More than meets the eye?

Exploring how social constructions impact adaptive capacity to climate change

Annette Löf

Natural Resource Management,Governance and Globalisation

Master Thesis 2006:6

More than meets the eye? Exploring how social constructions impact adaptive capacity to climate change

Annette Löf

Natural Resource Management, Governance and Globalisation

Master Thesis 2006:6

Supervisor: Victor Galaz

Co-supervisor: Sara Ahmed

Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research, CTM Stockholm University

www.ctm.su.se

This thesis is written to fulfil the requirements of the Master Programme Natural Resource Management, Governance and Globalisation a transdisciplinary programme held by the Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research, CTM, Stockholm University. The one-year programme has four course models and ends with the writing of a master thesis on a subject related to at least one of the course modules. 1. Philosophy of Sustainability Science Addresses the difficulties and opportunities in transdisciplinary environmental research. In lectures and seminars participants discuss methodological and epistemological issues such as explanations, causality, systems borders, and objectivity. Held by the Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Course leaders: Agr.Dr Thomas Hahn and Dr. Annika Dahlberg 2. Natural Resource Management and Ecosystem Resilience Focuses on ecosystem capacity to generate life-supporting services, how different management approaches can affect this capacity, as well as which constraints and opportunities are offered by globalisation. Held by the Department of Systems Ecology Course leaders: Prof. Thomas Elmqvist and Dr. Maria Tengö 3. Ecosystem Management: Collaboration in Networks and Organizations Investigates the social capacity to develop adaptive governance including arenas for collaboration and conflict resolution. Held by the Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research Course leaders: AgrDr. Thomas Hahn and Dr. Emily Boyd 4. International Governance of Natural Resource Management Uses a macro-perspective on governance. The actors and social-ecological drivers of international regimes are analysed, using case studies that provide a historical and institutional context. Legal as well as normative perspectives are discussed. Held by the Department of Economic History Course leader: Dr. Elisabeth Corell More information on the programme is available at http://www.ctm.su.se/ngg About The Centre for Transdisciplinary Environmental Research (CTM): CTM aims to catalyse environmental research and promote environmental education across the faculties. CTM is part of Stockholm University and complements the activities of the different academic departments. CTM is also in close cooperation with other Stockholm-based organisations and institutes conducting research in the environmental and sustainable development field. CTM turns science into knowledge by spreading information about natural resources and environmental issues. We also offer seminars and courses on environmental and sustainable development issues. Homepage: http://www.ctm.su.se

More than meets the eye? – Exploring how social constructions impact adaptive capacity to

climate change

Abstract To build adaptive capacity to climate change is one of the most fundamental and important challenges before humanity today. Yet, the knowledge of what determines adaptive capacity and how it is differentiated between groups and individuals is limited. By addressing adaptive capacity from a coupled resilience and social constructivist perspective, this paper is unique. The study explores how the social constructions of gender and caste impact adaptive capacity to climate change. The results show that these social constructions affect adaptive capacity not only by limiting or enabling access to resources, but also by impacting individuals’ social construction of reality. These findings could have important implications for climate change policy as well as for resilience theory, but need to be verified by more extensive research. Nevertheless I argue that resilience theory may well benefit from the addition of a social constructivist component in order to truly be able to address the complex dynamics that characterize social-ecological systems.

1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Aim and research questions.......................................................................................... 5

2. Background ........................................................................................................................ 6 2.1 The context of climate change ..................................................................................... 6 2.2 The case: Avaniya village, Gujarat .............................................................................. 8

3. Theoretical context ........................................................................................................... 10 3.1 The essence of resilience theory................................................................................. 11 3.2 Resilience theory on adaptive capacity ...................................................................... 12 3.3 Social constructions – what are they? ........................................................................ 14 3.4 Social constructivism at a glance ............................................................................... 16

4. Method ............................................................................................................................. 18 4.1 Choosing indicators and material and data collection................................................ 18

Figure 1. Conceptual analysis scheme ......................................................................... 19 4.1.2 Caste and gender as social constructions ............................................................ 20 4.1.3 Choosing the site ................................................................................................. 21 4.1.4 The beginning of empirical work ........................................................................ 21 4.1.5 Designing the interviews..................................................................................... 21 4.1.6 Selection of interviewees and conducting the interviews ................................... 22 4.1.7 Validating interview data .................................................................................... 25

4.2 Qualitative data analysis............................................................................................. 26 4.2.1 RQ1 ..................................................................................................................... 26 4.2.2 RQ2 ..................................................................................................................... 27

4.3 Limitations of the study.............................................................................................. 27 5. Results .............................................................................................................................. 28

5.1 General findings ......................................................................................................... 28 5.2 How can the social constructions of gender and caste limit or enhance adaptive capacity to climate change with regard of access to resources and capitals? .................. 30 5.3 Can the social constructions of gender and caste be seen to limit or enhance adaptive capacity to climate change by influencing perceptions of ‘reality’?................................ 39

6. Analysis............................................................................................................................ 43 7. Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 47 8. Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 49 Appendix Ι............................................................................................................................ 54

Interview list..................................................................................................................... 54

2

1. Introduction

The world in which we live has always been characterized by change and surprise, although,

for some this still seems to be an undisclosed fact. Admittedly or not, humans are an intrinsic

part of a dynamic world system, and have throughout history shaped, adapted to, and co-

evolved together with, a changing environment – most often, though not always, with success

(e.g. Diamond 2005). But the rules are changing and the current situation is placing

fundamentally new demands on the ability of human societies to adapt and recover. Today,

for the first time ever, is human agency the primary driver of global ecological change (MA

2005) while, simultaneously, the rate and scale of global change have reached unprecedented

levels (IGBP 2004). In short – the interdependency and connectedness of social and

ecological systems have never been more apparent. Ideally, one could draw the conclusion

that growing human impact would increase our options to transform and direct global

development. However, the unfolding of global events in the late 20th century rather points to

an increase in the vulnerability of human societies to natural hazards – a development

particularly evident in the world’s most ‘disaster-prone’ region, South Asia (Ariyabandu &

Wickramasinghe 2005). To address this vulnerability, one of the greatest challenges and most

important objectives for humanity today, it is imperative to build, enhance and add to the

understanding of adaptive capacity.

Although there are still those who argue for technical fixes and believe in the supremacy of

man over nature, academia has in the last decades witnessed the proliferation of more

adaptive approaches and sustainability-oriented science (e.g. Kates et al. 2001). Particularly

are the advocates for social-ecological systems approaches, which take uncertainty and

complexity as the starting point (e.g. Berkes & Folke 1998), currently gaining prominence

and increasing influence in policy agendas (Folke 2006). The latter, here labeled ‘resilience

theory’, provides theoretical point of departure in this thesis. Basically, resilience theory

offers one possible ‘scientific’ interpretation of how a sustainable development could be

realized (Folke et al. 2002a, 2002b). The theory’s primary concern is the extremely complex,

adaptive dynamics that characterizes linked social-ecological systems – the natural units of

analysis. Although resilience theory is here referred to as a single theory, this generalization is

tentative, as many internal differences exist. For instance, definitional incoherency still

hampers the applicability of theoretical key concepts, such as resilience and adaptive capacity

(Janssen & Ostrom 2006), and, as pointed out in a recent review article by some of the field’s

3

most prominent researchers: the understanding of social-ecological dynamics is still on a

rudimentary level, wherefore much of current theory should be seen as propositions rather

than hypotheses (Walker et al. 2006).

Resilience theory first developed in population ecology, and even though human-ecological

interactions early on were part of ecosystem analyses1, the theory suffers from a social

science deficit. Although the area is now developing rapidly, it is evident that theories on

ecosystem dynamics are not easily translated onto social-ecological systems. The difference is

the addition of inter-human interactions. Humans are irrational as well as conscious and

strategic actors, with varying preferences, values and worldviews and an ability to reflect

upon their behavior. As already mentioned, human agency is at present the most important

driver of global change. Thus, to further enhance our understanding of social-ecological

system dynamics, explicit focus needs to be directed at human agency in relation to a rapidly

transforming world. Why do we act the way we do? How can we learn to act differently? And

what limits or enhances our capacity to act? While these questions long have been debated in

the humanities and social sciences it is only recently they have been placed in the context of

resilience, wherefore the understanding of, and theory building on, these issues are limited.

Although social-ecological systems are heavily impacted and constricted by many structural

forces and influences, working across spatial and temporal scales (e.g. Young 2002), “it is

important to emphasize one element that many studies of systems dynamics lack: the concept

of agency.” (Moench & Dixit 2004:13 my emphasis)

Climate change has been identified as one of the key, contemporary challenges (e.g. IPCC

2001, MA 2005, ISET 2006), and policy discussions have moved from if to how social-

ecological systems may be affected (e.g. IPCC 2001). It is clear that minimizing carbon-

dioxide emissions is no longer sufficient: “adaptation is a necessary strategy at all scales to

complement climate change mitigation efforts” (IPCC 2001:8). This recent, qualitative shift in

the climate discourse emphasizing social and adaptive aspects alongside technical, mitigation

approaches echoes a core principle in resilience theory: to address today’s complex challenges

from an interlinked social-ecological system perspective. However, as concluded in the

proceedings of a recent international conference on climate change2 “the factors determining

1 In resilience theory, as oppose to many other strands of ecology, humans have not been considered external to ecological systems but as an intrinsic part of, and agent of change in, ecosystem dynamics (Folke 2006). 2 The International Conference on Adaptation to Climate Variability and Change, which I had the good fortune to attend, was held in New Delhi, India, 5-7 January 2006 and was organised by Institute for Social and

4

the adaptive capacity of different groups may be of fundamental importance but are poorly

understood” (ISET 2006:xiv).

Adaptive capacity is, in its pragmatic sense, a straightforward concept – it simply means the

capacity to adapt, taking into account external and internal barriers (i.e. a capacity that can be

realized in practice through either conscious or unconscious adaptation action). It is often,

however, used more complexly with implicit value statements and claims of, for instance,

adaptation to what, the scale of adaptation, what its determinants are, and what is to be

regarded as successful adaptation. On these matters theoretical opinions part, although

generally, much of the attention has been directed at increasing the flow of various capitals –

add financial or physical capital, increase the stock of social and human capital and adaptive

capacity will follow (e.g. IPCC 2001, Moench & Dixit 2004, Walker 2006). Although the

importance of resources and capitals cannot be underestimated, the structures, or social

constructions, that may restrain the ability of some and enable others to make efficient use of

available resources are equally important, but are nevertheless often neglected.

It is against this backdrop this thesis is situated. To enhance the understanding of adaptive

capacity is imperative. While acknowledging the rationale of, and need for, a resilience

perspective, this study addresses adaptive capacity from the unconventional approach of

social constructivism. Although elaborated on much further in the theory section, in summary,

it means a focus on social constructions (as oppose to material) and perceptions of ‘reality’ (as

oppose to an ‘objective reality’). The essence of social constructivism is that any ‘lived

reality’ is just as important to consider as any ‘objective reality’ and that knowledge about

reality is a communally created, social product (Berger & Luckmann 1987).

1.1 Aim and research questions The aim of this thesis is to contribute to further the understanding of adaptive capacity to

climate change by exploring how two social constructions, gender3 and caste, may impact

Environmental Transition (ISET) and Winrock International India with support from United States Environmental Protection Agency. 3 Gender is in feminist research commonly defined as a ‘social construct’ whereas sex is the term used to refer to the biological differences between men and women (Holmberg 2005). Gender construction and gender analysis are usually closely related to power analyses and have been recognised as important tools in assessing differential vulnerability (e.g. Bradshaw 2004). Although caste is hereditary it is not possible to distinguish any ethnic or genetic differences between people belonging to different castes (Oommen 2002). Although caste is more complex in that it is explicitly sanctioned by culture and religion, it is an equally powerful social construction: “caste as a social category is constructed on the basis of imagined attributes but casteism, that is the preferential treatment to one’s fellow caste men and caste discrimination based on the belief that some castes are inferior and others superior, are of great importance” (Oommen 2002:116).

5

adaptive capacity to climate change. Two aspects will be examined; first, how gender and

caste impact access to resources and capitals that could enhance climate adaptation, an

already admittedly important aspect. Second, inspired by social constructivism, if the social

constructions of gender and caste can be seen to influence perceptions of ‘reality’ that in turn

determine which adaptive strategies can be realized. In other words, taking into account

aspects of both external and internal determinants of adaptive capacity. The following two

broad research questions have been used to structure the empirical investigation and findings:

RQ1: How can the social constructions of gender and caste limit or enhance adaptive capacity

to climate change with regard of access to resources and capitals?

RQ2: Can the social constructions of gender and caste be seen to limit or enhance adaptive

capacity to climate change by influencing perceptions of ‘reality’?

The focus here on the social construction of gender is motivated as gender (i) is a universal

construct (though contextually specific), (ii) has been recognized as a determinant of

vulnerability to climate extremes (Mustafa 2003, Bradshaw 2004, Ahmed 2005), and (iii)

because few empirical studies on adaptive capacity and vulnerability to climate change

disaggregate the household as a unit (e.g. Ariyabandu & Wickramasinghe 2005). The focus

on caste is motivated as: (i) caste has been identified as a determinant of disparity yet without

being fully analyzed (Deshpande 2001), and (ii) on pragmatic grounds, as caste is a

particularly strong socio-cultural construction in the region where the study took place. Thus,

if social constructions do impact adaptive capacity it is likely to be demonstrated by this case.

The overall significance of the study is easily motivated, both empirically and theoretically, as

it answers to the need evoked in the climate change discourse of investigating differential

aspects of adaptive capacity, as well as to the social science deficit in resilience theory by

framing adaptive capacity to climate change from a social constructivist perspective.

