As our climate continues to change the impacts on socio-ecological systems are projected to increase in frequency and intensity (Bush et al., 2022, p. 6). But, despite considerable evidence, proactive responses to this threat remain low (Sawyer, 2022, p. 3). Historically, in the field of climate action, mitigation has taken precedence over adaptation (Chidambaram & Khanna, 2022). However, there is now a realisation that regardless of what pathway humanity takes into the future, adaptation is vital in living with the projected impacts of climate change. Indeed, two schools of thought exist namely incremental adaptation and transformative adaptation. But, where one might think any form of adaptation is a good thing, these approaches offer different pathways. For instance, the incremental approach largely accommodates the system in its current form and so considers “marginal changes in infrastructure, institutions and practices” (Pelling et al., 2015, p. 117). Alternatively, transformative adaptation is defined as “restructuring, path-shifting, innovative, multiscale, systemwide, and persistent” (Fedele et al., 2019, p. 116). Therefore, before rushing into adaptation, one may consider how definition, power, and adaptive capacity can influence both the acceptance and results of either approach.

With the climate crisis demanding urgent action one may reasonably point to transformative adaptation as a necessary step, but what does transformation mean? As an equitable approach involves the inclusion of diverse individuals and disciplines (University of San Diego, 2022, p. 55), then transformation can take on different definitions depending on who you ask. For example, Pelling et al. (2015) argue a disaster risk management advisor may focus on risk reduction and thus see transformation in terms of increasing adaptive capacity of the individual (p. 124). Alternatively, a climate change professional may see changes in institutions or technologies as transformation (p. 124). Furthermore, the eagerness to transform might overlook the complexity of the situation. As the root causes of climate change often center on systemic issues such as the capitalist system and its inherent unsustainability (Noor, 2021), systems thinkers highlight leverage points as the key to transformation. For instance, environmental scientist Meadows (n.d.) describes leverage points as “places within a complex system (…) where a small shift in one thing can produce big changes in everything.” Yet, while there are merits to this argument, what does a transformed world look like should these leverage points suddenly come into play? Well, political scientist Homer-Dixon (2011) cautions against this optimism for sudden change, especially without any clear plans to adapt to the new situation (p. 7). In fact, he states “we’re not ready for it, and to the extent that our existing regime of beliefs, values, rules, institutions, and patterns of behaviour are tightly coupled to the former situation” (p. 7). Therefore, one should acknowledge the path dependency of the systems we interact with and the unique way they influence and add structure to our every day lives. Besides, who is given the power to say what gets transformed, and how can we be confident the new pathway will be a success? One could therefore argue incremental adaptation prevents a sudden shock to the system while simultaneously building capacity to accommodate the change. So, let’s consider the dynamic of power in approaches to adaptation.

The ability to influence decisions and promote adaptation lies heavily with those who hold power. Here power is defined as power over policy making, and economic power. To illustrate, in many democracies around the world, citizens elect those who feel they will represent their interests with the elected representative then given the power to set policy (Government of The Netherlands. 2014). Unfortunately, many governments react slowly to changes while also suffering from status quo bias ultimately leading to policy failure (Hong & Lee, 2018, p. 284). This presents both a barrier and timeliness issue for transformative adaptation, a sentiment shared by Pelling et al. (2015) who acknowledge “the pace of change can be slow and thus more inclined towards incremental acts, even if with a transformational intent” (p. 123). Additionally, transformative adaptation could be seen as a push for decentralisation as “groups that have historically been denied power now demand it” (International Monetary Fund, 1999). This transition of power or structural equity is seen by many as necessary for an equitable approach to adaptation (University of San Diego, 2022, p. 55). Thus, decision makers should simultaneously seek to increase civic participation, improve access to education and improve public health while taking adaptive steps (p. 55). But, while some may question the ability of policy makers to relinquish power, what of those who hold economic power? According to Smith (2022), economic power is access to wealth, natural resources, and technology. However, for many of these power brokers of policy and economics, transformation presents a risk to their status quo as it seeks a “rebalancing of rights and responsibilities between actors” (Pelling et al. 2015, p. 115). So, while the climate crisis demands prompt action, these actors may become defensive in the face of transformative endeavours. Thus, as incrementalism does not threaten to overhaul a system, it improves the odds for adaptation to earn a place at the table of power. But where one may look to powerful actors for transformation, this top-down approach can be limited by adaptive capacity.

