Transgressive adaptation for climate change – what may it take?

Coleen VogelGlobal Change and Sustainability Research Institute

University of the Witwatersrand

VULNERABILITY AND EXPOSURE

SOCIOECONOMICPROCESSESSocioeconomic

Pathways

Adaptation and Mitigation

Actions

Governance

CLIMATE

NaturalVariability

AnthropogenicClimate Change

RISKHazards

Exposure

Vulnerability

IMPACTS

EMISSIONSand Land-use

Change

2

4

3

5

6

1

0

Glo

bal

Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

IPCC Projections2100 AD

N.H

. Tem

pera

ture

(°C

)

0

0.5

1

-0.5

1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Adaptation -Sustainability

Survival

Incremental and transformative adaptation

• Incremental adaptation

• Transformational adaptation

• Transgressive change

Example of what may be required? (source Winkler, 2007

GHG emissions

·t

Emissions growing

Must peak and decline in 2-3 decades

Tools exist to get to low-carbon society

Cost of action = small % of GDP, off-set by co-benefits

Cost of inaction?

Incremental and transformational adaptation

• Incremental = maintaining existing activities and building on existing technologies– reactive and proactive– local scale– maintain existing objectives

• Transformational = major changes in enterprises, land use and human and social capital– mostly proactive and strategic– cross-scale – fundamentally re-assess objectives• Strong relation to scale – to maintain functioning at one scale (e.g.

farm sector or coastal community) may require transformation at the next scale down (e.g. move farms or shoreline buildings)

Managing the risk from diverging possible futures

Recovery

Stabilisation

Runaway

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1990 2010 2030 2050 2070 2090Year

Mea

n Gl

obal

War

min

g (°

C)

MEP2030A1FI-GaRMEP2010 (Overshoot)

Three scenarios for the future

Incremental adaptation to changes

of reasonablecertainty possible

Adaptation must increasingly managethe risk of divergent possible futures, and

need for transformation

Stafford Smith et al 2011, Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc. 369

Transformational adaptation

Howden et al, Greenhouse 2010, 2010

Varieties, planting times, spacing

Stubble, water, nutrient and canopy management etc

Climate change-ready crops

Climate-sensitive precision-agric

Diversification and risk management

Transformation from landuseor distribution change

New products such as ecosystem services

Climate change

Ben

efit

from

ad

apta

tion

Incre

asing

comple

xity,

cost,

risk

and leadtime

Cycles of incremental and transformative adaptation

Park et al., GEC 2012

The ‘classic’ adaptation pathway concept

Wise et al., GEC forthcoming

Adaptivelandscape,boundaries less certain further into the future

a b cd

f gh

e

1 11

3

22

2

3

Adaptive space

Maladaptive space

11

222

Maladaptive space

Current decision

point

3

3

3

Dead-ends that can be re-assessed over time (or other indicators, e.g. SLR)

Adaptive & maladaptive spaces

Decision points and alternative pathways

The latest adaptation pathway concept

Wise et al., GEC forthcoming

Adaptivelandscape,affected bychanging climate butalso other drivers andother actors’ responses

a

b

c de

f gh

i

j

1 1 11

1

3

3

22

22

5

6 7

88

Maladaptive space

Maladaptive space

Adaptive space

Change in biophysical variables over time

C. Path dependency

D. Institutional preparedness

B. Transformative cyclesA. ‘Classic’ adaptation pathways

Other possible interventions:Transgressive change

Transformative change

• Knowledge that is made of facts and content not enough!

• Need to explore ‘interior’ views and ‘exterior’ views in knowledge production

• Blindspots, values, how one comes to see something not just made up of ‘facts’!

Integral approaches Twenty-five major dimensions of climate change (after Esbjorn-Hargens, 2010).

19

Experiential Values, beliefs, attitudes, mental models, frames Need to make climate change a tangible experience Need representations of climate change that engage multiple audiences Focus on positive messages Motivate using existing interior structures (translation) Motivate by facilitating interior development (transformation)

Behavioral Observe current behaviors

• Carbon footprinting• Direct and indirect emissions

Identify desired (target) behaviors• Potential to bring about desired change• Feasibility

Behavior categories (e.g. environmental activism, non-activist public sphere, private-sphere environmentalism, other – Stern, 2000)

Cultural Need validation from identity groups Supportive groups help individuals to initiate and maintain new behaviors (e.g. Eco Teams, Transition Towns, CRAGs) Social movements and activist cultures (e.g. Climate Action Groups, Climate Camps) Cultural change – symbols, media, discourse Supportive change agent cultures Cultural barriers – custom, myths Dialogue with participants

Systemic Systems help or hinder target behaviors Hierarchy of preferential behaviors Diffusion of innovations – different strategies for early adopters vs mainstream Feedback systems to support learning Persuasive technology and choice architecture Information is important but not sufficient Financial incentives and penalties Supportive legal, political and social context

Transdisciplinarity

• Knowledge made up of scientific, social and experiential.