2. Background 2.1 The context of climate change While we simply have no choice but to adapt to climate change, it is uncertain who will need

to adapt to what and when, or how capacity is differentiated (e.g. IPCC 2001, Adger &

Vincent 2004), which makes this an interesting case for a study on adaptive capacity. In the

climate change discourse, adaptive capacity has been defined as the property of a system,

such as a community or a household, to adjust its behavior and system functions “in order to

6

expand its coping range under existing climate variability, or future climate conditions”

(Brooks & Adger 2004). Thus it means not only to cope, but also to take advantage of climate

change related opportunities (e.g. IPCC 2001). Here, climate change is defined as “any

change in climate over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human

activity” (IPCC 2001:3). Although natural variation is an inherent component of the climate

system, the latest report (Third Assessment Report 2001) issued by the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) presents concluding evidence that the global climate is

significantly changing and that the negative impacts, which can largely be derived from the

continued burning of fossil fuels, are likely to multiply in the decades to come. Limited

understanding of climate feedbacks, inherent complexity and variability, and the impossibility

of controlling future human action and hence the effects of it, render climate change impacts

highly uncertain and impossible to forecast in detail. The case of climate change thus provides

telling support for approaches such as resilience theory, in which uncertainty and complexity

are inherently assumed.

Yet, some general trends of change have been identified. First, impacts of climate change are,

and will continuously be, different as well as differential on all scales (IPCC 2001). In terms

of exposure, it is projected that “developing countries stand to experience the most serious

impacts from climate change” (Huq 2005:3) and moreover “also have the lowest capacity to

adapt to them” (ibid.). The latter assumption of ‘developing’ countries’ relatively lower level

of adaptive capacity is based on the idea that adaptive capacity is determined primarily by

access to resources. On a country- or macro-level scale, this seems relevant and credible, as

restricted financial resources will limit possibilities to plan and implement strategic climate

adaptation. A lack of proactive, planned, and public adaptation makes autonomous adaptation,

i.e. the adaptive strategies people are pursuing, and are able to pursue on the local level, even

more important. But at lower scale-levels, access to financial resources is not necessarily the

most important enabling factor for adaptation action (Adger & Vincent 2004). “Autonomous

adaptations tend to be incremental and ad hoc, take multiple forms, occur in response to

multiple stimuli (usually involving a particular catalyst, rarely climate alone), and are

constrained by economic, social, technological, institutional and political conditions.”

(Schneider & Sarukhan, in IPCC 2001:89). Poor and marginalized groups, such as indigenous

peoples, women, elders and children are routinely identified as the most vulnerable and

having the least capacity to adapt (IPCC 2001; Adger et al. 2003, Huq 2005; Moench 2005),

not only to climate change but to all sorts of development challenges. While both appealing to

7

common sense as well as directing much needed attention to existing structural inequalities, I

claim that an uncritical embracement of such broad generalizations is likely to handicap

policy efficiency and deeper analyses by excluding other possible important factors. Worst-

case scenario, it becomes a principle for treating the symptoms rather than the underlying

cause. Vulnerability to climate change should therefore, just as adaptive capacity, be

contextually analyzed and understood.

The second general trend is that impacts will be of largely two types: (a) increased intensity

and occurrence of sudden disturbances and hazards (which are often perceived of as ‘natural

disasters’4), and (b) slowly changing variables (such as long-term changes in temperature and

precipitation). Although the impacts of slowly changing variables will likely be considerable,

it is the sudden disturbances, or point pressures, that directly and immediately will affect

development and livelihood strategies (IPCC 2001, Brooks & Adger 2004, Moench 2005).

2.2 The case: Avaniya village, Gujarat This case study on adaptive capacity to climate change is situated in India; a country

identified by the IPCC as in the high-end risk of exposure to climate change and alone

projected to hold almost a fourth of the world’s population by the year 2050 (Todaro & Smith

2003). The empirical work was conducted in Avaniya, a medium-size village (population app.

3000, 480 households (Utthan 2000)), in southern Bhavnagar district, in rural and coastal

Gujarat, a western Indian state. Although Gujarat, compared to other states is considered

relatively rich and ‘developed’, it has

been identified as one of India’s most

vulnerable regions to climate change,

particularly the coastal areas. The

reasons are biophysical exposure as

well as other external stressors (such

as negative impacts of globalization

and high dependency on agricultural

export). (O’Brien et al. 2004). All in

all, stressors in the region are plentiful

– droughts, floods, cyclones and

4 A natural event or hazard only becomes a ‘natural disaster’ when communities lack the ability to respond efficiently. A disaster is thus a social product rather than a natural condition, and can thus be mitigated or even avoided (e.g. Wisner et al. 2004).

8

earthquakes are frequently occurring, ecological degradation (e.g. groundwater overdraft, loss

of fertile soil and salinization) is extensive, and Gujarat is also plagued by severe ethnic and

religious tensions5 (e.g. Utthan 2003, Oxfam 2005). As in most rural Indian areas, caste

traditions are strong. The Indian caste system is however extremely complex; it has evolved

over thousands of years and can be perceived of as a functional and normative web of

connections, values and attributes. Basically, caste can be divided into four main groups,

Varna, and the sub-groups are called Jatis, of which there are literally thousands (Deshpande

2001). According to the Hindu traditional view, caste was closely related to profession and

served largely functional purposes, allowing for high mobility within and between castes

depending on skill. Over time however caste developed into an inherited trait, severely

limiting any kind of up-ward mobility (Oommen 2002). Although Gujarat has been referred to

as “the entrepreneurial hub of India” (Metha & Joshi 2002) and as such considered a hotbed

for high caste mobility (ibid.), there are other studies that, on the contrary, point to extensive

intercaste disparities and caste rigidity in Gujarat (Deshpande 2001) – an interesting

contradiction, which will be related to and addressed further in the results section.

Avaniya village is situated on the coast, just by the road connecting the two cities Bhavnagar

and Ghogha. Bhavnagar is a city with close to a million inhabitants and being only 10km

away, with buses running on a fairly regular basis, it offers a good commuting alternative for

work or school. The village is notoriously known for its poor water supplies and high content

of chloride in, and salinization of, the grounds (Utthan 2000). It has been part of an

international water supply and sanitation scheme (WASMO) for the past eight years and has

for the progress made been considered a ‘success-village’6. Farming and farm labor have

traditionally been the main sources of income, although alternative livelihoods such as labor

in, and setting up diamond cutting factories, are growing in popularity7. Many households

also keep livestock, such as buffaloes and goats, as a secondary source of livelihood. Women

have an outspoken domestic role, and are not expected to perform public functions. Purdah, a

5 Gujarat has become infamous for the ethno-religious riots of February 2002 when a Moslem mob was accused of setting a train carriage full of Hindu pilgrimages on fire, causing the death of fifty-eight people. This unleashed “a wave of retaliatory violence on the minority Moslem population in the region, leaving up to 2,000 dead and 100,000 homeless. Under the indulgent gaze of the state government, and against a backdrop of ransacked houses desecrated temples, at least 250 women and girls were brutally gang-raped and burned alive.” (On-line article by Ruth Baldwin, The Nation http://www.thenation.com.doc/20020930/baldwin20020916 ). Three years later Gujarat still struggles with the riot’s aftermath and many displaced Moslems still live in urban slum areas. 6 Pipeline water is now available in most households and the groundwater level, as well as water levels in wells, has been raised through the construction of small-scale check dams (Utthan 2003). 7 Result from the village workshop, see further the method section.

9

practice in which women are not allowed outside the house, is also practiced to quite some

extent in the region (Bassi 2005), particularly relating to the higher caste Darbar.

Darbar has traditionally been the ruling caste and are in majority in the village (≈43%),

followed by the middle caste Koli (≈36%) (Utthan 2000). The rest of the population belongs

to the Bharwad, Devipujaks, Kharak and Jatt castes (the latter a Moslem caste with only one

family in the village) (ibid.). Living conditions differ a lot in the village – some families live

in huts without electricity and water (sometimes even without four walls) whereas others live

in solidly constructed, several-story houses with TVs and fridges. The village provides

education in Gujarati (local tongue) up to 7th standard (13 years of age) in separate boys’ and

girls’ schools. Bhavnagar is geographically the closest alternative to continue on to high

school. Two rivers run through the village but are dry for 9-10 months of the year. During

monsoon however there is extensive problems with the rivers flooding and communication to

the village areas beyond the rivers is cut off.

In the climate change discourse there is a general agreement that “in the short term […] the

most likely changes will be in the frequency and severity of familiar recurrent hazards. The

capacity to adjust to such changes in frequency severity – and to support systems so that they

can adapt to the altered levels of hazard – will be critical.” (Brooks & Adger 2004:169; cf.

IPCC 2001, Huq 2005, Moench 2005, ISET 2006). Translated on coastal Gujarat and

Avaniya, it means that the likely impacts and most tangible effects of climate change can be

extrapolated from the climate extremes already occurring today, i.e., in this case: increased

intensity and frequency of floods, droughts and cyclones, and as a result, further reduced

availability and reliability of water resources.

3. Theoretical context

Thus far, the overall context and relevance of the study has been presented, whereas this

following section plunges deeper into the theoretical context of the two distinctly different

discourses that have inspired this study – resilience theory and social constructivism. The

ambition is to bring clarity to what resilience theory entails. But also to point to weaknesses in

the approach, to hypothesize how a social constructive perspective could contribute, and why

a combination of the two perspectives could be potentially difficult. To my knowledge, these

theories have not been coupled in analyses before.

10

3.1 The essence of resilience theory

Resilience can be defined as the capacity to cope with stress and the ability to reorganize after

disturbance without losing fundamental system functions. Resilience theory, on the other

hand, refers to the much larger and still expanding theoretical framework that has developed

from and around the resilience concept. When referring to this framework the terms resilience

discourse, resilience theory and resilience perspective will be used interchangeably.

Resilience as a concept first originated within ecology in early 1970s. Back then, it was an

alternative model for explaining ecosystem dynamics based on the idea of multiple basins of

attraction rather than the, at the time, hegemonic perception of ecosystems in stable single-

equilibrium states (Holling 1973; for a historical review of resilience see Folke 2006). In

essence it brought about the understanding that ecosystems do not behave linearly, i.e. they do

not respond to gradual change in a gradual way. A system can be exposed to stress or

disturbance during a long period of time, and although there may not be any immediately

noticeable effects, it is likely nevertheless to result in a loss of ecosystem resilience (the

capacity to adapt to future disturbances). When in such a state, even a small stress or

disturbance could result in abrupt and qualitative ecosystem change (possibly irreversible

(Scheffer et al. 2001)), and with likely negative consequences for the people and economies

depending on the ecosystem and the services it provides.

A basic logic behind resilience theory is that humans are dependent on ecosystems for their

development and survival, just as they are an inherent part of ecosystem dynamics. As a

consequence, neither social nor environmental problems can be addressed in isolation from

the interdependent social-ecological context in which they occur, which in turn makes

coupled, or linked, social-ecological systems (SES) the natural units of analysis. Although this

may seem evident, the perspective has long been ignored in both policy and research, which

in turn has caused many of the problems facing us today. A second logic, or theoretical pillar,

is that SES are complex adaptive systems. As such they are in constant flux, i.e. they are

dynamic, not stable. Complex adaptive systems are self-organizing; adaptation and interaction

between the system’s many comprising parts occur autonomously and the process outcome,

the emergent property, is larger than the sum of its parts. The more components and cross-

scale connections a system is comprised of, the more interactions will occur, resulting in an

increase of complexity and uncertainty of the process outcome (for a basic review on complex

adaptive systems theory see Manson 2000 or Naeslund 2004). Basically, what it means is that

11

change, uncertainty and complexity are inherent features of SES (Berkes & Folke, 1998;

Gunderson & Holling, 2002). Thus, ecological and social systems must be addressed in

tandem, are furthermore impossible to control and extremely difficult and complex to

manage. This makes social-ecological resilience a key – yet challenging – concept. As

humans are strategic and deliberate actors and thus can plan and direct their action, social-

ecological resilience is defined slightly different from ecosystem resilience:

“(a) the magnitude of shock that the system can absorb and remain within a given state, (b)

the degree to which the system is capable of self-organization, and (c) the degree to which the

system can build capacity for learning and adaptation.” (Folke et al., 2002b:7).

The key components here are learning and adaptation. Consequently, social-ecological

resilience can be seen as the flip-side of vulnerability (Kasperson & Kasperson, 2001) and

thus be regarded both as a dynamic emergent property of, and the normative management

objective for, social-ecological systems.

3.2 Resilience theory on adaptive capacity

With the above in mind, it is not surprising that adaptive capacity has been defined as the

ability to “manage resilience” (Walker et al. 2006). I.e. slightly different from the more

pragmatic definition on adaptive capacity presented here earlier, as it includes more explicit

theoretical preferences and value-statements. First, it contains a statement on what is to be

regarded as successful adaptation (i.e. to enhance system resilience). Second, it includes a

time-dimension, as social-ecological resilience by definition cannot be achieved in single

moment in time but is a long-term, on-going process. Finally it implies a systems-perspective

on adaptive capacity; focus is directed at the system rather than individuals.

Folke and others claim along similar lines that adaptive capacity is an intrinsic component of

resilience in SES (simply no resilience without adaptive capacity). Transformability, i.e. the

ability to actively transform and make use of inherent change and surprise as windows of

opportunity for consciously shifting development trajectories, has been a particularly

emphasized important component of adaptive capacity (e.g. Folke et al. 2002a, Folke 2006).

Which is similar from the climate change discourse.

What then, are, according to resilience theory, the important determinants of adaptive

capacity? On a general account it is claimed that resilience increases as diversity increases and

12

that favorable conditions for building adaptive capacity are created when there is system

learning; social and collective memory; social and institutional diversity and redundancy;

flexibility; access to resources and information; and interpretation and monitoring of

ecosystem feedbacks (e.g. Folke et al. 2002a, Folke et al. 2003). Drawing further on the

closely related bulk of literature on adaptive co-management (which, according to the

resilience discourse is the suggested management approach) focus becomes directed towards

the importance of institutions and collective agency. It has, however, also been suggested that

leadership, personal traits, combinations of different groups of actors (such as knowledge

generators, stewards, visionaries etc.), social networks and trust also are prerequisites for

building and enhancing adaptive capacity (Folke et al. 2005, Folke 2006). “The combination

of social roles of agent/actor and team/actor groups as part of social memory as well as their

diversity, overlapping functions, and redundancy provide resilience for reorganization, allow

for novelty and, thereby enhance adaptive capacity in the face of disturbance and crisis”

(Folke et al. 2005:455). All these claims, largely derived from a number of case studies, have

been proven relevant, but together they present a diffuse and rather complex picture. Where

does one begin? The obvious drawback of having a concept with too many determinants and

preconditions is that its applicability and explanatory strength decreases – i.e. it becomes

difficult to generalize from, and thus fears the risk of describing nothing but the particular,

and, furthermore, important causal mechanisms may become undetectable.

