:
Tina Peissker
:
The Governance of Climate Change Adaptation in Developing Countries: The Case of National Disaster Management in Bangladesh and Pakistan in Comparative Perspective
:
Anchor Academic Publishing
:
9783954895496
:
1
:
CHF 31.20
:
The prospect of the adverse effects that global climate change will have on human societies, opened up a discourse about the way adaptation should be managed. In order to finance adaptation measures in the most severe affected countries, the parties of the Kyoto Protocol established the Adaptation Fund in 2007. In view of the limited resources that are available for adaptation, scales for the prioritization of countries that are based on their suspected vulnerability, have been developed in literature. But so far, indicators of vulnerability reflect only the general indicators of human development, and therefore, fail to capture the complex structures of vulnerability. In order to capture the mentioned complexity in a more satisfactory way, this book highlights the theory of collective learning. The collective learning approach assumes that vulnerability can be significantly decreased when governance systems adapt to external changes through collective learning processes. This study connects to this notion, and therefore, it assesses the influence of collective learning processes on the vulnerability of the Bangladeshi and Pakistani society towards flood hazards. This determinant of vulnerability is used to capture the matter's complexity.
Text Sample: Chapter 1.2.3, Collective Learning Processes in Social-Ecological Systems: Collective learning is an important subject to the present analysis for it is presumed to be a very relevant determinant of vulnerability. This subsection seeks to highlight this nexus and establish a clear picture of what learning is in particular and what factors encourage it. It will therefore only focus on concepts of collective learning, which are particularly relevant for environmental governance systems. Theories and models on learning processes, also within collectives, are necessarily diverse whereas topics range from methodological aspects of learning processes to cognitive patterns of individual learners over to learning processes in international organizations. Out of these theories and models only a limited array is relevant to the present analysis. Within the many concepts of learning, two dimensions of learning are especially highlighted (Gerlak and Heikkila 2011: 3). Firstly, collective learning implies a step-wise process, which mainly consists of the acquisition of knowledge, the dissemination and processing of information and the transformation of knowledge within an organizational framework (Argyris and Schön 1996: 2-3). This process has different facets depending on whether learning occurs in an experimental or in a targeted manner (Henry 2009). The process of collective learning is furthermore to be delineated from plain reaction to an external change (Löf 2010: 531-32). In contrast to reactive behavior, collective learning is considered more sustainable with regard to its time scale and the depth of change. In the present analysis the process described here is not regarded as being sufficient without transferring knowledge into substantial results in order to achieve learning. Collective learning is therefore a process in which knowledge is transferred into different kinds of changes, also called products of learning (Argyris and Schön 1996: 2-3). It is important to notice that learning does not necessarily lead to improved products, since experimental learning for instance even relies on trial and error schemes (Gerlak and Heikkila 2011: 3-4). Therefore failed trials can lead to new understanding and reconsiderations of strategies. In order to decide which event is considered a collective learning process and which is not, the present analysis proceeds in a two-step fashion. Firstly, sustainable changes within the scope of the case studies are detected, which is followed by an analysis of the process that led to the observed change. For instance, a fundamental change in policies, which is not based on newly acquired knowledge or experiences, is likely to be a plain product of political or economic interests but not learning. Also policy that lacks the attempt of its implementation is not considered learning according to the understanding of the present study. In summary, learning is expected to be a purposeful activity as opposed to fast and reactive decisions that are not based on past developments or lack any attempt to be put into practice. Collective learning processes differ in their depth of change (Argyris and Schön 1978). The concept of multiple learning loops as illustrated in Table 1 characterizes the different stages of learning that ranges from single to triple-loop learning. Single-loop learning is merely an adaptation to external change that implies changes of existing structures but not underlying beliefs. As the level of learning increases, the extent of change also increases (Pahl-Wostl 2009: 359). It is assumed that the quality of learning has furthermore an impact on vulnerability. This assumption is based on the finding that higher levels of learning indicate that a system is able to encounter non-linear external changes in a more flexible manner (cf. Argyris and Schön 1978; Pahl-Wostl 2009; Löf 2009). Finally, factors that supposedly support collective learning in environmental governance systems are summarized in order to explain how change in the highlighted components of these systems is interpreted within the framework of analysis. Major factors constraining collective learning in governance systems are therefore centralized systems, rigid bureaucracies, poor access to information by decision makers and the population and a lack of vertical integration (Pahl-Wostl et al. 2007; Mostert et al. 2007; Huntjens et al. 2008; Pahl-Wostl 2009). These assumptions are based on multiple empirical studies mainly in European countries and are an important input of Pahl-Wostl's framework of analysis (Ibid 2009). Based on these assumptions important conclusions on how learning is shaped within environmental governance systems have been drawn. A central weak point in organizational learning theory and in general learning theory is that concepts tend to be quite blurry and overlapping (Lähteenmäki et al. 2001). For the purpose of the present study a relatively limited range of concepts of organizational learning was considered in order to avoid over-complexity, which leads to blurred conceptualities. It is important to notice that all of the theories, models and concepts introduced in this section are not entirely new and have been considered in the research of systems theory, organizational theory and other fields of research before. Climate change and more particularly adaptation to climate change opened new channels of applying this existing knowledge to a new context, whilst some areas have been highlighted or regarded under a new perspective. A reconsideration of existing knowledge and its application to new contexts can be an important way in order to achieve advanced systems and modes of governance.
The Governance of Climate Change Adaptation in Developing Countries: The Case of National Disaster Management in Bangladesh and Pakistan in Comparative Perspective 1 Index 3 Acronyms 5 List of Figures, Tables and Graphs 6 1 Introduction 7 1.1 Natural Disasters in the Scope of Social Sciences 11 1.2 Theoretical Framework and Conceptualization 15 1.2.1 Governance in Social-Ecological Systems 15 1.2.2 Vulnerability and Adaptation to External Stressors 19 1.2.3 Collective Learning Processes in Social-Ecological Systems 22 1.3 Measuring Collective Learning Processes and Vulnerability 24 1.4 Case Study Selection 32 1.4.1 Why Studying Floods in Developing Countries? 33 1.4.2 Comparative Method and Case-Studies 34 2 Bangladesh - Learning How to Life with Extreme Floods 39 2.1 Parameters of Flood and Disaster Management 39 2.1.1 Political Transition and the Governance of Flood Management 39 2.1.2 Complexity of Flood Disasters and Vulnerability 40 2.2 Learning Processes in the Governance of Flood Management before 1988 until Recently 42 2.2.1 Development Prior to1988 42 2.2.2 Changes after the Floods of 1988 52 2.2.3 Changes after the Floods of 1998 60 2.3 Collective Learning Processes in the Governance of Flood and Disaster Managementin Bangladesh 70 3 Pakistan – First Steps towards Change 73 3.1 Parameters of Flood and Disaster Management 73 3.1.1 Political Transition and Flood Management 73 3.1.2 Complexity of Flood Disasters and Vulnerability 74 3.2 Learning Processes in the Governance of Flood Management after 1971 75 3.2.1 Development in the Flood and Disaster Management after 1971 75 3.2.2 The Floods of 2010 and their Aftermath 82 3.3 Collective Learning Processes in the Governance of Flood and Disaster Managementin Pakistan 83 4 Conclusion 84 4.1 Collective Learning in Flood and Disaster Management: A Comparison 84 4.2 Summary of Findings 87 4.2.2 The Way Collective Learning Changes Vulnerability 88 4.3 Limitations and Outlook 90 Bibliography 92 Annex 105
