunities: A Call for Greater Methodological Clarity in Adaptation Field Research, Society &Natural Resources: An International Journal, 25:5, 513-522, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.604068

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.604068

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Forum

Adaptation in Resource-Dependent Communities:A Call for Greater Methodological Clarity

in Adaptation Field Research

FELIPE MURTINHO

Institute for Public Service, Seattle University, Seattle, Washington,USA, and Department of Geography, University of California, SantaBarbara, California, USA

TANYA M. HAYES

Environmental Studies and Institute for Public Service, SeattleUniversity, Seattle, Washington, USA

This article highlights how fieldwork scholars of adaptation in resource-dependentcommunities may enhance our capacity to craft comparative lessons and contributean empirical foundation to theories and policy initiatives for adaptation. We brieflysynthesize how scholars conducting field research on adaptation in common poolresource communities have measured and assessed adaptation, discuss some of thepoints of contention in the adaptation literature and in the field, and indicate waysin which adaptation could be further clarified in the field. Specifically, we identify aneed for greater clarity in how field researchers define adaptation, examine therelationship between disturbance and adaptive response, and evaluate the outcomesof adaptation processes. Our review of the literature reiterates the challenges incomparing case studies and suggests means by which greater conceptual and meth-odological clarity may provide a much-needed empirical foundation to our under-standing of adaptation processes.

Keywords adaptation, case studies, common-pool resources, community-basednatural resource management, disturbance, evaluation, fieldwork, methods

This article makes a call for greater methodological clarity in field-based research onadaptation in natural resource–dependent communities. In recent years, adaptation

Received 4 September 2009; accepted 20 June 2011.The authors thank Hallie Eakin and five anonymous reviewers for their comments on ear-

lier versions of this article. In addition, many thanks to the participants in the IASC confer-ence on the Commons in 2008 and to the authors that corresponded with us regarding theirwork on adaptation.

Address correspondence to Felipe Murtinho, Institute for Public Service, Seattle Univer-sity, 901 12th Avenue, PO Box 222000, Seattle, WA 98122, USA. E-mail: murtinhf@seattleu.edu

Society and Natural Resources, 25:513–522Copyright # 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 onlineDOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.604068

513

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

has become a policy priority as human communities face ever more complex anddynamic systems arising from an increasingly globalized society and a changingclimate. Enhancing the adaptive capacity of resource-dependent communities is ofparticular concern as these communities are considered some of the most vulnerableto changing environmental, economic, and political conditions (Agrawal 2010; Ribot2010; Adger 1999). Despite international funds and policy initiatives to supportadaptation processes in some of the most vulnerable regions,1 we have yet to developa cohesive understanding of how adaptation processes unfold in the communities wepurport to support (Nelson et al. 2007; Smit and Wandel 2006).

Field research studies that empirically assess adaptation are critical for buildinga more comprehensive theory of adaptation, and tailoring our policy initiatives tothe communities and contexts in which adaptation processes occur. In climatechange research, Smit and Wandel (2006) identify a need for studies that empiricallymeasure adaptation, and document how communities experience change, make deci-sions, and implement adaptation strategies. The commons literature offers a solidbody of research on the conditions under which resource-dependent communitieshave successfully governed their shared resource systems for centuries, and anincreasing number of case studies examine how communities adapt to new markets,political systems, demographics, and environmental conditions (Dietz et al. 2003;Dol�ssak and Ostrom 2003; Agrawal 2001; Richards 1997). Studies of adaptation incommon pool resource management can make a valuable contribution to our theor-etical understanding of adaptation processes and provide policy insights for enhanc-ing the adaptive capacity of resource-dependent communities. Such insights,however, depend on the ability to compare, contrast, and learn from the rich diver-sity of studies of adaptation processes.

