See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335313466

Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological

systems

Article  in  Environmental Science & Policy · August 2019

DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001

CITATIONS READS

188 2,426

5 authors, including:

Giacomo Fedele Celia A. Harvey

Conservation International Rainforest Alliance
25 PUBLICATIONS   540 CITATIONS    232 PUBLICATIONS   13,866 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lee Hannah
Conservation International
123 PUBLICATIONS   19,612 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Assessing agricultural risk management strategies among remote, vulnerable communities in Madagascar View project

Urban Planning View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Giacomo Fedele on 10 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science and Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social- T

ecological systems
⁎
Giacomo Fedelea, , Camila I. Donattia,b, Celia A. Harveya,c, Lee Hannaha,d, David G. Holea
a
Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International HQ, Arlington, VA, USA
b
Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA
c
Monteverde Institute, Monteverde de Santa Elena, Puntarenas, Costa Rica
d
Bren School of Environmental Science & Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the face of major shifts in temperature and precipitation, some conventional strategies that help people to
Climate change adaptation cope or incrementally adapt to climate change may become inappropriate in the long-term. Transformative
Ecosystem services adaptation, i.e. fundamental systems’ changes that address root causes of vulnerability may be needed. However,
Land-use changes we have a limited understanding of what transformative adaptation looks like in social-ecological systems and
Social-ecological systems
when it can be implemented. We applied an interdisciplinary perspective to describing social-ecological shifts
Transformation
driven by climate change. We reviewed 80 recent conceptual publications about responses of social, ecological,
and social-ecological systems to climate change. Our review suggests that transformative adaptation is char-
acterized as being restructuring, path-shifting, innovative, multiscale, systemwide, and persistent. Despite sev-
eral barriers to implement transformative adaptation, policy makers and practitioners should consider this op-
tion in adaptation plans to help societies to anticipate, guide, or recover from radical climate change impact.
Using transformative adaptation to navigate shifts driven by climate change can increase the efficiency and
sustainability of climate solutions.

1. Introduction: Climate change impacts and the need for However, conventional coping strategies and incremental adapta-
adaptation tion to climate change may not always be effective at helping people or
ecosystems to reduce their vulnerabilities to severe climatic changes.
Societies and ecosystems around the world are increasingly being For example, in response to climate change-driven floods, people can
impacted by rising temperatures, changing rainfall patterns and fre- borrow money to repair houses or replant damaged crops in the same
quent or severe extreme weather events and will require support to location. These coping responses may not be enough to protect com-
adapt to these changes. Both people and ecosystems have been adapting munities from floods that are increasingly severe and frequent, and
to these climate-driven changes. Examples of societal responses to cli- affect large areas (Adger and Jordan, 2009; Kim et al., 2012). People
mate change include farmers who have increasingly subscribed to crop can also incrementally adapt to the floods by building higher dams or
insurance against extreme weather in China (Jianjun et al., 2015), low elevating their houses. This type of adaptation modifies the social or
lying cities that have built walls and planned relocations due to re- ecological system to accommodate changes but does not alter the fun-
current floods in the Netherlands (Edelenbos et al., 2017), and coastal damental characteristics of the social-ecological system, so people may
communities that have migrated inland due to sea level rise in the remain vulnerable to future floods. Instead of these incremental adap-
Mekong Delta (Smajgl et al., 2015), among others. Examples of ecolo- tations, people can also respond to floods by transforming their social-
gical responses driven by climate change include plants that have ecological system, for example by relocating houses or crop fields to
shifted their distribution towards higher altitudes in European moun- safer areas or restoring previously degraded wetlands upstream.
tains (Gottfried et al., 2012), birds and plants that have shifted their ‘Transformative adaptation’ therefore refers to these changes that fun-
breeding or flowering periods around the world (Walther et al., 2002), damentally alter the entire system’s ecological and/or social properties
and corals that have expelled their symbiotic algae causing coral and functions. It aims to reduce the root causes of vulnerabilities to
bleaching in the Great Barrier Reef (Hughes et al., 2017). climate change (Future Earth, 2015; Kates et al., 2012), such as social,

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (G. Fedele).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001
Received 14 May 2019; Received in revised form 3 July 2019; Accepted 4 July 2019
1462-9011/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

cultural, economic, environmental, and power relations, by trans- addition, transformative adaptation may be discouraged by the need to
forming them into more just, sustainable, or resilient states. involve multiple stakeholders, sectors, and governance levels with po-
Although there is increasing interest in the concept of transforma- tentially different interests (Meadowcroft, 2011; Van den Bergh, 2011).
tive adaptation (Feola, 2015 and Patterson et al., 2017), transformative Transformative adaptation may also need to reconcile different future
adaptation is rarely considered in adaptation projects, plans or policies visions (e.g. economic growth versus low carbon emissions) and re-
to reduce the impacts of climate change. Very few studies of climate connect local service producers with regional or global beneficiaries
change adaptation have reported the implementation of transformative (e.g. through fair-trade sustainable food supply chains, water or carbon
adaptation, even though some promising studies have started, such as Payments for Ecosystem Services). These barriers increase the degrees
those in Eastern Indonesia (Butler et al., 2016), the French Alps of uncertainty and risks associated with transformative adaptation
(Lavorel et al., 2019), and the city of Rotterdam (Hölscher et al., 2019). (Blythe et al., 2018). Another set of barriers for transformative adap-
For example, a review of Africa adaptation projects to reduce farmer tation are complex ethical and distributional questions that need to be
vulnerabilities to climate change, found that most adaptation inter- clarified prior to its implementation, such as the deliberate choice to
ventions were incremental adjustments of livelihoods (Mapfumo et al., support certain values (Biermann et al., 2012; Gorddard et al., 2016),
2017). In the United States, proposed adaptation projects in the agri- governance structures (Colloff et al., 2017a; Fazey et al., 2018), and
cultural and water sectors were mostly related to slight modifications of vested interests in particular outcomes (Stirling, 2014; Wise et al.,
existing adaptation strategies with the exception of a few cases, such as 2014).
a reform in the water rights system and water allocation mechanisms Transformative adaptation is emerging in the scientific and sus-
that fundamentally changed current institutional arrangements (Kates tainable development debates as both a necessity and an opportunity,
et al., 2012). In cities around the world, a review of the adaptation but it is a complex concept that remains poorly defined in practice.
plans to heat stress and infrastructure damages showed that they mostly Researchers have described the distinction between transformative
focused on increasing resilience, e.g. through resistant buildings, but adaptation and other responses aimed at coping with climate change
rarely included actions with transformative potential such as the de- impacts or incrementally adapting to these changes (for reviews, see
velopment of new land-use plans that restricted the use of areas with Feola, 2015 and Patterson et al., 2017). However, there is little in-
high risks and mitigation potential (Revi et al., 2014). formation on what transformative adaptation entails, what this type of
There are many more barriers for the implementation of transfor- adaptation looks like in social-ecological systems, and when to consider
mative adaptation (Fig. 1) compared to the implementation of coping implementing it (Moore et al., 2014; Patterson et al., 2017; Rickards
responses or incremental adaptation (Chung Tiam Fook, 2017; Kates and Howden, 2012). Policy-makers have started recognizing that cli-
et al., 2012; Rickards and Howden, 2012). Transformative adaptation mate change responses might need to go beyond business-as-usual to be
may receive less social or political support because of the particularly effective (Mapfumo et al., 2017; O’Brien, 2012), but rarely consider
high investments that may be required (human, financial, and time) transformative adaptation as a potential solution. References to trans-
and the long time needed for the benefits to manifest themselves (Adger formative adaptation are found, for example, in the SDGs preamble
et al., 2005; Kuntz and Gomes, 2012). There is a tendency to adapt (“transformative steps […] to a sustainable and resilient path) (UN, 2018),
through incremental adaptation or business-as-usual strategies that do in the Green Climate Fund mandate (“paradigm shift towards […] cli-
not challenge the status-quo of the current system because of a lack of mate-resilient development pathways”) (UNFCCC, 2012), and in the Paris
familiarity with transformative adaptation, constraining funding Agreement Article 7 (“greater adaptation needs can involve greater adap-
structures for such strategies, or narrow mandates of the institutions tation costs”) (UN, 2015). In all those strategic documents, it is clear that
planning these interventions (Abson et al., 2017; Gibson et al., 2016; without considering transformative adaptation as a response to climate
Thornton and Comberti, 2017). Power imbalances and inequalities can change, we may not only fail to reduce the vulnerabilities of both
also hinder transformative adaptation because dominant actors who ecological and social systems, but also increase the costs and delay the
benefit from the status-quo may be in a position to block such changes implementation of sustainable and long-term solutions (Adger and
(Colloff et al., 2017a; Pelling et al., 2015; Tschakert et al., 2013). In Jordan, 2009; Pelling et al., 2015; Rickards and Howden, 2012).

