Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-17 (section)

==== 17.2.2.4 The Spectrum from Incremental to Transformational Adaptation in Risk Management Portfolios ====

<div id="h3-15-siblings" class="h3-siblings"></div>

[[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-1#1.4|Section 1.4.5]] noted that transformational adaptation is increasingly being considered necessary to allow a system to extend beyond its (soft) limits as incremental adaptation cannot guarantee to avoid intolerable risks. [[IPCC:Wg2:Chapter:Chapter-16#16.4|Section 16.4]] presents evidence on RKRs where a need for transformational adaptation and climate risk management has been identified in order to further reduce climate risks and avoid breaching adaptation limits. The following section identifies how the 24 adaptation options representative of the RKRs may support incremental and transformational risk management/adaptation that can lead to small, medium and large systemic change, often as part of portfolios of options. This subsection further discusses the role of transformational adaptation vis á vis incremental adaptation by reviewing evidence across chapters (see also Box 17.3). The Cross Chapter Box on Loss and Damage further expands on the international debate regarding the role of decision-making on incremental and transformational adaptation for dealing with residual risks to address soft as well as hard adaptation limits (see Cross-Chapter Box LOSS in this Chapter).

As the literature distinguishes active transformation to shape future risks from passive and unintended transformation ( [[#Lonsdale--2015|Lonsdale et al., 2015]] ; Chapter 1), the section queries how to inspire actors to consider how to develop or implement transformational adaptation to complement incremental adaptation/risk management when and where appropriate.

In contrast to a broadening literature on conceptualisation and policy proposal, there has been little evidence reported in the literature on transformational adaptation and risk management at scale of implementation ( ''high confidence'' ) ( [[#Klein--2017|Klein et al., 2017]] ; [[#Ajibade--2019|Ajibade and Egge, 2019]] ; [[#Tàbara--2019|Tàbara et al., 2019]] ; [[#Mechler--2021|Mechler and Deubelli, 2021]] ). [[#Deubelli--2021|Deubelli and Venkateswaran (2021)]] review evidence on largely non-governmental organisation (NGO)-implemented community-level adaptation for floods, heat and drought across the globe. They suggest that transformational adaptation success, while multi-facetted and challenging, depends on the availability of appropriate enabling environments including experiential and niche learning, alignment of transformational change objectives with strategic (government or other actor’s) priorities, strong bottom-up governance grounded in local contexts, phased long-term program support and appropriate financing.

To distinguish incremental from transformational adaptation, Lonsdale et al. (2015), building on [[#Mustelin--2013|Mustelin and Handmer (2013)]] , identify criteria related to framing, learning and decision-making, space and time, power, and type of change management. [[#Tàbara--2019|Tàbara et al. (2019)]] , additionally discuss transformation in light of informing climate pathways, strategies and solutions. Broadly considering these criteria, they identify 12 dimensions with additional discussion of change with regard to systems and dynamics, options and solutions, agency, and the consideration of equity (see also Chapters 1, 6, 18 for more discussion). In particular, the following key aspects for understanding the spectrum from incremental to transformational adaptation are of relevance: change, within or across the system; agency, single or heterogenous; a role for visioning and normative futures; the type of learning required (from first order, business-as-usual, to second order); and how equity and distributional issues are explicit.

Applying these key aspects to the list of 24 adaptation options from Table 17.1, certain options are assessed to be more transformational, often requiring large system changes that go beyond addressing individual risks. Adaptations that are more transformational offer potential to lead to systemic change. Less transformational adaptations allow people to address specific climate-related risks while maintaining existing systems (see SM17.1 for more details; see also Box 17.3).

For example, several adaptations related to the RKR on risks to peace and migration, namely permanent migration, and cooperative governance, require moderate to high levels of transformation ( ''high confidence'' ). Some behavioural adaptations, such as changing diets and reducing food waste, can also require large transformations in land use and food culture ( ''medium confidence'' ). Spatial planning, including urban zoning, also tends to be more transformational ( ''medium confidence'' ).

On the other end of the spectrum, disaster early-warning systems tend to be incremental rather than transformational ( ''high confidence'' ), because they enable people to maintain/protect existing systems. Several other adaptations allow people to maintain livelihoods and systems in the face of changing risks. For example, improvements in agricultural and fishing practices can be done with moderate transformation to systems ( ''medium confidence'' ). Similarly, insurance tends to require less transformation, as it can allow people to maintain existing systems while being more resilient to climate-related shocks ( ''medium confidence'' ).

None of the 24 adaptation options are consistently beneficial for vulnerable and marginalised groups ( ''high confidence'' ). For each adaptation, there are examples of how it has been implemented in a way that benefits poor, low-income, ethnic groups and/or females, and other examples of implementation in different contexts that have worsened the risks for those groups specifically. For example, while the goal of cooperative governance can be to support the marginalised, these same marginalised groups are usually excluded from participating in the design of the solutions, and many articles criticise governance results as protecting only the interests of the wealthier and more powerful parties in the negotiations, especially in governance of migration ( [[#Groutsis--2015|Groutsis et al., 2015]] ; [[#Pijnenburg--2018|Pijnenburg et al., 2018]] ). This reinforces the need for context-specific planning to ensure marginalised groups will benefit from an adaptation plan. See Table 17.3 for examples of how each adaptation option can have or not have equity benefits.

