Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient

Abstract

All human-environment systems adapt to climate and its natural variation. Adaptation to human-induced change in climate has largely been envisioned as increments of these adaptations intended to avoid disruptions of systems at their current locations. In some places, for some systems, however, vulnerabilities and risks may be so sizeable that they require transformational rather than incremental adaptations. Three classes of transformational adaptations are those that are adopted at a much larger scale, that are truly new to a particular region or resource system, and that transform places and shift locations. We illustrate these with examples drawn from Africa, Europe, and North America. Two conditions set the stage for transformational adaptation to climate change: large vulnerability in certain regions, populations, or resource systems; and severe climate change that overwhelms even robust human use systems. However, anticipatory transformational adaptation may be difficult to implement because of uncertainties about climate change risks and adaptation benefits, the high costs of transformational actions, and institutional and behavioral actions that tend to maintain existing resource systems and policies. Implementing transformational adaptation requires effort to initiate it and then to sustain the effort over time. In initiating transformational adaptation focusing events and multiple stresses are important, combined with local leadership. In sustaining transformational adaptation, it seems likely that supportive social contexts and the availability of acceptable options and resources for actions are key enabling factors. Early steps would include incorporating transformation adaptation into risk management and initiating research to expand the menu of innovative transformational adaptations.

Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: A review of emerging concepts

“…In particular, some concepts of transformation adopt system models that explicitly include an examination of the individual level (DT, PT, TA2, and SP) while others regard only the meso and macro levels (SoT, RS, and SeT). In transformational adaptation (TA1) only, the level at which change is observed is considered a defining characteristic of transformation, whereby the adaptive change is classified as 'transformative' when it is scaled up, e.g., from the local to the regional level (Kates et al 2012).…”

“…In fact, some concepts of transformation, particularly RS and those that to some extent build on resilience theory, such as DT, PT, and TA2, stress that the existence of unknown social and biophysical thresholds blurs the distinction between longand short-term time ranges, as incremental change may result in transformational change if one such threshold is passed (Nelson et al 2007;Sheffer 2009;Preston et al 2013). TA1 appears to distinguish even more markedly between transformative and incremental change (e.g., Kates et al 2012). …”

“…These distinctions may be represented by dichotomies such as those drawn between 'active' vs. 'forced' (Folke et al 2010), or between anticipatory versus reactive transformation (Kates et al 2012).…”

“…Theoretical and methodological debate around transformation is in its infancy (e.g., Shove 2010a, b;Brown et al 2012;Kates et al 2012;O'Brien 2012;Park et al 2012;Wiek et al 2012;Brown et al 2013;Mustelin 2013;O'Brien and Sygna 2013), and to the best of the author's knowledge, no attempt to systematically characterize the concept has been made so far. This paper aims to make some first steps in that direction.…”

A limits-oriented approach to sustainable planning assessments: a comparative analysis of South East Queensland (Australia) and Lombardia (Italy)

“…The type of adaptation that governance pursue ultimately depends on these conditions, and can take the shape of incremental adjustments or more radical transformative actions (Nelson et al 2007). While incremental changes have been observed as insufficient when dealing with climate change, SEA seem more suitable for incremental adaptation measures than radical ones (Kates et al 2012;Walker et al 2004). Progressing with the SEA process, policy actors can use incremental actions and behaviours to adjust SEA within existing frameworks (Nilsson et al 2009).…”