Fig. 1. Types of strategies for reducing the impact of climate change on social-ecological systems, with examples from agriculture, along a gradient of increasing
magnitude of responses.

117
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

In this study, we provide an overview of what transformative impacts are not intense, when people do not have the technical or fi-
adaptation is in coupled social-ecological systems, highlight the char- nancial capacity to respond in a different way, or when they do not
acteristics of this type of adaptation, and explore opportunities for recognize any need for changes. Examples of coping responses include
helping to operationalize the implementation of transformative adap- small-holder farmers in Indonesia or Madagascar replanting crops that
tation as part of the set of adaptation options. We adopt an inter- were damaged due to floods or looking for wild vegetables or other
disciplinary perspective to transformative adaptation that includes as- edible forest products to maintain food security following climate-
pects related to both the social and ecological systems, as well as their driven extreme weather events (Fedele et al., 2016; Rakotobe et al.,
interactions. We review the recent conceptual literature (80 publica- 2016).
tions in total) describing major changes and responses to climate A second type of response to climate change is incremental adap-
change in social, ecological, and social-ecological systems to identify tation, which includes strategies to continue to provide benefits by
common characteristics of transformative adaptation (see Methods and accommodating changes. Incremental adaptation strategies drive minor
Annex). We then discuss how an improved understanding of these and small-scale adjustments to current social-ecological systems and
characteristics can help decision makers consider transformative focus on building their resilience to climate change impacts (Adger and
adaptation in programs, plans, and processes, including National Jordan, 2009; Kates et al., 2012). Incremental adaptation tends to be
Adaptation Plans, Nationally Determined Contribution, and Ecosystem- more anticipatory than coping strategies. For social-ecological systems,
based Adaptation projects. Finally, we discuss when transformative examples of incremental adaptations include adjusting agricultural or
adaptation may be an appropriate response to climate change instead of land management practices, such as building irrigation systems, redu-
coping or incremental options. By understanding what transformative cing livestock numbers or cultivated areas, increasing use of fertilizers
adaptation entails and when it should be considered in practice, we can or pesticides, or using new crop varieties, among others, to adapt the
be better prepared to develop climate solutions that follow more sus- agroecological system to climate change impacts (Ash et al., 2012;
tainable development pathways. Nguyen et al., 2013; Nhemachena and Hassan, 2007).
Transformative adaptation is the third type of potential response to
climate change. Transformative adaptation is a strategy that aims to
2. Theory: Types of adaptation in social-ecological systems
reduce the root causes of vulnerability to climate change in the long-
term by shifting systems away from unsustainable or undesirable tra-
Responses to the adverse impacts of climate change can be cate-
jectories (O’Brien, 2012; Olsson et al., 2014). It relates to fundamental
gorized into three major types: coping responses, incremental adapta-
systemic changes that create new states and interactions within social-
tion, and transformative adaptation (Fig. 2 from left to right). Because
ecological systems (Adger and Jordan, 2009; Feola, 2015; O’Brien,
social and ecological systems are tightly interconnected (Berkes and
2012; Wahid et al., 2017). It can be driven directly by radical shifts in
Folke, 1998), an alteration in one sub-system likely leads to modifica-
either ecosystems or societies in response to observed or expected cli-
tions in the other. Climate change can affect ecosystems on which
mate change, or indirectly through an accumulation of incremental
people depend for their livelihoods (CBD, 2009); these communities, in
adaptation or changes (Adger et al., 2011; Kates et al., 2012). In social-
turn, can respond by altering land management to adapt the social-
ecological systems, examples of transformative adaptation include the
ecological systems (Pramova et al., 2012; Sudmeier-Rieux et al., 2009).
revitalization of rivers and relocation of human activities in flood plains
For example, decreasing precipitation and droughts in Sub-Saharan
(as opposed to building channels and dikes), the shift from fossil fuels
Africa have been reducing maize, banana, and cacao yields (Rippke
towards clean energy production, or the creation of multi stakeholders’
et al., 2016; Ruf et al., 2015). Depending on the magnitude of the im-
committees for managing water use quotas during scarcity (compared
pacts of climate change on agricultural systems (zig-zag arrows in
to top-down decisions), among others.
Fig. 2) and their capacities to respond, famers can modify the system in
different ways to maintain food security under these changing condi-
tions (dotted arrows in Fig. 2). For example, farmers can replant da- 3. Methods
maged crops (a coping strategy), build irrigation to reduce future risks
of crop failure (incremental adaptation), or fundamentally change the To help understand transformative adaptation in social, ecological,
characteristics and properties of the land use through the adoption of and social-ecological systems, we reviewed literature that described
agroforestry or reforestation (transformative adaptation). major changes in systems driven by climate change and adaptation
Coping strategies are strategies that people use to resist the impacts responses and explored what transformative adaptation, if any, had
from climate change and maintain the affected social-ecological system occurred. We identified conceptual papers on transformative adapta-
in a similar state or business-as-usual functioning (Kates et al., 2012; tion by using Web of Science and Google Scholars (through the com-
Perrings, 2006). The use of coping strategies usually does not alter the bination of the following words: “transform* adaptation” AND “climate
existing ecological or social characteristics and functions of the system. change” AND “social” OR “ecological” “system”). We searched all pa-
Coping strategies are often reactive and may be applied when the pers published by December 2017. We reviewed a total of 80 relevant

Fig. 2. Three possible ways for a social-ecological system (SES) to respond to the perceived or expected impact of climate change. The climate change impacts (zigzag
arrows) drive coping, incremental adaptation, or transformative adaptation responses (dotted arrows) that increasingly alter the original system’s properties and
function.

118
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

Six common characteristics of transformative adaptation in ecological, social, and social-ecological systems based on the review of 80 conceptual papers. The percent of references (% ref) refers to the percent of the 80
papers that mentioned this characteristic in their description of transformative adaptation. The footnotes refer to illustrative references that report on these characteristics (complete list of references in Appendix A).

Andersen et al., 2009, 2 Biggs et al., 2010, 3Colloff et al., 2017a, Pelling et al., 2015, 5Scheffer, 2012, 6Crépin et al., 2013, 7Folke et al., 2010, 8Geels and Schot, 2007, 9Holling, 2001, 10Kates et al., 2012, 11Klein et al.,
publications that included theoretical descriptions of transformative

re-evaluation and innovation in the relations between people and nature 10, 13
adaptation and compared transformative adaptation with other types of

shift toward different pathways of sustainability, resilience, vulnerability, or

adaptation. We focused on descriptions of transformative adaptation

radical alteration of interactions between people and nature (livelihoods,

that included comparisons with other types of adaptation, but addi-

ecosystem services, land uses, environmental values/ knowledge,)7, 17

future-oriented and long-term but not necessarily irreversible 14, 16

tional insights could have been gained by specifically analyzing defi-
nitions of incremental adaptation. The papers included a mix of social,

at multiple systems’ scales (spatial, governance, sectors) 10, 18

ecological and interdisciplinary studies that varied in their definition of
the term ‘transformative adaptation’. This plurality of definitions al-
lowed us to explore different perspectives on the concept and advance
the understanding of transformative adaption with an interdisciplinary
perspective.
To identify the characteristics of transformative adaptation, we
analyzed each publication to understand how they used the term
‘transformative adaptation’ and to identify the key characteristics of

at large-scale or systemic 10, 16

this type of adaptation. In an interactive process we grouped similar
elements found in the descriptions of transformative adaptation in each
publication. Recurrent elements or parallels in the descriptions of