• When seeking a solution to a problem ‘science alone may not be enough’

• Mode 1 and Mode 2 knowledge production key to distinguish.

Faculteit der Aard- en Levenswetenschappen21

Transdisciplinarity:“a new form of learning and problem solving involving cooperation among different parts of society AND academia in order to meet complex challenges of society” (Julie Klein et al., 2001)

8

Discipline

Discipline

Discipline

Discipline

Discipline

Discipline

Discipline

Non-academic environment

Mono-disciplinary

Multi-disciplinary

Inter-disciplinary Trans-

disciplinary

Discipline

Discipline

Discipline

Climate Information and Planning

1. Knowledge about climate change science and climate variability.

2. Use of such knowledge - the roles of scientists, policy makers, practitioners, civic society and ‘brokers’ in research, adaptation and planning.

Policy & decision-making

Climate Change

research

Fig 2: After Bradshaw and Borchers, 2000

Policy & decision-making

Climate Change

research

Policy & decision-making

Climate Change

research

Policy & decision-making

Climate Change

research ?Fig 4: After Bradshaw and Borchers, 2000

Beliefs, values, well being• Climate change discussions often proceed from a plurality of

viewpoints (different belief systems simultaneously held by different stakeholders) (O'Brien et al, 2010b). Belief systems therefore determine consensus/dis-sensus regarding our future in the changing climate.

• Belief systems influence our perception of climate change and motivates our behavior towards nature.

• Changes in belief systems can be linked to fundamental changes in the ways that we deal with climate change.

• (Source: Dr Loubser).

Current research on the relationship between beliefs and climate change:

• The Climate Beliefs project is part of the SANCOOP bilateral co-operation between South Africa and Norway, funded by the NRF and RCN.

• This project aims to find out how the causality between the impacts and drivers of climate change challenge belief systems, by studying the flexibility of environmental beliefs in rural communities in North West Province, South Africa.

• Dr. Ananka Loubser (NWU) and Prof. Karen O'Brien (UiO) mapped the beliefs by using semi-structured interviews and Q methodology.

• Flexibility was tested by introducing contradictory statements offering both indigenous and scientific explanations for climate change.

• Preliminary results show belief system plasticity: belief systems provide stable points of reference to make sense of the world, but at the same time they need to adapt to changes in the external environment, so that more flexible belief systems lead to more proactive responses to climate variability and change.

• These findings may lead to a flexibility indicator with implications for climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction.

Field work: Climate Beliefs project: Jouberton, NW Province, SA

A participant in the study sorts community-derived belief statements in a Q sorting grid (likert scaling). The results are analyzed statistically (Q factor analysis) to determine the interrelationships between the beliefs.

References:LOUBSER, A.; 2012. Changes in epistemic frameworks: random or constrained? Koers, 2012 77(2): Art #425.LOUBSER, R.A; 2013. Tracing some consensus regarding pre-scientific frameworks in philosophy of science. Acta Academica, 2013 45(2): 1-26.O’BRIEN, K; HOCHACHKA, G; 2010a. Integral adaptation to climate change. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 5(1): 89-102.O’BRIEN, K; WOLF, J; 2010b. A values-based approach to vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change. ISSN 1757-7780. 1(2): 242-253.

Well being – FLOW project (Ziervogel et al., UCT)

• A transdisciplinary research and action project

• Building a “Commons Transition” platform (Michel Bauwens - http://p2pfoundation.net)

– Youth development program – FLOW ambassadors– Community currency– Support municipal adaptation strategies – A poverty and inequality reduction strategy

Piketberg, Bergrivier municaplity,

Western Cape

Kokstad, Kwazulu

Natal

Build individual adaptive capacity

Build community adaptive capacity

ADAPTIVE AND GENERATIVE CAPACITY IS INCREASED IN LOCAL

COMMUNITIES

Awareness of and connection to life support

systems is increased

Self-determination

and social cohesion is increased

Localised economic

exchange is increased

Adv. Hanlie Linde (Bergrivier Municipal Manager):

“I have been doing social development for 20 years and I can tell you this is the first program I have seen that can really constitute wellbeing in a community” https://youtu.be/_yy59H8t3x4

FLOW integrated in municipal planning for 2015- Youth development strategy- Local Economic Development strategy

Messy reality needing variety of engagement processes (courtesy J. Colvin)

Multiple stakeholders and stakeholdings

Controversy of knowledge claims

Complexity of ecological – societal

relationshipsUncertainty about current

state and predictions

Recognising the ‘messiness’ and complexity of situations:

Approaches

• Social learning• Focus on belief systems and human well being• Transformative and incremental options• ‘Active’ links to global efforts e.g. SDGs• May require movements – e.g. food

sovereignty, food security etc. including global efforts e.g. Future Earth.

Acknowledgements

• Various inputs e.g. IPCC scientists• Dr Mark Stafford Smith, CSIRO, Australia• Dr Gina Ziervogel, CSAG, UCT• Dr Ananka Loubser, University of

Potchefstroom