Transformational change: governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective

Abstract

Although transformational change is a rather new topic in climate change adaptation literature, it has been studied in organisational theory for over 30 years. This paper argues that governance scholars can learn much from organisation theory, more specifically regarding the conceptualisation of change and intervention strategies. We reconceptualise the divide between transformational change and incremental change by questioning the feasibility of changes that are concurrently in-depth, large scale, and quick; and the assumption that incremental change is necessarily slow and can only result in superficial changes. To go beyond this dichotomy, we introduce the conceptualisation of continuous transformational change. Resulting intervention strategies include (1) providing basic conditions for enabling small in-depth wins; (2) amplifying small wins through sensemaking, coupling, and integrating; and (3) unblocking stagnations by confronting social and cognitive fixations with counterintuitive interventions. These interventions necessitate a modest leadership. Governing transformational change thus requires transformation of the governance systems themselves.

Steering transformations under climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands

“…A growing number of scholars voice the urgency for a 'transformation of governance' to respond more radically and systemically to ongoing transformation dynamics and to address the mismatches of existing governance regimes that these dynamics reveal (Patterson et al 2016;Loorbach 2014;Termeer et al 2017). However, while existing work in climate governance and transformation governance literatures has informed policy and practice actions, the insights and knowledge on actors, responsibilities and roles in partnering for bringing these actions to realisation remain mostly theoretical (Gillard et al 2016;Koop et al 2017;Castán Broto 2017).…”

“…Resilience and climate governance scholars stress institutional, social and physical conditions enabling social-ecological systems to recognise, protect and recover from disturbances and surprisesin a manner that improves wellbeing and without experiencing radical change (Folke et al 2005;Dietz et al 2003;Chaffin et al 2014). Responses include anything between short-term coping and disaster response and putting in place the conditions for longer-term adaptation and resilience (Termeer et al 2017) while also considering underlying socio-economic vulnerabilities such as injustice (Lonsdale et al 2015;Bahadur and Tanner 2014).…”

“…Existing governance regimes inside and outside of the climate domain tend to be dominated by incremental decision-making, short-term policy cycles and powerful interests favouring optimisation in the short-term, thus precluding more disruptive changes in the long-term and perpetuating dangerous maladaptation (Lonsdale et al 2015;Loorbach 2014). Among others, scholars stress that effective climate governance will encourage synergies, learning, innovation and multi-level cooperation (Termeer et al 2017;Bulkeley 2015).…”

Emergence and Transition in London’s Climate Change Adaptation Pathways

“…But also that incremental steps limit ambition and so can undermine transformative movements . Tremeer et al (2016) offer move beyond this impasse by proposing the notion of continuous transformational change. This recognizes incremental and transformative change can coexist, and that transformations can be emergent as much or perhaps more than being planned.…”

Making Space for Proactive Adaptation of Rapidly Changing Coasts: A Windows of Opportunity Approach

“…Similarly, proponents of mainstreaming adaptation focus on identifying opportunities for small, in depth changes in governance that can improve our adaptive capacity [15]. In both cases, the barriers to delivering adaptation are discussed at a conceptual level-where problem analysis is typically focused on the need for adaptation (e.g., [33]) rather than on the practical barriers to delivery of adaptation.…”