2007, 12Lees et al., 2006, 13Moore et al., 2014, 14 Moser and Ekstrom, 2010, 15Mustelin and Handmer, 2013, 16O’Brien, 2012, 17Thornton and Comberti, 2013.
transformative adaptation mentioned across the social, ecological, and

Social-ecological
social-ecological literature represented the characteristics of transfor-

equity 16, 13
mative adaptation. Subsequently, we assigned the element of the de-
scription of transformative adaptation in each paper to the matching
characteristic (see Appendix A). We analyzed the frequency of each
characteristic across the publications and recorded the type of system in
which this adaptation had occurred (i.e. either ecological, social, or

social and technical innovation, learning and novel behaviors 7, 11

social-ecological system).

fundamental social shift (values, norms, knowledge, power

4. Results

relations, ways of thinking, business processes) 8, 3, 4

shift toward alternative development pathways 20,8
4.1. Characteristics of transformative adaptation

across jurisdictional and societal levels9, 7, 8

widespread in societies and geographies22
In the reviewed literature, transformative adaptation has been de-

persistent (over several generations)8

scribed with specific terminology and different emphasis depending on
the social or ecological disciplinary perspective used (see Table 1 and
Appendix A). However, there are several parallels across the social and
ecological literature. In the literature on social-ecological systems,
transformative adaptation was mentioned in relation to ‘sustainability
issues’, ‘resilience pathways’, and productive system transitions, such as
agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and water management (Enfors, 2013;
Hatakenaka et al., 2011; Ramankutty and Coomes, 2016). In the lit-
erature on ecological systems, transformative adaptation was men-
Social

tioned in the context of ‘regime shifts’, ‘tipping points’, ‘ecological

transitions’, and ‘resilience’, especially for marine ecosystems (Bennett
et al., 2009; Crépin et al., 2013; Keith et al., 2015). In the literature on
6, 2
6

social systems, transformative adaptation was mentioned in association

new species or variety compositions in the ecosystem
ecosystem shift toward an alternative “stable” state1,
substantive re-structure of ecosystem states (species

with the concepts of ‘social innovation’, ‘transitions of socio-technical

abundance and diversity, ecological functions)5,6

at multiple trophic levels and spatial scales1, 12

systems’, and political or power shifts, such in energy production,

4
in large areas of ecosystems or landscapes 6

governance institutions, and economic activities (Geels and Schot,

hard to reverse (without human inputs)1

2007; Gillard et al., 2016; Patterson et al., 2017).

We identified six recurring characteristics of transformative adap-
tation based on the literature review of 80 ecological, social and social-
ecological studies (see Table 1 for summary and Appendix A for full
analysis). Across the reviewed papers, transformative adaptation was
generally characterized as being restructuring, path-shifting, in-
novative, multiscale, systemwide, and persistent (Fig. 3). Transforma-
tive adaptation is ‘restructuring’ in that it involves major shifts in
Ecological

fundamental properties, functions, or interactions within the social,

ecological, or social-ecological system (Fazey et al., 2018; Mapfumo
et al., 2017; Matyas and Pelling, 2015). For example, farmers who
depend on agriculture for their livelihoods can decide to abandon some
% ref.

fields and start working off-farm in response to decreasing land pro-

90%

80%

70%
70%
60%
40%

ductivity due to climate change. Transformative adaptation is often

‘path-shifting’ because it alters the systems’ current trajectory by
Restructuring

Path-shifting
Characteristic

Systemwide
Innovative
Multiscale

pushing it towards an alternative direction, e.g. from a landscape

Persistent

dominated by oil palm monocultures - to one with mixed trees species-

Table 1

(Dakos et al., 2015; Hahn and Nykvist, 2017; Pelling et al., 2015). It is
‘innovative’ because it often changes systems to new states that have
1

119
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

Fig. 3. Six characteristics of transformative adaptation in social-ecological systems. The original social-ecological system (tree) under the impact of climate change
(waves) undergoes transformative adaptation shifting toward another state with different properties and functions (boat).

Table 2
An example of transformative adaptation (the conversion of unproductive croplands to agroforestry systems due to reduced rainfall) that illustrates the six char-
acteristics of transformative adaptation.
Transformative adaptation: the conversion of unproductive cropland
to agroforestry systems in response to reduced rainfall

Characteristics Ecological changes Social changes Social-ecological

of transformative transformative adaptation
adaptation

Restructuring Soils with high moisture Little work/time needed for crop productivity Transformative adaptation changes livelihoods from
→ soils with low moisture → More work/time needed for ensuring crops undiversified to diversified (from rice farmers to farmers with
productivity (watering and fertilizing) agroforestry and off-farms activities)
Path-shifting Crop-dominated land Populated rural villages with rice farming Transformative adaptation leads to a shift from drought-
→ tree-dominated lands opportunities sensitive rice monocultures to a more drought-resilient mix of
→ migration and less populated villages with crops and trees
fewer rice farming opportunities
Innovative More drought sensitive vegetation Low farmer awareness of climate change Transformative adaptation reverses a decades-long trend of
(crops) impact on land productivity losses in forest cover in a region
→ more drought resistant → higher awareness among farmers
vegetation (trees)
Multiscale Simple food web in cropland (few Rice produced by local farmers Transformative adaptation impacts people at different scales
trophic levels) → rice produced by/bought from farmers in by affecting water availability for downstream users
→ complex food web in a tree- other regions
dominated landscape (multiple
trophic levels)
Systemwide Abundant water in a region Few villages in a region with low rice Transformative adaptation modifies rural landscapes across
→ widespread scarce water in an productivity → several villages in entire region the entire region
entire region with low rice productivity
Persistent Forested land often changed to Limited yearly variations in rice harvest and Transformative adaptation provides lasting benefits for rural
cropland income livelihoods
→ long-term forested land → lasting reduction of rice harvest and income
maintained through natural across seasons and years
regeneration

not previously existed in that area thanks to new knowledge, policies, ‘system-wide’, i.e. it occurs at large-scale and leads to systemic changes
or technologies (Biggs et al., 2010; Feola, 2015; Suding et al., 2004). across whole regions, ecosystems, landscapes, or communities
For example, through learning from the impact of climate change, (Douxchamps et al., 2017; Gillard et al., 2016; Ostberg et al., 2013).
farmers might convert cropland to agroforestry systems, or city plan- Finally, transformative adaptation is often a ‘persistent’ shift with long-
ners replace infrastructure with new green spaces in flood prone areas. term impacts, although not necessarily irreversible (Crépin et al., 2013;
Transformative adaptation is ‘multi-scale’ in that it has impacts across Feola, 2015; Rippke et al., 2016). For example, farmers may switch to
multiple scales (e.g. trophic, spatial, jurisdictional, or sectoral scales) new livelihoods that are expected to provide them with food or income
(Biggs et al., 2010; Gillard et al., 2016; Lin and Petersen, 2013). For for a long-time frame and may find it difficult to later revert to their
example, farmers’ conversion of croplands to forests can lead to in- previous agroecological system (Table 2).
creases in both species richness and erosion control with a positive
impact on people downstream. Transformative adaptation is also

120
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

Table 3
The six characteristics of transformative adaptation highlight opportunities to catalyze transformative adaptation in the design and implementation of responses to
climate change.
Characteristic Opportunity to catalyze transformative adaptation References

