Content uploaded by Mari Hanssen Korsbrekke
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mari Hanssen Korsbrekke on May 01, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
“I'm fixing a hole where the rain gets in, and stops my mind from
wandering”: approaching sustainable climate change adaptations
Aall, Carloa; Meyer-Habighorst, Christianea, b; Gram-Hanssen, Irmelina, Korsbrekke, Mari
Hanssena; Hovelsrud, Gretec
a Western Norway Research Institute, Sogndal, Norway
b University of Zurich, Department of Geography, Zurich, Switzerland
c Nordland research institute, Bodø, Norway
Corresponding author: carlo.aall@vestforsk.no
Manuscript (non-LaTeX)
1
Early Online Release: This preliminary version has been accepted for publication in
Weather, Climate, and Society, may be fully cited, and has been assigned DOI
10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1. The final typeset copyedited article will replace the EOR at the above
DOI when it is published.
© 2023 American Meteorological Society Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
ABSTRACT
Sustainable development is a challenging field of research, colored by the paradoxes of
modernity and development, and the tradeoffs involved in balancing the ‘sustainable’ and
‘development’ side of the various sustainable development goals. We must take these
overarching challenges into account when entering a more specific discussion of what a
concept of sustainable climate change adaptation may entail. This article reviews the history
of this concept, including insights provided by the 10 recent publications in a special
collection of WCAS on the topic of sustainable climate change adaptation. This collection
reflects on why and how the term sustainable development should be included in our
understandings of and efforts towards climate change adaptation and proposes a preliminary
framework for distinguishing between conventional and sustainable adaptation.
SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT
This article reviews the history of the term ‘sustainable climate change adaptation’ and
reflects on the relationship between sustainable development and climate change adaptation
efforts. It ends by proposing a framework for distinguishing between conventional and
sustainable adaptation.
1. Introduction
In 2019, the Norwegian government introduced an annual basic funding of a virtual
research center - the Norwegian Research Center on Sustainable Climate Change Adaptation
(Noradapt) – tasked with producing knowledge on how to adapt to the impacts of climate
change in ways that are not in conflict with, and preferably are supportive to, the
implementation of other sustainability goals and that help move society toward enhanced
sustainability. One of the first efforts of Noradapt has been to summarize the state of
knowledge on the concept and practice of sustainable climate change adaptation, to outline
the possible difference between ‘conventional’ and ‘sustainable’ climate change adaptation,
and to investigate the implications of such differences for climate change adaptation
policymaking; an effort that is documented in the special collection of Weather, Climate, and
Society on sustainable climate change adaptation. This article is the editorial for the special
collection.
2
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
The conventional way in which climate change adaptation is understood and practiced
within both research and governance has a high risk of generating misalignment with other
sustainable development goals (SDGs), thus leading to ‘unsustainable’ outcomes. The reason
for this is three-pronged and linked to the concepts of transformation, maladaptation, and
malmitigation.
Firstly, in many countries, climate change adaptation arose within the context of civil
protection. The responsible institutions have therefore tended to be those involved with
national and civil security, as opposed to those involved with environmental issues (Groven
et al, 2012). This has, among other aspects, led to an engineering-based understanding of
adaptation as a process of ‘bouncing back’, in the sense of returning to ‘normal’ and
minimizing the changes to the system, rather than ‘bouncing forward’, which represents a
more ‘transformative’ approach, in which an adaptation leads to a fundamental change to the
system (Davoudi et al, 2013). This resistance to change, and a preoccupation with minimizing
negative impact rather than maximizing positive impact, contrasts with change strategies
developed within environmental institutions, which place greater emphasis on the
possibilities for maximizing positive impact (Groven et al, 2012).
Secondly, as described in the latest assessment report (AR6) of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, the need for rapid
implementation of drastic adaptation measures will increase in the coming years (IPCC,
2022). If seen as only relating to climate change impacts, it is fair to assume that the
continued introduction of new and more radical adaptation measures may increase the
likelihood of causing conflicts with other sustainability goals, not least the goal of mitigating
climate change. This challenge is captured in the growing literature on maladaptation (e.g.,
Juhola et al., 2016).
Thirdly, a related challenge to the one above concerns mitigation and the danger of what
is being termed ‘malmitigation’ (IPCC, 2022). Malmitigation refers in this context to a
process in which a drastic increase in mitigation efforts (e.g., driven by national green
transition strategies) may lead to conflicts with adaptation concerns by increasing climate
change vulnerabilities (Aall, Hall, Groven, 2016). While the literature on maladaptation has
grown considerably in the last years, the notion of malmitigation has yet to receive serious
attention within research and policy.
3
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
The dangers of both maladaptation and malmitigation present a growing need to develop
an integrated approach to adaptation and mitigation and to situate such work within the
context of the SDGs. The notion of sustainable adaptation has the potential to frame such an
approach.
The research question of this editorial – as well as for the special collection as a whole –
is: What differentiates ‘sustainable’ from ‘conventional’ climate change adaptation? In
addressing this question, we start by briefly summarizing the research discourse relating to
the three concepts of societal transformation, maladaptation, and malmitigation. We then
present a review of previous research on the concept of sustainable climate change
adaptation, followed by a summary of the papers that make up this special collection on
sustainable climate change adaptation. Finally, we conclude the article by presenting a
preliminary framework for differentiating between ‘conventional’ and ‘sustainable’ climate
change adaptation.
State of the art: societal transformation,
maladaptation, and malmitigation in climate
change research
To transform or become transformed
Transformation has become a core concept in both the sustainability and climate change
debates (Fazey et al, 2017). There are at least 50 different definitions of the concept, applied
within many different contexts ranging from mathematics, chemistry and medicine, to the
humanities and social sciences (Aall and Skarbø, 2014).
Most humanities and social science research that applies the concept refers to
transformations as shifts that fundamentally alter human and environmental relations and
interactions within a system, to the extent that the purpose and function of the system is
altered (Olsson et al. 2014; O’Brien 2012). The added qualifier sustainability transformations
add an important normative dimension in which the transformative processes lead to
enhanced wellbeing and integrity within human-environment systems (Salomaa and Juhola,
4
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
2020). This is understood as standing in contrast to transitions, which imply gradual changes
to existing systems that may or may not lead to more fundamental change (Hölscher et al.
2018).
The origin of the United Nation sponsored program on sustainable development, the so-
called Brundtland report from 1987, states that the idea of a sustainable development
“involves a progressive transformation of economy and society” (WCED, 1987: 37). While
the notion of transformation has been part of the debates surrounding sustainability for
several decades, there has been a significant increase in studies and policy documents that
refer to the need for transformations or transformative change. In recent years, emphasis has
been put on what characterizes transformative processes and how, if at all, they can be
managed for a desired result. This emphasis is exemplified in a recent review of the state of
knowledge on sustainable development, which concludes that “The imperatives of
environmental sustainability, poverty alleviation and social justice […] call for ambitious
societal transformations. As such, few aspects of actionable knowledge for sustainability are
more crucial than those concerning the processes of transformation” (Scoones et al. 2020:
42).
Simultaneously, however, there is an awareness of the contextual nature of what can be
defined as a transformation within social-ecological systems. While certain general
characteristics can be identified for a transformative process and outcome, exactly what it
looks and feels like will, as with sustainability, be context specific. Recognizing this
contextuality, Amundsen and Hermansen (2021) suggest that transformation be viewed as a
boundary object that is used with a high degree of flexibility, and that it therefore should be
conceived of in the plural, transformations.
The word transformation has been sparsely mentioned in the main IPCC assessment
reports up to the fifth report published in 2014, in which the number of hits increased by a
factor of 15. This number again doubled from the fifth to the sixth assessment report in
2021/2022. The meaning of the concept also changed notably during this period, from mainly
being used as an adjective to describe the extent of impacts of climate change to becoming a
much broader concept describing the ways in which society needs to respond to climate
change.
5
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
This wider and far more prescriptive meaning of the concept of transformation first
gained traction in the part of the IPCC discourse that dealt with adaptation. This
understanding of transformation was first outlined in the 2012 IPCC special report
“Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change
Adaptation”, outlining the difference between the current approach to adaptation and what
was envisioned as a new and transformative approach to adaptation: “Some strategies for
effectively managing risks and adapting to climate change involve adjustments to current
activities. Others require transformation or fundamental change” (IPCC, 2012:1). The report
defines transformation as “The altering of fundamental attributes of a system (including value
systems; regulatory, legislative, or bureaucratic regimes; financial institutions; and
technological or biological systems)” (IPCC, 2012: 4).
Alongside the question of what characterizes transformations (Scoones et al, 2020) is an
equally pressing question of how, and if, such processes can be managed deliberately to
ensure a desired, and sustainable, outcome. While uncertain and messy, the alternative to
deliberate transformation will likely be an undeliberate process of becoming transformed due
to inadvertently crossing thresholds that result from insufficient system resilience (Nelson et
al, 2007). As with other dramatic and unintentional shifts in socioeconomic and ecological
systems, the impact of becoming transformed is likely to fall alongside the usual fault lines of
inequality, which will further exacerbate current unsustainable trajectories (Eriksen et al,
2021). Empirical research indicates that the transformative potentials of adaptation projects
often get undermined by decision-makers prioritizing “incremental adaptation that protects
and preserves existing systems and behaviors, over transformative adaptation that will disrupt
them or require their abandonment or displacement” (Eriksen et al, 2021: 5). Thus, defining
and distinguishing sustainable adaptation from ‘adaptation as usual’ will be crucial for
meeting the climate change challenge in ways that are effective, equitable, and just.
This points to the need for further inquiry into power-relations and how we engage with
each other, including both humans and non-humans, and invites reflections on what may be
referred to as transformative engagement. Transformative engagement seeks to go beyond
modernist assumptions of control and instead center on caring practices (Arora 2019).
According to Moriggi et al. (2020), such caring practices most be ethically informed and
based on relational responsibility and emotional awareness. Linking sustainable development
with transformative engagement thus calls for a restructuring of engagement in places where
6
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
contested research fields, political issues, landscapes, or localities are at stake. One example
of this in the context of adaptation, is captured in one of the recommendations in the
summary for policymakers from working group II of the IPCC (our underlining): “Recent
analyses, drawing on a range of lines of evidence, suggest that maintaining the resilience of
biodiversity and ecosystem services at a global scale depends on effective and equitable
conservation of approximately 30% to 50% of Earth’s land, freshwater and ocean areas,
including currently near-natural ecosystems” (IPCC. 2022: 44). According to “The United
Nations Environment - World Conservation Monitoring Centre” and “The International
Union for Conservation of Nature” (IUCN) officially recognized protected areas currently
(31.12.2022) covers over 15% of the of the earth’s land surface and 7.4% of the world’s
oceans (IUCN, 2023). In order to follow up the figures for conservation mentioned by the
IPCC report, the proportion must increase by a factor of 2-3,3 for land and 4-6,8 for ocean
areas – which clearly appears as a transformative and not incremental change.
