Editing IPCC:AR6/WGII/Chapter-6 (section)

=== 6.4.7 Enabling Transformations ===

<div id="h2-26-siblings" class="h2-siblings"></div>

Growing awareness of the interlocking of drivers of urban change and vulnerability has motivated an interest in transformational approaches to adaptation action in cities, settlements and infrastructure. While the idea of transformation has been adopted across the field, there is no consensus about what an urban transformation that addresses adaptation means. There is no one single transformative solution or approach relevant in every case (Chu, Schenk and Patterson, 2018; [[#Shi--2019|Shi, 2019]] ; [[#Goh--2019|Goh, 2019]] ). What constitutes ‘urgent’ and ‘far-reaching’ transformation depends on the local community’s expectations and ideas (Choko et al., 2019).

Transformation is often approached as a process of institutional transformation, akin to the process described in [[#6.4.2|Section 6.4.2]] (see, for example, [[#Duijn--2017|Duijn and van Buuren, 2017]] ). Transformation engages with critiques of adaptation or risk reduction as an individual responsibility ( [[#Sou--2018|Sou, 2018]] ). The idea is to use transformation to focus on coordinating collective efforts (Haque et al, 2014). The coordination of multiple actors is a condition to enable transformative institutions (Torabi et al, 2018) and link adaptation action to development efforts (Chu et al, 2017; [[#Roberts--2013|Roberts and O’Donoghue, 2013]] ). The role of communities and citizens in such an approach to transformation is ambiguous. Sometimes communities and citizens are presented as critical agents of transformation (Limthongsakul et al, 2017). Other times, however, they are simply situated within strong and durable networks that provide the institutional setting to build resilience (Danière et al., 2016). Despite the political nature of transformative approaches and the evidence that transformative approaches rely on protest and political activism, few authors recognise this strategy (but see [[#Bahadur--2014|Bahadur and Tanner, 2014]] ; Chu, Anguelovski and Roberts, 2017; [[#Dierwechter--2013|Dierwechter and Wessells, 2013]] ).

Transformation is also more than a single instance of institutional change. Historical perspectives on transformation enable an understanding of the chain of institutional changes that ultimately lead to significant or far-reaching reconfiguration of infrastructure and service provision (Rojas et al, 2015). Paradigm changes, such as new engagements with nature and green infrastructure, will improve adaptation outcomes (Roberts et al., 2012). Changes of paradigms, however, are not inherently positive and may clash with existing interests or involve trade-offs with other priorities. When care is taken to ensure greater inclusion in urban decision-making, disadvantaged, vulnerable communities are less likely to be disadvantaged. For example, indigenous traditions of nature management provide entry points for the sustainable management of resources, such as seed banks, urban agriculture and the local management of watersheds and floods, may be at odds with conventional structures of expert knowledge ( [[#Cid-Aguayo--2016|Cid-Aguayo, 2016]] ; [[#Chandra--2016|Chandra and Gaganis, 2016]] ). These traditions are vital both because of the solution space that they open in the local context and how they serve to create resilience through collective and intergenerational learning ( [[#Chandra--2016|Chandra and Gaganis, 2016]] ).

While aspects of transformative capacity identified in the literature may facilitate far-reaching change, there is ''limited evidence'' of actual transformations as an outcome of adaptation. While community led resilience agendas may tackle poverty related issues, they struggle to tackle city-wide structural forms of inequality (Chu, Schenk and Patterson, 2018). Processes of shared learning and co-production of knowledge can reinforce existing power dynamics and be limited by technical framings of vulnerability that marginalise political issues (Orleans Reed et al., 2013). These issues are especially acute in relation to land use decisions where short-term fiscal and commercial interests conflict with long-term vulnerability reduction objectives (Brown, Dayal and Rumbaitis Del Rio, 2012). It can be difficult for adaptation actions to target cities’ underlying political–economic structure, such as entrenched political–economic interests, elite influence over decision making or neoliberal planning logics that maintain and reproduce inequality (Chu, Anguelovski and Roberts, 2017). Urban resilience plans may be formulated in disconnection from broader development strategies, which leads to a limited ability to tackle underlying structures of political power and urban development practices ( [[#Weinstein--2019|Weinstein et al., 2019]] ). Evidence from Kolkata demonstrates the limitations of resilience plans to address underlying conditions of vulnerability, including the commodification of hazardous land, under-provision of informal settlements and spatial segregation of the urban poor ( [[#Rumbach--2017|Rumbach, 2017]] ).