In essence, according to the resilience discourse, both resilience and adaptive capacity are

regarded as system properties, as well as normative ideals, and both are dependent on and

determined by a number of factors. The systems perspective of resilience theory is applied on

different scales, from the local to the global, but seldom on lower scale levels such as the

household or the individual. However, obviously individuals matter and are important to

consider. As one of the outspoken aims of resilience theory is to present a potential roadmap

towards sustainable development (Folke et al. 2002a), it is not only sustainability or

development per se that matters, but also how benefits and costs are shared and distributed

within the system. When adaptive capacity is exclusively perceived of in a systemic sense

these differential aspects are lost, internal power dynamics and inequalities become neglected,

and more importantly, the question remains on whose individual expense social-ecological

resilience is being managed. Thus, it paradoxically seems that the very strength of resilience

theory, the social-ecological systems perspective, can also be a weakness. This provides at

least a hypothetical reason why a social constructivist perspective – which focuses explicitly

13

on the individual, individual agency, and how individuals are part of creating and shaping

reality – could be seen as an important complement to resilience theory.

Although here it should be mentioned that, in a recent attempt to present adaptive capacity

somewhat more coherently and empirically translatable, Walker et al. (2006) do attempt to

apply the concept on the individual level. The attempt is rather traditional as they claim that

adaptive capacity is determined primarily by access to capital – natural, financial and social8,

and the institutional system (ibid.). As an alternative I would suggest simply to place the

pragmatic definition of adaptive capacity in the context of resilience, i.e. defining adaptive

capacity as the ability to adapt to foreseeable and unforeseeable events, taking into account

external and internal determinants. This way the basic logic of the resilience discourse is

drawn upon, without exclusively focusing on the macro-scale or ending up with uncritical

generalizations. The addition of the word unforeseeable in the definition implies (according to

the theoretical logic, e.g. (Folke et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2006)) that diversity, flexibility and

learning are key characteristics of adaptive capacity, as “dealing with uncertainty and

complexity in social-ecological systems is profoundly dependent on the ability of natural

resource users to learn and adapt from ecological surprises and crises.” (Galaz 2005:567).

Although limited in scope, and obviously not doing the discourse complete justice, it allows

for an analysis of adaptive capacity on macro- as well as individual and household scales.

With the possibility to make differential aspects explicit, it also enables for the analysis of

resilience as “a layered concept: ranging from the individual to the household, community,

ethnic group and even global level” (Glavovic et al. 2003:3).

3.3 Social constructions – what are they? Although social constructions and social constructivism are closely related, they need not be

linked by definition; it is possible to talk of social constructions without automatically

approaching it from a social constructivist platform (although it is impossible to do the

reverse) 9. When it comes to social constructions (or social constructs, the terms are often

used synonymously) the terrain is contested and ambiguous. Definitions differ depending on

what one claims is being constructed. In a review on the topic Sergio Sismondo identifies at

least four qualitatively different uses: “(a) the construction, through the interplay of actors, of

8 Social capital is an essentially contested concept, taken to include a number of variables such as trust, reciprocity, social networks etc., basically what makes societies function. 9 Berger and Luckmann (1966) ‘founded’ social constructivism, and as some claim, also of the concept social constructions (Sismondo 1993). However, since then both concepts have been developed and used differently and should therefore not be uncritically linked.

14

institutions, including knowledge, methodologies, fields, habits, and regulative ideals; (b) the

constructions by scientists of theories and accounts, in the sense that these are structures that

rest upon bases of data and observations; (c) the construction, through material intervention,

of artifacts in the laboratory; and (d) the construction, in the neo-Kantian sense, of the objects

of thought and representation.” (Sismondo 1993:516).

This thesis deals largely with an assessment of the first category of the four i.e. if, and if so

how, humans, individually and collectively, create and uphold social constructions that direct,

limit and/or enable behavior as well as influence perceptions of reality. For instance, it is not

only the social construction of gender per se that is of interest, but also how that social

construction is coupled with a construction of reality. This is a deliberate conceptualization to

further emphasize the links to social constructivism. Still however, there is a need to point out

what differentiates social constructions from norms and institutions, concepts that are

frequently used in for instance resilience theory.

Definitions of norms and institutions also vary considerably according to discipline and user.

Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist with a longstanding reputation in the field, define and

distinguish norms and institutions in the following way: “norms are shared and internalized

understandings by those involved about the “do’s and don’ts” involved in particular types of

situations”, whereas “the key aspect of all institutions are shared rules about what actions

individuals must take, must not take, or are permitted to take in particular settings” (Ostrom et

al. 2002:5). Thus, both norms and institutions are seen as constricting and directing human

behavior but institutions in a ‘stronger’ sense as they imply formal and informal rules rather

than just agreed upon understandings. They also seem to be limited in scope in the sense that

they apply to “particular settings” rather than being all-pervasive. It is quite common also that

norms are defined as part of institutions (e.g. North 1990). Although open for discussion, it is

my contention that the differences between institutions and norms, on the one hand, and social

constructions on the other are that (a) norms and institutions are limited in scale and scope

whereas social constructions are of a more general nature, and (b) although norms and

institutions constrict human behavior in the sense of “do’s, don’ts, ‘allowed’ and ‘not

allowed’ they do not necessarily influence perceptions of reality or actions and strategies that

are possible to pursue (as compared to preferably pursued). However, the separation between

15

these concepts is elusive and rather serves theoretical and analytical purposes than practical as

they are most often intimately linked as well as interdependent10.

Some practical examples derived from the fieldwork can however illustrate these differences

and place them in a relevant context. I define gender and caste as social constructions and as

such different from institutions and norms. In comparison, a norm in the context of gender

and caste could be that women of particular castes do not work outside the home once

married. An institution could be that women are not entitled to inherit land, whether the

institution is formalized or not. However the social construction of gender and caste includes

all these norms and institutions, they pervade all aspects of daily life, and determine the social

roles and positions that, as a social constructivist would claim, to a large extent influence both

perceptions of reality and the incessant social construction of reality. Focusing on social

constructions rather than limiting analyses to norms and institutions, could therefore result in

a more thorough exploration and deeper understanding of contextual limitations.

3.4 Social constructivism at a glance Social constructions, social constructivism, constructivism and social constructionism are all

terms being used more or less rigorously and interchangeably, with more or less defined

meaning (e.g. Sismondo 1993, Burningham 1998). “That there is no single social

constructionist position is now more obvious than ever.” (Stam 2001:294). In attempts to

separate between constructionism and constructivism (with or without the ‘social’ as a prefix),

Hacking (1999) and Demeritt (2001) define ‘contructionist’ approaches as attributable to the

varying social sciences’ uses, mostly on an epistemological level, and ‘constructivist’ to the

philosophical debate focused more on ontological (and epistemological) claims11. However,

this ‘disciplinary’ categorization seems not to be generally accepted nor used. Instead I have

chosen to use one term consistently – social constructivism. Maybe a choice that can be

criticized on the grounds of neglecting important differences, but as this is no theoretical in-

depth study, the limitation is valid as it minimizes potential confusion for the reader and helps

to focus on the general traits rather than getting lost in a definitional quagmire.

The essence of social constructivism is that knowledge of reality by definition is socially

constructed; “social constructionism rejects the idea that knowledge can be divorced from

10 For instance, institutions and institutionalisation are frequently used by Berger and Luckmann (1987), which further points to the concepts’ theoretical interrelatedness. 11 An ontological position refers to views about reality (what is real, what is not) whereas epistemology refers to knowledge about that reality (how do we know ‘reality’) (e.g. Stoker 1997:13).

16

social experience and access objectively an external reality” (Jones 2002:248). That there is

no objective knowledge of reality is an idea that has been around as long as any, although a

historical review would be too extensive to fit here. On a short note, it dates as far back as the

ancient Greeks, over history by Marx and Kant, to name just a few. Discourse-wise it is now

strongly associated with postmodernist thoughts, but the concept of a social construction of

reality was popularized by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann in their influential work “The

social construction of reality – A treatise in the sociology of knowledge” (1966).

Berger and Luckmann’s main point is basically that there is no getting around the fact that

“reality is socially constructed and [it should be] analyzed the process in which this occurs”

(Berger & Luckmann 1987:13). They define ‘reality’ “as a quality appertaining to phenomena

that we recognize as having a being independent of our own volition (we cannot ‘wish them

away’), and […] ‘knowledge’ as the certainty that phenomenon are real and that they possess

specific characteristics” (ibid.). As true sociologists they contend that it is not up to the

researcher to assess the validity of any claims pertaining to ‘reality’; what is of real interest is

how ‘reality’ is constructed and how perceptions differ (op cit.). The logic behind, as well as

implications of, this claim has been nicely put by Oommen “the perceptions people hold about

social reality are equally important as social fact, in successfully tackling social problems”

(2002:116).

However, the theory’s basic premise has often lead social constructivists ending up in head-on

battles with ontological realists and anti-relativists. But a quick review of the critique of, and

responses from, social constructivism provides a rather consensual account: although social

constructivists all agree that ‘reality’ is epistemologically constructed (i.e. we cannot know

‘objective reality’) few, only the radical or strong social constructivists, take on a relativist

ontological stand (i.e. there is no ‘objective reality’) (Burningham 1998, Burningham &

Cooper 1999, Jones 2002, Nightingale & Cromby 2002).

Similarly, the question here is not if climate change exists in any ‘objective sense of reality’,

but to dig deep into the ‘subjective senses of climate change reality’. The rationale behind this

is simply an analogy of that above; any ‘lived subjective climate reality’ is just as real and

will have equally strong implications for agency and adaptation as will any ‘objective reality’.

It is still however controversial to approach issues such as climate change from a social

constructivist perspective. Environmentalists in general have voiced loud critique against the

uses of social constructivist approaches (Burningham 1998, Jones 2002). The logic employed

17

is the same as in the more general critique and due to ontological assumptions that “social

constructionists do not acknowledge the reality and independent existence of environmental

problems, and thus the approach cannot contribute to attempts to respond to those problems”

(Burningham 1998:537). The reply has yet again been that constructivists by definition do not

take a particular ontological stand and can therefore not be exempted from investigating

environmental problems on those grounds. On the contrary, seeing the complexity and value

dimensions of social-ecological problems such as climate change, it can be argued that a

social constructivist perspective is needed as a supposition-free methodology to uncover the

values and assumptions that are part of the problem (e.g. Burningham 1998, Demeritt 2002,

Jones 2002). “The existence and character of environmental problems, as well as to how best

to address them, are often contested. […] However, delineating the competing constructions

of a problem and understanding how these constructions have emerged and are maintained

can play an important part in resolving environmental disputes and moving towards the

development of solutions acceptable to all.” (Burningham 1998:559-560)

4. Method

This study on adaptive capacity to climate change is a qualitative case study based on

interviews. The aim is to explore how the social constructions of gender and caste can impact

adaptive capacity to climate change, focusing on both external and internal aspects by looking

at access to resources as well as a possible social construction of ‘reality’.

4.1 Choosing indicators and material and data collection On a general account it can be said that finding valid indicators of adaptive capacity is

difficult “as adaptive capacity is not directly measurable” (Brooks & Adger 2004:170). One

approach that previously has been used to assess adaptive capacity is to observe the

adaptation strategies already occurring at the local level (Adger & Kelly 1999, IPCC 2001,

Brooks & Adger 2004, Moench 2005). This method provides information on what options are

available in practice and preferable in the local context. For example, “experience with

adaptation to climate variability and extremes can be drawn upon to develop appropriate

strategies for adapting to anticipated climate change” (IPCC 2001:8) and “the main purpose of

participatory vulnerability assessments is to identify adaptation strategies that are feasible and

practical in communities” (Smit & Wandel 2006:1). Another somewhat more structural

approach that is commonly suggested, is to focus on institutional and governance aspects

and/or the various capitals available (e.g. IPCC 2001, Walker 2006). However both of these

18

approaches lack explanations on why people act the way they do, what hinders or enables

adaptation and if they would like to pursue other strategies that are currently not available.

The indicators one chooses will ultimately depend on how the concept is defined and what

aspects are emphasized. Thus the first step toward finding indicators of adaptive capacity has

thus already been made, as adaptive capacity has been defined as the ability to adapt to

foreseeable and unforeseeable events, taking into account both external and internal

determinants. In order to further translate the concept empirically, I have chosen to combine

the above-mentioned approaches (i.e. what strategies are already being pursued in response to

climate extremes, and what capitals (economic, physical, natural, social and human) are

needed to implement these strategies) with probing into the perceptions and feelings about

climate extremes, vulnerability and adaptive strategies. Drawing on the insights from

resilience theory: diversity, flexibility and learning will be used as criteria for analyzing

adaptive capacity to unforeseeable events. Climate change has in turn been operationalized

into three variables, floods, droughts and cyclones (see Background section).

Figure 1. Conceptual analysis scheme

Resources and capitals

External determinants

ADAPTIVE CAPACITY

Adaptive strategies

Attitudes and perceptions

Internal determinants

Financial

Physical

Natural

Human

Social

Vulnerability

Adaptation

Learning

Flexibility

’Reality’

Current Past

To assess adaptive capacity once ‘operationalized’, the technique used has primarily been

interviewing, semi-structured and structured (Kvale 1996). Although this is not a novel

strategy it is easily motivated as “the development of local-level indicators will benefit from

19

stakeholder participation: local people are generally the best equipped to identify factors that

facilitate and constrain their own adaptation” (Brooks & Adger 2004:171). To use qualitative

research interviewing as a main technique was a natural choice as it “attempts to understand

the world from the subjects’ points of view, to unfold the meaning of peoples’ experiences”

(Kvale 1996:1). Seeing in particular that this thesis aims at getting at differential aspects of

adaptive capacity and perceptions about reality “it is in fact a strength of the interview

conversation to capture the multitude of subjects’ views of a theme and to picture a manifold

and controversial human world” (Kvale 1996:7).