To adapt to climate change, and seeking to avoid maladaptation
An increasing number of scholars argue that if treated as a separate issue, removed from
mitigation and sustainability work, adaptation policies and practices risk undermining
mitigation and sustainability efforts, e.g., through triggering increases in greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. When adaptation has such negative consequences, it is termed as
maladaptation (Klein et al., 2007; Bizikova et al., 2007; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009; Warren,
2011).
The term ‘maladaptation’ has several different interpretations. Juhola et al. (2016)
developed a typology for the outcomes of maladaptation: Rebounding vulnerability (i.e.
adaptation action that increases current or future climate change vulnerability of the involved
actors); shifting (or ‘spill-over’) vulnerability (i.e. adaption action at one specific location that
may cause an increase in climate change vulnerability at a different location); and eroding
sustainable development (i.e. adaptation action that increases GHG emissions or negatively
impacts environmental conditions and/or social and economic values).
In the latest IPCC assessment report on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability, a separate
chapter is devoted to maladaptation and how to avoid it. The term is defined as “actions that
may lead to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes, including via increased
7
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
greenhouse gas emissions, increased or shifted vulnerability to climate change, more
inequitable outcomes, or diminished welfare, now or in the future” (IPCC, 2022: 2915). The
authors of the report observe that “there is increased evidence of maladaptation across many
sectors and regions since the AR5” (IPCC, 2022: 27), and go on to identify a number of
adaptations that have resulted, or have a high risk of resulting, in maladaptation. These
include adapting coastal infrastructure in low-lying coastal systems (with the risk of leading
to increased GHG emissions, conflicts with ecosystem services, and equity problems), and
adapting water capture/storage to improve water security (with the risk of leading to several
equity problems) (IPCC, 2022: 2604).
To mitigate climate change, and seeking to avoid malmitigation
The term ‘malmitigation’ is defined similarly within the research literature as its twin
term, maladaptation. It is understood to imply either ineffective mitigation or mitigation
efforts that lead to unintended and negative side-effects in society at large (Corfee-Morlot et
al, 2009; Scrieciua et al, 2013) or increased climate vulnerabilities (Kongsager et al, 2015).
The process of malmitigation has thus far received far less attention, and the concept is
far less theorized, than that of maladaptation. Malmitigation is mentioned only once in the
AR6 report on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (IPCC, 2022: 102), whereas
maladaptation is mentioned more than 400 times. Strikingly, the term was not mentioned in
the AR6 report on mitigation. While the term is little used, there are examples of studies that
address the problem in practice, particularly within the field of renewable energy. The main
message within this research is that transitioning from a fossil fuel-based energy system to
one mostly based on renewable energy may increase climate risks, especially if such
transitions are done rapidly (Bizikova et al, 2007; Warren, 2011). It has been estimated that
the physical climate risks of a renewable energy system mainly powered by 'weather', all
other factors being equal, most likely will be higher than that of the current fossil fuel energy
system (Aall et al, 2022).
The general picture, however, is that there is a rich literature addressing the risk that
climate change adaptation efforts may cause conflicts with other sustainability goals,
including that of reducing GHG emissions, whereas the literature on how GHG mitigation
efforts may affect physical climate change risks is scarce (Aall, Hall, Groven, 2016). Thus,
8
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
there is a lack of knowledge regarding which requirements climate change adaptation
concerns should impose on GHG mitigation efforts.
Including ‘sustainability’ into the climate
change adaptation discourse
In the following section we first present the results of a literature review on sustainable
climate change adaptation, after which we present a proposal for how to further extend and
focus the scientific discourse on sustainable climate change adaptation (see Table 1 below for
a summary).
Table 1: Overview of the current research discourse on sustainable climate change adaptation
and proposals for how to expand upon it
Focus within current research
discourse on sustainable climate
change adaptation
Proposals for expanding on the
research discourse on sustainable
climate change adaptation
Thematic
context
Mostly aimed at physical
infrastructure, urban environment,
and tourism
Include other adaptation themes
Geographical
context
Mostly focused on adaptation in
the Global South
Include adaptation in Global North
and comparisons
Sustainability
context
Mostly focused on social
sustainability
Include ecological sustainability and
connections between the two
Relation to
mitigation
Mostly focused on avoiding
maladaptation with little to no
focus on malmitigation
Include the issue of avoiding
malmitigation
Conceptual development and theoretical background of sustainable adaptation
In the context of climate change research, the term sustainable adaptation is relatively new.
The concept was first used by climate change researchers in the early 2000s, but most studies
lack an explicit definition of the concept and how it differentiates from other forms of
adaptation. The most comprehensive efforts at theorizing the concept of sustainable adaptation
9
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
occurred between 2007 and 2011, where the concept received increased attention from climate
change scholars within the social sciences. The first conceptual approach to defining
sustainable adaptation was led by social scientists and human geographers such as Neil Adger,
Siri Eriksen, Karen O’Brien, and Katrina Brown and was rooted in the greater discourse of
climate change vulnerability (cf. Adger and Kelly 1999; Eriksen and O’Brien 2007; Füssel and
Klein 2006; O’Brien and Leichenko 2007). Eriksen and O’Brien (2007), for instance, define
sustainable adaptation as the “interface between vulnerability reduction and poverty reduction
measures” (p. 338). In the Human Development Report 2007/2008, published by the United
Nations Development Program (UNDP), O’Brien and Leichenko locate sustainable adaptation
even broader in the overarching context of human security. Even though the concept is
understood to imply the promotion of “more equitable social, economic, and environmental
practices” (ibid. 31), the report refers in essence to the social dimension of sustainability. An
“increasing environmental, social, economic and institutional connectivity” (ibid. 31) is
discussed as influential for vulnerability through how it can promote resilience and enhance
human security. In these efforts at theorizing the concept of sustainable adaptation, focus is on
the linkages between the reduction of both poverty and climate change vulnerability as well as
the need to address those challenges hand in hand (Eriksen and O’Brien 2007; O’Brien and
Leichenko 2007).
The underlying assumption that poverty, inequality, and climate change vulnerability must
be addressed in connection to each other is rooted in the recognition that adaptation can be seen
as controversial and can have negative consequences (Eriksen 2009; Eriksen et al. 2011). In
the context of poverty reduction, Eriksen (2009:40) summarizes that “[a]ny and every
adaptation intervention does not automatically reduce poverty and inequality, and some
poverty eradication measures could aggravate vulnerability”. This perspective is based on the
recognition that adaptation is not only a technical, but a social, political and normative, process
(Brown 2011; Eriksen 2010; Eriksen et al. 2011). The further development of the concept of
sustainable adaptation has therefore emphasized the need for questioning governance and
existing power structures in the design and implementation of adaptation measures (Eriksen
2010). Brown (2011) further addresses the political dimension of sustainable adaptation by
emphasizing the importance of challenging current understandings of development while
simultaneously developing alternative and more sustainable development strategies. Together,
these critical perspectives have informed the development of numerous conceptual frameworks
10
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
that call for stronger engagement with decision-making, policy and power structures in the
context of adaptation (Brown 2011; Eriksen et al. 2011; Keim 2011; Macgregor & Cowan
2011; Taylor 2013; van den Berg and Coenen 2012). Eriksen et al. (2011), for instance,
developed an adaptation policies roadmap based on four normative principles to ensure socially
just and environmentally integrated adaptation measures: recognizing the context for
vulnerability; acknowledging that differing values and interests affect adaptation outcomes;
integrating local knowledge into adaptation responses; and considering potential feedbacks
between local and global processes. While ecological sustainability is included as a dimension
in these works, the authors have taken a distinct social science perspective on adaptation, and
emphasis is therefore predominantly on social aspects of sustainability.
Most social science research that employs the concept of sustainable adaptation after 2011
relies on these above mentioned works and is mostly empirically based with only few engaging
in further theorizing the concept. The concept of sustainable adaptation does, however, share
some commonality with the concept of transformative adaptation, which arose within the
adaptation research community around the same time as sustainable adaptation (e.g., IPCC
2011; Nelson 2009; Olsson et al 2006; O’Brien 2012; Nelson 2009; Pelling 2010; O’Neill a.
Handmer 2012). This concept similarly focuses on not only addressing risks but all together
transforming the drivers of vulnerability, thus touching on issues of inequality, poverty, and
exploitation. It is also used to explore the systems and structures producing the risks, such as
carbon-intensive economies and modes of production and consumption.
Further development and use of the concept
In the following, we further outline the ways in which the concept of sustainable adaptation
has been used during the past twenty years, based on four different characteristics: 1) the
disciplines and themes within which the concept has been employed; 2) the geographical
contexts and scales considered; 3) the understanding of sustainability and the sustainability
dimensions emphasized; and 4) the understanding of the relationship between adaptation and
mitigation.
Characteristic 1: Thematic context
The concept of sustainable adaptation is applied in a wide array of fields and disciplines.
Its use does, however, appear to be following the general debates and theoretical strands of
11
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
climate change adaptation research occurring within the social sciences in general and human
geography in particular.
Sustainable adaptation has received considerable attention within research on housing and
urban areas, where it has been used to address urban and spatial planning (Hurliman et al. 2014;
Jeong 2018; Santhia et al. 2018), urban resource management (Sørup et al. 2019), the building
sector (Bullen 2004; Love a. Bullen 2009; Remøy a. Wilkinson 2012; Wilkinson 2014; Alabsi
et al. 2016), urban green spaces (Drlik a. Muhar 2009), urban climate change mitigation and
adaptation (Hritonenko a. Yatsenko 2022) as well as more general urban processes and areas
(Alabsi et al. 2021; Reckien et al. 2009). More recently, the concept has also been used to
analyze more human-centered questions of justice and poverty (Fiak et al. 2021; Donderer
2021), such as displacement (Barua et al. 2017; Lei et al. 2017).
The analysis of sustainable adaptation strategies mainly occurs in research that focuses on
the Global South (cf. Chapman a. Darby 2016; Hilde et al. 2016; Chinokewtu a. Togo 2018;
Islam a. Managi 2018; Brouziyne et al. 2018; Akhtar et al. 2020; Islam et al. 2021; Mamun et
al. 2021; Singh a. Singh 2021). It is used to analyze issues such as smallholder agriculture
(Bargout 2013) or the potential of agritourism for farmers (Mahaliyanaarachchi 2019), as well
as more theoretical questions of human security (Owuor et al. 2011; Taylor 2013), justice
(Eriksen a. Marin 2014), and adaptive capacity (Eakin et al. 2014).
Tourism is another field that has seen a considerable interest in the notion of sustainable
adaptation, as part of the efforts of theorizing what sustainable tourism looks like in the context
of climate change (Luthe et al. 2008; Njoroge 2014, 2015; Njoroge et al. 2020; Kaján 2014;
Valdivia a. Barbieri 2014; Mahaliyanaarachchi2019).