This article synthesizes how adaptation processes are measured in common poolresource case studies, and highlights ways in which future fieldwork may enhanceour empirical foundation for understanding adaptation processes and policy initia-tives in resource-dependent communities. We conducted a literature review of field-work studies that examined community adaptations in common pool resourcesystems such as forests, fish, water, and wildlife. Our review of the literature con-firmed an increasing interest in adaptation processes in resource-dependent com-munities and the opportunity for commons studies to contribute empiricalfindings to this burgeoning field.2 Our review also revealed some methodologicalconcerns in studying adaptation and comparing findings across cases. In the follow-ing we highlight some of these concerns and suggest opportunities for advancing ourempirical understanding of adaptation. We believe that our call for greater metho-dological clarity is relevant not only to the study of adaptation in the commons,but also for the development of empirically based adaptation studies more broadly.

Methods

We retrieved case studies from two databases: the Digital Library of the Commons(http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu) and the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) onlinedatabase onWeb of Science (http://isiknowledge.com). In each database, we searchedfor papers that included ‘‘adaptation’’ in the keywords, title, or abstract. The searcheswere made in April 2011 and include papers published through December 2010.

From our initial keyword search, we looked for papers that fulfilled three cri-teria: (1) The articles were direct results of case studies; (2) the case studies referred

514 F. Murtinho and T. M. Hayes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

to natural resources that comply the characteristics of a small-scale common poolresource (forests, fish, wildlife, water); and (3) the case studies referred to identifiableshocks or stressors that have changed the status quo of the resource managementsystem. We identified 24 fieldwork-based articles that fulfilled these criteria. The arti-cles examined social, economic, institutional, and=or environmental disturbances insmall-scale commons (for a list of the articles please see appendix). All articles exam-ined some aspect of adaptation; however, not all of the articles had the explicit goalof explaining the entire adaptation process (disturbances, adaptive capacity, decisionmaking, actions, and outcomes). In addition to conducting a content analysis of theinformation provided in the articles,3 we contacted each author to verify their defini-tions and methods used to identify adaptation and understand adaptationprocesses.4

Findings: Lessons and Directions for Future Fieldwork

Define Adaptation and Clarify Methods

A principal finding from our review was the absence of a conceptual definition andexplanation of how adaptation was measured in the field. Of the 24 articles reviewed,only 4 provided an explicit definition of adaptation, 13 articles implicitly definedadaptation through their case study examples, and 7 did not offer any definition.Although the literature offers a number of definitions and means to classify distur-bances and adaptations based upon the magnitude, timing, and source of the disturb-ance, the degree of planning, and the types of strategies used in the adaptations(Janssen et al. 2007; Nelson et al. 2007; Smit and Wandel 2006; Batterbury andForsyth 1999), very few studies provided sufficient details to clearly understandhow the disturbances and adaptations were conceptualized and measured.

The lack of conceptual clarity is a concern, as adaptation may be defined andconceptualized quite differently depending on the scholar. For example, somescholars argue that adaptation must be a conscious or planned process or action(Ford et al. 2007; Smit and Pilifosova 2001), whereas others include involuntary(not planned) adjustments (Berkes and Jolly 2002). Furthermore, some specify thatthe action should be successful, or at least intend to have a positive effect, in order tobe considered an ‘‘adaptation’’ (Tompkins and Adger 2004; Smit and Pilifosova2001). Others, however, consider any response to be an adaptation, including unsuc-cessful adaptations (actions that did not work) (Barnett and O’Neill 2010; Doriaet al. 2009; Adger et al. 2005) or ‘‘maladaptations’’ that may actually increasevulnerability (Barnett and O’Neill 2010; Grothmann and Patt 2005).

Although most of the papers we reviewed referred broadly to adaptation, in ourcommunications with the authors we found that authors often differed in how theyconceptualized and identified adaptations in the field. All authors considered adap-tations as adjustments made by human communities to some disturbance(s). But theauthors differed with regard to (1) whether the adaptation must be conscious orplanned and (2) whether an adaptation must necessarily have a positive intent.

The inability to decipher how a researcher has conceptualized and measuredadaptation in the field hampers our ability to draw lessons from within and acrosscases. For example, if we want to use case studies to understand how individualsmake decisions in response to a disturbance, it is important to know whether thedecision makers were conscious of the disturbance and their decision to respond,

A Call for Methodological Clarity in Adaptation 515

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

or whether it was an unconscious process that a researcher deemed to be an adaptivedecision. Likewise, if researchers are excluding ‘‘maladaptations’’ or those adapta-tions that have negative consequences (Grothmann and Patt 2005), we may not havea complete picture of the learning and trial and error that occur in adaptationprocesses.

