An
integrative
research
framework
for
enabling
transformative
adaptation
Matthew
J.
Colloff
a,b,*,
Berta
Martín-López
c,
Sandra
Lavorel
d,
Bruno
Locatelli
e,f,
Russell
Gorddard
b,
Pierre-Yves
Longaretti
g,h,
Gretchen
Walters
i,j,
Lorrae
van
Kerkhoff
a,
Carina
Wyborn
k,
Audrey
Coreau
l,m,
Russell
M.
Wise
b,
Michael
Dunlop
b,
Patrick
Degeorges
n,
Hedley
Grantham
o,p,
Ian
C.
Overton
q,
Rachel
D.
Williams
b,
Michael
D.
Doherty
a,b,
Tim
Capon
b,
Todd
Sanderson
r,
Helen
T.
Murphy
sa
FennerSchoolofEnvironmentandSociety,AustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra,AustralianCapitalTerritory2601,Australia
bEnablingAdaptationPathwaysProject,CSIROLandandWater,Canberra,AustralianCapitalTerritory2601,Australia
cLeuphanaUniversityofLüneburg,FacultyofSustainability,InstituteofEthicsandTransdisciplinarySustainabilityResearch,Scharnhorststrasse1,D-21335
Lüneburg,Germany
d
Laboratoired’EcologieAlpine,CNRS–UniversitéGrenobleAlpes,38041GrenobleCedex9,France
e
AgriculturalResearchforDevelopment(CIRAD),AvenueAgropolis,Montpellier34398,France
f
CenterforInternationalForestryResearch(CIFOR),AvenidaLaMolina,Lima15024,Peru
g
CNRS–InstitutdePlanétologieetd’AstrophysiquedeGrenoble(IPAG),BP5338041GrenobleCedex9,France
hINRIA–STEEPTeam,655Avenuedel’Europe,38334MontbonnotCedex,France
iInternationalUnionforConservationofNature(IUCN),RueMauverney28,CH-1196Gland,Switzerland j
DepartmentofAnthropology,UniversityCollegeLondon,GowerStreet,LondonWC1E6BT,UnitedKingdom
k
LucHoffmanInstitute,WWFInternational,AvenueduMont-Blanc,CH-1196Gland,Switzerland
l
CentreAlexandreKoyré,27rueDamesme,75013Paris,France
m
AgroParisTech,16rueClaudeBernard,75005Paris,France
n
Ministèredel’Écologie,duDéveloppementdurableetdel’Énergie,92055ParisCedex15,France
oConservationInternational,2011CrystalDrive,Suite500,Arlington,VA22202,USA p
WildlifeConservationSociety,2300SouthernBoulevardBronx,NY10460,USA
q
CSIROLandandWater,PrivateBag2,GlenOsmond,SouthAustralia5604,Australia
r
SchoolofEconomics,UniversityofSydney,NewSouthWales2006,Australia
s
EnablingAdaptationPathwaysProject,CSIROLandandWater,Atherton,Queensland4883,Australia
ARTICLE INFO
Articlehistory: Received4May2016
Receivedinrevisedform13November2016 Accepted13November2016 Availableonlinexxx Keywords: Globalchange Transformation Adaptivegovernance Values-rules-knowledge Adaptationpathways Adaptationservices Decsionmaking Learning Co-production Powerrelations Agency ABSTRACT
Transformativeadaptationwillbeincreasinglyimportanttoeffectivelyaddresstheimpactsofclimate change and otherglobal drivers on social-ecological systems. Enabling transformative adaptation requiresnewwaystoevaluateandadaptivelymanagetrade-offsbetweenmaintainingdesirableaspects ofcurrentsocial-ecologicalsystemsandadaptingtomajorbiophysicalchangestothosesystems.We outlinesuchanapproach,basedonthreeelementsdevelopedbytheTransformativeAdaptationResearch Alliance(TARA):(1)thebenefitsofadaptationservices;thatsub-setofecosystemservicesthathelp peopleadapttoenvironmentalchange;(2)Thevalues-rules-knowledgeperspective(vrk)foridentifying those aspectsofsocietaldecision-makingcontextsthatenableorconstrainadaptationand(3)the adaptationpathwaysapproachforimplementingadaptation,thatbuildsonandintegratesadaptation services and the vrk perspective. Together, these elements provide a future-oriented approachto evaluation and useof ecosystemservices,a dynamic,groundedunderstanding of governance and decision-making and a logical, sequential approach that connects decisions over time. The TARA approachrepresentsameansforachievingchangesininstitutionsandgovernanceneededtosupport transformativeadaptation.
ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
* Correspondingauthor.
E-mailaddress:Matthew.Colloff@anu.edu.au(M.J. Colloff).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.007
1462-9011/ã2016TheAuthors.PublishedbyElsevierLtd.ThisisanopenaccessarticleundertheCCBY-NC-NDlicense(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
xxx–xxx
ContentslistsavailableatScienceDirect
Environmental
Science
&
Policy
1.Introduction
The IPCC Fifth Synthesis Report stated it is very likely that surface temperature and sea levels will continue to rise and extremeweathereventsbecomemorefrequent(IPCC,2014).By 2050theglobalpopulationisprojectedtoincreasefrom7.2to9.6 billion(UN,2014),withmountingpressuresonterrestrial,marine andfreshwaterresources.Globalnetworksofcommerce, technol-ogyand information have produced unstable systems that are vulnerabletouncontrollablefailure,posingconsiderablethreatsto society (Helbing, 2013; Streek et al., 2016). Climate change combines with other drivers to synergise rates and extent of change to social-ecological systems. Dealing with synergistic effectsofotherglobalchangedriversandclimatechangerequires transformativeapproachestoadaptation.
Adaptation to global change presents a profound challenge becauseitrequiresthetacklingofshort-andlong-termthreats, changesanduncertaintythattranscendsectorsandscales.Over the past decade, efforts to understand the impacts of climate changeonbiodiversityconservationhaveledtonewconceptsand approachestosupportadaptationofbiodiversity(Mawdsley,2011; Crosset al.,2012;Reid, 2015).Conservationpolicyandpractice have focussed on ecosystems, species and maintenance of biophysicalintegritybuttendedtoneglectinstitutionalcontexts: the people and organisations responsible for implementing adaptation(Armsworth et al., 2015).Smith (1997) emphasised theneed foradaptationto beanticipatoryrather than reactive, aimedatreducingsocialvulnerabilitytoclimatechangeandwith policy criteria based on institutional attributes of flexibility, adaptability,resilience,andwherebenefitsexceedcosts.Almost 20yearslater,anticipatoryactionhasbeenlimited.Thereremains a compelling need for researchers and practitioners to work together to identify how to put concepts of anticipatory transformativeadaptationintopractice.
Adaptation has been framed as a continuum of resilience, transitionand transformation (Pelling,2011).Atoneend ofthe
spectrum are incremental responses to proximate causes of vulnerability,whileattheotheristransformativeadaptationto long-term,large-scale,non-linear,uncertainchanges(Wiseetal., 2014).Yet,mostadaptationpracticeis reactive,localand short-term (Hodgkinson et al., 2014). Such actions are likely to be maladaptive(Barnettand O’Neill,2010)becauseeffectsof long-termenvironmentalchangearemarginalisedandtheinteractions between decision lifetimes, uncertainties about the nature of biophysical changeand possible adaptation optionstend to be downplayed(StaffordSmithetal.,2011).Proponentsofshort-term adaptation maynot acknowledge that ecosystems are likely to transform (Park et al.,2012; Wiseet al.,2014).Butevenwhen ecosystemtransformationisacknowledged,societal transforma-tionisconsideredbeyondthecapacityforadaptationbecauseofa perceivedlackofnewoptions(Dowetal.,2013).Thealternative viewisthattransformativeadaptationofsocial-ecologicalsystems isbothnecessaryandpossible,basedonanticipatoryapproachesin which new optionsare co-created, explored and experimented with(RickardsandHowden,2012;Rickards,2013).