It is interesting to note that the concept of sustainable adaptation is applied across topics
and disciplines that have quite different theoretical and ethical commitments. For instance, it
is used to analyze more technical, managerial- and engineering-oriented topics such as coastal
science and flood protection (cf. van Loon-Steensma a. Schelfhout 2017; Bonnett a. Birchall
2020; Koch 2020; Marijnissen et al. 2020), water resource protection (Guo et al. 2020),
hydropower (Ochieng et al. 2019) and risk management (Singh et al. 2019). While on the other
hand, it is used in more human-centered fields and traditions, such as in the context of local,
traditional, and Indigenous knowledge (cf. Mekonnen et al. 2021; Boogaard et al. 2020;
12
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Korovulavula et al. 2020; Akinbami et al. 2016), local and Indigenous communities (Rahman
et al. 2021; McNeeley 2017), gender relations (Roy Chaudhuri 2022) and research designs
focusing on the individual and household levels (Fasina et al. 2021; Wamsler a. Brink 2015,
2018).
Characteristic 2: Geographical context
Articles that discuss sustainable adaptation have tended to do so in context of either the
Global South or the Global North, with an equal distribution between these two geopolitical
contexts. More recently, the concept of sustainable adaptation has been applied in research that
spans both t (cf. Eriksen 2009, 2010; Eriksen a. Brown 2011; Eakin et al. 2014; Madzivhandila
2021; Rahman et al. 2021; Bezner Kerr et al. 2022). This reflects a trend toward a more
geographically integrated approach to adaptation that calls for “a balancing act between
developed and developing countries” (Madzivhandila 2021), and explicitly engage in
discussions on the relationships between these geopolitical contexts.
Efforts to address the interrelated and global character of climate change adaptation were
initiated by social scientists such as Siri Eriksen and Katrina Brown, for instance through their
2011 special collection on sustainable adaptation. The special collection sought to address what
was perceived as a shortcoming in adaptation research: “that is, the tendency to consider
adaptation in developing and developed countries as very separate issues, when human
responses are in fact closely interlinked through their direct and indirect effects on other groups
and regions” (Eriksen and Brown 2011, p. 3). The works included in the special collection
therefore largely discuss sustainable adaptation in the context of global power structures and
social justice.
The concept of sustainable adaptation is discussed in different contexts and across scales.
There is a tendency for studies that employ the concept to have a main focus on the local and
regional scales, including adaptation of households and individuals (see e.g., Birkman et al,
2016; Lei et al, 2017; Rosenzweig et al, 2018). This trend reflects the mainstream assumption
within both research and policy that climate change adaptation is an inherently localized
activity. Thus, while climate change is perceived as a global phenomenon, the need for adapting
to the effects of climate change is perceived as being situated within the local (i.e.,
municipalities, households, etc.) (e.g., Glover a. Granberg 2020). While climate change
13
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
adaptation studies span multiple scales, only few studies include several scales in the analysis
of sustainable adaptation, such as Vincent et al. (2013), who analyzed how local and national
adaptation policies can jointly support sustainable adaptation.
Characteristic 3: Sustainability dimensions
Most of the articles reviewed apply the concept of “sustainability” without defining it.
Often the term is used without any further explanation on how it is understood or measured
(for example: Islam a. Managi 2018; Mahaliyanaarachchichchi et al. 2019; Ochieng et al. 2019;
Marijnissen et al. 2020; Wilson a. Walpole 2021). This perpetuates a lack of clarity as to the
meaning of sustainability (Njorge 2015) that permeates the entire sub-field of sustainable
adaptation. As with other ‘fuzzy’ concepts, Brown (2011) warns that ‘sustainable adaptation’
risks becoming an empty ‘buzzword’ that can be used to justify existing unsustainable policies
and approaches rather than doing the intended work of ensuring social justice and
environmental integrity.
Given the lack of clear applications or definitions within individual studies, it is challenging
to gain an overview of which dimensions of sustainability are emphasized and prioritized and
why in relation to adaptation. Yet certain patterns can be identified. While the concept of
sustainable adaptation was initially defined as “adaptation that contributes to socially and
environmentally sustainable development pathways, including both social justice and
environmental integrity” (Eriksen et al. 2011, p. 8), focus has largely been placed on the social
dimensions of sustainability, including vulnerability, poverty reduction and development (e.g.,
Eriksen a. O`Brien 2007; Eriksen 2009; Brown a. Eriksen 2011). Whilst some more recent
works have a similar social justice focus (e.g., Bezner Kerr et al. 2022; Boogaard et al. 2020;
Donderer 2021), there has been a significant increase in publications that refer explicitly to
both the social and the ecological dimension of sustainability, as well as how they are
interrelated (e.g., Chapman a. Darby 2016; Chinokewtu a. Togo 2018; Fasina et al. 2021;
Hashemi et al. 2017; Mekonnen et al. 2021; Rahman et al. 2021). Only a few publications focus
explicitly on the economic dimension of sustainability and do so in concert with the social and
environmental dimensions (e.g., Alabsi et al. 2016; Huq et al. 2013).
In the context of adaptation policy and intergovernmental collaboration, the concept of
sustainable adaptation has only recently been considered. While the concept was included in
14
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
the 5th Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it
mainly referred to empirical cases where the concept had been applied as an analytical lens. In
the most recent Assessment Report (IPCC 2022), however, sustainable adaptation is discussed
in more detail, including with reference to the theoretical developments of the concept. These
mostly refer to the above-mentioned initial theorization by Eriksen et al. (2011), where both
social justice and environmental integrity are highlighted but where the social dimensions of
sustainability are receiving most attention.
The use of sustainability by critical adaptation scholars is explicitly normative, that is, they
perform a value-judgment as to the preferability of adaptation that enhances the well-being of
people and planet over adaptation that ‘merely’ adapts to an increasingly inhospitable climate.
Thus, sustainable adaptation is understood as ‘better’ (for people, ecosystems, and societies)
than adaptation that does not have an emphasis on sustainability (e.g., Eriksen et al. 2011; Fiak
et al. 2021; Hashemi et al. 2017; Klöck a. Fink 2019; Singh a. Singh 2021). What makes
adaptation sustainable is necessarily context-dependent, but scholars using the concept often
emphasize the importance of grounding actions in place and considering traditional and local
knowledges in adaptation processes (e.g., Boogaard et al. 2020; Mekonnen et al. 2021;
Korovulavula et al. 2020).
By adding ‘sustainable’ to adaptation, these scholars have helped broaden the adaptation
field to consider issues that traditionally have been perceived as outside the scope of adaptation
work (e.g., poverty, questions of (in)justice, power and normativity, biodiversity loss,
renewable energy technologies). At the same time, the room for adaptation has also been
narrowed in terms of impact, identifying the qualities and values that underpin ‘good’ or
‘successful’ adaptation in the context of sustainability (e.g., equity, thrivability and longevity).
Adaptation is thereby moved out of its ‘technical box’ and into the realm of politics and societal
debate.
Characteristic 4: Relation to mitigation
Besides working to integrate especially social and environmental sustainability in
adaptation work, the concept of sustainable adaptation has also worked to reintegrate the
notions of adaptation and mitigation. Climate change is per definition understood as a global
phenomenon with that task of mitigating emissions similarly understood as situated within ‘the
15
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
global’ (i.e., intergovernmental cooperation). When adaptation was first articulated in the
context of climate change, it was understood as the need to adapt to climate impacts as they
were anticipated or experienced in place, thus at ‘the local’ scale. The two concepts (and how
they have been performed in practice) have existed separately, exemplified by the tendency for
mitigation to be part of national strategies while adaptation often is part of municipal and
regional planning (Aall, Kanyama, Hovelsrud, 2012).
In research that applies the concept of sustainable adaptation, however, mitigation measures
are also frequently mentioned (cf. Singh and Singh 2021: Hritonenko and Yatsenko 2022;
Pereira 2011). In these works, adaptation is understood as sustainable to the extent that it also
contributes to climate change mitigation. According to Eriksen (2009, p. 44), “The
environmental sustainability aspects emphasize that adaptation needs to not endanger the
environmental or economic integrity, neither for other groups at present or for future
generations. Therefore, mitigation of greenhouse gasses becomes an important part of
sustainable adaptation criteria.” Islam et al. (2021, p. 1) go a step further, understanding
sustainable adaptation strategies to be “crucial to mitigate climate change impact as well as
reduce the loss of natural disasters and increase agricultural crop production.” These authors
thereby conceptualize adaptation as a condition for mitigation. Although this understanding is
potentially polarizing, by questioning well established understandings of climate change
adaptation and mitigation, it demonstrates the strong connection and interrelatedness of the two
concepts and strategies and shows the relevance of integrating the two under the umbrella of
sustainability.
The contributions in this special collection
The literature presented in the previous section address a variety of different issues, scales,
and actors related to climate change adaptation, and collectively highlight critical and
interrelated challenges in the subfield of sustainable adaptation. The literature emphasizes that
both the theoretical and practical issues of climate change adaptation are characterized by
complexity, interconnectedness, and uncertainty. The high degree of continuous
interconnectedness is visible between and within the domains of society and nature and is
accompanied by the impacts of climate risks from local to global scales and their
interdependencies within these scales, manifested for example as transboundary climate risks.
16
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
This interconnectedness, as well as differing understandings of sustainable development and
climate change adaptation, demonstrate the high complexity of this field. Among other things,
this leads to uncertainties not only about the evolution of climate risks but also societal
responses to them. In the following section we present the contributions in the special collection
about sustainable climate change adaptation, and how they engage with the concept.
In the first article, the findings of Aall, Wanvik, and Dale (2022) highlight the overall
relevance of linking sustainable development and climate change adaptation. Based on an
analysis of societal risks in the renewable energy sector and the future vulnerability of the
energy system to climate change, they conclude that due to the increasing complexity and
“tightness” of climate change-related mitigation and adaptation processes, climate risks and
thus unsustainable developments could increase and even emerge because of the ongoing
energy transition. The authors find that these likely negative consequences are primarily due
to existing knowledge gaps. They therefore suggest that critical research and policy efforts in
the renewable energy sector be strengthened to minimize the climate risks of the energy
transition.
The importance of knowledge production is also underlined in the coproduced case study
by Risvoll, Hovelsrud, and Riseth (2022), which analyzes the impact of institutional, physical,
and societal constraints on pastoralists’ adaptive capacities in northern Norway. Their findings
emphasize that the process and effects of adaptation are shaped by different approaches and
epistemologies that span across scales and contexts while being highly locally rooted and
context dependent. This necessitates a comprehensive understanding of vulnerabilities,
including but not limited to those caused by climate change. Moreover, they highlight that
misrecognition of locally rooted knowledge, often seen as unscientific, can lead not only to
conflict but also to negative adaptation outcomes and reduced adaptive capacity. In contrast,
their findings show that skillfully incorporating multiple knowledge systems, as well as
considering the existence of multiple stressors, interacting drivers of change, and the
interrelationships between them in the context of adaptation, can lead to more sustainable
climate change adaptation at all scales.