Restructuring identify leaders and key agents to promote deep social changes that lead to transformative adaptation, as well as Folke et al., 2010;
identify power dynamics that might prevent its implementation; Patterson et al., 2017; Múnera and van
engage with bridging organizations to facilitate sharing of knowledge that increase awareness on behavioural Kerkhoff, 2019
changes for transformative adaptation;
Path-shifting re-evaluate current assumptions on dominant values, rules, practices to promote new adaptation options; Wise et al., 2014, Colloff et al., 2017b;
facilitate multi-loop learning approaches that questions current world visions and open opportunities for Olsson et al., 2018, Medema et al., 2014;
alternative adaptation; Westley et al., 2013
take advantage of windows of opportunities, such as extreme climate hazards, political reforms, new technologies
to re-direct development pathways;
Innovative invest in research and experimentation on new adaptation options, including transformative adaptation; Loorbach, 2010;
learn through long-term Monitoring & Evaluation and impact evaluation to avoid ineffective adaptation; Wyborn et al., 2016,
Fazey et al., 2018
Multiscale create cross-scale partnerships to implement transformative adaptation; Holling, 2001, Ekstrom and Moser, 2014;
engage with multiple levels of governance to spread transformative adaptation; Sayer et al., 2013,
consider entire commodity chains (from producers to consumers); Abel et al., 2016;
Bennett et al., 2009; Crépin et al., 2013
Systemwide foster multi stakeholders & cross-sectoral collaborations; O’Neill and Hulme, 2009,
apply landscape and participatory approaches; Stirling, 2014; Chapin et al., 2010, Sayer
expand progressively successful strategies et al., 2013
Persistent institutionalize new practices and regulatory frameworks; Mapfumo et al., 2017,
secure political and funding support to long-term actions Olsson et al., 2018

5. Discussion Abel et al., 2016). Another opportunity is promoting participatory ap-

proaches and collaboration among multiple stakeholders, such as re-
5.1. Opportunities for transformative adaptation in responses to climate searchers, communities, practitioners, and policy makers (e.g. through
change knowledge brokers or multi-stakeholders’ fora) that can help reach
consensus for system-wide actions (e.g. Lavorel et al., 2019; Sayer et al.,
Transformative adaptation has started being described through 2013). Moreover, an opportunity for transformative adaptation is in
different disciplinary perspectives, but there are six recurring char- promoting long-term investments (e.g. by institutionalizing processes or
acteristics that span across social, ecological, and social-ecological increasing commitments duration) that support persistent impact (e.g.
studies. Each characteristic can be related to a specific change in a Mapfumo et al., 2017).
system that is adapting. For instance, the re-structuring characteristic Managers and policy maker should identify opportunities to con-
can refer to either the ecological structure of ecosystems (e.g. species sider transformative adaptation early in the selection of an adaptation
diversity), the social structure of communities (e.g. power dynamics), strategy, e.g. as part of vulnerability or risk assessments. Vulnerability
or the structure of social-ecological interactions (e.g. land uses). These assessments can provide information about the potential of a system to
similarities suggest that transformative adaptation is likely to alter both undergo changes related to the six characteristics of transformative
social and ecological processes and thus re-define entire systems (Adger adaptation and thus guide the selection of adaptation strategy.
et al., 2009; Feola, 2015; O’Brien, 2012). Therefore, transformative Integrated social-ecological assessments of past, current, and future
adaptation should be approached holistically by integrating multiple vulnerability can reveal whether certain types of adaptation can be
disciplinary perspectives (Colloff et al., 2017b; Fazey et al., 2018). appropriate in the long-term (Colloff et al., 2017b). For example, using
The six characteristics of transformative adaptation identified in the climate and land-use scenarios in vulnerability assessments help an-
review can help policy makers and implementers to create opportu- ticipating potential changes that can influence what type of adaptation
nities to catalyze this type of adaptation (Table 3). Abson et al. (2017) is likely to be successful in the long-term (Ash et al., 2012; Lavorel
recognized that several changes to social structures or values, goals and et al., 2019). Similarly, using historical analysis can reveal attempts at
world views of actors (i.e. “deep leverage points”) are more effective incremental adaptation that need to be either scaled-up because they
than many other small changes to parameters or system feedbacks (i.e. are promising or abandoned because are failing (Dearing et al., 2010;
“shallow leverage points”). The characteristics of transformative Fedele et al., 2018).
adaptation also highlight the high magnitude of changes required in
such strategies, which can hinder their implementation. Designing 5.2. Navigate climate-driven changes with transformative adaptation
transformative adaptation strategies considering the six characteristics
can help identify opportunities to drive major changes in entire sys- The review of the characteristics and associated social-ecological
tems. Opportunities to facilitate transformative adaptation include processes leading to transformative adaptation highlighted the need to
identifying key actors that can help spread new practices (e.g. bridging strategically consider and plan for this type of adaptation. Policy ma-
organizations or local leaders) and help re-structuring systems (e.g. kers and practitioners should better acknowledge and carefully plan for
Patterson et al., 2017). Another opportunity for catalyzing transfor- transformative adaptation as option to respond to climate change im-
mative adaptation is creating safe-spaces to question current dominant pact. Compared to coping or incremental adaptation strategies, trans-
values, power, knowledge systems (e.g. learning and re-evaluation formative adaptation may be a more suitable strategy when the severity
workshops) that help shift away from current development pathways of climate change impacts is expected to dramatically and rapidly in-
(e.g. Múnera and van Kerkhoff, 2019; Wise et al., 2014). In addition, crease (Pelling et al., 2015; Wise et al., 2014), when current adaptation
investing in research and Monitoring & Evaluation can help identifying strategies are reaching their limits (Ash et al., 2012; Dow et al., 2013),
innovative adaptation (e.g. Fazey et al., 2018). Transformative adap- or when radical changes in social or ecological systems driven by cli-
tation can also be catalyzed by fostering partnerships and polycentric mate have already happened (Colloff et al., 2016a; Gunderson et al.,
governance structures (e.g. commodity chains, mixed management 2017; Pelling et al., 2015). In these cases, policy makers and practi-
committees) that connect multiple spatial and jurisdictional scales (e.g. tioners should consider transformative adaptation in projects or plans

