Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-5 (section)

=== 5.3.3 Adaptation Pathways towards a 1.5°C Warmer World and Implications for Inequalities ===

<div id="section-5-3-3-block-1"></div>

In a 1.5°C warmer world, adaptation measures and options would need to be intensified, accelerated and scaled up. This entails not only the right ‘mix’ of options (asking ‘right for whom and for what?’) but also a forward-looking understanding of dynamic trajectories, that is adaptation pathways (see Chapter 1, Cross-Chapter Box 1 in Chapter 1), best understood as decision-making processes over sets of potential action sequenced over time (Câmpeanu and Fazey, 2014; Wise et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r134|134]]</sup> . Given the scarcity of literature on adaptation pathways that navigate place-specific warming experiences at 1.5°C, this section presents insights into current local decision-making for adaptation futures. This grounded evidence shows that choices between possible pathways, at different scales and for different groups of people, are shaped by uneven power structures and historical legacies that create their own, often unforeseen change (Fazey et al., 2016; Bosomworth et al., 2017; Lin et al., 2017; Murphy et al., 2017; Pelling et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r135|135]]</sup> .

Pursuing a place-specific adaptation pathway approach towards a 1.5°C warmer world harbours the potential for significant positive outcomes, with synergies for well-being possibilities to ‘leap-frog the SDGs’ (J.R.A. Butler et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r136|136]]</sup> , in countries at all levels of development ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ). It allows for identifying local, socially salient tipping points before they are crossed, based on what people value and trade-offs that are acceptable to them (Barnett et al., 2014, 2016; Gorddard et al., 2016; Tschakert et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r137|137]]</sup> . Yet evidence also reveals adverse impacts that reinforce rather than reduce existing social inequalities and hence may lead to poverty traps ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ) (Nagoda, 2015; Warner et al., 2015; Barnett et al., 2016; J.R.A. Butler et al., 2016; Godfrey-Wood and Naess, 2016; Pelling et al., 2016; Albert et al., 2017; Murphy et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r138|138]]</sup> .

Past development trajectories as well as transformational adaptation plans can constrain adaptation futures by reinforcing dominant political-economic structures and processes, and narrowing option spaces; this leads to maladaptive pathways that preclude alternative, locally relevant and sustainable development initiatives and increase vulnerabilities (Warner and Kuzdas, 2017; Gajjar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r139|139]]</sup> . Such dominant pathways tend to validate the practices, visions and values of existing governance regimes and powerful members of a community while devaluing those of less privileged stakeholders. Examples from Romania, the Solomon Islands and Australia illustrate such pathway dynamics in which individual economic gains and prosperity matter more than community cohesion and solidarity; this discourages innovation, exacerbates inequalities and further erodes adaptive capacities of the most vulnerable (Davies et al., 2014; Fazey et al., 2016; Bosomworth et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r140|140]]</sup> . In the city of London, United Kingdom, the dominant adaptation and disaster risk management pathway promotes resilience that emphasizes self-reliance; yet it intensifies the burden on low-income citizens, the elderly, migrants and others unable to afford flood insurance or protect themselves against heat waves (Pelling et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r141|141]]</sup> . Adaptation pathways in the Bolivian Altiplano have transformed subsistence farmers into world-leading quinoa producers, but loss of social cohesion and traditional values, dispossession and loss of ecosystem services now constitute undesirable trade-offs (Chelleri et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r142|142]]</sup> .

A narrow view of adaptation decision-making, for example focused on technical solutions, tends to crowd out more participatory processes (Lawrence and Haasnoot, 2017; Lin et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r143|143]]</sup> , obscures contested values and reinforces power asymmetries (Bosomworth et al., 2017; Singh, 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r144|144]]</sup> . A situated and context-specific understanding of adaptation pathways that galvanizes diverse knowledge, values and joint initiatives helps to overcome dominant path dependencies, avoid trade-offs that intensify inequities and challenge policies detached from place (Fincher et al., 2014; Wyborn et al., 2015; Murphy et al., 2017; Gajjar et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r145|145]]</sup> . These insights suggest that adaptation pathway approaches to prepare for 1.5°C warmer futures would be difficult to achieve without considerations for inclusiveness, place-specific trade-off deliberations, redistributive measures and procedural justice mechanisms to facilitate equitable transformation ( ''medium evidence, high agreement'' ).

<div id="section-5-3-3-block-2" class="box"></div>

<span id="box-5.1-ecosystem--and-community-based-practices-in-drylands"></span>