4.1.2 Caste and gender as social constructions A justification of the choice of caste as a one of two social constructions being examined in

the study is needed. Choosing a case where social constructions are likely to be particularly

strong, could introduce research bias. Had the dependent variable been social constructions

rather than adaptive capacity as is in this case, the research design had also been flawed and

indeterminate. However the choice of caste here is an intentional selection on the explanatory

variable and is therefore not biased. The only potential problem with selecting on the

explanatory variable is that generalization becomes more difficult. However, as gender is also

examined this becomes less of a problem. (cf. King et al. 1994:129-139)

In the result and analysis sections I have categorized castes in three different groups: low,

middle and high castes. The categorization is, on the one hand, subjective but little more than

a simplified version of how caste is differentiated in the local context of Avaniya. Although

the caste scale is highly correlated with wealth, its basis is heritage and ancestry. Recalling

from the background section, the majority of people in the village belong to Darbar and Koli,

which are labeled high and middle caste respectively. Although some of the Koli families are

relatively well off compared to the mean, Kolis in general, are in several of the interviews

with Darbar families referred to as ‘the poorer’. Devipujaks (low caste) previously belonged

to the so called ‘untouchables’ (untouchability is since half a century forbidden but is still

practiced in rural areas to some extent (Oommen 2002)) and in the local caste system they are

still at the bottom of the scale. Two other castes have also been included among ‘low castes’,

Bharwad and Jatt. Both Jatts and Bharwads by tradition work with husbandry or as

pastoralists; they are in minority and are considered ‘lower’ than Kolis because of their

profession12. Jatt is Moslem caste (there was only one Jatt family in the entire village), which

12 Part of this information was also retrieved from an unpublished sociological report on the area: http://www.sociology.ed.ac.uk.sas.papers/panel20_tambs.rtf accessed 2006-07-15

20

renders them a lower status, and does not formally count as a scheduled caste, but as a

scheduled tribe, though firmly embedded in the caste system.

4.1.3 Choosing the site The village where the study was conducted was chosen on both pragmatic and strategic basis.

The fieldwork was carried out in cooperation with an NGO, Utthan13, and was hence

geographically restricted to the area in which they are operating. The strategic criteria used for

selecting the site were a) climate traits, i.e. both a drought and flood prone site, and close

enough to the coast to be exposed to cyclones, and b) size, i.e. small enough to be able to do a

comprehensive study. Furthermore, the village Avaniya was also selected on the basis of

being one of few villages where a Disaster Preparedness Committee was in place, which lead

me to assume higher than average levels of adaptation and preparedness, and at best a

possibility of finding a ‘success case’ to draw on for further research.

4.1.4 The beginning of empirical work The empirical work started out with field visits to build rapport and to get a sense of social-

ecological dynamics. I had formal and informal conversations with Utthan-staff about

Avaniya, as well as with their local contacts in the village. In order to achieve a greater

understanding of village dynamics and to present myself, I organized a village workshop

(informed by participatory rural appraisal techniques)14 to discuss with villagers, both men

and women, young and old, of different castes and professions, on the broad themes: climate

impact today and historically; projected climate impacts for the region; and perceptions of the

differential aspects of current vulnerability and adaptive capacity (i.e. from their perspective

who are most vulnerable and what do they themselves think are the most important resources

and skills needed for successful adaptation).

4.1.5 Designing the interviews The first interview set that was conducted was semi-structured, or open-ended interviews,

developed from the conceptual scheme presented in figure 1. As it is difficult to assess

adaptive capacity without taking vulnerability into account, it was designed to assess the

broader themes of a) current vulnerability to climate change, b) current adaptive strategies, c) 13 Utthan is an Indian NGO (non-governmental organization) active in the state of Gujarat working towards initiating sustainable processes of empowerment among disadvantaged communities with special attention provided to women. The organization was founded in 1981 and has been active in the Bhavnagar district for the past decade. For more information about Utthan see: http://www.ngoindia.com/utthan/14 To get as broad a participation as possible and interaction with all partakers at the workshop I used for instance participatory techniques of drawing and scaling (Mukherjee 1994) not to exclude those illiterate. The flows of information were mutual as this opportunity was seized not only to understand their perceptions, but also to inform the participants on climate change and to stress the need of preparedness.

21

access to economic, physical, natural, social and human capital and which capital and

resources were considered important, d) the respondents’ problem perceptions of the village at

large and climate events in particular, and e) the respondents’ perceptions of vulnerability and

adaptive capacity and attitude on learning and flexibility.

Interview questions were then developed for each of these themes. For example, questions

regarding capitals focused on the access to various capitals and if any capitals important in

general, and for adapting to floods, droughts and cyclones in particular, were lacking; if they

were part of any organizations and received information on climate related matters; and if

strategies were shared with the community at large. Questions on adaptive strategies were

mainly focused on what the interviewees were doing to adapt to these phenomena and why;

how this was learnt, what they had been doing in the past, what they could do but chose not to

etc. Questions aimed at assessing internal determinants were focused on problem and reality

perceptions, their attitude towards learning and changing livelihoods strategies, what

interviewees thought of their own and others’ vulnerability and capacity to adapt. The more

detailed design of the questions was influenced by the information gathered from the

workshop, Utthan conversations and village visits.

After having conducted the first set of interviews, a second, more structured, interview-set

was designed to follow up on key themes but allowing for a larger number of observations,

than continuing deep interviewing would have. Although, particularly regarding the first set,

semi-structured is a key word as the outcomes of the different interviews were highly

dependent on, and influenced by, the interviewees.

4.1.6 Selection of interviewees and conducting the interviews The selection of the interviewees was strategic as “random selection and assignment have

serious limitations in small-n research” (King et al. 1994:115). Guided by the results from the

workshop on the villagers’ perceptions of climate change vulnerability and adaptive

capacity15, the Disaster Preparedness Committee and Water Committee (Pani Samiti) of the

village made a list with the ten most vulnerable households (least capacity to adapt) and ten

least vulnerable (highest capacity to adapt) in the village. Caste, type of household (for

instance woman-headed or widow-household) and location in the village were specified as

15 What stood out most clearly from the workshop discussions was that vulnerability to climate change impacts seemed to be highly correlated with type of house (raw house or strongly constructed), location of house in the village, and poverty. Adaptive capacity was related to education, wealth, diversity of livelihoods, and smaller-sized families.

22

further tools for selection. Interviewees were then selected on the basis of getting as broad

representation as possible, i.e. from all castes, all locations and different types of households.

Particular attention was given to households labeled ‘not vulnerable’ but that were situated in

a ‘vulnerable’ location in the village, as this was likely to imply a higher adaptive capacity.

The deep interviews took between 1 and 4 hours to conduct, with a mean around 2 ½ hours. In

total, 13 deep interviews in the village and 1 interview with the area representative from

Utthan were conducted. As the language spoken is Gujarati I had a female translator16 along

with me at all the field visits and all interviews, doing simultaneous translation. All interviews

were recorded on mp3-player and all but one took place at the interviewees’ homes (or

temporary homes as in two cases) to get as much information as possible on their relative

standard of living. All interviews were transcribed (as close to the interview occasion as

possible). During the interview I tried to stay as neutral as possible (i.e. not to start any

normative discussions with the interviewees unless they explicitly asked me questions) but

after the interviews we often had informal conversations where we could discuss more freely

on value-statements (such women should not learn to swim or read) and where I could inform

on for instance their rights, what facilities and services they were entitled to from the village

but that they did not know of etc. The fieldwork took place from late January to mid-March,

with most interviews conducted in mid-February to mid-March. This time of the year is

summer (i.e. no rain wherefore lands and rivers are dry), which possibly could have affected

the answers to questions on floods and droughts (if the land is dry it may be easier to

remember other dry periods as oppose to floods in monsoon).

One particular objective was to conduct interviews with women only, to be sure to get to

important gender differences as men tended to dominate the interviews when present (a rough

estimation is that men spoke 4/5 of the time in the gender-mixed interviews). This turned out

to be a problem as many women were reluctant to give their opinions when their men were

not at home, or when no such reluctance existed and the interview started, male members of

the household often came home, joined in and took over. To find privacy was difficult overall;

usually during the interviews there were many people present (neighbors, children, and others

that could not fight their curiosity), the number of people present ranged from an average of 5

up to 20. Even attempts to vary the weekdays and time for the deep interviews (to better suit

the women and less the men) were without success, and considering the male domination in

16 Venu was a PhD-student in Comparative English literature from Bhavnagar.

23

the mixed interviews, the deep interview selection is, from a gender perspective, therefore

somewhat biased. Neither when judging on the caste variable is the selection optimal seeing

that there are twice as many middle-caste interviews as there are low-caste interviews. One

reason for this is that the list the selection was based on, was dominated by Koli and Darbar

households, which in turn could be explained by their dominance in the village in real

numbers (2/3 of the population).

Table 1. Deep interviews (in village)

Low caste Middle caste High caste Total

Male 0 1 1 2

Female 0 2 0 2

Mixed 3 3 3 9

Total 3 6 4 13

When the deep interviews started feeling saturated, i.e. not much new surfaced during the

interviews, a preliminary analysis of the results was made and the more structured interview

set developed. I carried out 15 more structured interviews (though neither these interviews

were rigorously structured), which on average took 45 minutes (ranging from 25 minutes to

70 minutes). These interviews were not recorded but transcribed on the spot. The selection of

interviewees was continuously strategic but based mostly on visual impressions rather than

pre-existing demographic knowledge of the households. A more thorough and informed

selection had been preferable but was not possible due to time constraints. To balance the

previous bias, the primary objective was to get interviews with women only – and this time it

proved easier as the interviews were shorter (the men of the households simply did not make

it back to the house in time if they tried). As location and type of house had indeed shown to

be important factors for climate change vulnerability, these criteria were again used in the

selection. As it was not possible to use caste directly as a selection criterion (one cannot ‘see’

which caste a person belongs to), I tried also here selecting on location to indirectly get a

broad caste sample (as caste and location of house is strongly correlated). However, once the

interviews started I found in several cases where I thought the family would belong to a lower

caste, that they in fact belonged the lower ends of a middle caste. Unfortunately due to time

constrictions I could not make up for this selection bias.

24

Table 2. Structured interviews (in village)

Low caste Middle caste High caste Total

Male 0 3 1 4

Female 2 2 3 7

Mixed 0 3 1 4

Total 2 8 5 15

In total, the material selection is comprehensive and includes over 50 hours of recorded

interviews and an additional 50 pages of notes taken directly. In relation to the population of

Avaniya, most castes are included, albeit unevenly, and approximately 10% of the village

households have been heard at either interviews or the workshop.

Table 3. All interviews Low caste Middle caste High caste Other* Total

Male 0 4 2 - 6

Female 2 4 3 1 10

Mixed 3 6 4 - 13

Total 5 14 9 1 29

* Female area representative from Utthan

Each interview has been coded, i.e. given a number from 1-29. The code list, complemented

with some basic household information (caste, gender, location of house) is included in

Appendix I.

4.1.7 Validating interview data Validating data in the sense of triangulating it with other methods or secondary sources to get

support for claims or interpretations is not the only important validation process, although a

valuable one when the selection is small or biased. When it comes to interview data,

validation is important to make sure that comments or claims have not been misinterpreted,

but also to provide the interviewee with another chance to elaborate on themes and points the

researcher single out as important. Here such validation occurred through a number of ways;

important questions were asked several times during the interview (slightly rephrased),

responses were repeated and asked if interpreted correctly, and some time after the interview

(between five and 10 days) I returned to the interviewees and held informal conversations and

asked them about key points and any ambiguities I had found while transcribing.

25

4.2 Qualitative data analysis

The aim of a qualitative data analysis is not to present a statistical or a quantitative measure,

or in this case neither to compare the relative importance of social constructions with access

to capitals in regard to adaptive capacity to climate change. The aim is to get to the deeper

meanings – the qualitative aspects of the interview data.

Thus the analysis has been based on the recorded and transcribed conversations, but also other

general impressions and feelings; I have tried to get to ‘what is said between the lines’ rather

than looking only at concrete verbal formulations. For example, one respondent answered the

question if he felt vulnerable to floods with ‘not particularly’ – however when probed deeper

into, it became clear that he had a very difficult history with floods and had little or no

capacity to cope “only God can decide if I will live or die the next flood17”. His reason for

answering ‘not particularly’ was that he felt vulnerable to most events, floods included.

Throughout the analysis I have looked for the occurrence of themes or statements (both within

and between interviews) and the more frequent something has been addressed the more

important I have deemed this finding. In the material I have also particularly searched for

contrasting opinions.

4.2.1 RQ1 The first general assessment (what came out of the workshop, the interviews and

conversations at large) was to see which resources or capitals that were seen as important to

be able to adapt to climate change in this local context. Secondly I looked at the access to

these capitals from a gender and caste perspective. As much as possible I tried to find

instances where it could be made certain that the explaining variable was caste or gender

respectively, rather than a variable such as poverty, location or type of house. However this

was difficult as these are commonly interdependent and correlated.

Resources have been broadly categorized in five separate (yet overlapping) categories. The

classification is more a heuristic tool aimed at providing an easier outline rather than being

important in itself (as the purpose is not to assess the relative importance of any category

against the others). The five capital categories are a) financial (money, insurances, formal and

informal loans, sources of credit), b) physical (type of house, location of house, wells, birth

certificates, warning system), c) natural (land, firewood, fodder, grain, water) d) social 17 From interview (7), for more information see list in the appendix.

26

(networks, influence, trust of Panchayat, other and own caste community, participation in

formal and informal organizations), and e) human (skills, education). On a secondary basis

these were assessed against the criteria of diversity and flexibility (if for instance livelihood or

adaptation is dependent on only one source, this would imply a relatively lower level of

adaptive capacity than if there are many sources to draw from).