In their paper about transboundary climate risks, Harris et al. (2022) not only address the
importance of broad knowledge production and stakeholder engagement, but also the need for
a better understanding of the relationship between scale and place within the context of
climate
17
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
change adaptation. To address the largely neglected transboundary climate risk research and
practice, they present a research agenda to facilitate case study research that supports
comprehensive, effective, and just pathways to transboundary climate change adaptation. Their
approach is based on the impact chain framework but applies additional approaches that include
strong stakeholder engagement and co-production of knowledge to better assess transboundary
climate risks. In terms of research on current climate change adaptation, the authors emphasize
the fundamental need for more innovation as well as what they define as the inherent
acknowledgment of the complexity and interdependency that characterize climate risks and
adaptation efforts.
The strong interconnectedness between climate change adaptation and other societal and
natural systems is also stressed by Hessen and Vandvik (2022), who address the challenges of
climate change and natural ecosystem degradation, which are currently largely treated
separately. The authors use the example of Norway to illustrate the importance of incorporating
ecosystem conservation and management into climate change adaptation (and mitigation) at
societal, policy, and planning levels at all scales. By maintaining fundamental supporting and
regulating ecosystem services, climate hazards and risks can be minimized and the tremendous
climate buffering and regulating capabilities of well-functioning natural ecosystems can be
harnessed. The study underscores that only by acknowledging, understanding, and acting from
the broad interdependencies and interactions between climate change and ecological
degradation, and societal and ecological systems – what is referred to as the transformation of
society-nature interaction – can a sustainable future be achieved.
The need for general acknowledgment of various uncertainties is highlighted by Aall and
Groven (2022), not only in terms of the complexity associated with climate change, but also in
the context of different uncertainties that are apparent in terms of actual risks as well as
exposure and vulnerability and occurrence of climate change-related hazards. The authors have
developed a roadmap primarily, but not exclusively, to guide local climate change adaptation
policy and decision-making in consideration of these uncertainties, expanding the conventional
and limited ‘predict-then-act’ decision-making process to a ‘reflect-then-act’ mode. By
accepting that most climate change-related uncertainties cannot be eliminated, diversifying the
understanding and description of these uncertainties through technical, social, and political
processes, and addressing uncertainties through a reflect-then-act approach, sustainable and
cause-oriented climate change adaptation can be promoted.
18
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
The importance of acknowledging both the complexity and the uncertainty associated with
processes of climate risk is also a central theme for Menk et al. (2022), who address the
elaboration and assessment of climate-related and societal causes of climate risk. By reviewing
studies that have used the impacts chain framework and similar frameworks for analyzing
climate risk and vulnerability, they obtain useful information about current common challenges
and methodological needs in assessing causes of climate risk. This information, in turn, is
critical to developing a holistic impact web rather than a linear representation of risks to
integrate cause-effect dynamics. By identifying and addressing the underlying and complex
processes behind the drivers of climate risk, effective, durable, and sustainable adaptation to
climate change can be achieved. As with the other contributions to this special collection, such
identification is possible through the extensive involvement of different stakeholders and local
knowledge, and the transparent communication of both limitations and uncertainties as well as
strengths and certainties in the scientific process.
Selseng, Klemetsen, and Rusdal (2021) were also able to identify the importance of using
clear and transparent language and communication to achieve long-term and sustainable
adaptation efforts. In their analysis of the understanding and interpretation of climate change
adaptation in Norwegian municipalities, they found that there are different views both between
and within science and practice about the climate we need to adapt to, climate risks, and
appropriate adaptation measures. Based on their study, the authors emphasize the need for a
shared and well-communicated local climate change adaptation framework as well as closer
monitoring of actual adaptation efforts by local municipalities to achieve long-term and
sustainable adaptation actions. The key to ensuring these aspects is, first, the use of clear and
concise adaptation language with well-defined and explicit terminology, and second, the
precise definition of how this should be applied to the adaptation mandate at the national level.
Drawing on an empirical case study of adaptation planning from the Russian Arctic, Boblev
et al. (2021) emphasize the importance of actively involving and engaging citizens, supporting
bottom-up rather than only top-down approaches, establishing monitoring and feedback loops,
and creating transparent processes for successful adaptation planning. In examining the design
and implementation of climate change adaptation strategies in urban settlements in the Russian
Arctic, they found that a lack of the characteristics mentioned in the previous section is very
likely to lead to misidentification of strategic priorities and a shortage of societal support. Based
19
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
on concepts and discourses of urban climate change adaptation, they analyzed current trends
and challenges in adaptation planning in the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation.
The final article by Antonsen, Dale, and Mayer (2022) actively focuses on how future,
deliberately transformative climate change adaptation efforts can be shaped in the context of
sustainable development, thus condensing and extending previous statements on sustainable
climate change adaptation. Using a case study of climate change and perceived resilience and
adaptive capacity in nature-based tourism in Lofoten, Norway, the interconnectedness between
adaptation, resilience, and transformational capacity is demonstrated. The results highlight the
importance of being able to consciously transform a system and document the ways in which
adaptability and flexibility of a system ensures the resilience and transformative capacity of
that system. The authors point out that the adaptive capacity of individual actors forms the basis
for a system’s resilience. Furthermore, the current resilience of the system provides the
foundation for transformational capacity, which in turn is a critical determinant of future
resilience.
Collectively, the contributions to this special collection provide important theoretical and
practical insights into how to design sustainable adaptation research and action that leads to
socially just and environmentally sound results. In the context of sustainable adaptation, the
key findings of the contributions point to the need for a broader recognition and
acknowledgment of the complexity and interconnectedness of climate actions, a strengthening
of knowledge production, particularly through increased engagement of diverse stakeholders
and locally rooted co-produced knowledge, and the creation of common, coordinated, and
transparent adaptation policies, actions, and communication channels. In addition, the need to
understand the above-named linkages, as well as the continued flexibility in both research and
practical process, and ongoing monitoring of adaptation efforts are important to ensure
sustainable adaptation. These requirements, and thus sustainable climate change adaptation,
form the basis for transformative adaptation to climate change that is compatible with the goals
of sustainable development and actively combines the two, resulting in not only neutral but
positive climate change adaptation efforts.
20
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
A proposed framework for sustainable
climate change adaptation
In one of the early papers attempting to address and theorize how sustainable adaptation
is to be understood, Katrina Brown (2011) asks the provocative question if the concept is an
oxymoron. That is, if the way that adaptation is generally understood and practiced is
incompatible with the goals of sustainability. She concludes that the concept risks becoming a
meaningless trope “unless it specifically deals with fundamental problems in the dominant
paradigm of unsustainable development” (Brown, 2011: 21). She warns that without
explicitly challenging current models of development and adaptation, “sustainable adaptation
may be co-opted to support development-as-usual rather than more radical options which put
social justice, equity and environmental sustainability at the core.”
The need for taking a ‘deeper’ approach to adaptation is increasingly emphasized within
research, practice, and activism, partly driven by the growing intensity with which both direct
and indirect climate change impacts are felt across societies. What such ‘depth’ refers to,
however, differs between groups and disciplines. For the degrowth movement, for example,
successfully adapting to climate change implies challenging the logics and structures of
neoliberal capitalism, to address issues of exploitation and ecological overshoot (Roy
Chaudhuri 2022; Keyßer a Lenzen 2021). Within the discourse on ‘deep intervention’, most
commonly related to the mitigation-part of climate policy, such interventions are defined as
addressing the “root causes” carried out “through structurally transformative and systemic
pathways“ (Morrison et al, 2022: 1102). However, some scholars active within this discourse
also question the ability of interventions to disrupt the status quo and address the root drivers
of climate change (Ibid.). For the ‘deep adaptation’ movement, adaptation is argued to imply
a recognition of what is perceived as inevitable societal collapse and thereby a refocusing on
how to plan for and emotionally tackle the hardships involved in such collapse (Bendell
2020). This also includes a discussion on the possibility of repurposing infrastructure to
enable a circular economy outside current systems of production and consumption (Yarza
Pérez 2022). Within feminist and Indigenous research and activism, there is a focus on
‘Indigenizing’ adaptation to not only reduce harms inflicted by adaptation policy and practice
on Indigenous and other socio-politically marginalized communities but to center such work
21
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
on principles of self-determination, respect, and reciprocity (Whyte 2017; Gram-Hanssen et
al. 2021; Johnson et al. 2021). Other scholars are emphasizing the untapped potential of
human agency and creativity in not only creating solutions to climate change but being the
most powerful solution through cultivating the relationship between individual and collective
agency (Sharma 2007; O’Brien 2021).
Noting these ongoing debates, with this special collection, we wish to further illuminate
the concept of sustainable adaptation, both empirically and theoretically, to show what it can
(and cannot) be used for. Based on the insights from the papers included in the collection, we
end this editorial by proposing a preliminary framework for differing between the
conventional and a far more radical and sustainable modus operandi for climate change
adaptation. In our development of this framework, we have taken inspiration from an ongoing
process within the EU to develop a taxonomy for sustainable economic activities (EU, 2020).
Although it seems fair to question the transformative potential of any system that is set up to
promote the continuation of economic growth (despite being termed ‘sustainable growth’),
the taxonomy is relevant to the issues taken up here; namely the question of how to ensure
that efforts of meeting the various sustainability concerns do not come into conflict with each
other.
The taxonomy seeks to develop a systematic way of evaluating any given economic
activity towards a set of predefined environmental objectives (climate change mitigation;
climate change adaptation; the sustainable use and protection of water and marine resources;
the transition to a circular economy; pollution prevention and control; and the protection and
restoration of biodiversity and ecosystems). The EU taxonomy functions in such a way that
actors who want to have their economic activities deemed as ‘sustainable’ must prove that the
activity in question is not in conflict with any of the stated environmental objectives, and in
addition must perform particularly well in relation to a minimum of one of the predefined
objectives (EU, 2020). Inspired by the idea behind the EU taxonomy for sustainable
activities, but omitting the underlying goal of promoting economic growth, we have
developed a preliminary framework for how to align the goals of climate change adaptation
and sustainable development.