121
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

in order to: i) anticipating changes by planning transformative adap- ecological or social conditions from the impact of climate change will
tation, ii) redirecting changes by assisting autonomous transformative likely require transformative adaptation (Gunderson et al., 2017;
adaptation, or iii) recovering from changes by implementing climate- O’Brien, 2012; Suding et al., 2004). Examples of places under severe
forced transformative adaptation (see following paragraphs). impact of climate change are submerged coastal areas, degraded eco-
i. Anticipating changes by planning transformative adaptation. systems or agricultural land, dry grasslands under desertification or
In areas expected to be severely affected by climate change, adaptation alien species encroachment, as well as eutrophic or dried out lakes and
projects and plans must consider transformative adaptation to ade- rivers (IPCC, 2014, Brockhaus et al., 2013). Because the recovery to the
quately manage the anticipated impacts (Moore et al., 2014; O’Brien, previous conditions may not fully possible (Suding et al., 2004), a shift
2012; Ramankutty and Coomes, 2016). Areas expected to be severely toward alternative desired states should be initiated. In these cases,
impacted by climate change include costal zones, coral reefs and fishing transformative adaptation can build on the new ecosystem states and
areas around small islands, grasslands in arid regions, wetlands, and services to help people and species to adapt in new ways (Colloff et al.,
forested floodplains, among others (IPCC 2014, IPBES 2018, Keith 2016b; Lavorel et al., 2015) and take advantage of the new opportu-
et al., 2015). In these areas, coping or incremental adaptation should be nities (Park et al., 2012; Rickards and Howden, 2012). Examples of
carefully evaluated and possibly avoided because of the high likelihood climate-forced transformative adaptation include land-use changes in
of not being effective in the long-term with the risk of just postponing large areas where people move away from food insecurity situations
unavoidable change (Colloff et al., 2017b). An example of likely un- caused by increasing dry conditions due to climate change. This has
successful strategy is expanding a protected area as an incremental been happening for the regreening of the Sahel with multipurpose trees
adaptation to better preserve a declining threatened bird population, (Sendzimir et al., 2011), the establishment of domestic forests mixing
which also provides eco-tourism opportunities, where the suitability of crops and trees in unproductive agricultural land in Southeast Asia
habitat for the birds is declining due to drier climate. In this case, (Michon et al., 2007; van Noordwijk et al., 2014), and the restoration of
planning transformative adaptation is likely needed. A possible trans- grassland to improve water availability by re-introducing native vege-
formative adaptation could be re-thinking the management of protected tation and removing alien species in USA or South Africa (Keith et al.,
areas to promote the transitions to an alternative ecosystem state that 2013; Suding et al., 2004).
minimize species loss, while create new habitat in regions expected to
become suitable for the birds as the climate changes. Another example 6. Conclusion
is expanding seawalls to protect coastal communities from floods and
storms (as an incremental adaptation) in places expected to be sub- Our review provides an interdisciplinary overview of what trans-
merged due to sea level rise caused by climate change. In this example, formative adaptation involves, how it is characterized, and when it may
plans that include transformative adaptation, such as relocation of be an appropriate or necessary response to climate change. Response
people or restoration of forests in different areas would have been more strategies to climate change can be loosely categorized in coping, in-
likely to succeed than coping strategies and incremental adaptation. cremental adaptation, or transformative adaptation that require in-
ii. Redirecting changes by assisting autonomous transforma- creasing human inputs and system re-organization. Transformative
tive adaptation. Where the impacts of climate change are already adaptation, which fundamentally changes systems and addresses root
threatening the well-being of ecosystems or people that are struggling causes of vulnerability, usually has six characteristics: it is re-
to adapt, assisted transformative adaptation can guide ongoing shifts in structuring, innovative, path-shifting, multiscale, systemwide, and
social or ecological systems towards less vulnerable states. People and persistent. Transformative adaptation may be an appropriate response
ecosystems may reach their adaptation limits or have insufficient ca- to climate change when the severity of climate change impacts is ex-
pacities to adapt, requiring transformative adaptation to further reduce pected to considerably increase, when current adaptations are reaching
ongoing impact of climate change (Ash et al., 2012; Feola, 2015; Few limits, or when radical climate-driven changes have already happened.
et al., 2017; Preston et al., 2013). Example of such cases are remote In these cases, transformative adaptation may be planned, assisted, or
communities highly dependent on natural resources, settlements on forced, respectively. With a better understanding of what transforma-
landslide-prone slopes, farmers in marginal rural agricultural lands, tive adaptation entails and when it should be implemented, policy
vegetation in permafrost and forests in mountains due to rising tem- makers and practitioners can be better prepared to consider transfor-
perature, and coastal or low-land communities under flood risk (IPCC mative adaptation as an option within the portfolio of adaptation
2014, IPBES 2018). In these cases, relying on coping responses or in- strategies.
cremental adaptation may not be enough or result in maladaptation. A greater consideration of transformative adaptation in responses to
The use of coping strategies or incremental adaptation can compromise climate change can help reach an impact that is commensurate to the
future options because they exacerbate environmental degradation and extent of the issue, as well as avoid costs and delays due to failures of
let the next generations bear the costs (Abel et al., 2016). For example, coping or incremental adaptation. Although still hard to design and
providing support to coffee farmers with conventional agricultural in- implement, transformative adaptation may be the only suitable re-
puts (pesticides, seeds, or farming techniques) in areas that are already sponse to climate change and other complex global environmental is-
facing climate-driven declines in production is likely to be an un- sues in certain cases. However, in transformative adaption is particu-
successful adaptation strategy (Verburg et al., 2019). Instead, the use of larly important to evaluate weather this type of adaptation leads to
climate-driven transformative adaptation strategies such as the support desired development outcomes by different actors with limited capacity
for alternative land uses (agroforestry or new crops that would not or agency. Effective responses might not come from business-as-usual
require the expansion of agricultural land) may be more appropriate. perspectives and approaches that contributed to build these issues.
Such strategies could help shift the coffee systems toward a more sus- Therefore, transformative adaptation is key for managing severe cli-
tainable alternative pathway (Colloff et al., 2017a; Fazey et al., 2018; mate change impacts in social-ecological systems and decrease vul-
O’Brien and Wolf, 2010). nerabilities in the long-term. Transformative adaptation can help us
iii. Recovering from changes by implementing climate-forced shift from accommodating change to embracing them and deliberately
transformative adaptation. In places where radical changes in either implementing more sustainable strategies to respond to climate change.
ecological or social systems have already happened or are unavoidable
due to climate change, transformative adaptation could be the only Financial sources
viable solution to shift the affected systems towards a more desirable
new state, which can continue to support ecosystem and/or people GF was supported by the Ann and Tom Friedman Fellowship for
well-being. In these severely affected places, recovering viable Science at Conservation International, Arlington, VA.