4.2.2 RQ2 To assess the second research question I searched the material for comments such as: ‘we

cannot’, ‘I cannot’, ‘this is not possible’, ‘how could I do that’ etc. as well as for utterances

about reality. A particular objective was to find instances where resources were available to

pursue a strategy but the respondent nonetheless felt it was ‘non-pursuable’. To make my case

here I have also asked about peoples’ perceptions about ‘real climate events’, floods, droughts

and cyclones. Seeing that it is still a relatively small society, both geographically and

population-wise, it could be assumed that people would share at least similar perceptions

about climate events, for instance if droughts and floods occur and how often. Important

aspects of adaptive capacity that have been assessed here are also the attitudes towards

adaptation and learning – if positive, flexible and open for new ideas, it likely implies a higher

capacity to deal with both foreseeable and unforeseeable events.

4.3 Limitations of the study A part from the limitations that have already been mentioned, there are number of other

concerns. The biggest one relates to how much that actually can be generalized from a single

and highly specific case. However, as this study is explorative in the sense that it brings

together two different and not previously coupled discourses, to start with one case is

recommendable. Although this means that the implications of the study on the theoretical

level will be mere propositions, it is equally true that all theoretical development must start

somewhere. Perhaps it can be further justified by recalling that resilience theory in itself is in

a ‘propositional’ stage and it is actually the case that much of the theory has been developed

from results on single case studies (for instance the case Kristianstad Vattenrike has had great

impact for the theoretical development) (e.g. Olsson et al. 2004). It does however remain a

serious weakness. Second it must be stated that as the selection of interviewees is biased,

particularly there being too few low caste households interviewed, it is not possible to make

any certain claims either on the local scale. However, interesting findings can still be made

and used as a basis for further research. Also, just to make a note of it; translator influence is a

classic bias in doing interview studies. Furthermore, how I was introduced and presented in

27

the village has been shown to impact results; respondents have a tendency to want to ‘answer

right’ or ‘strategic’ depending on their situation and how they situate the researcher. For

instance, it is likely that some people exaggerated their situation and poverty because I was

introduced as a partner to Utthan that has been involved (though only to a small extent) in

relief projects. Another source of bias is that once in the village, I was introduced to other

villagers by the local NGO-contacts, equally the local politicians. These people turned out to

be quite corrupt and it is possible that interviewees who saw us as ‘connected’ felt reluctant to

speak freely. Pointing in the opposite direction however is that many did voice severe

criticism and claims of local political corruption.

5. Results

The results are presented in three sections; first one with the general findings and thereafter

one section on each of the two research questions. After quotes or references to

interviews/interviewees their respective code is given e.g. (6, 17, 24). However, sometimes

names and other basic information are also stated directly after a quote.

5.1 General findings The interviews and the workshop showed that among the households included in the study,

there was a widespread concern about floods, droughts and cyclones. Of the 28 responding

households 13 worried over or feared floods, 20 worried over or feared droughts, and 24

worried over or feared cyclones. The households that directly expressed that they had

experienced big losses (such as house collapse, forced to migrate, or severe accidents) were 9

due to floods, 3 due to droughts (as impacts of droughts are more indirect and long-term this

is likely reflected in the relatively low number) and 11 due to cyclones. Whereas almost all

responding households feared cyclones, it was mainly those involved with animal husbandry

and the land-owning farmers (who exclusively are of high or middle caste, and of which a

majority of the 13 included in the study lived in the Old town) that expressed concern over

droughts whereas the landless laborers (all of which live in more flood exposed areas) tended

to worry more about floods.

Despite the obvious fear of these familiarly reoccurring phenomena, only two (10, 15) of the

28 households included in the study stated that they had adaptive strategies to deal with

cyclones. In both cases they used retrofitting techniques to make their houses cyclone-proof.

None of the households belonging to any of the lower castes expressed any strategies to deal

28

with either floods or cyclones. In total, only 12 of 28 households expressed any explicit

strategies to deal with floods. It was interesting to note that only five (all Kolis) of the 13

households that identified themselves as vulnerable to floods were among these 12. The most

common strategy was to construct solid houses and to use cement rather than mud (2, 10, 12,

15, 22). Other strategies ranged from purchasing plastic sheets “so that we can cover our

things if the roof leaks” (21) and providing “solid shelter for the harvested grain” (24), to

building houses on heights or pillars (13, 26, 28)18. Two households built walls to protect

their houses (1, 11), and one household built a wall to protect their farm:

“To prepare for floods we construct a wall near our house so that the water cannot come inside. […] We dig and take sand from here, from the farm, and then we bring it to our home and construct it so that water cannot come inside. In advance we bring some bricks and then if the water is increasing we build such a wall.” (Ravjibhai, male, farm manager, Koli, living in Jodphara)

– Is there any other action you take before a flood? Is there anything you do in flood season that you do not do in other seasons?

– No such preparations are needed, if it rains heavily, like cats and dogs we can think something like that. We don’t do preparations.

– And what do you do when it is raining heavily do you secure any property? – We don’t do anything in the house. – Do you do anything in the farm? – We construct a solid fencing between two farms. Our farms and other farms.

(3, Jayabhai, male, land-owning farmer, Koli, living in Old town)

The bulk of adaptation to floods and cyclones seemed to occur ad-hoc as a majority, when

asked explicitly, answered in line with the following quotes: “we do nothing before, we just

run away when the water comes from everywhere” (28, Shakorubhai, male farm laborer, Koli,

living in Jodphara), “We do nothing. On the spot we just run away from our houses. Run here

and there is all we can do, we don’t even wait for our children.” (17, Shanuben, female

laborer, Devipujak). Even the village Disaster Preparedness Committee (DPC) focused on

mitigation rather than preparation. The following extract from a conversation with a DPC-

member provides a telling example:

- What is your ordinary work to prepare for disasters? 18 Two Koli households stated employing this strategy, one successfully and one without the intended effect: “We built our house on a height but it is still knee-high with water” (Savhjibjhai, male, farm labourer, Koli, living in Jodphara); and “Both my brothers families are living here near my house and they got some problems in the last flood. The water came into their houses up to knee-high level. So I thought, when I would build my house I will build it on a height. And I have taken much care while constructing this home. My house is very good, two years ago at the cyclone I called up my whole family and told them to stay here because my home is so safe. […] It is built on columns; it is kind of retrofitting.” (Batukbhai, male, farmer and owner of diamond-cutting factory, Koli, living in Navapura)

29

- Nothing. - How often do you meet? - Every month. - What do you talk about at these meetings? - We talk about preparations. - Give me an example of a preparation. - When there was an earthquake we used to tell people that there can be an earthquake

at any time, so be prepared and keep your things together at a safe place so that you can run away if you wish to. We used to tell these things in earthquake times.

- Is there anything you have done to prepare for floods or cyclones? - It is not fixed, a flood can come at any time so what can we prepare?

(Pravinsihn, male, land-owning farmer, Darbar, living in the Old town)

For droughts it was mainly the land-owning Koli and Darbar farmers that had outspoken

strategies (13 of 15). All expressed more or less the same adaptive strategies, i.e. stocking

food, grains and fodder that could last up until a year. Four of them (of which three were

Koli) also mentioned livelihood diversification as a drought strategy (i.e. not to rely solely on

farming). The only two land-owning farming households that could present no strategies was

a Darbar widow that owned one acre of land but whose brother’s in law decided over the land

(16) and a Darbar housewife who was not sure if her husband had any strategies or not (29).

Although, all farmers with a larger land holding are automatically insured by their crop-loans

and several mentioned this as a necessary security.

When comparing overall responses from the interviews, a diversification of livelihood did not

immediately correlate with a perception of the household’s lesser vulnerability or more

adaptive capacity. On the contrary, the households that had the largest diversification of

livelihoods also expressed higher levels of vulnerability in general. To own land for farming

combined with employment in diamond cutting was a common combination and seemed to

lessen, at least the current, perceptions of vulnerability as well as lived negative impacts

considerably. This finding is interesting because it shows that it is not livelihood

diversification per se, but rather the quality of diversity that matters.

5.2 How can the social constructions of gender and caste limit or enhance adaptive capacity to climate change with regard of access to resources and capitals? Without stating the obvious, the findings from this study support the already researched claim

that women and lower castes are made more vulnerable due to a restricted access to resources

(e.g. Mustafa 2003, Bradshaw 2004, Ahmed 2005, Ariyabandu & Wickramasinghe 2005). It

was however interesting to note that of all interviews, only in four cases were women

30

explicitly identified as being more vulnerable or having lesser capacity to adapt to floods,

droughts or cyclones. All others stated that women and men have the same capacity and

opportunities to deal with these events “it is all the same, we all sit together” (23, Koli, male

laborer), “it is the same, there is no difference between men and women” (27, Koli, female

laborer). In the case of caste however, the opposite was true; almost all used caste a

differentiating category to separate between high and low vulnerability, and high and low

capacity to adapt. This was made obvious not least at the workshop and from the list prepared

by the village communities where none of the households that were identified as least

vulnerable (high capacity to adapt), belonged to any of the lower castes, just as none of the

most vulnerable households (low capacity to adapt), belonged to the higher Darbar caste. Koli

households were however mentioned in both categories. This is an indication of that the social

construction of caste is admittedly correlated with disparity whereas the social construction of

gender is on a less conscious level – albeit with equally real consequences. This is true

because, implicitly, both men and women of all castes (though not in all interviews)

mentioned or pointed to various ways in which the social construction of gender impede

adaptive capacity in regard to access to capital, as this extract shows:

– There is no difference in how women and men are affected. – Is there any difference in how women and men can prepare? – Only that women would do the household work and men would work in the

farm to save the seeds. – […] What is the best strategy to deal with floods, droughts and cyclones? – Male members would know. We don’t have that responsibility on our

shoulders so how would we know? Male members do the work, we are not suppose to go out so we don’t know.

– Is there skill or practice you would like to learn? – Stitching, but women are not allowed to go out to learn anything.

(29, Nainaba, female, housewife, Darbar, living in Old Town)

Economic capital: Although not the only important resource, it cannot be disputed that

financial resources, and cash in particular are important sources for basic livelihood resilience

and for adapting to climate events and coping with the unexpected (e.g. Moench 2005). From

a gender perspective, women’s access to financial capital was however limited; in the cases

where households were mixed (26 of the 28 cases, 2 widows of the four widows included in

the study were living on their own), men controlled the economy completely (i.e. women had

no access to money or ability to decide on household purchases) in 10 cases (of which 8 were

Darbar). In 4 households had women outspoken access to smaller amounts of cash if they first

told their husband how they would use it and he then sanctioned it. Only in 5 of the 26

31

household interviews, was it explicitly stated that men and women together decided on how to

spend money and had a shared access to household cash (1 (Koli), 10 (Koli), 13 (Darbar), 22

(Koli), 24 (Karak Patel), 27 (Koli)). “Women decide over money, we tell our husbands what

to buy […] unless the matter is serious, then our men will decide” (1, Valuben, Koli, laborer).

Another interesting finding was that the poorest households I came across in the village (a

subjective judgment based on their relative standard of living, e.g. clothes, food and property,

dependency on others’ good will for their survival, and the stories told during the interviews)

were the two single-widow households, one Koli and the other Bharwad. Overall social

security for widows in the village seemed to be limited; none of the four widows I met

received full or even part of what they said was their entitled pensions; they claimed that

systematic corruption deprived them of their legal right to pension, but they all felt powerless

and thought they could do nothing about it (5, 16, 18, 27).

“I’m a widow but I’m not getting any pension. I’m not entitled to; our village is dominated by Darbar so they never give us any pension. But whom can I tell? The government is giving pension money but it is not reaching us. The local Panchayat is not giving it.” (27, Lakuben, Koli laborer).

“Panchayat and the employees of the government posted here are very corrupt; they are taking my widow pension of 500rs/month. There are many widows who never get their pensions, no one gets all of it. I have told the Panchayat many times to help me get my pension but they are not doing anything.” (16, Mayaben, Darbar, cook at the school).

“As I am a widow I get a pension. I get 400rs/month and some others get 500rs/month. I don’t know why it is different. But it is not fixed; sometimes I get even less and some months I get nothing at all. Everyday I have to go ask for 10-20rs in credit to buy food, sometimes the shopkeeper gives and sometimes he doesn’t. The Panchayat people are not doing good work. I have told them but they are not doing anything.” (18, Punaben, Bharwad)

Although I have searched for secondary sources on the topic I have not been able to find any

official documents stating that all widows are entitled to a 500rs widow pension/month as was

claimed by the widows. When informally approaching Panchayat-members on the topic, they

simply stated: “everyone in the village gets what they are entitled to”.

Both accessibility of formal and informal loans, and sources of credit were identified in the

interviews (as has been in other related research, see e.g. Moench & Dixit 2004) as important

in dealing with climate events, as well as to prepare for them. It was positive to discover that

all households interviewed stated that they had access to some sort of credit sources for food

(either in the village or in Bhavnagar city) in case of community or household crises.

32

However once again, women’s access was more limited (though not in the same extent as

above) as women in six households had no personal knowledge on how to access these

sources, e.g. “I don’t know, but our men most be knowing. They must be going, but they

don’t inform us ladies.” (29, Nainaba, Darbar, housewife).

Whereas the land-owning Koli families and all Darbar households had enough security to

apply for formal loans at the bank or from the farming cooperative (and all farm-owners did

on yearly regular basis) the poorer Koli families and lower castes households lacked this

opportunity due to a lack of security or documentation. “The bank won’t lend us. We don’t

have any birth certificates or any kind of document to put behind the loan so that is why they

won’t give it. It is an official government kind of work and they need evidence that we don’t

have.” (8, Mustafa Ibrahim, Jatt). However, all households but one included in the study had

informal ways of getting smaller loans from caste fellows, their employer or from the richer

Darbar families. The exception was again one of the single-living widows, but it was also

seemingly a conscious decision:

– Can you ever borrow money from friends or anyone else? – No. How could I pay back? That’s why I never borrow. Never. – Do you have anything you could sell? – Nothing at all. I buy some things, some food from the shop for the cost of only

5-10rs. And if anyone would ask to buy firewood then I would sell to them to get money.

(5, Hariben, Koli, widow)

Recently a women’s savings group started in the village, but only two of the 28 households

had ever heard of it and when informally talking to an organizing member of the group it was

thus far only open for Darbar women.