A key controversy in interpreting and implementing sustainable development is the role
of economic growth (Holden et al, 2014). This controversy is pictured in the debate on strong
22
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
versus weak sustainability (Lele, 1991; Eisenmenger et al, 2020). The former is an idea
within environmental economics which states that 'human capital' can substitute 'natural
capital'. Supporters of this idea focus on the tripartite understanding of sustainable
development and the balancing between environmental, social, and economic sustainability
concerns. Contrary to weak sustainability, strong sustainability assumes that ‘human’ and
‘natural’ capital are complementary, but not interchangeable. Thus, supporters of strong
sustainability argue that the desire for economic growth may be equivalent to aspiring for an
improved standard of living far beyond what is regarded as ecologically sustainable in the
long term. In the table below we have picked up on the differentiation between weak and
strong sustainability, which is then compared with an approach to climate change adaptation
that has no stated reference to the goal of sustainable development (i.e., ‘conventional’
climate change adaptation).
Based on the literature review presented above, and the various contributions to the
special collection of WCAS on sustainable climate change adaptation, we have identified a
set of critical dimensions (Table 2) and accompanying indicators (Table 3) for differing
between the three modes of climate change adaptation ‘conventional’, ‘weak sustainability’,
and ‘strong sustainability’. The first dimension is about the content of adaptation and how to
avoid maladaptation; the second dimension is about how concerns with physical climate risks
must govern the content of mitigation and thus help avoid malmitigation, whereas the third
dimension is about the process of adaptation.
Table 2: A proposed framework for differing between three modes of climate change
adaptation (CCA)
Critical dimensions
Conventional
CCA
Weak
sustainability
CCA
Strong
sustainability CCA
Maladaptation
Indifferent to
environmental
and social
sustainability
Must not reduce
environmental or
social sustainability
Must increase
environmental and
social sustainability
Malmitigation
No limitations
imposed by
adaptation
GHG mitigation
efforts must not
increase climate
risks
GHG mitigation
efforts must
decrease climate
risks
23
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
concerns on GHG
mitigation efforts
Process of climate
change adaptation
Incremental
strategy
Mixed strategy
(incremental and
transformative)
Transformative
strategy
Mostly reactive
and protective
measures
Mostly proactive
measures
Measures also
addressing drivers of
societal development
Expert based
process
Applying
requirements of
public participation
in public planning
Applying principles
of co-production of
knowledge
The idea behind differentiating between the three modes of climate change adaptation is
that what we have termed as ‘conventional’ adaptation does not imply any additional
concerns other than to ‘adapt’; while the two versions of sustainable climate change
adaptation must comply with requirements that are consistent with the difference in the two
overall terms ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ sustainability.
To allow for concretization of what the proposed framework could imply in practice, we
have proposed a set of both quantitative and qualitative indicators for evaluating the
sustainability of climate change adaptation efforts, in principle ranging from strategies and
programs down to specific policies and measures. These are merely proposals; the specific
context for doing such assessment (different countries, different sectors, different levels of
governance) should guide the choice of indicators.
Table 3: Examples of indicators that can be used to assess the degree of sustainable
climate change adaptation
Critical dimensions
Indicators
Maladaptation with respect to
environmental sustainability
GHG emissions
Biochemical flows
Emissions of ‘novel entities’
Loss of biodiversity
Per capita primary energy consumption in
industrial countries
Maladaptation with respect to social
sustainability
Gini coefficient
Human Development Index (HDI)
24
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Limitations imposed by climate
change adaptation concerns on
GHG mitigation efforts
Local physical climate risks
Transboundary climate risks
Process of climate change
adaptation
Choice of strategy (incremental versus
transformative)
Choice of measures (reactive and protective
versus proactive)
Extent and nature of participation (expert versus
co-production involvement)
As described in the first section of this paper, tackling the challenge of maladaptation implies
identifying and, to the extent possible, avoiding unintended and negative consequences of
climate change adaptation. When deciding on how to conceptualize the unintended
consequences to be included in the proposed framework, we have used the original division
of sustainability into environmental and social sustainability (Lafferty and Langhelle, 1999).
While we recognize that this is in effect an artificial division (Abson et al. 2017), separating
the social and environmental in this way is a pragmatic choice for the purpose of
operationality and resonates with the two-word concept of ‘sustainable’ and ‘development’.
For proposing indicators for environmental sustainability, we have found inspiration in
the framework of planetary boundaries developed by the Stockholm Resilience Centre
(Rockstrøm et al, 2009; Persson et al, 2022). The framework consists of planetary boundaries
within which humanity can continue to develop and thrive for generations to come and
defines three thresholds: Below boundary (safe); in zone of uncertainty (increasing risk); and
beyond zone of uncertainty with respect to passing the boundary (high risk). Currently, three
planetary boundaries are assessed to be in the high-risk category: Biochemical flows of
phosphorus and nitrogen, biosphere integrity (i.e., loss of biodiversity), and ‘novel entities’.
In addition to the above-mentioned indicators, we have proposed ‘GHG emissions’,
although ‘climate change’ is still defined as merely belonging to the ‘increasing risk’
category. We have also proposed a fifth environmental indicator that is of a different nature
than those derived directly from the framework of planetary boundaries, namely ‘energy-
use’. The reason for this is the crucial role of ‘energy’ in both the sustainability and climate
change discourse. The proposed specification of the energy indicator is derived directly from
a very specifically formulated goal in the Brundtland report of 50 percent reduction in per
capita primary energy consumption in industrialized countries (WCED, 1987: 146).
25
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
For addressing the issue of social sustainability, and the risk of maladaptation, we
propose two indicators: The Gini coefficient and the Human Development Index (HDI). The
Gini coefficient can be used as an indicator for social sustainability. This indicator is the most
popular and widely used measure of inequality through overviews of statistical dispersions
of, most importantly, income (UNDP, 2010). As pointed out by Holden et al. (2014),
however, equity as required by the Brundtland Report is not the same as equality as measured
by the Gini coefficient. Ideally, we would look at the spread of wealth rather than income, but
here data quality and access becomes a challenge. We therefore apply the Gini coefficient but
make sure to treat it as an indicator rather than as a measurement of equity.
Another way of thinking about social sustainability is through the concept of Doughnut
Economics, where the environmental ‘ceiling’ described by Rockström and colleagues is
coupled with a social ‘foundation’, creating what Kate Raworth (2017) has termed a safe and
just operating space for humanity. In the doughnut economics model, this social foundation
consists of health, education, income and work, peace and justice, political voice, social
equity, gender equality, housing, networks, energy, water, and food. Others still suggest that
strong social sustainability must also consider people’s ability to exert change for a better life
and their sense of agency within the larger sustainability discourse (Stirling 2015; Kuenkel
2019; O’Brien 2015; Scoones 2020). To keep the indicator system simple and clear, we
suggest to also use the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI); a choice done in
many cases of setting up indicators on sustainable development (Aall and Norland, 2005;
Linnerud et al, 2019).
The second critical dimension in Table 2 addresses the problem of malmitigation, and the
requirements here work ‘opposite’ as compared to the first dimension. For the second
dimension, the adaptation sphere is the ‘sender’ and the GHG-mitigation sphere is the
‘receiver’ of the requirements. The proposed indicators are about climate risks, and we have
chosen to differentiate between local physical climate risks and transboundary climate risks.
See the special collection contribution by Harris et al. (2022) for a detailed description of the
difference between these two concepts of climate risks. Also see the contribution by Aall,
Wanvik and Dale (2022) for an example of how GHG mitigation efforts (that of increasing
the share of renewable energy of the energy system) may produce new climate risks.
26
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
For the third critical dimension, on the process of adaptation, we have differentiated
between a strategic and practical level in terms of the choice of measure. For the strategic
level, we can make distinctions that separate incremental and transformative adaptation,
applying the differentiation outlined in the glossary of the IPCC AR6 report on Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Here, incremental adaptation is defined as “extensions of
actions and behaviors that already reduce the losses or enhance the benefits of natural
variations in extreme weather/climate events”, while transformational adaptation is defined
as “adaptation that changes the fundamental attributes of a social-ecological system in
anticipation of climate change and its impacts” (IPCC, 2022: 2899).
For the practical level, we lean on commonly used terminology within civil protection
and the DPSIR (driver-pressure-state-impact-response) framework applied first in an
environmental context by the European Environment Agency in the mid-1990s (EEA, 1995).
Thus, we differ between reactive measures aimed at improving the immediate response to
climate hazard events (e.g., increasing the capacity of carrying out rescue operations);
protective measures aimed at reducing risks through improving protections against climate
hazards (e.g., extending flood protection installations); proactive measures aimed at avoiding
risks (e.g., defining risk zones in land-use planning with a ban on the construction of new
buildings); and measures aimed at changing drivers of societal change that produce risks, cf.
the concept of risk society discussed by scholars like Charles Parrows (2007). See also the
special collection contribution by Selseng Klemetsen, and Rusdal (2021) for a description of
the distinction between effect-oriented and cause-oriented climate change adaptation.
Finally, in terms of participation within adaptation processes, we distinguish between
processes that rely entirely on expert knowledge and top-down decision-making, as common
within conventional climate change adaptation strategy and practice (Eriksen et al. 2021), and
processes that draw on and support bottom-up decision-making and local process ownership.
We further distinguish between two modes of participation along the lines of weak and strong
sustainability, namely participation that includes stakeholders and local knowledge as a
supplement to expert knowledge, and participation that is based on logics and criteria derived
from co-creation methodologies (e.g., Schreunder a Horlings 2022; Schneider et al. 2021).
While the former is increasingly common within certain sectors, partly due to requirements to
include citizens in hearing processes, the latter form is less common and perceived as being
more time consuming due to its insistence on engaging with power structures and differences
27
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
in opinions and worldviews. Research on sustainability transformations, however,
increasingly highlights the importance of taking the time to generate a safe space for
knowledge co-creation and genuine participation, to avoid the tendency of token-participation
(Dannevig et al, 2022). Co-creation is not only seen to generate results that are less conflict
prone, but to also tap into the agential potential inherent in everyone to contribute toward
creating a sustainable present and future (Charli-Joseph et al. 2018; Fazey et al. 2018).
Through the proposed framework and the articles included within the special collection,
we wish to expand upon and deepen the debates surrounding sustainable adaptation. We wish
for this work to help enable the concept to do its intended work: ensuring that adaptation
policy and practice not only ‘does no harm’ but actively contributes toward enhanced
environmental integrity and social justice now and in the future.
Acknowledgments.
The article is funded by grants from the Norwegian Research Centre on Sustainable
Climate Change Adaptation (Noradapt), financed by an annual basic funding from the
Norwegian Research Council.
Data Availability Statement.
This article exclusively relies on already published data in the form of journal articles.
Literature
Aall, C., & Groven, K. (2022). The Unpredictable Truth: A Proposed Road Map for a
Reflect-Then-Act Approach to Climate Uncertainties and Lessons Learned from Norwegian
Municipalities. Weather, Climate, and Society, 14(1), 337-347.
Aall, C., Hall, M.C., Groven, K. (2016): Tourism: Applying Rebound Theories and
Mechanisms to Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation. In Aall, C., Santarius, T.,
Walnum, H.J. (eds) (2016): How to improve energy and climate policies. Understanding the
role of rebound effects. London: Springer. Pp 209-227.