122
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

Appendix A. Supplementary data Walters, G., van Kerkhoff, L., Wyborn, C., Coreau, A., Wise, R.M., Dunlop, M.,
Degeorges, P., Grantham, H., Overton, I.C., Williams, R.D., Doherty, M.D., Capon, T.,
Sanderson, T., Murphy, H.T., 2017b. An integrative research framework for enabling
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the transformative adaptation. Environ. Sci. Policy 68, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
online version, at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001. envsci.2016.11.007.
Crépin, A.S., Oonsie Biggs, R., Polasky, S., Troell, M., de Zeeuw, A., 2013. Regime shifts
and management. Encycl. Energy, Nat. Resour. Environ. Econ. 2–3, 339–348. https://
References doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-375067-9.00155-8.
Dakos, V., Carpenter, S.R., van Nes, E.H., Scheffer, M., 2015. Resilience indicators: pro-
Abel, N., Wise, R.M., Colloff, M.J., Walker, B.H., Butler, J.R.A., Ryan, P., Norman, C., spects and limitations for early warnings of regime shifts. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol.
Langston, A., Anderies, J.M., Gorddard, R., Dunlop, M., O’connell, D., 2016. Building Sci. 370, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2013.0263.
resilient pathways to transformation when “no one is in charge”: insights from Dearing, J.A., Braimoh, A.K., Reenberg, A., Turner, B.L., van der Leeuw, S., 2010.
Australia’s murray-darling basin. Ecol. Soc. 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08422- Complex land systems: the need for long time perspectives to assess their future. Ecol.
210223. Soc. 15https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03645-150421. art21.
Abson, D.J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von Douxchamps, S., Debevec, L., Giordano, M., Barron, J., 2017. Monitoring and evaluation
Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C.D., Jager, N.W., Lang, D.J., 2017. Leverage points of climate resilience for agricultural development – a review of currently available
for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46, 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/ tools. World Dev. Perspect. 5, 10–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wdp.2017.02.001.
s13280-016-0800-y. Dow, K., Berkhout, F., Preston, B.L., Klein, R.J.T., Midgley, G., Shaw, M.R., 2013. Limits
Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W., Tompkins, E.L., 2005. Successful adaptation to climate change to adaptation. Nat. Clim. Chang. 3, 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1847.
across scales. Glob. Environ. Change 15, 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Roth, D., Winnubst, M., 2017. Stakeholder initiatives in
gloenvcha.2004.12.005. flood risk management: exploring the role and impact of bottom-up initiatives in
Adger, W.N., Brown, K., Nelson, D.R., Berkes, F., Eakin, H., Folke, C., Galvin, K., three “Room for the River” projects in the Netherlands. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 60,
Gunderson, L., Goulden, M., O’Brien, K., Ruitenbeek, J., Tompkins, E.L., 2011. 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1140025.
Resilience implications of policy responses to climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Ekstrom, J.A., Moser, S.C., 2014. Identifying and overcoming barriers in urban climate
Clim. Chang. 2, 757–766. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.133. adaptation: case study findings from the San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA.
Adger, W.N., Dessai, S., Goulden, M., Hulme, M., Lorenzoni, I., Nelson, D.R., Naess, L.O., Urban Clim. 9, 54–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2014.06.002.
Wolf, J., Wreford, A., 2009. Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Enfors, E., 2013. Social-ecological traps and transformations in dryland agro-ecosystems:
Clim. Change 93, 335–354. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9520-z. using water system innovations to change the trajectory of development. Glob.
Adger, W.N., Jordan, A., 2009. Sustainability: exploring the processes and outcomes of Environ. Change 23, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.007.
governance. In: Field, C.B. (Ed.), Governing Sustainability. Cambridge University Fazey, I., Moug, P., Allen, S., Beckmann, K., Blackwood, D., Bonaventura, M., Burnett, K.,
Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807756.003. Danson, M., Falconer, R., Gagnon, A.S., Harkness, R., Hodgson, A., Holm, L., Irvine,
Andersen, T., Carstensen, J., Hernández-García, E., Duarte, C.M., 2009. Ecological K.N., Low, R., Lyon, C., Moss, A., Moran, C., Naylor, L., O’Brien, K., Russell, S.,
thresholds and regime shifts: approaches to identification. Trends Ecol. Evol. https:// Skerratt, S., Rao-Williams, J., Wolstenholme, R., 2018. Transformation in a changing
doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2008.07.014. climate: a research agenda. Clim. Disaster Dev. J. 10, 197–217. https://doi.org/10.
Ash, A., Thornton, P., Stokes, C., Togtohyn, C., 2012. Is proactive adaptation to climate 1080/17565529.2017.1301864.
change necessary in Grazed Rangelands? Rangel. Ecol. Manag. 65, 563–568. https:// Fedele, G., Desrianti, F., Gangga, A., Chazarin, F., Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., 2016.
doi.org/10.2111/REM-D-11-00191.1. Ecosystem-based strategies for community resilience to climate variability in
Bennett, E.M., Peterson, G.D., Gordon, L.J., 2009. Understanding relationships among Indonesia. Adv. Nat. Technol. Hazards Res. 42, 529–552. https://doi.org/10.1007/
multiple ecosystem services. Ecol. Lett. 12, 1394–1404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 978-3-319-43633-3_23.
1461-0248.2009.01387.x. Fedele, G., Locatelli, B., Djoudi, H., Colloff, M.J., 2018. Reducing risks by transforming
Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking social and ecological systems: management practices landscapes: cross-scale effects of land-use changes on ecosystem services. PLoS One
and social mechanisms for building resilience. Avian Conserv. Ecol. 4, 5. 13, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195895.
Biermann, F., Abbott, K., Andresen, S., Bäckstrand, K., Bernstein, S., Betsill, M.M., Feola, G., 2015. Societal transformation in response to global environmental change: a
Bulkeley, H., Cashore, B., Clapp, J., Folke, C., Gupta, A., Gupta, J., Haas, P.M., review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44, 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-
Jordan, A., Kanie, N., Kluvánková-Oravská, T., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Meadowcroft, 014-0582-z.
J., Mitchell, R.B., Newell, P., Oberthür, S., Olsson, L., Pattberg, P., Sánchez- Few, R., Morchain, D., Spear, D., Mensah, A., Bendapudi, R., 2017. Transformation,
Rodríguez, R., Schroeder, H., Underdal, A., Vieira, S.C., Vogel, C., Young, O.R., Brock, adaptation and development: relating concepts to practice. Palgrave Commun. 3,
A., Zondervan, R., 2012. Transforming governance and institutions for global sus- 17092. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2017.92.
tainability: key insights from the Earth System Governance Project. Curr. Opin. Future Earth, 2015. Transformations Towards Sustainability. pp. 8–10.
Environ. Sustain. 4, 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.014. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Terry, C., Johan, R., 2010. Resilience
Biggs, R., Westley, F.R., Carpenter, S.R., 2010. Navigating the back loop: fostering social thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol. Soc. 15
innovation and transformation in ecosystem management. Ecol. Soc. 15, 28. https:// Available from: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/.
doi.org/10.5751/ES-03411-150209. Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Res. Policy
Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N.J., Moore, M.L., Morrison, T.H., 36, 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003.
Brown, K., 2018. The dark side of transformation: latent risks in contemporary sus- Gibson, T.D., Pelling, M., Ghosh, A., Matyas, D., Siddiqi, A., Solecki, W., Johnson, L.,
tainability discourse. Antipode 50, 1206–1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405. Kenney, C., Johnston, D., Du Plessis, R., 2016. Pathways for transformation: disaster
Brockhaus, M., Djoudi, H., Locatelli, B., 2013. Envisioning the future and learning from risk management to enhance resilience to extreme events. J. Extrem. Events 3,
the past: adapting to a changing environment in northern Mali. Environ. Sci. Policy 1671002. https://doi.org/10.1142/S2345737616710020.
25, 94–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.08.008. Gillard, R., Gouldson, A., Paavola, J., Van Alstine, J., 2016. Transformational responses to
Butler, J.R.A., Bohensky, E.L., Suadnya, W., Yanuartati, Y., Handayani, T., Habibi, P., climate change: beyond a systems perspective of social change in mitigation and
Puspadi, K., Skewes, T.D., Wise, R.M., Suharto, I., Park, S.E., Sutaryono, Y., 2016. adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 7, 251–265. https://doi.org/10.
Scenario planning to leap-frog the Sustainable Development Goals: an adaptation 1002/wcc.384.
pathways approach. Clim. Risk Manag. 12, 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm. Gorddard, R., Colloff, M.J., Wise, R.M., Ware, D., Dunlop, M., 2016. Values, rules and
2015.11.003. knowledge: adaptation as change in the decision context. Environ. Sci. Policy 57,
CBD, 2009. Draft Findings of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and 60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.12.004.
Climate Change. Gottfried, M., Pauli, H., Futschik, A., Akhalkatsi, M., Barančok, P., Benito Alonso, J.L.,
Chapin, F.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kofinas, G.P., Folke, C., Abel, N., Clark, W.C., Olsson, P., Coldea, G., Dick, J., Erschbamer, B., Fernández Calzado, M.R., Kazakis, G., Krajči, J.,
Smith, D.M.S., Walker, B., Young, O.R., Berkes, F., Biggs, R., Grove, J.M., Naylor, Larsson, P., Mallaun, M., Michelsen, O., Moiseev, D., Moiseev, P., Molau, U.,
R.L., Pinkerton, E., Steffen, W., Swanson, F.J., 2010. Ecosystem stewardship: sus- Merzouki, A., Nagy, L., Nakhutsrishvili, G., Pedersen, B., Pelino, G., Puscas, M., Rossi,
tainability strategies for a rapidly changing planet. Trends Ecol. Evol. https://doi. G., Stanisci, A., Theurillat, J.P., Tomaselli, M., Villar, L., Vittoz, P., Vogiatzakis, I.,
org/10.1016/j.tree.2009.10.008. Grabherr, G., 2012. Continent-wide response of mountain vegetation to climate
Chung Tiam Fook, T., 2017. Transformational processes for community-focused adapta- change. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2, 111–115. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1329.
tion and social change: a synthesis. Clim. Disaster Dev. J. 9, 5–21. https://doi.org/10. Gunderson, L., Cosens, B.A., Chaffin, B.C., Arnold, C.A.T., Fremier, A.K., Garmestani, A.S.,
1080/17565529.2015.1086294. Craig, R.K., Gosnell, H., Birge, H.E., Allen, C.R., Benson, M.H., Morrison, R.R., Stone,
Colloff, M.J., Doherty, M.D., Lavorel, S., Dunlop, M., Wise, R.M., Prober, S.M., 2016a. M.C., Hamm, J.A., Nemec, K., Schlager, E., Llewellyn, D., 2017. Regime shifts and
Adaptation services and pathways for the management of temperate montane forests panarchies in regional scale social-ecological water systems. Ecol. Soc. 22. https://
under transformational climate change. Clim. Change 138, 267–282. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.5751/ES-08879-220131.
10.1007/s10584-016-1724-z. Hahn, T., Nykvist, B., 2017. Are adaptations self-organized, autonomous, and harmo-
Colloff, M.J., Lavorel, S., van Kerkhoff, L.E., Wyborn, C.A., Fazey, I., Gorddard, R., Mace, nious? Assessing the social–ecological resilience literature. Ecol. Soc. 22. https://doi.
G.M., Foden, W.B., Dunlop, M., Prentice, I.C., Crowley, J., Leadley, P., Degeorges, P., org/10.5751/ES-09026-220112.
2017a. Transforming conservation science and practice for a postnormal world. Hatakenaka, R., Takagi, S., Matsumoto, Y., 2011. Orientation and internal flow of a ve-
Conserv. Biol. 31, 1008–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12912. sicle in tank-treading motion in shear flow. Phys. Rev. E - Stat. Nonlinear, Soft Matter
Colloff, M.J., Lavorel, S., Wise, R.M., Dunlop, M., Overton, I.C., Williams, K.J., 2016b. Phys. 84, 258101. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.84.026324.
Adaptation services of floodplains and wetlands under transformational climate Holling, C.S., 2001. Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social
change. Ecol. Appl. 26, 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0848. systems. Ecosystems 4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5.
Colloff, M.J., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Locatelli, B., Gorddard, R., Longaretti, P.Y., Hölscher, K., Frantzeskaki, N., Loorbach, D., 2019. Steering transformations under