Physical and natural capital: There was a clear correlation between high caste and flood-

protected houses, due to both location (no one living in the Old village reported any

vulnerability to floods or previous losses due to floods) and stronger constructions. The

following historical anecdote illustrates the role that caste can play in limiting access to safe

homes:

Other castes than Darbar were living in this area [the old town] but as they grew in population we told them to migrate to another place and live there. We helped them to select the place, but they went themselves. As their population was increasing they also found that it was not good for them to live here with us. They wanted to live freely, in freedom. And they were feeling that if they were living with Darbar then some day they would have to work for us Darbar. Now they are living in Jodphara and Navapura. They

33

wanted to live freely, individually and independent. But they are doing nothing, just taking rest. Lazy people they are. (Jilubha, farmer, Darbar elder, living in Old Town)

Thus, caste as a social construction indirectly led to an increase in vulnerability for the people

that had to move from the Old village to much more exposed areas in the village, i.e. Jodphara

and Navapura. Particularly the residents of Jodphara become isolated during floods in

monsoon as the area is surrounded by two rivers; the people residing there are then cut off

from the rest of the village where schools, shops and medical care is located, as well as from

the main road, the only way in and out of the village.

A part from living in strong houses in good geographical locations, it was clearly stated that

owning farmland enhanced the capacity to adapt to climate change impacts. For instance,

there was a clear correlation between landowning and self-sufficiency (which could possibly

be labeled ‘social response diversity’). Four households of the interviewed 28 were very much

relying on one external source of help to be able to deal with the climate events (such as

specific credit, loans, gifts, government aid etc.), (i.e. they could not cope without it, ‘without

it we would die’), and six more households regarded one source as particularly important. Of

these not one owned land. Of all households included in the study there were fifteen

landowners, and their holdings ranged from one acre to almost 20 acres in size. According to

Utthan, landowning is concentrated in the hands of Darbar – it is estimated that Darbar

families own 70% of the land around Avaniya (informal interview Utthan) and the majority of

the rest belongs to upper class Kolis. The interview data would support this claim as all

Darbar households included in the study owned land, and the remaining landowning

households were Kolis, with the exception of two; the Jatt family who had grazing land for

their husbandry, and a Devipujak salt worker who had a small holding:

“Actually we live here [in the salt farm] but in the monsoon we cannot work here so we shift to Avaniya. So we don’t own this house, it belongs to this people, the salt farm, and we shift to our own house during monsoon. And I have three acres of land in Avaniya, but we are six brothers so we share the land. I get only few lumps of the land to live there, nothing more. We are six brothers, what can we do? Two brothers sow this year some crop, then next year another two brothers sow the crop and then another 2 brothers… It is on rotation basis.” (9, Hirabhai)

Rural Indian women, and poor women in particular are systematically discriminated

compared to men when it comes to owning private property (c.f. Agarwal 1997). In Gujarat

and Avaniya for instance, women do not inherit or own land. “Everything will go to my son,

34

nothing for my daughter. […] It is our tradition that daughters before and after marriage never

ask for anything.” (12, PM Gohil, Darbar, land-owning farmer). ”When I became a widow I

moved back to the village and my father gave me a small piece of land for security. But now

my brothers have taken the land, it is not mine any longer and they don’t help me.” (16,

Mayaben, Darbar widow). The relative disadvantage can also be exemplified by the hardship

experienced by Hariben, one of the single-living widows:

– When my house collapsed in last monsoon the government came here and they noted my position and the cost of my house to give me money. But it is now in the government office here in Avaniya and nobody is giving it to me. Nobody has come here to give me the money. […] Once my son came here, he went to the office to get the money but then the government people were not there. After that my son never appeared here again to go to the office to get the money.

– Why can you not try to get the money yourself? – On the paper it says the signature of my son, so I cannot go. But actually they

should give the money to me, not to my son. It is my house. But they are not doing this.

(5, Hariben, Koli, widow)

A large marriage dowry is often the only security women have (which is also supported by the

fact that more than a third of all households in the study (10) stated marriages as their primary

household expense and one of few cases where the family was forced to take loan).

– Could anything force you to take a loan? – Marriage only, for a marriage we have to take a loan or borrow money.

(22,Ghitaben, female, Koli farm laborer).

However, when facing large expenses such as children’s’ marriages or natural calamities,

such as floods and droughts, many households are forced to sell their belongings, and the

things they sell first are often the female ornaments, leaving the women without own personal

security. “I use to wear ornaments before, but as my children got married I had to sell them or

give them all. Everything we had to sell and give them for their marriage [she points to empty

holes for earrings and nose-rings, her bare neck, arms and feet].” (5, Hariben, Koli, widow).

Few people in the village have private wells (Utthan 2000), and in the only ones included in

this study belonged to Darbar or upper class Koli. Whereas no Darbar families express any

problems with water reliability or quality, many of the Kolis and Devipujaks point to water

irregularity and severe problems with finding water when the communal supply from the

overhead tank stops:

35

– We have a water connection in the house, but sometimes it doesn’t appear, or in very less quantity and slow.

– If the water is not coming, what do you do? – In the farm area. Always it is the women that go. It is hard work. We carry as

much as we can, on our heads, sometimes 15-20 kilos. If the owner says no, ‘you cannot collect water from here’ we have to go again very far. It depends on the owners’ of the farms mood. […] If we go in numbers, continuously for two to three days, then they will say no after two days. ‘You are not allowed to fetch water from here. Go somewhere else’. Because the connection of the water is the owner’s connection, it is their personal property, so they can say no.

(1, Valuben, Koli, farm laborer)

Firewood, which is an essential resource in everyday life for most rural households in India

(Agarwal 1997) and also can be used an alternative source of income, was the only natural

capital that was mentioned often in the interviews. Only three of the 28 households had CNG

(compressed natural gas), two Darbar and one Koli household. However, firewood had

become increasingly more difficult to find as more and more wasteland in the village area had

been, or was going to be, converted into cropland. This places a heavy burden particularly on

women, as they are the ones collecting the wood (only in one household of the study did men

help in collecting firewood). Whereas the lower caste families expressed the greatest concern,

the only households claiming not having any problem at all finding firewood were the land-

owning farmers and their farm partners, or farm managers, that are allowed to take firewood

from and around the fields of the landholding.

Social capital: Social capital, albeit complex is considered a particularly important

component of adaptation. Trust, social networks and leadership are particularly emphasized

components (Folke et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2006). Overall, the level of trust in the village

seemed to be high, both within and between caste communities. Despite the relatively hard

lives many lead, it was common (occurred in more than half of the interviews) with

statements like the following: “The village is like our mother and father.” (4, Khatabhai,

laborer, Devipujak), “As I am born and brought up here I find everything with Avaniya good.

It is my temple. I like this place, I want to be here only.” (7, Ghuzabhai, pond watchman,

Devipujak). Even the most exposed widow who had to beg and rely on everyday credit to get

by, expressed a great sense of trust from her caste fellows (18). 16 households of the 26 cases

in which the information was available, explicitly stated a high trust also in the Panchayat, the

local government, (despite that four of these households paradoxically also claimed that the

Panchayat was not doing a good job), and an additional three households moderately trusted

36

the Panchayat. It was consistently the lower and middle caste households that had no trust in

the Panchayat. Another finding from the interviews was that the village had many social,

political and economic, formal and informal organizations (e.g. local government, committees

and groups, farmers cooperatives). However, none of the lower caste families in the study

were part of any organization (although as reminder, the selection was limited) and neither

were any of the women that were formally interviewed. Of the eight households that were

part, or members of any organization, or regularly attended meetings of any kind, five were

Darbar (and three of these were the only cases in the study where a household was member in

several organizations, i.e. both the Panchayat, Pani Samiti and the Disaster Preparedness

Committee) and the other three were Koli. Although Indian law states that women, minorities

and ‘previous untouchables’ are to be given seats in the Panchayat (Agarwal 1997) it was hard

to find evidence that this was working in practice. For instance, the current Sarpanch (head of

local government) was a Darbar lady, but her role in practice can be questioned as only two of

all respondents knew that she was currently the Sarpanch, the most important local political

person. “The Sarpanch of our village is Kishorbhai. He is Darbar, Darbar people are powerful

people.”

– Our Sarpanch, the president of the Panchayat, she is a lady. And as she cannot work hard, everything is upon me, I have to do the work.

– Why is it that she cannot fulfill her duties as the Sarpanch? – Maybe she is not trained, or she doesn’t have that much of skill. It is because it

is compulsory, on a rotation basis we must have a female Sarpanch. That’s why she is there. Otherwise she would not have been the Sarpanch.

(12, PM Gohil, Vice Sarpanch, farmer, Darbar, living in Old Town)

Another interesting finding was that the problem perceptions of Darbar families corresponded

very well with the local government agenda and the external actor Utthan’s problem

perception of Avaniya. It did not correspond at all however, with the problem perspective

presented by low or middle caste families. This could imply a lack of good leadership, as

there are no common visions and that despite formal rotational basis of political positions, the

actual leadership-role remains concentrated in the hands of more or less one family19. Which

in turn would have negative consequences also for diversity.

Human capital: According to statistics for the region the male literacy rate is close to 60%,

whereas for women the figure barely reaches 40% (Bassi 2005). This was supported by my

19 The Gohils (the most influential Darbar ’family’) were for instance represented in all village committees and the local government. PM Gohil, the vice Sarpanch was also the most important person for external contacts with for instance Utthan.

37

findings where results were consistently lower for women than for men. In the 18 cases where

it was applicable (not all households knew or wanted to answer all questions and sometimes

the questions asked provided other answers than anticipated), less than half (8) of the women

were literate whereas the figure for men was more than ¾ (13 of 17). Two thirds of the

women had attended school or sent their girl children to school, compared to 4/5 for men and

boys. Whereas Koli and lower caste women often can neither read nor write, have little or no

education, Darbar women are often equally or more educated than their male counterparts.

“The girls go more to school than the boys. The girls are more intelligent and educated, and

they are better at studying.” (2, Jilubha, Darbar elder). But figures on literacy and schooling

only tell part of the truth, as once Darbar women marry, they become more restricted than is

the case with lower caste women: “I would love to teach, give tuition classes, but my husband

says no. I have almost completed my last year of diploma in commerce. […] But my husband

says no, he says ‘you don’t have to work, you don’t have to do anything’. He doesn’t like.”

(Kiranba, Darbar, newly married).

If you ask me about my community especially [i.e. Darbar] the women never work, they never even go out. It is just the men in our community that work. Our women only work at the house, to cook and look after the house, nothing else. The Chief Minister of Gujarat gave a speech that women should be liberated and should have the right to live freely, not having to hide their faces with clothes, whether Moslem or Hindu. That is no good. He should not speak in that way; women should have some courtesy and manner and at least some restriction to move around. (Jilubha, Darbar elder)

All Darbar households included in the study with one exception supported this; Darbar

women are not allowed to work or learn any new skills (even though some of them very much

wanted so). The exception was the Darbar widow: “It is only my sons that work. But I am a

cook at the school, but it is for pocket money only. Even though my son is telling no, then

even I go, because it is tedious to sit alone without any work. I keep on thinking: I am a

widow, not a good birth, what can I do on this earth? To stop this thinking I involve in this

kind of work, even though my son says no.” (16, Mayaben, Darbar widow).

However, inequalities in individual freedom were not only present amongst the Darbar caste:

– Will you teach your children to read and write? – Yes we will. – All the children, also the girls? – No not the girls. – You don’t think that girls might also need to read and write, read signs for

instance?

38

– Boys go to the city, maybe they will have some job there, but we won’t allow the girls to go there so we don’t find it important to teach them. Or for them to study.

– […] Do you know how to swim? – Male members know, but not the females. – Would it be a good thing to also teach the girls? – God will save them, and how could a whole family swim together? We leave

that up to God. (Mustafa Ibrahim, salt farm worker and shepherd, Jatt, living in Salt farm)20

In summary: The social construction of gender roles have been shown to impact access at

least to the following capitals; economic: cash, influence on purchases, wealth, pensions,

formal and informal loans, knowledge on credit sources; physical and natural: access to and

inheritance of land, private property, using dowries and ornaments as a first hand buffer,

firewood; social: organizational participation, political influence; human: literacy, schooling,

individual freedom, opportunity to learn, flexibility, skills such as swimming.

The construction of caste has been shown to impact access at least to the following capitals

economic: cash, formal loans, women’s savings groups, high dependence on external sources

for livelihood and survival; physical and natural: flood protected houses, access to safe places

and locations, access to land, documents such as birth certificates, wells, water reliability,

firewood; social: organizational participation, political influence, trust in local politicians;

human: literacy, schooling, individual freedom, flexibility.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the social constructions of caste and gender limit adaptive

capacity to climate change by restricting access to various resources on a number of levels.

Although caste is also strongly correlated with other possible explanatory variables such as

location of house, livelihood, wealth, influence and power, I have presented several instances

where it is clear that caste is directly determining access to vital resources.

5.3 Can the social constructions of gender and caste be seen to limit or enhance adaptive capacity to climate change by influencing perceptions of ‘reality’? When asking villagers about their problem perceptions the responses varied a lot, which is not

so surprising considering the varying type of lives people in the village lead. However, it is

remarkable that the local politicians and committee members (of which a clear majority are of

the high caste Darbar, many even belong to same family) were unaware of these differences 20 This seemed to be a reoccurring problem as in several other interviews it was also stated that men learn how to swim, not women, and women themselves sometimes laughed at the question if I asked them if they could swim.

39

and the perceptions and problems other castes and households face. For instance, Panchayat

and Pani samiti members (water committee) claimed reassuringly that “there is no such

problem like floods in our village” (12, PM Gohil, vice Sarpanch, land-owning farmer,

Darbar) even though it was presented here earlier that 13 households feared floods and nine

had experienced severe losses as a result of floods. It was equally reassuring claimed that

there was no longer any problems with water in the village (12) while eight of the respondents

from lower and middle castes identified water provision and quality to be the main problem in

the village. As already has been reported, Avaniya is to a large extent dominated by a small

Darbar elite, politically and economically. This fact is acknowledged by most (all low caste

households and eight of the Koli households mentioned Darbar as the most important and

influential people in the village). “Darbar people are powerful, they decide everything, and we

have no power” (26, Savhjibhai, farm laborer, Koli) One influential Darbar elder explained

the logic in the following way:

We care for each and every person, it is in our caste, culture and manner that our caste is the ruling caste. Our ancestors were ruling Gujarat and Bhavnagar and Avaniya. […] If Darbar people are there they [other castes] can settle down, we can rule because we still feel we have that right. In addition they are also helping us, it is always both ways. A peacock looks beautiful with its feathers but not without; the people are the feathers and we are the peacock. It is the rule of the world. (Jilubha, Darbar elder)

Although this statement is on the radical side and no other Darbar households included in the

study expressed their domination equally strong, it does explain to some extent why the

unequal access to power and influence is not questioned but taken for granted. The social

construction of caste becomes part of the lived reality.