Planning for transformative adaptation is more ''likely'' where communities can learn collectively ( ''medium evidence'' , ''medium agreement'' ) (Restemeyer, van den Brink and Woltjer, 2017; Kabisch et al., 2017; Fraser et al., 2017; Putri, Dalimunthe and Prasojo). Greater citizen engagement facilitates implementing specific measures for radical policymaking or the mainstreaming of environmental knowledge into adaptation practices (Reed et al, 2015). Do it yourself (DIY) planning, in which stakeholders focus on creating and improving specific urban spaces they inhabit, has led to urban greening experiments led by civil society that change paradigms of urban and environmental management (Cloutier, Papin and Bizier, 2018). Social learning may occur through combinations of activism and collaboration with and between informal settlement dwellers, as shown in adaptation experiences in informal settlements in Hanoi and Bangkok (Danière et al., 2016).. The adaptation process can benefit from the inclusion of multiple sources of knowledge for social learning, including universities but also communities and citizens (Chu, Schenk and Patterson, 2018). Citizens assemblies are increasingly recognised as spaces for transformative adaptation (Muradova, Walker and Colli, 2020), although their potential influence at different government levels is still not fully understood.

The integration of multiple forms of knowledge leads to social learning ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ). Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge can provide essential insights into community needs and experiences of housing and urban infrastructure to inform climate adaptation, including improper waste disposal, inadequate drainage and poor sanitation, but there is significant variation in community knowledge networks (Roy et al., 2018b; Douglas et al, 2018; [[#Waters--2017|Waters and Adger, 2017]] ). It is important to identify and address barriers to the incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge, such as the dominance of scientific knowledge, oppression and/or racism, and fragmentation of knowledge including gender and generational divides (see [[#Burke--2014|Burke and Heynen, 2014]] ; [[#Whyte--2017|Whyte, 2017]] ; [[#Victor--2015|Victor, 2015]] ; Lövbrand et al., 2015; [[#Kelly--2019|Kelly, 2019]] ).The incorporation of Indigenous knowledge in urban decision making requires a constructive dialogue with scientists and urban planners.

Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge have an important role to play in urban planning and management. They can support impact detection and evaluation in urban areas (Codjoe et al, 2014), weather forecasting in urban areas (Magee et al., 2016; [[#Ebhuoma--2019|Ebhuoma and Simatele, 2019]] ), climate change adaptation in urban agriculture ( [[#Wahab--2018|Wahab and Popoola, 2018]] ; Solomon et al., 2016), urban food security (Simatele and Simatele, 2015), planning and managing urban solid waste (Kosoe et al, 2019), urban flood management (Thorn et al, 2015; [[#Jameson--2016|Jameson and Baud, 2016]] ; [[#Hooli--2016|Hooli, 2016]] ), drought perception and coping strategies (Saboohi et al., 2019), and ecological restoration and urban commons management ( [[#Nagendra--2016|Nagendra, 2016]] ; [[#Nagendra--2019|Nagendra and Mundoli, 2019]] ). They can help define baselines for past climate and ecological change, providing a historical perspective on changes in urban commons such as lakes and trees ( [[#Nagendra--2016|Nagendra, 2016]] ), as well as past climatic changes or climate baselines ( [[#Ajayi--2017|Ajayi and Mafongoya, 2017]] ) and shifting baseline syndrome (Fernández-Llamazares et al., 2015; Soga and Gaston, 2018; see Businger et al., 2018 for a review of hurricane history in Hawaiian newspapers; also [[#Wickman--2018|Wickman, 2018]] ). Incorporating Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge can help generate more people-oriented and place-specific approaches, leading to adaptation policies that foster identity, dignity, self-determination and better collective decision making and capacity to act ( [[#Preston--2017|Preston, 2017]] ; [[#McShane--2017|McShane, 2017]] ) (see also [[#6.1|Section 6.1]] ).

Envisioning development alternatives through adaptation as a first step toward transformative adaptation can leverage social learning. Experiences of migration, length of residence and the density of local social-networks impact social learning opportunities and underscore why context-specific social education is vital ( [[#Waters--2017|Waters and Adger, 2017]] ; [[#Karunarathne--2020|Karunarathne and Lee, 2020]] ). Learning across and between communities can be enhanced when care is taken to understand local challenges. Given power relationships, cultural needs and community aspirations, a top-down approach to information sharing is generally less effective than community partnerships and co-created knowledge at surfacing visions and strategies for getting past baked-in, unequal and unsustainable development assumptions and practices ( ''medium evidence'' , ''high agreement'' ) (Clemens et al., 2016; Thi Hong Phuong, Biesbroek and Wals, 2017; [[#Fitzgerald--2016|Fitzgerald and Lenhart, 2016]] ; [[#Fisher--2019|Fisher and Dodman, 2019]] ). Social learning in formal and informal urban contexts is also enhanced when care is taken to ensure multiple stakeholders have opportunities to understand a variety of viewpoints, values, resources and ideals, and that these viewpoints are clearly identified in decision-making (Thi Hong Phuong, Biesbroek and Wals, 2017). However much social learning still happens only after a crisis, for example in urban water adaptation, and new knowledge is often frustrated by the lock in of powerful local institutions and groups (Johannessen et al., 2019). Social learning is, however, only one component of the development of climate-resilient pathways. System perspectives theorise the possibility of tipping points, leverage points or disruptive technologies to challenge the stable regime to create a broader reconfiguration (Chapter 17; O’Neill et al., 2018).

<div id="Case" class="h1-container"></div>

<span id="case-studies"></span>