We do not recommend that any definition be eliminated or supersede another.Differing definitions are to be expected when scholars from diverse disciplinesapproach an issue from their respective perspectives. We do recommend, however,that field researchers be very specific about what they consider to be an adaptationand how they identify that adaptation in the field. This recommendation may appearrather simplistic; nonetheless, it is absolutely necessary if we are to build a theory ofadaptation and understand how policy may facilitate adaptation under differentcontextual conditions.

Identify Causal Links in Adaptation Processes

One of the challenges in empirically assessing adaptation is whether and how todetermine a causal link between disturbances and adaptations. This is particularlydifficult given the complex motives behind human behavior and the multitude ofchanges that an individual or community may be facing (Eakin and Wehbe 2009;Eakin 2006). For example, in the studies we reviewed, 13 cases had multiple distur-bances and adaptations; one study, Marschke and Berkes (2006), analyzed responsesto 9 different disturbances.

The necessity and ability to identify causal links is a point of contention amongadaptation scholars. In our communications with the authors of the studies, themajority stated that establishing causal links was both methodologically possibleand theoretically important, although several qualified their answers by explainingthe complexities involved in adaptation. A few authors, however, questioned theability and importance of identifying causal links, particularly in processes thatevolved over long periods of time.

In our review, 14 studies implied a causal link between a disturbance(s) andadaptation. Only three, however, provided an explicit description of the methodsused to assess the relationship between disturbance and adaptation. None of thecases we reviewed used a comparative or quasi-experimental case study design toillustrate that the disturbances under study were in fact producing the identifiedadaptations (for quasi-experimental designs see Shadish et al. 2002). In most cases,the authors used participant interviews to understand the decision-making processes.In some cases the findings are further verified by observation and follow-up inter-views (see, e.g., Berkes and Jolly 2002). Just one case gathered longitudinal datato detail both environmental changes and communities responses (Gautam andShivakoti 2004); however, the study by Homann and colleagues (2008) illustrateshow extant sources can resourcefully be combined with current data collection toexplore adaptations over time. Homann et al. (2008) combined household question-naires with participatory rural appraisal methods, secondary archival data, and sat-ellite imagery to assess adaptations in rangeland management over a 30-year timeperiod, although the research was conducted during one period in time.

We are of the belief that identifying causal links between disturbances and adap-tations will contribute to the theory of adaptation processes and inform policy devel-opment in support of resource-dependent communities. Future fieldwork is needed

516 F. Murtinho and T. M. Hayes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

that uses an explicit research design to trace or link disturbances and adaptations.We understand that the range of possible case studies with sufficient data or compa-rable conditions that fit these criteria may be very limited and that, furthermore,such studies generally require extensive amounts of time and money.

Given time and resource limitations we suggest that previously conducted com-mon pool resource studies may be sources for longitudinal data and controlled com-parative case studies. Poteete and Ostrom (2008) discuss the limitations andadvantages of single case studies and suggest that we built upon common poolresources case studies to create large N and longitudinal studies. Many common poolresource communities have been the subject of previous studies (see Digital Libraryof the Commons and International Forestry Resources and Institutions case stu-dies); archival data collection and previous findings may enable a researcher to tracechanges over time. Furthermore, many common pool resource systems have beensuccessfully managed in relative isolation. It is only in recent years that some of thesetraditional systems have begun to experience external shocks or disturbances.Careful case study selection may permit a researcher to isolate a particular disturb-ance, for example a new market, and purposefully compare and contrast responsesto this disturbance across various biophysical or social contexts. With the potentialto reduce the number of disturbances and trace disturbances and changes over time,commons studies offer the opportunity to provide an empirical foundation for causalmodels of adaptation processes.