But are there different ‘realities’? On asking if the respondents had experienced or feared

floods, droughts and cyclones, the answers truly ranged from ‘no never’ to ‘every year’. To

me it was surprising that perceptions were so contrasting in such a relatively small village:

– Have you experienced any floods in your home? – Not here, but far from this place. (Khatabhai, laborer, Devipujak, living in Hudko) – Have you experienced any floods? – In last monsoon there was a flood and water was everywhere. It also came to

our house and my daughters’ house […]. Because of the flood my daughters’ house collapsed and when she was doing some work on that another wall collapsed over her and broke her spine.

(Ghuzabhai, pond watchman, Devipujak, living in Hudko )

40

– Have you experienced any floods? – Yes many times. Once the water was very high, five feet. – When was this? – In 1982. – When was the most recent flood? – There has been no recent flood. (Nanjibhai, farmer, Koli, living in the Old town)

These are not the only quotes I could have used, there are dozens more, but they serve to

prove the point: families living in the same, or adjoining, parts of this small village present

completely different perceptions of what could be assumed to be an ‘objective’ or real event.

They express contrasting perceptions of reality. Discovering these contradictions was the

inspiration for applying a social constructivist perspective in this study; moving only a few

hundred meters in the village at times felt like kilometers and arriving at an entirely new place

depending on the stories I was told. I therefore present the concluding result already: people

do socially construct their realities and this can be shown to place effective limitations on the

ability to adapt climate change impacts. Although not all differences in the construction of

realities can be explained by caste or gender (there are of course other factors that influence

also and individual differences), it is clear that these social constructions in particular enhance

differences between people’s adaptive capacity.

I will present some examples to make my case more clear. This first one shows how both

gender and caste acts as determinants of adaptation when capital is not the limiting factor. It

also illuminates the, often, double vulnerability experienced by women:

– Do you have any shelter where you can go in case of a flood? – No. – You cannot use the village shelter? – It is good if they make a place here, in our area. Because if men of Darbar

[highest caste] are there, ladies of our community cannot go while they are there. We cannot go and we do not prefer to go while men of Darbar are there.

– So you need a place here in your community? – Even in other communities male and female cannot sit together, because it is

our culture, our conduct and our code. It is better if they make a place here. – Even in an emergency, even if you are loosing your life you think about this? – Yes, why not?

(4, Khatabhai’s wife, housewife, Devipujak, Hudko)

This woman was not the only one to make the same point; the two other women that were

interviewed from the lower castes expressed similar thoughts, e.g. “if Darbar people are there,

our women cannot go” (18). This illustrates in a very concrete way that individual agency is

41

limited by a socially constructed reality. These women do not question this ‘fact’, they do not

see the incoherency in rather risking your life in a flood when you cannot swim, than breaking

the fictive and socially constructed barrier between different castes, and between men and

women. Not everyone were as affected by the social construction as the case presented above,

the Darbar widow who worked is one example. Even though she according to her caste should

not work, and even though it was going against her son’s will, she still broke that mental

barrier (though not without ‘apologizing’ for it). However, a few cases where the social

construction of ‘reality’ is as tangible as above, and which could have such dire

consequences, is a qualitative finding enough to call for further research and investigation.

Although not necessarily implying that women construct ‘reality’ more often than men do, the

empirical findings showed that gender as a social construction to a much higher extent limited

women’s ability to actively adapt to climate change impacts than it did men’s. During

interviews it is the women that to a much larger extent express ‘mental limitations’, by the

constant use of utterances such as “I cannot”, “I don’t know, we are illiterate”, “I am stupid”,

“people don’t want us in committees, if we were literate then maybe” as a cause for not being

able to, for instance, pursue a climate change adaptation strategy. It is also expressed by the

fact that women were much more reluctant to present their opinions in the interviews “Let’s

wait for my husband, lets wait for him. I don’t know anything, how can I answer your

questions?” (3, Laduben, Koli, Old village). In fact, every woman that took any active part in

any interview, at least once expressed a sense of inferiority either as woman compared to a

man, as low caste compared to a higher caste, or both, either outright “I am stupid, I don’t

know” or subtler “we are illiterate, we don’t know”. Although some of the men of lower

castes also phrased themselves this way, it was in a much lesser extent and in most cases only

after their wives or mothers had already made the statement.

One interesting finding was however, that women to a larger extent expressed a positive

attitude towards learning than men, although for the Darbar women with the oft-added “but

my husband will not allow”, or “as I am a Darbar how could I?” This brings us to the more

complex social construction of caste. One trend that I believe is distinguishable is that caste

acts more limiting in the ends of the scale than in middle. It shows primarily when comparing

attitudes between different castes. The low caste families (with one exception, see below) in

general expressed a sense of inertia and fatalism, and kept on repeating the need for external

help “We are not literate; we don’t know how to earn money. If you people tell us how to earn

42

money it would be better. If government would help, then it is good.” (4, Khatabhai, laborer,

Devipujak). The middle caste families in general expressed a much more open attitude

towards learning new skills “we would learn!” (Valuben, Koli, laborer), “I would love to learn

how to stitch”(Asha, housewife, Koli) and had much more entrepreneurial skills and ideas

than did the lower castes. It is again worth noting that the Koli families were the ones that to a

much larger extent expressed active adaptive strategies to floods. Some of the Darbar families

thought and acted progressively to a certain extent but were overall more rigid “farming is

what we do, that is enough, there is no need for any other” (12, PM Gohil, Darbar). In the

background section, two competing studies, on caste rigidity and caste mobility respectively,

were referred to. One possible explanation to their discrepancy could be that the study that

emphasized Gujarat as caste-flexible (Metha & Joshi 2002) drew primarily on empirical cases

where people of Koli castes were the entrepreneurs. The other study (Deshpande 2001) had an

outspoken attention directed at the comparison of low and high castes relative standard of

living. Thus, maybe the caste system as practiced in Gujarat allows for high mobility in the

middle of the scale, whereas the further towards the ends it becomes more rigid.

Finally, the exception, that could support the rule, is the Moslem Jatt family. As they are

Moslem they are less deeply embedded in the caste system, and they also lived on a separate

location, a few kilometers away from the village and without any close neighbors. Their

attitude resembled the openness of the middle caste, rather than the lower caste in which they

are here categorized. Only a couple of times did they express statements such as: “we are not

well informed, we are not educated so if the forest department would curse us we don’t know

which officer or which official to meet or how to proceed, how to get our rights. We know

that one day we have to migrate.”(8, Mustafa Ibrahim, Jatt). The difference is that they

acknowledge their rights and make prevailing power inequalities explicit rather than just

accepting the situation as it is. As they are in the periphery of the caste system, it would

support the proposition that caste is a strong determinant of the socially constructed reality.

6. Analysis

As the ‘analysis’ has occurred throughout all parts of the thesis, the purpose of this section is

primarily to provide an overview and link to back to the theoretical context; in essence, to

present the study’s greater implications. The first obvious conclusion, although neither

revolutionary nor unexpected, is that gender and caste matter. But rather than just mimicking

43

previous research that has come to the same conclusion, this study shows that gender and

caste may matter also for other reasons than are commonly explored.

The most basic aspect of this case study’s empirical results is that women and men, and high

and low castes respectively, do not share an equal access to resources and capitals. Women

were found to be disadvantaged compared to their male counterparts in almost all aspects

examined. Also the lower castes have much more restricted access to financial (e.g. loans,

savings), physical (e.g. safe houses, safe locations, land, property), natural (e.g. firewood,

water), social (e.g. organizations, influence, information) and human capital (e.g. literacy,

skills), than do higher castes. While most households did identify access to capitals as the

most important resource for adapting to climate change, a vast majority of the interviewed

households yet stated explicitly that there were no gender differences in coping and adapting

to climate change impacts. Caste-bound disparity was however frequently recognized.

Although all differences in access to resources cannot be derived directly from the social

constructions of gender or caste (as there are also other co-correlated explanatory variables,

e.g. poverty), this study has however presented a number of findings where the direct linkages

cannot be disputed. Furthermore, in several cases these gender and caste-related limitations in

access to resources can be shown to have had direct and negative effects on both

vulnerability, and the capacity to adapt to climate change impacts. Therefore, the second

conclusion is that, although not necessarily conscious or acknowledged; the social

constructions gender and caste impact adaptive capacity to climate change by restricting

access to vital resources, both in general and in particular.

This case study further demonstrates that a socially constructed ‘reality’ can place equally

effective limitations on the individual capability to adapt as can access to resources. Several

conflicting ‘realities’ were found to coexist within the same limited social-ecological system

and these could, at least to a large extent, be seen as a direct result of the social constructions

of gender and caste. Thus, this study emphasizes the importance of individual agency, the

social construction of ‘reality’ and the highly differential nature of adaptive capacity.

If validated by further research, these findings and conclusions can have important

implications both for theory and policy. In the context of vulnerability and adaptation

research, and climate change policy, the dominant focus on resources as determinants of

adaptive capacity is challenged (cf. IPCC 2001), as the instrumental ‘resource’-approach does

not fully succeed in capturing the complex interplay between individual agency, structural

44

forces and a changing environment. In the case of this study, albeit important, capital per se,

or even access to capital is not enough to ensure efficient use or adaptive action. I.e. even

when capital and resources are available we need to be able to actively draw on these, and this

needed agency is restricted by individual traits (cf. Krishna 2001) as well as the individual’s

construction of ‘reality’. In summary, this would call for more agency-oriented perspectives

and a more contextual approach of adaptive capacity to climate change (as well as pragmatic

as I argue below).

For resilience theory these findings would also have several implications. The first obvious

implication, which was argued for already in the theoretical review section, is that adaptive

capacity is a differentiated concept. No matter how important to consider social-ecological

systems as a unit, we must never forget about the individual people and households that are

part of, and comprise, those systems. Even if applied to a social-ecological system on the

local scale it is insufficient, yet important, to learn if the system as a whole has a high or low

level of adaptive capacity. Because in order to talk of a ‘theory of sustainable development’

(Folke et al. 2002a, Folke et al. 2003) it absolutely imperative to identify how vulnerability

and adaptive capacity is differentiated, to make certain that those already at the bottom of the

scale are enabled to efficiently adapt. Also in resilience theory is there thus a need to balance

the systems perspective with a stronger focus on the individual.

Other important implications concern the theory’s assumptions on some of the key aspects of

adaptive capacity, i.e. learning and flexibility (e.g. Folke et al. 2005, Walker et al. 2006).

“Learning through experimentation and innovation is necessary to develop and test

knowledge and understanding for coping with change and uncertainty. The capacity to adapt

and to manage resilience requires learning and the ability to make sense of things, especially

in arenas of collaborative learning, using a combination of various sources of information and

knowledge.” (Walker et al. 2005:8). The theoretical tendency to oversimplify aspects of

learning (which seems to be shared across disciplines, “learning is often just expected to

happen” (Fazey et al. 2005)), has already been critiqued. For instance, Galaz (2005) points to

the ‘politics’ of learning; i.e. how social conflict and strategic behavior among actors may

hamper the learning process. While it may seem self-evident, these aspects have previously to

a large extent been omitted and ignored. However, the underlying assumption also here is that

while individuals are acknowledged having different stakes and preferences that impact

strategic behavior and adaptation, they share a common perception of ‘reality’. But this case

45

study, where people do not experience events in the same way, or at all – some say for

instance that they are impacted by floods every monsoon season, whereas others haven’t

experienced floods at all (even though floods do occur frequently in the region), challenges

the assumptions of automatic and collective learning, whether affected by strategic behavior

or not, at yet another level. Applying a social constructivist perspective, or explicitly

addressing contextual social constructions, however provides an approach to deal with this

complexity.

Furthermore, the social constructions of both gender and caste have been shown to inhibit

flexibility and as such negatively affect adaptive capacity. As social constructions are deeply

embedded in cultural, social and political practices, change thus comes about slowly.

Therefore can social constructions be defined as slowly changing variables, a sort of cultural

‘conservatism’ (Walker et al. 2006). In the context of a rapidly transforming world and the

undisputed need for enabling autonomous adaptation, this further emphasizes the need of

actively addressing social constructions.

Although not in the scope of this essay, employing a social constructivist perspective can

further help illuminate and address a system’s power dynamics and structural inequalities. An

example from this case is the way in which the Darbar community set the agenda for

collective agency and external actors; their ‘reality’ became the collective ‘reality’ and set the

reference for action.

Overall, there is a need to balance the systems perspective with a stronger focus on individual

agency and to make explicit the differential aspects of adaptive capacity and resilience.

Human agency, the most important driver of global ecological change, needs to be better

understood, particularly in the light of the growing importance of autonomous adaptation.

Although this study is contextually very specific, it does not eat into the underlying

importance of the message communicated – that social constructions matter. Even though

caste may not be a universal social construction, gender is, although it will be different in

different contexts. There are also other types of social constructions, such as cultural roles or

rigid religious practice. Although the terminology is impeded by its connotations to

postmodernism, it may serve as a conceptual tool to contextualize studies on adaptive

capacity and to analyze what social practices are likely to impact adaptation and management

processes.

