Paper short abstract:

Contextual local knowledge and decontextualized knowledge from biophysical modeling both have valid claims as contributors to climate adaptation. However, their divergent problem frames generate radically different forms of knowledge, which serve different interests and have strong implications on how adaptation is pursued at the policy level.

Paper long abstract:

While adaptation has become a contemporary buzzword in relation to climate change, it has a long history in anthropological research. The evolution of human cultural practices and knowledge over the millennia is a process through which integrated and dynamic systems of ecologically-embedded technologies, social organizations and ideologies developed. In short, not only has deeply contextual "local knowledge" always been a resource for adaptation, it could be argued that it is the core dimension of adaptation as cultural process. However, the rising recognition of the value and validity of local knowledge, and the "participatory turn" in research and development fields, has been paralleled by the rise of biophysical modeling technologies, which generate environmental knowledge that is highly abstracted and decontextualized, providing a "God's-eye view" on the environment. Being the main medium through which climate change is understood, modeling now stands as central reference points in guiding adaptation to it, usually framed in terms of its ability to "inform policymakers".

These two approaches to understanding climate adaptation - one based on culturally and ecologically contextualized practices and processes, the other based on, decontextualized abstractions - now both vie for influence in the climate change adaptation policy arena. The two approaches to adaptation frame the problem in fundamentally different ways which influence the nature of the knowledge and recommendations they generate. While there is potential for complementarily, substantial gaps remain between approaching adaptation as an organic and diffuse cultural process and approaching it as a process that is centrally planned and managed.