Specify ‘‘Success’’ and Empirically Assess Trade-Offs in Adaptation Outcomes

Finally, greater methodological clarity and empirical assessment are needed tounderstand how adaptation outcomes are evaluated. The majority of the authorscontacted for this review stated that it is possible to evaluate adaptations, and anumber emphasized the need to understand the trade-offs among different actionsand outcomes. Many noted that ‘‘success’’ depends on who defines it (success forwhom), what outcomes are measured, and in what time frame the outcomes areassessed. Similar concern over determinants of success is highlighted in the literatureby scholars that warn of the potential externalities that one adaptive measure mayimpose on other sectors of society or ecological systems, and that warn of maladap-tations, when one particular disturbance may actually make the social-ecological sys-tem less resilient to other disturbances (Barnett and O’Neill 2010; Janssen et al. 2007;Nelson et al. 2007; Walker et al. 2006).

Despite the recognition of trade-offs and different interpretations of success, inour review most authors did not explicitly discuss how they determined whether anadaptation was a ‘‘success.’’ In the social science literature, cultural survival hasoften been the determination of success (Smit and Wandel 2006) and several ofthe studies we reviewed also appeared to consider survival or continued existenceas evidence of success. Of the 11 studies that explicitly evaluated the adaptation out-comes as successes or failures, only 4 studies specified the criteria they used (Berkesand Turner 2006; Bisaro et al. 2010; Cifdaloz et al. 2010; Ford et al. 2007).

For example, Berkes and Turner (2006) illustrate the multiple criteria that can beused to assess adaptation strategies. In their study, the authors assessed adaptationstrategies based on ecological and social outcomes. They clearly specified that theylooked at behavioral changes and species survival to evaluate the adaptation strate-gies to recover the caribou population in Quebec-Ungava peninsula in Canada. They

A Call for Methodological Clarity in Adaptation 517

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

determined that these strategies were an ecological success because the caribou popu-lation increased and a social success because elders were able to adapt their knowl-edge to the current hunting circumstances and share that knowledge with theyounger hunters.

In the climate change literature, several scholars have begun to develop criteriafor evaluating climate change adaptations (Adger et al. 2005; Doria et al. 2009;Osbahr et al. 2010). For example, Adger and colleagues (2005) propose four criteriato evaluate success in adaptation: efficiency, efficacy, equity and legitimacy. The eva-luative criteria provides a broad set of guidelines by which scholars may examinetheir empirical findings and assess the impact of adaptation processes on biophysicaland societal sectors differently. It is important, however, not simply to set the cri-teria, but also to carefully determine how the criteria will be judged (what outcomeswill be assessed) and by whom. Doria and colleagues (2009) argue that evaluatingadaptation success involves judgements concerning the ultimate objectives and sus-tainability of adaptation actions, and thus, successful adaptation is best evaluated bythose adapting or affected by the adaptation measures.

Given the difficulties of finding consensus around criteria to assess the success ofadaptation, at a minimum field researchers need to be clear in: (1) the criteria thatthey use to assess adaptation outcomes, (2) how (and by whom) these criteria are cre-ated, (3) which outcomes are assessed, (4) how those outcomes are measured, and (5)how information is gathered to measure specific outcomes. This is particularlyimperative if we, as fieldwork scholars, hope to inform adaptation policy and pro-gram initiatives so that they are more tailored to the needs of rural communitiesand the natural resource systems they depend upon.

Conclusion

Our review of adaptation studies in common pool resource-dependent communitiesreaffirms some of the challenges commonly encountered in conducting comparativecase study or meta-analyses, namely, clarification of terms, research design, andmethods (Poteete and Ostrom 2008), and point to specific improvements in adap-tation field study methods needed to enhance our understanding of adaptationprocesses.

First, field researchers can facilitate case study comparisons and avoid unnecess-ary confusion or conflict by (1) clearly specifying how each defines adaptation in his=her particular study and (2) describing the methods used to identify and measureadaptation in the field. We cannot possibly build a comprehensive understandingof how adaptation works in varying contexts if we are each operating with vaguedefinitions of adaptation.