Wedefineasocial-ecologicalsystemasacoupled biogeophys-icalentity(e.g.anecosystem,landscapeorbioregion),withsocial actors and institutions, that has properties of complexity, adaptiveness and multiple cross-scale feedbacks (Fischer et al., 2015). Transformation of a social-ecological system may be initiatedbychangesinecosystemdrivers(e.g.temperatureregime, water availability, nutrient balance), followed by ecosystem changes(e.g.inextentandcompositionofvegetationcommunities andtheirassociatedbiota),leadingtoadaptationbysocialactors, including altered use of ecosystem services, livelihoods and governancearrangementsfornaturalresources(Box1).Changes in ecosystem drivers may be due to climate change or other anthropogenic pressures, including transformations in social systems such as establishment of an irrigation system. Such changeshaveoccurredatLakeFaguibine,Mali(Djoudietal.,2013) and the Murray-Darling Basin, Australia (Colloff et al., 2016a) where complex,non-linear transformativeecologicaland social Box1.DefinitionsofconceptsofthethreetypesoftransformationusedintheTARAapproach.
Therearemultipleusesofthetermtransformationinrelationtoadaptationtoglobalenvironmentalchange(Feola,2015).Wedo notconsidertransformationasaprocessseparatefromadaptationthatoccursafterlimitsofadaptationarereached(Dowetal., 2013).Threetypesaredefined:transformationasaprocessofchangeinasocial-ecologicalsystemwithoutdeliberateintervention isdescribedbyTypes1and2below.TransformationasadeliberateprocessisdescribedbyType3.
(1) Transformationofecosystems:isdefinedbyapermanentshifttoanalternativestablestate,asinresiliencethinking(Walker etal.,2004).Butsuch‘Type1transformation’alsoinvolvesachangeinthewayafocalecosystemisviewedfromtherelevant decisioncontext.Thischangerequires areframingofhowtheecosystemisconsideredinrelationtoitscoredriverand responsevariables,itsattributesthatarevaluedbysociety,andhowpeoplerelatetoandactwithinthesystem,including optionsformanagingandusingtheecosystemthatarenormalisedandpermitted.
(2) Transformationofdecisioncontexts:focussesontherecognitionthatbecauseecosystemsandtheirdriversaretransforming, sotransformationtodecisioncontextssupportedbyevolvinggovernancearrangementsisrequired(Gorddardetal.,2016). Thus,‘Type2transformation’representsamajorshiftinthesocialarrangementsthatdefinethedecisioncontext,including:(1) thenetworksthatareformedintheprocessofdecisionmaking;(2)theknowledgeandbeliefsystems(“knowledge”),societal valuesandmotivations(“values”)andformalandinformalrulesandgovernancearrangements(“rules”)thatdefinehow powersaredefined,allocatedandused,and(3)howresourceallocationsflowtoempowerthedecisionprocessandare affectedbythefocaldecision-makinggroup.
(3) Transformation as developing the capacity for adaptive, transformative governance: the capacity to develop adaptive, transformativegovernanceisrelativetothetypeofchangethatisintendedandthepositionofthepeoplewithinthesystem whoare seekingthechange. Transformativechange ingovernance (e.g.Chaffinet al., 2016)will beneededtosupport transformativechangeinthedecisioncontextforadaptation.Likespecificresilience,withitsrequirementtospecifyresilience ofwhat,forwhat(Carpenteretal.,2001),itisnecessarytoframe‘Type3transformation’asdevelopingthecapacityfor adaptive,transformativegovernanceforwhom,toenablewhatkindsofchangesingovernancesystems,forwhatpurpose. ChangeindecisioncontextsrelatingtoType1and Type2transformationscannotbeseparatedinpractice becauseType2 transformationsareaconsequenceofType1andbothrequirenodeliberatehumaninterventioninordertooccur.Reframing decisionsthatcanbeconsideredastransformativethereforerequirestransformationofgovernancearrangements(type3).
changes have followed declining inflows to rivers caused by climaticdroughtandhighwaterdiversionsforirrigation.
