Transformative adaptation

To appropriately respond to current and projected climate risks researchers have recently concentrated on transformative adaptation, recognising that incremental adaptation in isolation will be insufficient to deal with these threats (Olsson et al., 2004; Pelling, 2011; IPCC, 2012;

O’Neill and Handmer, 2012; Kates et al., 2012; IPCC, 2014a; Noble et al., 2014; Colloff et al., 2016; Marshall et al., 2016; Termeer et al., 2016; Juhola et al., 2017; Satyal et al., 2017). Transformation is typified by nonlinear change or deviation from the status quo (O’Brien, 2012; Pelling et al., 2015 Marshall et al., 2016), and is subsequently considered to have a long lead time (Hallegatte, 2009; Smith et al., 2011; Bahadur and Tanner, 2012; Aall et al., 2015; Termeer et al., 2016). Certain theories denote that it is characterised by innovation e.g. in governance through challenging embedded assumptions and practices, including questioning technical or institutional processes or social values (Loorbach et al., 2008; Hedrén and Linnér, 2009; IPCC, 2012; Brand et al., 2013; IPCC 2014b). Whilst transformative adaptation is often assumed to be technological in nature, supportive social settings and the presence of acceptable options and resources are nonetheless crucial enabling components (Kates et al., 2012).

Scholars have therefore repeatedly highlighted the need for transformation of both social systems and wider governance systems for transformations to succeed. For example, this can include behavioural

30

transformations at the individual scale to broader transformations of power relations or social and cultural norms within society (Olsson et al., 2004; Olsson et al., 2006; O’Brien and Barnett, 2013; Termeer et al., 2016).

In this context, transformation can be defined as “a fundamental qualitative change . . . that often involves a change in paradigm and may include shifts in perception and meaning, changes in underlying norms and values, reconfiguration of social networks and patterns of interaction, changes in power structures, and the introduction of new institutional arrangements and regulatory frameworks” (IPCC, 2012: 465).

In line with the theory of adaptation, transformative change may be planned or occur in reaction to an event. Reactive transformation occurs when significant change is forced on individuals through changed environmental or socio-economic circumstances (Folke et al., 2010), and is a consequence of insufficient system resilience (Nelson et al., 2007). For example, the onset of wildfires or extreme flooding may reduce individual resilience to particular settings and result in forced relocation. Conversely, for planned transformative change, focal events may operate to create a window of opportunity that encourages individuals to plan transformative adaptation actions in anticipation of a crisis (Olsson et al., 2004; Kates et al., 2012; Fazey et al., 2017), when enough individuals challenge the dysfunctionality of existing systems (Chapin III et al., 2010; Gibson et al., 2016). To this end, Chapin III et al. (2010) suggest that crises can create opportunities in several ways: i) deliberately initiating change, thereby managing crises; ii) highlighting system failures, which illustrates the salience of change; and iii) learning from past experience of crises management. Equally, others suggest that decision-making taken in response to crisis events may not produce innovative or transformative outcomes, but may instead act as a stimulus for changes that were already the subject of extensive professional and public knowledge (Johnson et al., 2005; Penning-Rowsell et al., 2006).

31

Vested interests rarely support transformation, particularly where there is much to lose from change (Chapin III et al., 2010; IPCC, 2012). Researchers subsequently argue that even where a window of opportunity arises, structural changes to embedded practices, systems and leadership are required to facilitate transformation (O’Brien, 2012; Tanner and Bahadur, 2013). Encouraging individuals and communities to take proactive adaptive measures requires identifying the underlying values influencing preferences and decisions (Adger et al., 2009; Jones and Boyd, 2011). Pro-social, pro-environmental and pro-active adaptation measures are therefore often found where place-related values are strong as citizens have a greater incentive to take action when valued places become threatened (Whitmarsh, 2008; Mishra et al., 2010; Moser, 2014).

There is also considerable debate about different types of transformations i.e. transformative change taken in response to climate change impacts, and societal transformations that minimise risks and the subsequent need for climate change adaptations in the first instance. For example, O’Brien and Sygna (2013) emphasise the latter concept, whereby transformation towards sustainability is seen as a more practical response to minimise future climate warming, helping to reduce the need for transformative adaptation in response to climate change impacts. Others, however, illustrate transformative actions taken in response to climate change impacts (e.g. flood risk management in the Netherlands) (Kates et al., 2012), acceding that a significantly warmer world is now inevitable.

Considerable agreement within the international community exists that

“adapting to climate and weather extremes associated with rapid and severe climate change, such as a warming beyond 4°C within this century, without transformational policy and social change will be difficult: if not chosen through proactive policies, forced transformations and crises are likely to result” (IPCC, 2012: 466). Kates et al. (2012) argue that the primary reasons for failing to implement transformative adaptation are centred on uncertainties surrounding climate change risks and transformative adaptation benefits, the perceived costs of transformations which are likely

32

to place a burden on current resources to protect against future unknown change, and a range of institutional and behavioural constraints that seek to maintain existing practices and policies. Many socio-ecological systems therefore fail to seize opportunities for deliberate transformative adaptation (Olsson et al., 2006). Indeed, in a study of transformation amongst Nordic farmers, Juhola et al. (2017) found that whilst