123
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

climate change: capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of invoking real change? Proc. Transform. Changing Clim.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Reg. Environ. Chang. 19, 791–805. https://doi.org/10. Nguyen, Q., Hoang, M.H., Öborn, I., van Noordwijk, M., 2013. Multipurpose agroforestry
1007/s10113-018-1329-3. as a climate change resiliency option for farmers: an example of local adaptation in
Hughes, T.P., Kerry, J.T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., Álvarez-Romero, J.G., Anderson, K.D., Vietnam. Clim. Change 117, 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0550-1.
Baird, A.H., Babcock, R.C., Beger, M., Bellwood, D.R., Berkelmans, R., Bridge, T.C., Nhemachena, C., Hassan, R.M., 2007. Micro-level analysis of farmers’ adaptation to cli-
Butler, I.R., Byrne, M., Cantin, N.E., Comeau, S., Connolly, S.R., Cumming, G.S., mate change in Southern Africa. Africa (Lond.) 30. https://doi.org/10.1017/
Dalton, S.J., Diaz-Pulido, G., Eakin, C.M., Figueira, W.F., Gilmour, J.P., Harrison, S1742170512000257.
H.B., Heron, S.F., Hoey, A.S., Hobbs, J.P.A., Hoogenboom, M.O., Kennedy, E.V., Kuo, O’Brien, K., 2012. Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate trans-
C.Y., Lough, J.M., Lowe, R.J., Liu, G., McCulloch, M.T., Malcolm, H.A., McWilliam, formation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36, 667–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/
M.J., Pandolfi, J.M., Pears, R.J., Pratchett, M.S., Schoepf, V., Simpson, T., Skirving, 0309132511425767.
W.J., Sommer, B., Torda, G., Wachenfeld, D.R., Willis, B.L., Wilson, S.K., 2017. Global O’Brien, K.L., Wolf, J., 2010. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to
warming and recurrent mass bleaching of corals. Nature 543, 373–377. https://doi. climate change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 1, 232–242. https://doi.org/10.
org/10.1038/nature21707. 1002/wcc.30.
Jianjun, J., Yiwei, G., Xiaomin, W., Nam, P.K., 2015. Farmers’ risk preferences and their O’Neill, S.J., Hulme, M., 2009. An iconic approach for representing climate change. Glob.
climate change adaptation strategies in the Yongqiao District, China. Land Use Policy Environ. Change 19, 402–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.07.004.
47, 365–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.028. Olsson, P., Galaz, V., Boonstra, W.J., 2014. Sustainability transformations: a resilience
Kates, R.W., Travis, W.R., Wilbanks, T.J., 2012. Transformational adaptation when in- perspective. Ecol. Soc. 19, art1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-190401.
cremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., Holling, C.S.,
A. 109, 7156–7161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1115521109. Olsson, P., Gunderson, L.H., Carpenter, S.R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., 2018.
Keith, D.A., Rodríguez, J.P., Brooks, T.M., Burgman, M.A., Barrow, E.G., Bland, L., Comer, Shooting the rapids : navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecolo-
P.J., Franklin, J., Link, J., Mccarthy, M.A., Miller, R.M., Murray, N.J., Nel, J., gical systems. Ecol. Soc. 11, 18. https://doi.org/10.2307/26267806. [online] URL:
Nicholson, E., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Regan, T.J., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., Rouget, http://www. ecologyandsociety.or.
M., Spalding, M.D., 2015. The IUCN red list of ecosystems: motivations, challenges, Ostberg, S., Lucht, W., Schaphoff, S., Gerten, D., 2013. Critical impacts of global warming
and applications. Conserv. Lett. 8, 214–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12167. on land ecosystems. Earth Syst. Dyn. Discuss. 4, 347–357. https://doi.org/10.5194/
Keith, D.A., Rodríguez, J.P., Rodríguez-Clark, K.M., Nicholson, E., Aapala, K., Alonso, A., esd-4-347-2013.
Asmussen, M., Bachman, S., Basset, A., Barrow, E.G., Benson, J.S., Bishop, M.J., Park, S.E., Marshall, N.A., Jakku, E., Dowd, A.M., Howden, S.M., Mendham, E., Fleming,
Bonifacio, R., Brooks, T.M., Burgman, M.A., Comer, P., Comín, F.A., Essl, F., Faber- A., 2012. Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of
Langendoen, D., Fairweather, P.G., Holdaway, R.J., Jennings, M., Kingsford, R.T., transformation. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Lester, R.E., Nally, R.M., McCarthy, M.A., Moat, J., Oliveira-Miranda, M.A., Pisanu, gloenvcha.2011.10.003.
P., Poulin, B., Regan, T.J., Riecken, U., Spalding, M.D., Zambrano-Martínez, S., 2013. Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., Hurlbert,
Scientific foundations for an IUCN red list of ecosystems. PLoS One 8, e62111. M., Anderton, K., Sethi, M., Barau, A., 2017. Exploring the governance and politics of
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0062111. transformations towards sustainability. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transitions 24, 1–16.
Kim, J.A., Aberg, C., Salvati, A., Dawson, K.A., 2012. Role of cell cycle on the cellular https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.
uptake and dilution of nanoparticles in a cell population. Nat. Nanotechnol. 7, 62–68. Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., Matyas, D., 2015. Adaptation and transformation. Clim. Change
https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2011.191. 133, 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0.
Klein, R., Huq, S., Denton, F., et al., 2007. Climate change 2007: Impacts, adaptation and Perrings, C., 2006. Resilience and sustainable development. Environ. Dev. Econ. 11,
vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1355770X06003020.
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- Pramova, E., Locatelli, B., Djoudi, H., Somorin, O.A., 2012. Forests and trees for social
015-1395-1. adaptation to climate variability and change. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 3,
Kuntz, J.R.C., Gomes, J.F.S., 2012. Transformational change in organisations: a self- 581–596. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.195.
regulation approach. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 25, 143–162. https://doi.org/10. Preston, B.L., Dow, K., Berkhout, F., 2013. The climate adaptation frontier. Sustainability
1108/09534811211199637. 5, 1011–1035. https://doi.org/10.3390/su5031011.
Lavorel, S., Colloff, M.J., Locatelli, B., Gorddard, R., Prober, S.M., Gabillet, M., Devaux, Rakotobe, Z.L., Harvey, C.A., Rao, N.S., Dave, R., Rakotondravelo, J.C., Randrianarisoa,
C., Laforgue, D., Peyrache-Gadeau, V., 2019. Mustering the power of ecosystems for J., Ramanahadray, S., Andriambolantsoa, R., Razafimahatratra, H., Rabarijohn, R.H.,
adaptation to climate change. Environ. Sci. Policy 92, 87–97. https://doi.org/10. Rajaofara, H., Rameson, H., MacKinnon, J.L., 2016. Strategies of smallholder farmers
1016/j.envsci.2018.11.010. for coping with the impacts of cyclones: a case study from Madagascar. Int. J. Disaster
Lavorel, S., Colloff, M.J., Mcintyre, S., Doherty, M.D., Murphy, H.T., Metcalfe, D.J., Risk Reduct. 17, 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2016.04.013.
Dunlop, M., Williams, R.J., Wise, R.M., Williams, K.J., 2015. Ecological mechanisms Ramankutty, N., Coomes, O.T., 2016. Land-use regime shifts: an analytical framework
underpinning climate adaptation services. Glob. Chang. Biol. 21, 12–31. https://doi. and agenda for future landuse research. Ecol. Soc. 21. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-
org/10.1111/gcb.12689. 08370-210201.
Lees, K., Pitois, S., Scott, C., Frid, C., Mackinson, S., 2006. Characterizing regime shifts in Revi, A., Satterthwaite, D.E., Aragón-Durand, F., Corfee-Morlot, J., Kiunsi, R., Pelling, M.,
the marine environment. Fish Fish. 7 (2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979. Roberts, D., Solecki, W., 2014. Urban areas. Clim. Chang. 2014 impacts. Adapt.
2006.00215.x. Vulnerability 535–612. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379.013.
Lin, B.B., Petersen, B., 2013. Resilience, regime shifts, and guided transition under cli- Rickards, L., Howden, S.M., 2012. Transformational adaptation: agriculture and climate
mate change: examining the practical difficulties of managing continually changing change. Crop and Pasture Science. CSIRO Publishing, pp. 240–250. https://doi.org/
systems. Ecol. Soc. 18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05128-180128. 10.1071/CP11172.
Loorbach, D., 2010. Transition management for sustainable development: a prescriptive, Rippke, U., Ramirez-Villegas, J., Jarvis, A., Vermeulen, S.J., Parker, L., Mer, F.,
complexity-based governance framework. Governance 23, 161–183. https://doi.org/ Diekkrüger, B., Challinor, A.J., Howden, M., 2016. Timescales of transformational
10.1111/j.1468-0491.2009.01471.x. climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan African agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang. 6,
Mapfumo, P., Onyango, M., Honkponou, S.K., El Mzouri, E.H., Githeko, A., Rabeharisoa, 605–609. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2947.
L., Obando, J., Omolo, N., Majule, A., Denton, F., Ayers, J., Agrawal, A., 2017. Ruf, F., Schroth, G., Doffangui, K., 2015. Climate change, cocoa migrations and defor-
Pathways to transformational change in the face of climate impacts: an analytical estation in West Africa: what does the past tell us about the future? Sustain. Sci. 10,
framework. Clim. Disaster Dev. J. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2015. 101–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-014-0282-4.
1040365. Sayer, J., Sunderland, T., Ghazoul, J., Pfund, J.-L., Sheil, D., Meijaard, E., Venter, M.,
Matyas, D., Pelling, M., 2015. Positioning resilience for 2015: the role of resistance, in- Boedhihartono, A.K., Day, M., Garcia, C., van Oosten, C., Buck, L.E., 2013. Ten
cremental adjustment and transformation in disaster risk management policy. principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and
Disasters 39, s1–s18. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12107. other competing land uses. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 110, 8349–8356. https://doi.org/
Meadowcroft, J., 2011. Engaging with the politics of sustainability transitions. Environ. 10.1073/pnas.1210595110.
Innov. Soc. Transitions 1, 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.003. Scheffer, M., et al., 2012. Anticipating critical transitions. Science. https://doi.org/10.
Medema, W., Wals, A., Adamowski, J., 2014. Multi-loop social learning for sustainable 1126/science.1225244.
land and water governance: towards a research agenda on the potential of virtual Sendzimir, J., Reij, C.P., Magnuszewski, P., 2011. Rebuilding resilience in the sahel: re-
learning platforms. NJAS - Wageningen J. Life Sci. 69, 23–38. https://doi.org/10. greening in the Maradi and zinder regions of niger. Ecol. Soc. 16, 8. https://doi.org/
1016/j.njas.2014.03.003. 10.5751/ES-04198-160301.
Michon, G., Foresta, Hde, Levang, P., Verdeaux, F., 2007. Domestic forests: a new para- Smajgl, A., Toan, T.Q., Nhan, D.K., Ward, J., Trung, N.H., Tri, L.Q., Tri, V.P.D., Vu, P.T.,
digm for integrating local communities´ forestry intro tropical forest science. Ecol. 2015. Responding to rising sea levels in the Mekong Delta. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5,
Soc. 12, 1 doi:Artn 1. 167–174. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2469.
Moore, M.L., Tjornbo, O., Enfors, E., Knapp, C., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J.A., Norström, A., Stirling, A., 2014. Transforming power: social science and the politics of energy choices.
Olsson, P., Biggs, D., 2014. Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 1, 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2014.02.001.
framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecol. Soc. Suding, K.N., Gross, K.L., Houseman, G.R., 2004. Alternative states and positive feedbacks
19. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454. in restoration ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.
Moser, S., Ekstrom, J., 2010. A framework to diagnose barriers to climate change adap- 2003.10.005.
tation. PNAS. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1007887107. Sudmeier-Rieux, K., Masundire, H., Rizvi, A., Rietbergern, S., 2009. Ecosystems,
Múnera, C., van Kerkhoff, L., 2019. Diversifying knowledge governance for climate Livelihoods and Disasters :an Integrated Approach to Disaster Risk Management,
adaptation in protected areas in Colombia. Environ. Sci. Policy 94, 39–48. https:// Ecosystems, Livelihoods and Disasters :an Integrated Approach to Disaster Risk
doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2019.01.004. Management. IUCNhttps://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2006.cem.4.en.
Mustelin, J., Handmer, J., 2013. Triggering transformation: managing resilience or Thornton, T., Comberti, C., 2013. Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation,