Second, despite the challenges in identifying causal links between disturbancesand adaptations, we need to develop more comparative case studies with longitudi-nal data and quasiexperimental designs. If we hope to design policies and programsthat facilitate communities’ adaptive capacities, we must first understand how indi-viduals and communities make decisions in response to various disturbances in avariety of contexts. In order to better understand the links between disturbanceand adaptation, we recommend that future fieldwork scholars carefully consider(1) the selection of study areas that have existing data so that new case study datacan draw from, and build toward, a longitudinal study, and (2) the potential to con-struct quasiexperimental case study designs that control for disturbances to test the

518 F. Murtinho and T. M. Hayes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

potential outcomes of adaptation. The Homan et al. (2008) study offers an excellentexample of how current data gathering can draw from different data sources to piecetogether information over time. The Digital Library of the Commons provides a sub-stantial source of previous common studies that can be used to gather backgroundinformation on a particular site and construct controlled comparative case studies.

Finally, field studies point to the need for empirical work that examines adap-tation outcomes across a variety of well-specified criteria and perspectives. Berkesand Turner (2006) offer one example of how different criteria can be applied toassess a range of potential adaptation outcomes. Work in the climate change litera-ture on criteria for evaluating adaptations (Adger et al. 2005; Doria et al. 2009;Osbahr et al. 2010) may serve as an additional starting point for community-basedstudies to explore how adaptation decision-making process and strategies impact dif-ferent actors, social institutions, and ecosystems.

Empirical studies of adaptation are vital for informing discourse on adaptationand policy formation. The studies in this article highlight the dynamic growth ofadaptation studies in resource dependent communities and the potential these studieshave to develop our knowledge of when, why, and how adaptation occurs. By pro-viding greater methodological clarity and purposefully working toward comparativestudies, fieldwork scholars can provide an empirical foundation so that scholars,practitioners, and communities can learn and benefit from the diverse adaptationprocesses occurring in communities around the world.

Notes

1. For example, in 2007 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changeapproved the creation of the Adaptation Fund, with participation of the Global Environ-mental Facility and the World Bank, in order to finance adaptation projects in developingcountries that are vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.

2. In our review of case studies on adaptation in common pool settings, half of the studieswere published between 2006 and 2010.

3. In each article we searched for specific variables to explain the empirical assessment of theadaptation process. The variables we looked for included: author supplied definition ofadaptation; research methods, specifically to identify the links between a disturbance andan adaptation; and assessments of the outcomes, particularly if and how the author cate-gorized an adaptation as a success or failure. All of the data were gathered by both authorsand put into an excel spreadsheet. In order to provide some consistency to the analysis, thedifferent variables were coded independently by each author.

4. Authors were contacted in 2008; the article does not include interviews to the authors ofpapers published in 2009–2010.

References

Adger, W. N. 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and extremes in coastal Vietnam.World Dev. 27(2):249–269.

Adger, W. N. 2000. Institutional adaptation to environmental risk under the transition inVietnam. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 90(4):738–758.

Adger, W. N., N. W. Arnell, and E. L. Tompkins. 2005. Successful adaptation to climatechange across scales. Global Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 15(2):77–86.

Agrawal, A. 2001. Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources.World Dev. 29(10):1649–1672.

A Call for Methodological Clarity in Adaptation 519

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Agrawal, A. 2010. Local institutions and adaptation to climate change. In The social dimen-sions of climate change: Equity and vulnerability in a warming world, ed. R. Mearns andA. Norton, 173–198. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Barnett, J., and S. O’Neill. 2010. Maladaptation. Global Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens.20(2):211–213.

Batterbury, S., and T. Forsyth. 1999. Fighting back: Human adaptations in marginal environ-ments. Environment 41(6):6–30.

Berkes, F., and D. Jolly. 2002. Adapting to climate change: Social-ecological resilience in aCanadian Western Arctic community. Conserv. Ecol. 5(2):18.

Berkes, F., and N. J. Turner. 2006. Knowledge, learning and the evolution of conservationpractice for social-ecological system resilience. Hum. Ecol. 34(4):479–494.