28
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Aall, C., Kanyama, A. C., Hovelsrud, G. (2012): Local climate change adaptation:
missing link, Black Jack or blind alley? Local Environment: The International Journal of
Justice and Sustainability, 17:6-7, 573-578. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.699772
Aall, C., Norland, I. (2005): The use of the ‘ecological footprint’ in local politics and
administration: Results and implications from Norway. Local Environment, volume 10, no 2:
159-172.
Aall, C., Skarbø, K. (2014): When is Change Change? What can we learn regarding
societal transformation in the face of climate change from the previous work of local
authorities on promoting sustainable development? In University of Oslo (2013) Proceedings
of Transformation in a Changing Climate, 19-21 June 2013, Oslo, Norway. University of
Oslo. PP 53-61
Aall, C., Wanvik, T., Dale, B. (2022) Climate Risks of the Transition to a Renewable
Energy Society: The Need for Extending the Research Agenda, Weather Climate and Society,
https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0055.1
Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., von
Wehrden, H., Abernethy, P., Ives, C. D., Jager, N. W., & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points
for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-
0800-y
Adger, W. N., & Kelly, P. M. (1999). Social vulnerability to climate change and the
architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and adaptation strategies for global change, 4(3),
253-266.
Akhtar, R., Masud, M. M., Uddin, M. S., & Hye, Q. M. A. (2020). Underlying drivers
that influence farmers’ sustainable adaptation strategies. International Journal of
Management and Sustainability, 9(3), 181-193.
Akinbami, C. A. O., Ifeanyi-Obi, C., Appiah, D. O., & Kabo-Bah, A. T. (2016). Towards
sustainable adaptation to climate change: The role of indigenous knowledge in Nigeria and
Ghana. African Journal of sustainable development, 6(2), 189-214.
29
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Alabsi, A. A. N., Wu, Y., Koko, A. F., Alshareem, K. M., & Hamed, R. (2021). Towards
Climate Adaptation in Cities: Indicators of the Sustainable Climate-Adaptive Urban Fabric of
Traditional Cities in West Asia. Applied Sciences, 11(21), 10428.
Alabsi, A. A. N., & Garfield, W. H. (2016). Sustainable adaptation climate of traditional
buildings technologies in the hot dry regions. Procedia Engineering, 169, 150-157.
Amundsen, H., Hermansen, E.A., 2021. Green transformation is a boundary object: An
analysis of conceptualisation of transformation in Norwegian primary industries.
Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space 4, 864–885.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2514848620934337
Antonsen, K. M., Dale, B., & Mayer, S. (2022). “It’s in Our DNA”: Climate Change and
Perceived Resilience and Adaptive Capacity in Nature-Based Tourism in Lofoten, Norway.
Weather, Climate, and Society, 14(1), 177-190.
Australian Academy of Science (2021). The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world.
https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/support/reports-and-plans/2021/risks-australia-
three-deg-warmer-world-report.pdf
Arora, S. (2019). Admitting uncertainty, transforming engagement: Towards caring
practices for sustainability beyond climate change. Regional Environmental Change, 19(6),
1571-1584.
Bargout, R. N. (2013). Ecological agriculture and sustainable adaptation to climate
change: a practical and holistic strategy for Indian smallholders. Consilience, (9), 132-159.
Barua, P., Rahman, S. H., & Molla, M. H. (2017). Sustainable adaptation for resolving
climate displacement issues of south eastern islands in Bangladesh. International Journal of
Climate Change Strategies and Management.
Bendell, J. (2020) Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy. IFLAS
Occasional Paper 2. https://lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf
Bezner Kerr, R., Naess, L. O., Allen‐O’Neil, B., Totin, E., Nyantakyi‐Frimpong, H.,
Risvoll, C., ... & Eriksen, S. (2022). Interplays between changing biophysical and social
30
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
dynamics under climate change: Implications for limits to sustainable adaptation in food
systems. Global Change Biology, 28(11), 3580-3604.
Birkmann, J., T. Welle, W. Solecki, S. Lwasa and M. Garschagen, 2016: Boost resilience
of small and mid-sized cities. Nat. News, 537(7622), 605.
Bizikova, L-, J. Robinson and S. Cohen (2007) Editorial: linking climate change and
sustainable development at the local level, Climate Policy 7, 271–277.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2007.9685655
Bobylev, N., Liuhto, K., Sergunin, A., Tynkkynen, V. (2021): Building Urban Climate
Change Adaptation Strategies: The Case of Russian Arctic Cities, Weather, Climate, and
Society, Volume 13: Issue 4, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0004.1
Boogaard, F. C., Venvik, G., Pedroso de Lima, R. L., Cassanti, A. C., Roest, A. H., &
Zuurman, A. (2020). ClimateCafé: an interdisciplinary educational tool for sustainable
climate adaptation and lessons learned. Sustainability, 12(9), 3694.
Bonnett, N., & Birchall, S. J. (2020). Coastal communities in the Circumpolar North and
the need for sustainable climate adaptation approaches. Marine Policy, 121, 104175.
Brown, K. (2011). Sustainable adaptation: an oxymoron?. Climate and Development,
3(1), 21-31.
Brown, K., & Eriksen, S. (2011). Sustainable adaptation to climate change: prioritising
social equity and environmental integrity. Routledge.
Brouziyne, Y., Abouabdillah, A., Hirich, A., Bouabid, R., Zaaboul, R., & Benaabidate, L.
(2018). Modeling sustainable adaptation strategies toward a climate-smart agriculture in a
Mediterranean watershed under projected climate change scenarios. Agricultural Systems,
162, 154-163.
Bullen, P. (2004). Assessing sustainable adaptation of existing buildings to climate
change. In COBRA 2004: The international construction research conference of the Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The RICS Foundation.
31
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Chapman, A., & Darby, S. (2016). Evaluating sustainable adaptation strategies for
vulnerable mega-deltas using system dynamics modelling: Rice agriculture in the Mekong
Delta's An Giang Province, Vietnam. Science of the Total Environment, 559, 326-338.
Charli-Joseph, L., J. Siqueiros-Garcia, H. Eakin, D. Manuel-Navarrete, and R. Shelton.
2018. Promoting agency for social-ecological transformation: a transformation-lab in the
Xochimilco social-ecological system. Ecology and Society 23(2):46. https://doi.
org/10.5751/ES-10214-230246
Chinokwetu, V., & Togo, M. (2018). Examining barriers and opportunities for sustainable
adaptation to climate change for smallholder farmers in semi-arid Buhera District,
Zimbabwe. In 5th INTERNATIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION CONFERENCE
CAPE TOWN SOUTH AFRICA 18-21 JUNE 2018 (p. 31).
Corfee-Morlot, J., Kamal-Chaoui, L., Donovan, M. G., Cochran, I., Robert, A., &
Teasdale, P. J. (2009). Cities, climate change and multilevel governance. XXXX
Dannevig, H., Mari Hanssen Korsbrekke, Grete K. Hovelsrud (2022): Advancements of
sustainable development goals in co-production for climate change adaptation research,
Climate Risk Management, Volume 36, 100438, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100438
Davoudi, S., Elizabeth Brooks & Abid Mehmood (2013) Evolutionary Resilience and
Strategies for Climate Adaptation, Planning Practice & Research, 28:3, 307-322,
DOI:10.1080/02697459.2013.787695
Donderer, E. (2021). PARTICIPATORY FLOOD RISK MANAGEMENT FOR
SUSTAINABLE CLIMATE ADAPTATION IN MEXICO CITY: A Literature Review and
Case Study. The Maastricht Journal of Liberal Arts, 13.
Drlik, S., & Muhar, A. Climate Change asks for Sustainable Adaptation of Parks: A
Challenge for Maintenance and Design. Landscape–Great Idea! X-LArch III, 74.
Eakin, H. C., Lemos, M. C., & Nelson, D. R. (2014). Differentiating capacities as a
means to sustainable climate change adaptation. Global environmental change, 27, 1-8.
EEA, 1995. Europe’s Environment: the Dobris Assessment. European Environment
Agency. Copenhagen.
32
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Eisenmenger, N., Pichler, M., Krenmayr, N. et al. The Sustainable Development Goals
prioritize economic growth over sustainable resource use: a critical reflection on the SDGs
from a socio-ecological perspective. Sustain Sci 15, 1101–1110 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00813-x
Eriksen, S. (2009). Sustainable adaptation: Emphasising local and global equity and
environmental integrity. GECHS Synthesis Human Security in an Era of Global Change, 40.
Eriksen, S. (2010). Governance for sustainable adaptation? Environmental stressors,
natural resources, and human security. XXXX
Eriksen, S., & Marin, A. (2014). Sustainable adaptation under adverse development?
Lessons from Ethiopia. In Climate Change Adaptation and Development (pp. 194-215).
Routledge.
Eriksen, S., & Brown, K. (2011). Sustainable adaptation to climate change. Climate and
development, 3(1), 3-6.
Eriksen, S. H., & O'brien, K. (2007). Vulnerability, poverty and the need for sustainable
adaptation measures. Climate policy, 7(4), 337-352.
Eriksen, S., Aldunce, P., Bahinipati, C. S., Martins, R. D. A., Molefe, J. I., Nhemachena,
C., ... & Ulsrud, K. (2011). When not every response to climate change is a good one:
Identifying principles for sustainable adaptation. Climate and development, 3(1), 7-20.
Eriksen, S., Schipper, E.L.F., Scoville-Simonds, M., Vincent, K., Adam, H.N.,Brooks, N.,
Harding, B., Khatri, D., Lenaerts, L., Liverman, D., Mills-Novoa, M.,Mosberg, M., Movik,
S., Muok, B., Nightingale, A.,Ojha, H., Sygna, L., Taylor, M., Vogel, C., West, J.J. (2021).
Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help,
hindrance or irrelevance? World Development, 141: 105383.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383
EU (2020): Regulation (EU) 2020/852 of the European Parliament and of the Council of
18 June 2020 on the establishment of a framework to facilitate sustainable investment, and
amending Regulation (EU) 2019/2088. Official Journal of the European Union, L 198/13
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32020R0852
33
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Fasina, O. O., Okogbue, E. C., Ishola, O. O., & Adeeko, A. (2021). Sustainable Climate
Change Adaptation in Developing Countries: Role of Perception Among Rural Households.
African Handbook of Climate Change Adaptation, 1-17.