46

To sum up, although institutional and governance aspects are considered important in

resilience theory (e.g. Folke et al. 2004, Walker et al. 2006) they don’t explicitly address the

role of social constructions. And there is a need to explicitly address social constructions as

powerful determinants of social-ecological system dynamics. To truly enhance adaptive

capacity some of these constructions must even be challenged and deconstructed – although

such a normative endeavor will be highly controversial. Social constructions and institutions

are often mutually reinforcing and interdependent, and moreover change slowly. So alongside

targeted efforts there is also a need for pragmatic solutions that take these constructions as a

natural point of departure. For instance, resources and capital are needed to enhance adaptive

capacity, and the unequal access, which is impacted by social constructions of gender and

caste, to these resources needs to be targeted. Building safe houses in all caste communities or

by holding separate meetings for men and women are two very basic suggestions to address

the problem from a social constructivist sensitive perspective, yet this is not currently

practiced to large enough extent.21 To me it was surprising that even basic caste related

limitations were not automatically considered. In my opinion much could be learned from

combining resilience theory with a social constructivist perspective in the effort of trying to

build adaptive capacity in a world of transformations.

7. Conclusion

The results of this case study show that in the community, in which this study took place,

there is a widespread concern over climate change related impacts. It has also been shown that

gender and caste impact in adaptive capacity to climate change – also for reasons other than

are commonly explored. The social constructions of gender and caste impact adaptive

capacity to climate change not only by influencing access to resources, but also through the

process of a social construction of ‘reality’, placing effective limitations on the ability to

realize adaptation action. Adaptive capacity is internally as well as externally determined and

extremely differentiated; and this is a complexity that needs to be addressed. A key point that

I would like to communicate is that to truly address complex social-ecological dynamics, it

may be necessary to pay greater attention to the lived or ‘socially constructed’ reality as

oppose to a so called ‘objective’ reality. Thus, to further enhance our understanding of social-

ecological system dynamics I argue that more focus should be directed at human agency, and

21 There is a practice among NGOs of holding separate meetings for men and women when it comes to outspoken gender issues (such as domestic violence, or women’s savings groups) but not on more general matters. However, my own experience is a testament to how difficult it can be to increase female participation.

47

how individual and communities socially construct their ‘realities’ in relation to a rapidly

transforming world. If resilience and adaptive capacity are exclusively treated as system

properties, this may conceal and even reinforce unequal power structures. If resilience theory

will continue to gain ground in the policy landscape there is thus a need to re-evaluate the

application of concepts, otherwise it may result in negative consequences for development

and policy inefficiency. Only then can resilience theory start making claims of mapping the

way towards the complex landscape of sustainable development.

48

8. Acknowledgements There are many people in different parts of the world who have helped and supported me

along this journey – without you all this study could never have realized – and I owe you all

many thanks! I am particularly grateful to my supervisor Victor Galaz for much needed

inspiration, help and support; and Sara Ahmed, my co-supervisor in India for all your help

and for making me feel so welcome and at home in Ahmedabad. My warmest thank you to all

the people of Avaniya and everyone at Utthan organisation in Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad,

particularly Nafisa, Koshik and Bharat! Venu, of course, without you I would have gotten

nowhere! Thank you for being such a good friend and support. Also thank you to Marcus

Moench and Ayaya Dixit who helped me get to India in the first place. To all my newfound

friends at IIM Ahmedabad, particularly Nisha, Anshuman, Prabal and Priyanka, who provided

me with invaluable help, advice and friendship – without you it wouldn’t have been nearly as

good! Also thank you to Akhil and Ishan who both went to lengths to help me and make me

feel welcome! Of course I couldn’t have done this without all support and help from my

beloved family and friends back home, especially Albert, Marie and little Freja – thanks for

being there!

This study was supported by a Minor Field Study (MFS) scholarship provided by SLU,

Uppsala, and Sida (Swedish International Development Aid Agency).

49

References:

Adger, W.N. and Kelly M.P., 1999. Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 4, 253-266 Adger, W.N., Huq, S., Brown, K., Conway, D. and Hulme, M., 2003. Adaptation to climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies 3:3, 179-195 Ahmed, S., (ed) 2005. Flowing Upstream: Empowering Women through Water Management Initiatives in India. New Delhi: Foundation Books Pvt. Ltd. Ariyabandu, M., M. and Wickramasinghe, M., 2005. Gender Dimensions in Disaster Management – A Guide for South Asia. (Indian edition) New Delhi: Zubaan Bassi, N., 2005. Participatory approach towards water-security. A case study on community managed Ghogha Village Water Supply and Sanitation Project. Dissertation report. Accessed online 2006-07-20: http://www.wasmo.org/eng/internship-details.shtm Berger, P. and Luckmann, T., 1987 (reprint from 1966): The social construction of reality – A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd. Berkes, F. and Folke, C., (eds) 1998, Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Bradshaw, S., 2004. Socio-economic impacts of natural disasters: a gender analysis. Santiago, Chile: United Nations Publications (Serie Manuales) Brooks, N. and Adger, N., 2004. “Assessing and Enhancing Adaptive Capacity”. GEF. Accessed online: http://www.undp.org/gef/undp-gef_publications/publications/apf%20technical%20paper07.pdf Burningham, K., 1998. A noisy road or a noisy resident?: a demonstration of the utility of social constructionism for analysing environmental problems. Sociological Review Burningham, K. and Cooper, G., 1999. Being Constructive: Social Constructionism and the Environment. Sociology. Vol. 33:2, pp. 297-316 Crawford, S. and Ostrom, E., 1995. A Grammar of Institutions. American Political Science Review, Vol.89:3, pp.582-600 Demeritt, D., 2002. What is the ‘social construction of nature’? A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography. 26:6, pp. 767-790 Deshpande, A., 2001. Caste at Birth? Redefining disparity in India. Reveiew of Development Economics. 5(1), pp.130-144 Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y., 2005. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd Edition. Sage Diamond, J., 2005. Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. New York: Penguin Group Fazey, I., Fazey, J. and Fazey, D., 2005. Learning More Effectively from Experience. Ecology and Society. 10(2), online-version available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol10/iss2/art4/

50

Folke, C., Carpenter, S., Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling, CS. and Walker B., 2002a. Resilience and Sustainable Development: Building Adaptive Capacity in a World of Transformations. Ambio 31:5, 437-440 Folke. C., Carpenter, S. Elmqvist, T., Gunderson, L., Holling C.S., Walker, B., Bengtsson, J., Berkes, F., Colding, J., Danell, K., Falkenmark, M., Gordon, L., Kasperson, R., Kautsky, N., Kinzig, A., Levin, S., Mäler, K.G, Moberg, F., Ohlsson, L., Olsson, P., Ostrom, E., Reid, W., Rockström, J., Savenije, H and Svedin, U., 2002b. Resilience and Sustainable Development – Building Adaptative Capacity in a World of Transformations. Stockholm: Edita Norstedts Tryckeri AB Folke, C., Colding J. and Berkes F., 2003. “Synthesis: building resilience and adaptive capacity in social-ecological systems”. In Navigating Social-Ecological Systems – Building Resilience for Complexity and Change, pp.352-387, eds. Berkes, F., Colding, J. and Folke C. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P. and Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour.2005.30, pp.441-473 Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Article in press Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J., 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In: Krimsky, S. and Golding, D. (eds.), Social theories of risk. London Galaz, V. 2005: Social-ecological Resilience and Social Conflict: Institutions and Strategic Adaptation in Swedish Water Management. Ambio Vol.34, No. 7, pp.567-572 Glavovic, B., Scheyvens, R. and Overton, J., 2003. Waves of Adversity, Layers of Resilience: Exploring the Sustainable Livelihoods Approach. Accessed online 2005-11-20: www.scholar.google.com Gunderson, L. and Holling, C.S., (eds) 2002. Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Washington D.C: Island Press Hacking, I., 1999. The social construction of what?. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Holmberg, A. 2005. Kön – en fråga om makt. Stockholm: Forum Syd Huq, S., 2005. Adaptation to Climate Change: A paper for the International, Climate Change Taskforce. Available online: www.ippr.org IGBP 2004. Global Change and the Earth Systems: A Planet Under Pressure. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag IPCC, McCarthy, J., Canziani, O., Leary, N., Dokken, D., White, K., (eds) 2001. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. IPCC, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ISET 2006. Proceedings of the International Conference on Adaptation to Climatic Variability and Change. Published on-line: http://www.winrockindia.org/adaptivestrategies.pdf Janssen, M. and Ostrom, E., 2006. Resilience, Vulnerability, and Adaptation: A Cross-Cutting Theme of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Program. Article in press Jones, S., 2002. Social constructionism and the environment: through the quagmire. Global Environmental Change, 12, pp. 247-251

51

Kates, R.W., Clark, W., Corell, R., Hall, M., Jeager, C., Lowe, I., McCarthy, J., Schnellhuber, J., Bolin, B., Dickson, N., Faucheux, S., Gallopin, G., Grübler, A., Huntley, B., Jäger, J., Jodha, N.S., Kasperson, R.E., Mabogunje, A., Matson, P., Mooney, H., Moore, B., O’Riordan, T. and Svedin, U., 2001. Sustainability Science. Science. 292:5517, pp. 641-642 Kasperson, R.E and Kasperson J.X., 2001. Climate Change, Vulnerability and Social Justice. Stockholm Environment Institute. Available online: www.sei.se King, G., Keohane, R. and Verba, S., 1994. Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press Kvale, S., 1996. Interviews – An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. London: Sage Publications, Inc. Krishna, A., 2001. Moving From the Stock of Social Capital to the Flow of Benefits: The Role of Agency. Journal of World Development. Manson, S., 2000. Simplifying complexity: a review of complexity theory. Geoforum, 32, pp.405-414 Metha, D. and Joshi, B., 2002. Entrepreneurial Innovations in Gujarat. AI & Soc. 16, pp.73-88 Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press. Moench, M. and Dixit. A., (eds.) 2004. Adaptive Capacity and Livelihood Resilience: Adaptive Strategies for Responding to Floods and Droughts in South Asia. Institute for Social and Environmental Transition, Boulder, Katmandu: Format Printing Press Moench, M., 2005. Water, Climatic Variability and Livelihood Resilience: Concepts, Field Insights and Policy Implications. Draft. Swedish Water House, Policy Paper I. Mukherjee, N., 1994. Participatory Rural Appraisal: Methodology and Applications. New Delhi: Ashok Kumar Mittal Mustafa, D., 2003. Reinforcing vulnerability? Disaster relief, recovery, and response to the 2001 flood in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Environmental Hazards 5 (2003), pp.71-82 Naeslund, B., 2004. Systems Complexity in a nutshell. Manuscript. Dept. Systems Ecology, Stockholm Univeristy. Nightingale, D. and Cromby, J., 2002. Social Construction as Ontology. Theory and Phsycology. Vol. 12(5), pp. 701-713 North, D., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press O’Brien, K., Leichenko, R., Kelkar, U., Venema, H., Aandahl, G., Tompkins, H., Javed, A., Bhadwal, S., Barg, S., Nygaard, L. and West, J., 2004. (Article in press) Mapping vulnerability to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. Global Environmental Change Olsson, P., Hahn, T., and Folke, C., 2004. Social-ecological transformations for ecosystem management: the development of adaptive co-management of wetland landscapes in southern Sweden. Ecology and Society. In press

52

Oommen, T., 2002. Race, Religion, and Caste: Anthropological and Sociological Perspectives. Comparative Sociology. Vol.1:2, pp.115-126 Ostrom, E., Gibson, C., Shivakumar, S. and Andersson, K., 2002. Aid, Incentives and Sustainability: An Institutional Analysis of Development Cooperation. Stockholm: Sida, Sida Studies in Evaluation 02/01 Oxfam 2005. Multi-Sector Damage Assessment Report: Gujarat Floods July 2005. Report issued by Oxfam, Ahmedabad Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S., Foley, J.A., Folke, C. and Walker, B., 2001. Catastrophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature 413, pp.591-596 Schneider, S. and Sarukhan, J., 2001. Overview of Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability to Climate Change. In Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. McCarthy et al., (eds) pp.76-103 Sismondo, S., 1993. Some social constructions. Social Studies of Science, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 515-553 Smit, B. and Wandel, J., 2006. Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability. Article in press. Stam, H. J., 2001. Introduction: Social Constructionism and Its Critics. Theory and Pshycology Vol.11(3) pp.291-296 Stoker, G. and Marsh, D., (eds) 1997. Theory and methods in political science. New York: St. Martin’s Press, Inc. Utthan 2000. Ghogha regional water supply and sanitation project – Bhavnagar. Non-published document. Utthan 2003. Annual Progress Report. Ahmedabad, Gujarat. Walker, B., Gunderson, L., Kinzig, A., Folke, C., Carpenter, S. and Schultz, L., 2006. A Handful of Heuristics and Some Propositions for Understanding Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society.11(1):13 Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T. and Davis, I., 2004: At Risk. Second Edition: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerabilities and disasters. New York: Routledge. Young, O., 2002. Institutional Interplay: The Environmental Consequences of Cross-Scale Interactions, pp.263-292 in National Research Council (Ostrom, Dietz, Dolsak, Stern, Stovich and Weber eds.) 2002: The Drama of the Commons Washington DC: National Academy Press

53

Appendix Ι

Interview list Interview # Type22 Gender Caste Location of

house 1 1 Female Koli Jodphara 2 1 Male Darbar Old town 3 1 Mixed Koli Old town 4 1 Mixed Devipujak Hudko 5 1 Female Koli Navapura 6 1 Mixed Darbar Hudko 7 1 Mixed Devipujak Hudko 8 1 Mixed Jatt Salt farm 9 1 Male Devipujak Salt farm 10 1 Mixed Koli Navapura 11 1 Mixed Koli Jodphara 12 1 Mixed Darbar Old town 13 1 Mixed Darbar Old town 14 1 Female - - 15 2 Male Darbar Hudko 16 2 Female Darbar Hudko 17 2 Female Devipujak Hudko 18 2 Female Bharwad Hudko 19 2 Mixed Koli Navapura 20 2 Male Koli Navapura 21 2 Mixed Koli Navapura 22 2 Mixed Koli Wadlo 23 2 Mixed Koli Wadlo 24 2 Female Karak

Patel23Old village

25 2 Female Darbar Old town 26 2 Male Koli Jodphara 27 2 Female Koli Jodphara 28 2 Male Koli Jodphara 29 2 Female Darbar Old town

22 Type of interview refers to if the interview was open-ended (1), or more structured (2). 23 Karak patel is counted as a high caste

54