Bisaro, A., J. Hinkel, and N. Kranz. 2010. Multilevel water, biodiversity and climate adap-tation governance: Evaluating adaptive management in Lesotho. Environ. Sci. Polic13(7):637–647.

Bray, D. B. 2000. Adaptive management, organizations and common property management:Perspectives from the community forests of Quintana Roo, Mexico. Paper presented atConstituting the Commons: Crafting Sustainable Commons in the New Millenium, theEighth Conference International Association for the Study of Common PropertyBloomington, IN, 31 May–4 June.

Cifdaloz, O., A. Regmi, J. M. Anderies, and A. A. Rodriguez. 2010. Robustness, vulnerability,and adaptive capacity in small-scale social-ecological systems: The Pumpa Irrigation Sys-tem in Nepal. Ecol. Soc. 15(3):39.

Coulthard, S. 2006. Adaptation and survival, or conflict and division: Different reactions to achanging common property resource institution in a south Indian fishery. Paperpresented at Survival of the Commons: Mounting Challenges and New Realities, theEleventh Conference of the International Association for the Study of CommonProperty, Bali, Indonesia, 19–23 June.

Dietz, T., E. Ostrom, and P. C. Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science302(5652):1907–1912.

Dol�ssak, N., and E. Ostrom. 2003. The commons in the new millennium: Challenges and adap-tation, Politics, science, and the environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Doria, M. de Franca, E. Boyd, E. L. Tompkins, and W. N. Adger. 2009. Using expert elici-tation to define successful adaptation to climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 12(7):810–819.

Eakin, H. C., and M. B. Wehbe. 2009. Linking local vulnerability to system sustainability in aresilience framework: Two cases from Latin America. Climatic Change 93(3–4):355–377.

Eakin, H. C. 2006. Weathering risk in rural Mexico: Climatic, institutional, and economicchange. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Erni, C. 2006. From opportunism to resource management: adaptation and the emergence ofenvironmental conservation among indigenous swidden cultivators on Mindoro Island,Philippines. Conserv. Soc. 4(1):102–131.

Evans, M., and Y. Mohieldeen. 2002. Environmental change and livelihood strategies: Thecase of Lake Chad. Geography 87:3–13.

Ford, J., T. Pearce, B. Smit, J. Wandel, M. Allurut, K. Shappa, H. Ittusujurat, and K.Qrunnut. 2007. Reducing vulnerability to climate change in the Arctic: The case ofNunavut, Canada. Arctic 60(2):150–166.

Gautam, A., and G. Shivakoti. 2004. Evolution and impacts of community based forest man-agement in the hills of Nepal. Paper presented at The Commons in an Age of GlobalTransition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities, the Tenth Conference of the Inter-national Association for the Study of Common Property, Oaxaca, Mexico, 9–13 August.

Grothmann, T., and A. Patt. 2005. Adaptive capacity and human cognition: The process ofindividual adaptation to climate change. Global Environ. Change Hum. Policy Dimens.15(3):199–213.

520 F. Murtinho and T. M. Hayes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Homann, S., B. Rischkowsky, J. Steinbach, M. Kirk, and E. Mathias. 2008. Towardsendogenous livestock development: Borana pastoralists’ responses to environmentaland institutional changes. Hum. Ecol. 36(4):503–520.

Huitric, M. 2004. Comparative study of the lobster fisheries in Maine and Belize: Possiblecauses for success and failure. Paper presented at The Commons in an Age of GlobalTransition: Challenges, Risks and Opportunities, the Tenth Conference of theInternational Association for the Study of Common Property, Oaxaca, Mexico, 9–13August.

Ivey, J. L., J. Smithers, R. C. De Loe, and R. D. Kreutzwiser. 2004. Community capacity foradaptation to climate-induced water shortages: Linking institutional complexity and localactors. Environ. Manage. 33(1):36–47.

Janssen, M. A., J. M. Anderies, and E. Ostrom. 2007. Robustness of social-ecological systemsto spatial and temporal variability. Society Nat. Resources 20:307–322.

Kalikoski, D. C., P. Q. Neto, and T. Almudi. 2010. Building adaptive capacity to climatevariability: The case of artisanal fisheries in the estuary of the Patos Lagoon, Brazil.Mar. Policy 34(4):742–751.

