Photo by Jack Moreh from Freerange Stock
Incremental or transformative adaptation, although they have the same end goal, have very different levels of motivation and impacts on socio-ecological systems. Incremental motivation can be defined as minor adjustments to make the current socioeconomic system more resilient to future impacts (Fedele et al., 2019). Taking a different approach, transformative adaptation addresses the underlying system that has led to the current vulnerability of the socio-ecological system to the impact (Fedele et al., 2019). Both focus on increasing resiliency, but which approach will best increase resiliency in societies not disrupted by socioeconomic events currently rooted in the western ways of capitalism?
Western capitalistic ways are systemic to our current way of being and are argued to be the driving factor of anthropogenic climate change (Park, 2015). Furthermore, the modern business case that motivates decisions in this capitalist system is modeled on cost-benefit analyses, returns on investments, and positive net present values. How can adaptation methods, which require expenditures, become alluring to decision-makers focused on the bottom-line to help motivate change? Incremental adaptation, rooted in increasing resiliency, can appear more appealing to capitalistic needs as adaptation can reference avoided risk as a benefit due to deferred losses and insurance claims. Transformative adaptation, in this instance, would require disrupting the stability of traditional methodology (Pelling et al., 2013), such as replacing the bottom-line with triple-bottom-line methodology that quantifies qualitative variables into benefits. Thus, incorporating environmental impact and social governance (ESG) into decision-making to promote deep-rooted adaptation change. Gitnux (2023) claims that approximately 68% of US executives state their companies are greenwashing, making misleading claims of impact to increase social image and profit. I believe this demonstrates that bottom-line remains more influential in business cases making incremental adaption the most effective in a capitalistic society. Would incremental increases remain a prominent adaptation method in times of socioeconomic disruption though?
While the IPCC (2022) notes emissions were higher in 2010-2019 than in the previous decade, the rate of growth has decreased. Despite this decrease in emission growth, there remain approximately 3.3-3.6 billion people highly vulnerable to climate change (IPCC, 2022). This is indicative of systemic issues in the western capitalist system. With nearly half the global population being highly vulnerable there is potential loss of socio-economic stability should a large climate event occur. Both Pelling et al. (2013) and Fedele et al. (2019) agree that incremental adaptation is a method used to preserve systems in place; a method that would fail in a situation of instability or even make the situation worse by delaying needed transformation. Pelling et al. (2013) warn that transformational change can create instability and vulnerability when started while Fedele et al. (2019 ) state that in an already unstable system, the only way to recover can be through transformative adaptation. I believe that in a time of forced instability, whether it be social or ecological, that incremental adaptation is not sufficient as the system it attempts to maintain has been disrupted. Thus, requiring transformative adaptation to recover.
I believe the very question of which form of adaptation, incremental or transformative, is best for western society rooted in capitalism is missing the actual question we should be asking. The question that should be asked is when should incremental adaptation be used to lead to transformative adaptation and when should just transformative adaption be used? As they both share the same end goal of creating sustainable socio-ecological systems I believe it becomes a matter of situational adaptation instead of methodological adaptation. Where the question is not which methodology is better, it is which methodology best suits the situation?
References
Gitnux. (2023, May 5). Greenwashing Statistics You shouldn’t Ignore. Gitnux. https://blog.gitnux.com/greenwashing-statistics/#:~:text=68%25%20of%20US%20executives%20admit,company’s%20sustainability%20efforts%20were%20genuine
Fedele, G. Donatti, C., Harvey, C., Hannah, L., & Hole, D. (2019). Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science and Policy. 116-125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001
Park, J. (2015). Climate Change and Capitalism. Consilience: The Journal of Sustainable Development, 14(2), 189-206. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26188749
Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change, 133, 113-127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0
Pörtner, H., Roberts, D., Poloczanska, E., Mintenbeck, K., Tignor, M., Alegría, A., Craig, M., Langsdorf, S., Löschke, S., Möller, V., & Okem, A. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 3-33, doi:10.1017/9781009325844.001.