'''Table 17.3 |''' The 24 adaptation options from Table 17.1 grouped and coloured by their potential for transformation. (See Appendix A for assessment methodology.) Adaptations in red tend to require small amounts of transformation, adaptations in orange tend to require middling levels of transformation, and adaptations in yellow tend to require large levels of transformation, or systemic change. Each option is paired with examples of how that adaptation can be done in a way that does not benefit or worsens, the situation for marginalised groups, as well as an example in which that adaptation has benefitted those groups. Examples of equity focus on benefits to poor, low-income, ethnic groups, or females.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Adaptation

! Example of the adaptation excluding or worsening the situation for marginalised groups

! Example of the adaptation benefitting marginalised groups

|-
| colspan="3"| Less transformation (small systemic change)

|-
| Insurance b

| Index-based insurance policies in Mongolia were accessible primarily to wealthy herders ( [[#Taylor--2016b|Taylor, 2016b]] ).

| The availability of capital after disaster events can avoid a poverty trap from disasters ( [[#Alam--2020a|Alam et al., 2020a]] ).

|-
| Coastal accommodation c

| Accommodation strategies in Jakarta have led to a false sense of security in an impoverished and vulnerable neighbourhood ( [[#Esteban--2017|Esteban et al., 2017]] ).

| The mosaic restoration project provided training for women to support local accommodation of climate changes on Yap ( [[#Krishnapillai--2018|Krishnapillai, 2018]] ).

|-
| Early-warning systems c

| People of higher socioeconomic status tend to receive warnings, while marginalised groups can be left out ( [[#Baudoin--2016|Baudoin et al., 2016]] ).

| Famine and drought early-warning systems have helped avoid starvation among the world’s most vulnerable people ( [[#Funk--2019|Funk et al., 2019]] ).

|-
| Water use/demand c

| Small farmers were unable to access supports to implement drip irrigation in Morocco, and uptake was greater among wealthy farmers ( [[#Jobbins--2015|Jobbins et al., 2015]] ).

| Retrofits for water use efficiency were made available free of charge to low-income communities in the USA ( [[#Lee--2013|Lee and Tansel, 2013]] ).

|-
| Coastal hard protection b

| Construction of hard barriers increased flood risk for several low-income communities in Bangladesh ( [[#Adnan--2020|Adnan et al., 2020]] ).

| Successful coastal embankments can help people avoid poverty traps in Bangladesh by reducing exposure to flood events ( [[#Borgomeo--2017|Borgomeo et al., 2017]] ).

|-
| colspan="3"| Moderate transformation (medium systemic change)

|-
| Infrastructure retrofitting b

| Low-income people often do not own their homes, and there are few incentives for landlords to upgrade ( [[#Tardy--2019|Tardy and Lee, 2019]] ).

| Energy policy could promote solar infrastructure in Nigeria, which can offer electrification in underserved regions ( [[#Ohunakin--2014|Ohunakin et al., 2014]] ).

|-
| Building codes c

| Building codes in Nepal and Bangladesh often fail to increase resilience because many buildings are built informally ( [[#Ahmed--2019|Ahmed et al., 2019]] ).

| Slum upgrading projects in Latin America reduced the vulnerability of informal settlements by improving built infrastructure ( [[#Núñez%20Collado--2020|Núñez Collado and Wang, 2020]] ).

|-
| Farm/fishery practice b

| Many agriculture improvement strategies create higher workloads for women and do not directly enfranchise them, as seen in Uganda, Ghana and Bangladesh ( [[#Jost--2015|Jost et al., 2015]] ).

| Improved crop varieties have supported the income of low-income farmers in Zambia ( [[#Khonje--2015|Khonje et al., 2015]] ).

|-
| Diversification of livelihoods a

| Diversifying livelihoods can increase women’s workloads, in a review of semiarid regions across Africa and Asia ( [[#Rao--2020|Rao et al., 2020]] ).

| A study on diversity of income sources in Ghana indicated that diversification can make people less vulnerable to extreme events ( [[#Baffoe--2017|Baffoe and Matsuda, 2017]] ).

|-
| Social safety nets b

| Social protection systems in Bangladesh focus on specific groups in rural areas, and they often fail to reach urban poor and other very disadvantaged people ( [[#Coirolo--2013|Coirolo et al., 2013]] ).

| Adaptive social protection can help poor people avoid the impact of extreme events by scaling up support at critical moments ( [[#Bowen--2020|Bowen et al., 2020]] ).

|-
| Infrastructure for health c

| The development of sanitary water infrastructure in Germany had less benefit in areas with higher income inequality ( [[#Gallardo-Albarrán--2020|Gallardo-Albarrán, 2020]] ).