While power plays a significant role in adaptation, limitations, or barriers may stem from society at large. To illustrate, adaptive capacity can be measured by “income indicators, education statistics, availability (or lack) of impact data, appropriate emergency response, [and] business continuity schemes” (Climate Adapt, n.d.). Thus, even in circumstances where power brokers seek transformation, they may need to address these indicators before they can proceed. The consequences of failing to do could be the exacerbation of inequalities despite a well-meaning approach. Furthermore, on an individual level, capacity, or the openness to transformation relies on one’s own economic security and wellbeing.For instance, Pelling et al. (2015) highlight the importance of behaviour when focusing on adaptation and in doing so recognise “that adaptive capacity is reproduced through everyday activity” (p. 122). Therefore, as transformative adaptation seeks to alter an individual’s everyday actions how open would they be if the approach is seen as dictatorial. Additionally, as the authors highlight the importance of livelihood in adaptation, what if this overarching approach is perceived as a threat to one’s wellbeing. Herein lies a challenge seen particularly in poorer nations as they attempt to balance economic development and ecosystem stability. Thus, when faced with adaptation “distinguishing between incremental and transformative pathways may be an effective first step in holding such climate and development narratives to account” (p. 122). And so even when there is an appetite for action in the corridors of power, the importance of equity is again highlighted in providing a system the capacity to transform.

For many, acknowledging the urgent need for climate action may come easy, but the challenge lies in altering entire systems onto a new path of resilience. So, while on paper transformation says all the right things, wholesale implementation remains low (Fedele et al., 2019, p. 117). In fact, as a climate action student, I often consider the number of other students around the world who are being taught the skills to succeed in the very systems I and many others are hoping to change. Of course, as competition and self-interest are influential factors in the capitalistic system, how can I fault them for trying to get by? In the meantime, an incremental approach, albeit insufficient, may offer the best opportunity for a seat at the table. In doing so, one may hope conversations on equity and capacity arise, giving way to opportunities for transformative action in the future.

References

Bush, E., Bonsal, B., Derksen, C., Flato, G., Fyfe, J., Gillett, N., Greenan, B. J. W., James, T. S., Kirchmeier-Young, M., Mudryk, L., & Zhang, X. (2022). Canada’s changing climate report, in light of the latest global science assessment. https://doi.org/10.4095/329703

Chidambaram, R., & Khanna, P. (2022, August 1). It’s Time to Invest in Climate Adaptation. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2022/08/its-time-to-invest-in-climate-adaptation

Climate Adapt. (n.d.). Assessing risks and vulnerability to climate change: How to assess adaptive capacity? Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://climate-adapt.eea.europa.eu/en/knowledge/tools/adaptation-support-tool/step-2-4-t/index_html

Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hannah, L., & Hole, D. G. (2019). Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 116–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001

Government of The Netherlands. (2014, September 3). The workings of democracy—Democracy—Government.nl. Ministerie van Algemene Zaken. https://www.government.nl/topics/democracy/the-workings-of-democracy

Homer-Dixon, T. (2011). We live in a world of complex systems. Oxford Leadership Journal. 2(1), 15. http://homerdixon.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Homer-Dixon-Oxford-Leadership-Journal-Manion-lecture.pdf

Hong, S., & Lee, S. (2018). Adaptive governance, status quo bias, and political competition: Why the sharing economy is welcome in some cities but not in others. Government Information Quarterly, 35(2), 283–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.02.001

International Monetary Fund. (n.d.). Finance and Development | F&D. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/12/dillinge.htm

Meadows, D. (n.d.). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. The Academy for Systems Change. Retrieved June 1, 2023, from https://donellameadows.org/archives/leverage-points-places-to-intervene-in-a-system/

Noor, S. (2021). Why We Need to Change Capitalism for Climate Action. Earth.org. https://earth.org/change-capitalism-for-climate-action/

Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015, December 18). Adaptation and Transformation. Climatic Change, 133.  113- 127. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0

Sawyer, D. (2022). Damage Control: Reducing the costs of climate impacts in Canada. 14. https://climateinstitute.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/Damage-Control_-EN_0927.pdf

Smith, S. (2022). Economic Power Overview & Ranking | What is Economic Power?. Study.Com. https://study.com/learn/lesson/economic-power-overview-ranking.html

University of San Diego. (2022). An Equity-First Approach to Climate Adaptation. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=npi-sdclimate