Fazey, I., Peter Moug, Simon Allen, Kate Beckmann, David Blackwood, Mike
Bonaventura, Kathryn Burnett, Mike Danson, Ruth Falconer, Alexandre S. Gagnon, Rachel
Harkness, Anthony Hodgson, Lorens Holm, Katherine N. Irvine, Ragne Low, Christopher
Lyon, Anna Moss, Clare Moran, Larissa Naylor, Karen O'Brien, Shona Russell, Sarah
Skerratt, Jennifer Rao-Williams & Ruth Wolstenholme (2017) Transformation in a changing
climate: a research agenda, Climate and Development, 10:3, 197-217, DOI:
10.1080/17565529.2017.1301864
Fazey et al. (2018) Ten essentials for action-oriented and second order energy transitions,
transformations and climate change research. Energy Research & Social Science, Volume 40,
June 2018, Pages 54-70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2017.11.026
Fiack, D., Cumberbatch, J., Sutherland, M., & Zerphey, N. (2021). Sustainable
adaptation: Social equity and local climate adaptation planning in US cities. Cities, 115,
103235.
Füssel, H. M., & Klein, R. J. (2006). Climate change vulnerability assessments: an
evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic change, 75(3), 301-329.
Glover, L., & Granberg, M. (2020). The politics of adapting to climate change. Palgrave
Pivot, Cham.
Gram-Hanssen, I. Schafenacker, N. and Bentz, J. (2021). Decolonizing Transformations
through ‘Right Relations.’ Sustainability Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-021-00960-
9
Groven, K., Aall, C., van den Berg, M., Kanyama, A. C., Coenen, F. (2012): Civil
protection and climate change adaptation. Comparing lessons learned from three coastal cities
in Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands. Local Environment: The International Journal of
Justice and Sustainability, 17:6-7, 679-694 https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2012.665859
34
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Guo, J., Liu, J., Lu, S., & Taghizadeh-Hesary, F. (2020). Sustainable Adaptation
Strategies for Water Resource Protection: A Case Study of Nanxi River in China. Water,
12(9), 2423.
Hashemi, S. M., Bagheri, A., & Marshall, N. (2017). Toward sustainable adaptation to
future climate change: insights from vulnerability and resilience approaches analyzing
agrarian system of Iran. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 19(1), 1-25.
Harris, K. Lager, F., Jansen, M.K., Benxie, M. (2022): Rising to a New Challenge: A
Protocol for Case-Study Research on Transboundary Climate Risk. Weather, Climate, and
Society, Volume/Issue: Volume 14: Issue 3, https://doi.org/10.1175/WCAS-D-21-0022.1
Hessen, D. O., & Vandvik, V. (2022). Buffering climate change with nature. Weather,
Climate, and Society, 14(2), 439-450.
Hilde, T. C., Regan, M. R., & Dharmiasih, W. (2016). Saving a dynamic system:
sustainable adaptation and the Balinese subak. In The Routledge Handbook of Food Ethics
(pp. 347-359). Routledge.
Holden, E., Linnerud, K., Bannister, D. (2014): Sustainable development: Our Common
Future revisited, Global Environmental Change, Volume 26, May 2014, Pages 130-139,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.006
Hölscher, K. Wittmayer, J.M. Loorbach, D. (2018) Transition versus transformation:
What’s the difference? Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, Volume 27, June
2018, Pages 1-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2017.10.007
Hritonenko, V., & Yatsenko, Y. (2022). Sustainable adaptation and mitigation in regions
and cities: Review of decision-support methods. Resources, Conservation & Recycling
Advances, 200066.
Huq, N., Renaud, F., & Sebesvari, Z. (2013). Ecosystem based adaptation (EBA) to
climate change—integrating actions to sustainable adaptation. In Impacts World 2013:
International Conference on Climate Change Effects (pp. 151-164). Potsdam: Potsdam
Institute for Climate Impact Research.
35
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Hurlimann, A., Barnett, J., Fincher, R., Osbaldiston, N., Mortreux, C., & Graham, S.
(2014). Urban planning and sustainable adaptation to sea-level rise. Landscape and urban
planning, 126, 84-93.
IPCC, 2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR): Climate Change 2001. Contribu-
tion of Working Groups I, II and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, UK.
IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate
Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L.
Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley
(eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA
https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/SREX_Full_Report-1.pdf
IPCC, 2022: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution
of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck,
A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press.
Islam, A. R. M. T., Hasanuzzaman, M., Jaman, M., Alam, E., Mallick, J., Alam, G. M., ...
& Techato, K. (2021). Assessing Farmers’ Typologies of Perception for Adopting
Sustainable Adaptation Strategies in Bangladesh. Climate, 9(12), 167.
Islam, M., & Managi, S. (2018). Sustainable adaptation to multiple water risks in
agriculture: evidence from Bangladesh. Sustainability, 10(6), 1734.
Jeong, J. S. (2018). Design of spatial PGIS-MCDA-based land assessment planning for
identifying sustainable land-use adaptation priorities for climate change impacts. Agricultural
Systems, 167, 61-71.
Johnson, D.E., Parsons, M., Fisher, K. (2021) Indigenous climate change adaptation: New
directions for emerging scholarship. Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space
https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211022450
36
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Juhola, S., Glaas, E., Linnér, B. O., & Neset, T. S. (2016). Redefining maladaptation.
Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 135-140.
Kaján, E. (2014). Arctic tourism and sustainable adaptation: Community perspectives to
vulnerability and climate change. Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism, 14(1),
60-79.
Keim, M. E. (2011). Preventing disasters: public health vulnerability reduction as a
sustainable adaptation to climate change. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness,
5(2), 140-148.
Keyßer, L.T., Lenzen, M. 1.5 °C degrowth scenarios suggest the need for new mitigation
pathways. Nat Commun 12, 2676 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-22884-9
Klein, R. J. T., S. Huq, F. Denton, T.E. Downing, R.G. Richels, J.B. Robinson, F.L. Toth,
(2007). Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. Climate Change: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Chapter 18.
Klöck, C., & Fink, M. (2019). Dealing with climate change on small islands: Toward
effective and sustainable adaptation. Universitätsverlag Göttingen.
Koch, M. (2020). Intergrading earth & disaster science to enable sustainable adaptation &
mitigation. In Engineering, Information and Agricultural Technology in the Global Digital
Revolution (pp. 8-10). CRC Press.
Kongsager, R., & Corbera, E. (2015). Linking mitigation and adaptation in carbon
forestry projects: Evidence from Belize. World Development, 76, 132-146.
Korovulavula, I., Nunn, P. D., Kumar, R., & Fong, T. (2020). Peripherality as key to
understanding opportunities and needs for effective and sustainable climate-change
adaptation: a case study from Viti Levu Island, Fiji. Climate and Development, 12(10), 888-
898.
Kuenkel, P. (2019) Stewarding Sustainability Transformations: An Emerging Theory and
Practice of SDG Implementation. Springer Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03691-1
37
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Lafferty, W.M., Langhelle, O. (eds) (1999): Towards Sustainable Development. On the
Goals of Development - and the Conditions of Sustainability. London: Macmillan Press LTD.
Linnerud, K., Holden, E., Gilpin, G., Simonsen, M. (2019). A normative model of
sustainable development: how do countries comply? In Meadocroft, J., Baniseter, D., Holden,
E., Langhelle, O., Linnerud, E., Gilpin, G. (2019): What Next for Sustainable Development?
Elgaronline, 28-47. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788975209.00011
Lei, Y., C. Finlayson, R. Thwaites, G. Shi and L. Cui, 2017: Using Government
Resettlement Projects as a Sustainable Adaptation Strategy for Climate Change.
Sustainability, 9(8), 1373.
Lele, S.M. (1991): Sustainable development: A critical review, World Development,
Volume 19, Issue 6, June 1991, Pages 607-621, https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-
750X(91)90197-P
Love, P., & Bullen, P. A. (2009). Toward the sustainable adaptation of existing facilities.
Facilities, 27(9/10), 357-367.
Luthe, T., Roth, R., Elsasser, H., Borsdorf, A., Stötter, J., & Veulliet, E. (2008).
Vulnerability to global change and sustainable adaptation of ski tourism-an outlook on the
study SkiSustain (No. 2, pp. 103-117). Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften.
Macgregor, N. A., & Cowan, C. E. (2011). Government action to promote sustainable
adaptation by the agriculture and land management sector in England. In Climate Change
Adaptation in Developed Nations (pp. 385-398). Springer, Dordrecht.
Madzivhandila, T. S., Niyimbanira, F., & Nkuna, N. (2021). Sustainable Adaptation
Measures to climate change: a need of a balancing act between developed and developing
countries. African Renaissance, 2021(si1), 87-107.
Mahaliyanaarachchi, R. P., Elapata, M. S., Esham, M., & Madhuwanthi, B. C. H. (2019).
Agritourism as a sustainable adaptation option for climate change. Open Agriculture, 4(1),
737-742.
38
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Mamun, A. A., Roy, S., Islam, A. R. M. T., Alam, G. M., Alam, E., Chandra Pal, S., ... &
Mallick, J. (2021). Smallholder Farmers’ Perceived Climate-Related Risk, Impact, and Their
Choices of Sustainable Adaptation Strategies. Sustainability, 13(21), 11922.
Marijnissen, R., Esselink, P., Kok, M., Kroeze, C., & van Loon-Steensma, J. M. (2020).
How natural processes contribute to flood protection-A sustainable adaptation scheme for a
wide green dike. Science of the Total Environment, 739, 139698.
McNeeley, S. M. (2017). Sustainable climate change adaptation in Indian country.
Weather, Climate, and Society, 9(3), 393-404.
Mekonnen, Z., Kidemu, M., Abebe, H., Semere, M., Gebreyesus, M., Worku, A., ... &
Chernet, A. (2021). Traditional knowledge and institutions for sustainable climate change
adaptation in Ethiopia. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, 3, 100080.
Menk, L., Terzi, S., Zebisch, M., Rome, E., Lückerath, D., Milde, K., & Kienberger, S.
(2022). Climate Change Impact Chains: A Review of Applications, Challenges, and
Opportunities for Climate Risk and Vulnerability Assessments. Weather, Climate, and
Society.
Moore, B., Verfuerth, C., Minas, A.M., Tipping, C., Mander, S., Lorenzoni, I., Hoolohan,
C., Jordan, A.J., Whitmarsh, L. (2021): Transformations for climate change mitigation: A
systematic review of terminology, concepts, and characteristics. WIREs climate change,
https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.738
Moriggi, A., Soini, K., Franklin, A., Roep, D. (2020) A Care-Based Approach to
Transformative Change: Ethically-Informed Practices, Relational Response-Ability &
Emotional Awareness. Ethics, Policy & Environment, 23:3, 281-298,
10.1080/21550085.2020.1848186
Nelson D R 2009 Conclusions: transforming the world Adapting to Climate Change:
Thresholds, Values, Governance, In XXXX, ed W N Adger, I Lorenzoni and K O’Brien
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 491–500
Nelson, D.R.; Adger, W.N.; Brown, K. (2007): Adaptation to environmental change:
Contributions of a resilience framework. Ann. Rev. Environ. Resour., 32, 395–419.