Marschke, M. J., and F. Berkes. 2006. Exploring strategies that build livelihood resilience: Acase from Cambodia. Ecol. Soc. 11(1):42.

Nelson, D., W. N. Adger, and K. Brown. 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: Contri-butions of a resilience framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resources 32:395–419.

Olsson, P., and C. Folke. 2001. Local ecological knowledge and institutional dynamics forecosystem management: A study of Lake Racken Watershed, Sweden. Ecosystems4(2):85–104.

Osbahr, H., C. Twyman, W. N. Adger, and D. S. G. Thomas. 2010. Evaluating successfullivelihood adaptation to climate variability and change in southern Africa. Ecol. Soc.15(2):27.

Perry, R. I., and U. R. Sumaila. 2007. Marine ecosystem variability and human communityresponses: The example of Ghana, West Africa. Mar. Pol. 31(2):125–134.

Poteete, A. R., and E. Ostrom. 2008. Fifteen years of empirical research on collective action innatural resource management: Struggling to build large-N databases based on qualitativeresearch. World Dev. 36(1):176–195.

Reed, M. S., A. J. Dougill, and M. J. Taylor. 2007. Integrating local and scientific knowledgefor adaptation to land degradation: Kalahari rangeland management options. LandDegradation Dev. 18(3):249–268.

Ribot, J. 2010. Vulnerability does not fall from the sky: toward multiscale, pro-poor climatepolicy. In The social dimensions of climate change: equity and vulnerability in a warmingworld, ed. R. Mearns and A. Norton, 47–74. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Richards, M. 1997. Common property resource institutions and forest management in LatinAmerica. Dev. Change 28(1):95–117.

Sarch, M. T. 2001. Fishing and farming at Lake Chad: Institutions for access to naturalresources. J. Environ. Manage. 62(2):185–199.

Sayles, J. S., and M. E. Mulrennan. 2010. Securing a future: Cree hunters’ resistance and flexi-bility to environmental changes, Wemindji, James Bay. Ecol. Soc. 15(4):22.

Shadish, W. R., T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimentaldesigns for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Smit, B., and O. Pilifosova. 2001. Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainabledevelopment and equity. In Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability,ed. IPCC, 877–912. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Smit, B., and J. Wandel. 2006. Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. GlobalEnviron. Change Hum. Policy Dimens. 16(3):282–292.

Sorbo, G. M. 2003. Pastoral ecosystems and the issue of scale. Ambio 32(2):113–117.Tompkins, E. L., and W. N. Adger. 2004. Does adaptive management of natural resources

enhance resilience to climate change? Ecol. Soc. 9(2):14.

A Call for Methodological Clarity in Adaptation 521

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4

Vanginkel, R. 1995. Fishy resources and resourceful fishers—The marine commons and theadaptive strategies of Texel fisherman. Neth. J. Soc. Sci. 31(1):50–63.

Walker, B., L. Gunderson, A. Kinzig, C. Folke, S. Carpenter, and L. Schultz. 2006. A handfulof heuristics and some propositions for understanding resilience in social-ecological sys-tems. Ecol. Soc. 11(1):13.

Appendix: List of Reviewed Articles

Adger (2000), Berkes and Jolly (2002), Berkes and Turner (2006), Bisaro et al.(2010), Bray (2000), Cifdaloz et al. (2010), Coulthard, (2006), Erni (2006), Evansand Mohieldeen (2002), Ford et al. (2007), Gautam and Shivakoti (2004), Homannet al. (2008), Huitric (2004), Ivey et al. (2004), Kalikoski et al. (2010), Marschke andBerkes (2006), Olsson and Folke (2001), Perry and Sumaila (2007), Reed et al.(2007), Sarch (2001), Sayles and Mulrennan (2010), Sorbo (2003), Tompkins andAdger (2004), and Vanginkel (1995).

522 F. Murtinho and T. M. Hayes

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f St

elle

nbos

ch]

at 0

6:08

10

Oct

ober

201

4