The CALS 503 Climate Risk Management course enabled us to examine fundamental principles, theories, and concepts of climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Moreover, the relationship between disaster risk management and climate change adaptation was explored with a focus on developing comprehensive risk assessment frameworks. The course material inspired further research on transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation. This approach reflects the urgent need to reassess our perception of meaningful climate action to address the perhaps most fundamental risk of failing to adapt and mitigate climate change in time.
Evidence of growing climate-related risks and impacts worldwide has prompted calls for “transformational change” in handling and adapting to that risk (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021). As climate change accelerates and we see the first signs of adaptation limits and rising compound risk (Dow et al., 2013), we can no longer rely solely on conventional methods to address climate-related risks. This presents new challenges for all sectors (Nalau & Handmer, 2015). The adverse impacts of climate change have already become apparent, and more are expected in the future. Hence, climate risk management and adaptation approaches are becoming increasingly recognized as indispensable (Kates et al., 2012). As the number of climate-related disasters rises, so do calls for innovative approaches to disaster preparedness and response, including relevant epistemic methods (David Tàbara et al., 2019) that enable radical and fundamental change for the better (Mustelin & Handmer, 2013; Nalau & Handmer, 2015).
For a change to be considered “transformational” in the climate risk management and adaptation framework, it must involve extensive, far-reaching, and in-depth changes to the system (Kates et al., 2012; Nalau & Handmer, 2015). Transformative approaches to climate risk management and adaptation may rely on innovative and learning capacities, broad stakeholder engagement, regular monitoring and evaluation, and strategic leadership, among other things, to successfully bring about such a profound change (Moser & Ekstrom, 2010; Kates et al., 2012)
Societies tend to react to pressure to change in incremental ways, focusing on maintaining the existing system or accepting gradual partial change (Kates et al., 2012). Given the multiple dynamic pressures underlying current and future global change, however, this may need to be revised, calling for a more solid understanding of how change can be managed and what supports positive transformative action and, ultimately, solutions. Ideally, this would aid in progress toward development, disaster risk mitigation, and adaptation. However, most of the attention to date has been given to incremental rather than revolutionary shifts, and the scale of the change and its evaluation in terms of both short- and long-term effects have been largely ignored (Mustelin & Handmer, 2013). There is a limit to incremental adaptation, and if it is relied on too heavily, it can lead to expensive maladaptation and system collapse (Dow et al., 2013). Transformational adaptation, on the other hand, seeks to strengthen the capacity of biophysical, social, or economic systems to meet the desired goals by altering the system’s essential properties or bringing about an irreversible regime shift (Kates et al., 2012).
Given the increasing discontent with incremental, reactive change, how can more profound, transformative change be brought about? Adaptive transformation, which considers actor-specific understandings of, say, the meaning of sustainability or climate risk, could facilitate ongoing learning and re-evaluation (Preston et al., 2013). Even when firmly committed to a specific course of action, actors can use adaptive transformation to open themselves up to new action pathways. Hence, adaptive transformation modifies how feasible various choices appear, allowing for a more generalized recognition of what constitutes a “good” course of action. The critical question is whether the transformation process is undertaken voluntarily or whether, due to external pressures, transformational change becomes the only option (Preston et al., 2013). When a system’s configuration is no longer sustainable, transition and resilience theorists view transformation as an obligatory next step. According to this theory, change is not always voluntary but occurs just before or after a system collapses (Mustelin & Handmer, 2013). Alternatively, a more anticipatory view of transformation would be highly beneficial, defining it as a deliberate decision to alter the system into a new state before any such collapse occurs (O’Brien, 2012).
The growing body of research on transformational adaptation presents opportunities for progressing toward a clear and actionable conceptualization of transformative approaches to climate risk management, adaptation, and the change processes entailed therein. However, the increasing attention has also resulted in a broad spectrum of interpretations (Nalau & Handmer, 2015). The potential for bringing about profound change toward comprehensive climate risk management and adaptation that addresses the fundamental causes of risks and enables sustainable futures may be hampered by the term’s ambiguous and inconsistent conception (Few et al., 2017). Additionally, due to a more qualitative approach, transformative climate risk management and adaptation techniques frequently lack explicit quantitative goals, unlike the literature on comparable topics like mitigation (e.g. net zero targets) and socio-technical transitions (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021), making it more challenging to address the concept within conventional (natural) scientific structures. The broad interpretation and the lack of quantitative, measurable goals point to an “operationalization gap” in terms of translating transformational change ambitions into concrete transformative measures that can be directly replicated in practice. Ongoing, transdisciplinary research into the topic will help policymakers and practitioners avoid using the concept of transformational change and transformational adaptation innocuously and instead bring about the profound shift necessary to secure sustainable futures and fortify communities against the worsening effects of climate change (Feola, 2015).
References
David Tàbara, J., Jäger, J., Mangalagiu, D., Grasso, M. (2019). Defining transformative climate science to address high-end climate change. Regional Environmental Change, 19, 807-818. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1288-8
Deubelli, T. M. & Mechler, R. (2021). Perspectives in transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5). https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd42d
Dow, K., Berkhout, F., Preston, B. L., Klein, R. J. T., Midgley, G., Shaw, M. R. (2013). Limits to adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 305-307. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1847
Feola, G. (2015). Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio, 44(5), 376-390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z
Few, R., Morchain, D., Spear, D., Mensah, A., Bendapudi, R. (2017). Transformation, adaptation and development: relating concepts to practice. Palgrave Communications, 3. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.92
Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., Wilbanks, T. J. (2012). Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7156-7161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.111552110
Moser, S. C. & Ekstrom, J. A. (2010). A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(51), 22026-22031. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107
Mustelin, J. & Handmer, J. (2013). Triggering transformation: Managing resilience or invoking real change? Transformation in a changing climate, 24-32. https://www.sv.uio.no/iss/english/research/news-and-events/events/conferences-and-seminars/transformations/proceedings-transformation-in-a-changing-climate_interactive.pdf
Nalau, J. & Handmer, J. (2015). When is transformation a viable policy alternative? Environmental Science & Policy, 54, 349-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.022
O’Brien, K. (2012). Global environmental change II: From adaptation to deliberate transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667-676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425767
Preston, B. L., Dow, K., Berkhout, F. (2013). The Climate Adaptation Frontier. Sustainability, 5(3), 1011-1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5031011