ABSTRACT

For meaningful and deliberative governance, it is important to understand the role and dynamics of institutions functioning at different levels which can shape adaptation responses, whether they are public, private, or civil society institutions. Agrawal, Kononen, and Perrin (2009, p. 10) suggest that this shaping of adaptive capacity is determined by these institutions in three ways: they structure the nature of impacts and vulnerability to climate change through governance and communications; they create the incentive framework in which individual and collective actions take place; and they control access to resources and information which shape adaptation practices locally. Applied to an urban context, this relates to household provision of basic services and infrastructure by the state, access to financial institutions, and insurance mechanisms, which will shape collective and individual responses by local households (Satterthwaite et al., 2007). Dodman and Mitlin (2013) highlight the limitations of CBA in this regard, given the need for careful consideration of the potential of community-led projects to influence political and institutional structures, in order to contest the role of the state and necessary redistribution of resources. Examples from African and Asian urban poor federations demonstrate the potential for collective approaches to challenge underlying political and social structures for transformative effect (Dodman & Mitlin, 2013).