| Improvements to water and sanitation infrastructure that avoid people fetching water are associated with improvements to women’s health ( [[#Geere--2020|Geere and Hunter, 2020]] ).

|-
| Food storage/distribution b

| Increasing/improving livestock markets can favour high-income livestock producers ( [[#Gautier--2016|Gautier et al., 2016]] ).

| Investments in large produce storage houses has supported indigenous livelihoods in the face of climate change ( [[#Mugambiwa--2018|Mugambiwa, 2018]] ).

|-
| Restoration/creation of natural areas b

| Urban greening programmes in the USA avoided minority neighbourhoods or caused displacement of people of colour ( [[#Anguelovski--2016|Anguelovski et al., 2016]] ; [[#Watkins--2016|Watkins et al., 2016]] ).

| Afforestation reduced landslide risk for informal settlements in Brazil ( [[#Sandholz--2018|Sandholz et al., 2018]] ).

|-
| Minimising ecosystem stressors a

| Fish quota reduction had negative economic impacts when done quickly ( [[#Barbeaux--2020|Barbeaux et al., 2020]] ).

| South Africa’s Working for Water programme employed poor people to control invasive species ( [[#van%20Wilgen--2016|van Wilgen and Wannenburgh, 2016]] ).

|-
| Ecosystem-based adaptation b

| Payments to Indigenous groups in return for protecting conservation land can be less than their original livelihoods and disadvantage those not receiving the payments, such as women ( [[#Bedelian--2017|Bedelian and Ogutu, 2017]] ).

| Integrated water resource management is proposed in the Caribbean as a way to maintain ecosystem services while improving economic welfare ( [[#Mycoo--2017|Mycoo, 2017]] ).

|-
| Water supply/distribution b

| Water tariffs during the Cape Town drought negatively impacted poor households ( [[#Millington--2021|Millington and Scheba, 2021]] ).

| City Water Forums in Nepal have focused on equitable water allocation as an adaptation ( [[#Pandey--2017|Pandey and Bajracharya, 2017]] ).

|-
| Seasonal/temporary mobility b

| Women tend to have greater restrictions on mobility than men ( [[#Lama--2018|Lama, 2018]] ).

| Indigenous communities in Guatemala use temporary migration to manage rainfall variability ( [[#Ruano--2014|Ruano and Milan, 2014]] ).

|-
| colspan="3"| Most transformation (largest systemic changes needed)

|-
| Spatial planning b

| Spatial planning in American cities has often resulted in less green space in ethnic minority neighbourhoods ( [[#Connolly--2021|Connolly and Anguelovski, 2021]] )

| While difficult, strategic approaches to urban planning can promote inclusive development ( [[#Chu--2017|Chu et al., 2017]] ).

|-
| Diets/food waste a

| Low-income groups have less opportunity to diversify diets if certain foods become more expensive or difficult to obtain ( [[#Reynolds--2019|Reynolds et al., 2019]] ).

| Changing dietary intake during heatwaves (e.g., eating cooler foods) is seen as a low-cost adaptation accessible to low-income people in the UK ( [[#Porter--2014|Porter et al., 2014]] ).

|-
| Health care systems b

| Facilities in poor communities are often poorly sited and can lack capacity to support people during climate-related extreme events ( [[#Codjoe--2020|Codjoe et al., 2020]] ).

| Universal health coverage can be highly beneficial to poor people ( [[#Atun--2015|Atun et al., 2015]] ), when needed for climate-related health outcomes.

|-
| Water capture/storage b

| Many Indigenous populations have been negatively affected by loss of their land when displaced for dam construction ( [[#Siciliano--2017|Siciliano and Urban, 2017]] ).

| Improving water harvesting supports marginalised populations in dryland areas ( [[#Bobadoye--2016|Bobadoye et al., 2016]] ).

|-
| Cooperative governance b

| International cooperation among national governments regarding migration can encourage human rights abuses and increase migration ( [[#Crawley--2018|Crawley and Skleparis, 2018]] ).

| International cooperation has the potential to remove barriers to adaptation in informal settlements in developing countries by sharing knowledge and expectations ( [[#Oberlack--2014|Oberlack and Eisenack, 2014]] ).

|-
| Permanent migration c

| Permanent migration from small island nations can entail a loss of identity for Indigenous groups ( [[#Bordner--2020|Bordner et al., 2020]] ).

| Migration supported by social protection systems can be sustainable for poor populations ( [[#Schwan--2018|Schwan and Yu, 2018]] ).

|-
| Strategic coastal retreat c

| Minority groups faced tensions with host communities when relocated in India, and faced difficulties in terms of fishing access and land size ( [[#Mortreux--2018|Mortreux et al., 2018]] ).

| In several cases of post-disaster relocation, community members initiated the retreat and there were broader benefits to society ( [[#Hino--2017|Hino et al., 2017]] ).

|}

Notes:

(a) ''low confidence''

(b) ''medium confidence''

(c) ''high confidence''

<div id="17.2.2.5" class="h3-container"></div>

<span id="incremental-and-transformational-adaptation-for-managing-risk-in-the-context-of-adaptation-limits"></span>