124
G. Fedele, et al. Environmental Science and Policy 101 (2019) 116–125

mitigation and development. Clim. Change 140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- Food Sec. 3, 200–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.10.005.
013-0884-3. Verburg, R., Rahn, E., Verweij, P., van Kuijk, M., Ghazoul, J., 2019. An innovation per-
Thornton, T.F., Comberti, C., 2017. Synergies and trade-offs between adaptation, miti- spective to climate change adaptation in coffee systems. Environ. Sci. Policy 97,
gation and development. Clim. Change 140, 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584- 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSCI.2019.03.017.
013-0884-3. Wahid, H., Ahmad, S., Nor, M.A.M., Rashid, M.A., 2017. Summary for policymakers.
Tschakert, P., van Oort, B., St. Clair, A.L., LaMadrid, A., 2013. Inequality and transfor- Clim. Chang. 2013 - Phys. Sci. Basis 51, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/
mation analyses: a complementary lens for addressing vulnerability to climate CBO9781107415324.004.
change. Clim. Disaster Dev. J. 5, 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2013. Walther, G.R., Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T.J.C., Fromentin,
828583. J.M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Bairlein, F., 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate
UN, 2018. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. A New change. Nature 416, 389–395. https://doi.org/10.1038/416389a.
Era Glob. Heal. https://doi.org/10.1891/9780826190123.ap02. Westley, F., Tjornbo, O., Schultz, L., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Crona, B., Bodin, Ö., 2013. A
UN, 2015. Paris Agreement. UN, New York. theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 18 (3).
UNFCCC, 2012. Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Seventeenth Session, Held https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327.
in Durban from 28 November to 11 December 2011 Addendum. Part Two: Action Wise, R.M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S.E., Eakin, H.C., Archer Van Garderen,
Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Seventeenth Session. E.R.M., Campbell, B., 2014. Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part
Van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., 2011. Environment versus growth - A criticism of “degrowth” of pathways of change and response. Glob. Environ. Change 28, 325–336. https://
and a plea for “a-growth.”. Ecol. Econ. 70, 881–890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002.
ecolecon.2010.09.035. Wyborn, C., van Kerkhoff, L., Dunlop, M., Dudley, N., Guevara, O., 2016. Future oriented
van Noordwijk, M., Bizard, V., Wangpakapattanawong, P., Tata, H.L., Villamor, G.B., conservation: knowledge governance, uncertainty and learning. Biodivers. Conserv.
Leimona, B., 2014. Tree cover transitions and food security in Southeast Asia. Glob. 25, 1401–1408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1130-x.

125

View publication stats