39
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Njoroge, J. M. (2014). An enhanced framework for regional tourism sustainable
adaptation to climate change. Tourism Management Perspectives, 12, 23-30.
Njoroge, J. M. (2015). Tourism adaptation to climate change in the lenses of
sustainability: Sustainable-adaptation. XXXX
Njoroge, J. M., Ratter, B. M., Atieno, L., & Mugabe, I. M. (2020). Employing the
enhanced Regional Tourism Sustainable Adaptation Framework with a case study of climate
change vulnerability in Mombasa, Kenya. Tourism and Hospitality Research, 20(1), 56-71.
O’Brien K (2012) Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate
transformation Prog. Hum. Geogr. doi:10.1177/0309132511425767
O’Brien, K. (2015) Political agency: The key to tackling climate change. Science,
350:6265, DOI: 10.1126/science.aad0267
O’Brien, K. (2021) You Matter More Than You Think: Quantum Social Change for a
Thriving World. Oslo: cCHANGE press.
O’Brien, K., & Leichenko, R. (2007). Human security, vulnerability and sustainable
adaptation. Human development report, 2008, 1-2.
O’Neill, S. & Handmer, J. 2012 Responding to bushfire risk: the need for transformative
adaptation. Environ. Res. Lett. 7 014018
Ochieng, W. O., Oludhe, C., & Dulo, S. Sustainable and appropriate climate change
adaptation strategies for hydropower developments in the Sondu Miriu River Basin. XXXX
Olsson, P., V. Galaz, and W. J. Boonstra. 2014. Sustainability transformations: a
resilience perspective. Ecology and Society 19(4): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-06799-
190401
Olsson P, Gunderson L H, Carpenter S R, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C and Holling C S
2006 Shooting the rapids: navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social ecological
systems Ecol. Soc. 11 (1) 18
40
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Owuor, B., Mauta, W., & Eriksen, S. (2012). Sustainable adaptation and human security:
Interactions between pastoral and agropastoral groups in dryland Kenya. In Sustainable
adaptation to climate change (pp. 42-58). Routledge.
Parrow, C. (2007): The Next Catastrophe: Reducing Our Vulnerabilities to Natural,
Industrial, and Terrorist Disasters, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Pelling M 2010 Adaptation to Climate Change: from Resilience to Transformation.
London: Routledge
Pereira, L. S. (2011). Challenges on water resources management when searching for
sustainable adaptation to climate change focusing agriculture. European Water, 34, 41-54.
Persson, L.; Bethanie M. Carney Almroth, Christopher D. Collins, Sarah Cornell, Cynthia
A. de Wit*, Miriam L. Diamond, Peter Fantke, Martin Hassellöv, Matthew MacLeod, Morten
W. Ryberg, Peter Søgaard Jørgensen, Patricia Villarrubia-Gómez, Zhanyun Wang, and
Michael Zwicky Hauschild (2022): Outside the Safe Operating Space of the Planetary
Boundary for Novel Entities, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 56, 3, 1510–1521,
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c04158
Raworth, K. (2017). A Doughnut for the Anthropocene: humanity's compass in the 21st
century. The lancet planetary health, 1(2), e48-e49.
Rahman, H. T., Albizua, A., Soubry, B., & Tourangeau, W. (2021). A framework for
using autonomous adaptation as a leverage point in sustainable climate adaptation. Climate
Risk Management, 34, 100376.
Reckien, D., Lüdeke, M. K. B., Reußwig, F., Kit, O., Hofmann, S., Meyer-Ohlendorf, L.,
... & Otto, A. (2009). Sustainable climate change adaptation and mitigation options in the
future megacity of Hyderabad/India: scenario development and leverage points on influence
networks. In Science and technology: drivers for a common future. Proceedings of the 2nd
German-Indian conference on research for sustainability: energy and land use, 27-28 April
2009, Bonn, Germany/edited by L. Mennicken, K. Gowers, V. Aimard and O. Buranbaeva.
Bonn: Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BRBF), 2009. pp. 77-81 Federal
Ministry of Education and Research.
41
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Remøy, H. T., & Wilkinson, S. J. (2012). Office building conversion and sustainable
adaptation: a comparative study. Property Management.
Risvoll, C., Hovelsrud, G. K., & Riseth, J. Å. (2022). Falling between the cracks of the
governing systems: Risk and uncertainty in pastoralism in northern Norway. Weather,
Climate, and Society, 14(1), 191-204.
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, Å. Persson, et.al. 2009. Planetary
boundaries:exploring the safe operating space for humanity. Ecology and Society 14(2): 32
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26268316
Rosenzweig, C., et al. (eds.), 2018: Climate change and cities: second assessment report
of the Urban Climate Change Research Network. Cambridge University Press, New York,
USA, pp. 805. ISBN 978-1316603338.
Roy Chaudhuri, N. (2022). Exploring Sustainable Degrowth-Based Adaptation to Climate
Change-Aggravated Water Scarcity in Parts of Rural India: A Gender Relations Approach.
wH2O: The Journal of Gender and Water, 9(1): 34-49
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=wh2ojournal
Salomaa, A., & Juhola, S. (2020). How to assess sustainability transformations: A review.
Global Sustainability, 3, E24. doi:10.1017/sus.2020.17
Santhia, D., Shackleton, S., & Pereira, T. (2018). Mainstreaming sustainable adaptation to
climate change into municipal planning: An analysis from the Eastern Cape, South Africa.
Development Southern Africa, 35(4), 589-608.
Schneider, F., Tribaldos, T., Adler, C., Biggs, R.O., de Bremond, A., Buser, T., Krug, C.,
Loutre, M.-F., Moore, S., Norström, A.V., Paulavets, K., Urbach, D., Spehn, E., Wülser, G.,
Zondervan, R. (2021) Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: a
strategic compass for global research networks, Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability, Volume 49, pp. 127-142, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.04.007.
Schreuder, W., Horlings, L.G. (2022) Transforming places together: transformative
community strategies responding to climate change and sustainability challenges. Climate
Action 1:24. DOI: 10.1007/s44168-022-00024-3
42
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Schultz, J., Brand, F., Kopfmüller, J. and Ott, K. (2008) ‘Building a ‘theory of sustainable
development’: two salient conceptions within the German discourse’, Int. J. Environment and
Sustainable Development, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.465–482.
Scoones, I., Stirling, A., Abrol, D., Atela, J., Charli-Joseph, L., Eakin, H., Ely, A., Olsson,
P., Pereira, L., Priya, R., van Zwanenberg, P., Yang, L., (2020). Transformations to
sustainability: combining structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Curr. Opin. Environ.
Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.COSUST.2019.12.004
Scrieciua, S, T. Barker, F. Ackerman, (2013): Pushing the boundaries of climate
economics: critical issues to consider in climate policy analysis. Ecol. Econ. 85, 155–165
Seddon, N. et al., 2020: Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to
climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society
B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 20190120, doi:doi:10.1098/rstb.2019.0120.
Selseng, T., Klemetsen, M., & Rusdal, T. (2021). Adaptation Confusion? A Longitudinal
Examination of the Concept “Climate Change Adaptation” in Norwegian Municipal Surveys.
Weather, Climate, and Society, 13(3), 633-648.
Sharma, M. (2007) Personal to Planetary Transformation. Kosmos Journal, fall/winter
2007. https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/personal-to-planetary-transformation/
Singh, S., & Singh, R. B. (2021). Systems Approach in Sustainable Livelihood
Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. In Simulating Climate Change and Livelihood Security
(pp. 231-271). Springer, Singapore.
Singh, C., Solomon, D., Bendapudi, R., Kuchimanchi, B., Iyer, S., & Bazaz, A. (2019).
What shapes vulnerability and risk management in semi-arid India? Moving towards an
agenda of sustainable adaptation. Environmental Development, 30, 35-50.
Stirling, A., 2015. Emancipating transformations: from controlling ‘the transition’ to
culturing plural radical progress, in: Scoones, I., Leach, M., Newell, P. (Eds.), The Politics of
Green Transformations. Earthscan, London, pp. 54–67.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315747378-11
43
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Swart, R.; Robinson, J.; Cohen, S. (2003): Climate change and sustainable development:
expanding the options, Climate Policy, 3:sup1, 19-40, DOI: 10.1016/j.clipol.2003.10.010
Sørup, H. J. D., Arnbjerg-Nielsen, K., Feilberg, M., Liu, L., Fryd, O., Ulbak, K. A., &
JENSEN, M. (2019). Sustainable climate change adaptation of urban water management in
compliance with the UN SDGs. In Abstract from 10th edition of the NOVATECH
CONFERENCE, Lyon, France.
Taylor, M. (2013). Climate change, relational vulnerability and human security:
rethinking sustainable adaptation in agrarian environments. Climate and Development, 5(4),
318-327.
UNDP (2010): The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development. Human
Development Report 2010. New York: the United Nations Development Programme.
Valdivia, C., & Barbieri, C. (2014). Agritourism as a sustainable adaptation strategy to
climate change in the Andean Altiplano. Tourism Management Perspectives, 11, 18-25.
Van Den Berg, M., & Coenen, F. (2012). Integrating climate change adaptation into
Dutch local policies and the role of contextual factors. Local environment, 17(4), 441-460.
van Loon-Steensma, J. M., & Schelfhout, H. A. (2017). Wide Green Dikes: A sustainable
adaptation option with benefits for both nature and landscape values?. Land Use Policy, 63,
528-538.
Vincent, K., Naess, L. O., & Goulden, M. (2013). National level policies versus local
level realities–can the two be reconciled to promote sustainable adaptation. Changing
environment for human security: Transformative approaches to research, policy and action,
153-178.
Warren, R. (2011): The role of interactions in a world implementing adaptation and
mitigation solutions to climate change, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (2011) 217–241.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2010.0271
WCED, S. W. S. (1987). World commission on environment and development. Our
common future, 17(1), 1-91.
44
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
File generated with AMS Word template 1.0
Whyte, K. (2017) Indigenous Climate Change Studies: Indigenizing Futures,
Decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes, 55(1-2): 153-162
Wilkinson, S. (2014). Sustainable Adaptation: A Case Study of the Melbourne CBD.
Sustainable Building Adaptation: Innovations in Decision-making.
Wilson, R. S., & Walpole, H. (2021). Identifying Who Engages in Sustainable Adaptation
in Large-Scale Commodity Agriculture. XXXX
Yarza Pérez, A. J. (2022). Deep Adaptive Reuse: A response to the 21st-century urban
challenges. SPOOL, 9(2), 25–40. https://doi.org/10.47982/spool.2022.2.02)
45
Accepted for publication in Weather, Climate, and Society. DOI 10.1175/WCAS-D-22-0113.1.
Unauthenticated | Downloaded 05/01/23 01:50 PM UTC