Climatechangemaylimitsocietalchoicesoverwhich ecosys-temservicescanbesuppliedbychangingecosystems. Butnew knowledge gained from experimenting with adaptation may providesomeinfluenceonthedirectionofecosystemchange,if participantsinadaptationdecisionsandactionsarewillingand abletousethisknowledgeinparticipatoryanddeliberativeways toalterinterests,valuesandrulesthatconstrainimplementation (Chapman,2011).Co-evolvingsystemsofsocietalvalues,rulesand knowledge define the decision contexts of individuals, groups, organisationsandsocietieswhichcanbepurposefullyshifted(e.g.
Vossetal.,2007)toenableanticipatorytransformativeadaptation basedonco-creationofoptionsandlearning bydoing. Suchan approachcanhelpovercomelimitedproblemawarenessleadingto lowpublicsupportforadaptationthathasimpededagentsfrom learningaboutclimatechangeimpacts andtherangeof actions theycantake(Eisenacketal.,2014).
Thewillingnessofpeopletoengageintransformative adapta-tionisnotenough.Powerfulstakeholderswhoperceivethreatsto theirinterestswill attempttoprevent others fromsuchaction (Klein, 2014).Globalandnationalorganisationswillbevitalfor facilitating and supporting transformative adaptation, which “...will require fundamental transitions in the systems of productionandconsumptionthataretherootcauseof environ-mental and climate pressures. Such transitions will, by their character, entail profound changes in dominant institutions, practices, technologies, policies, lifestyles and thinking” (EEA, 2015).Providingevidenceofsuccessfultransformativeresponses
is critical toovercomingbarrierstoadaptation(Petersonet al., 2003), which include uncertainty regarding risks, benefits and perceivedcosts,aswellasinstitutional behavioursthatserveto maintainthestatusquo(Katesetal.,2012),suchasforcedand ‘predatory’economicgrowth(Bhaduri,2008).
Inthispaper,weoutlineaframeworkforenabling transforma-tive adaptation, developed by the Transformative Adaptation ResearchAlliance(TARAhttps://research.csiro.au/tara/),an inter-nationalnetworkofresearchersandpractitionerswhostudyand promotetransformativeadaptation.TheTARAapproachprovides clear and structured ways of diagnosing and framing complex problems, co-generating innovative solutions and overcoming decision inertia to engender agency for adaptation. The TARA approachisbasedonanovel,cohesive,operationalframeworkthat integratesthreepowerfulexistingconcepts:(1)the values-rules-knowledge perspective on adaptation decision-making, that focusesonreframingcurrentdecision-makingcontextstoenable future adaptation decisions and actions; (2) the adaptation pathways approach, for planning and implementing adaptation totransformsocial-ecologicalsystemstobecomeadaptedtothe effectsofglobalchange,and(3) theadaptationservicesconcept, that redefines the relationship betweenpeople and ecosystem servicesbasedonlikelyfutureecosystemstatesandchangesinthe supplyofservices.
2.Threeelementstoenabletransformativeadaptation We propose that operationalising the three elements listed above provides a basis foradaptationplanning and action that
Fig.1.ThethreeelementsoftheTARAapproach:(a)values,rulesandknowledge(i)instandarddecisionmaking,wherevalues,rulesandknowledgeareregardedas independentinputs;(ii)inthevrkperspective,whereallowabledecisionsaretheproductofthedecisioncontextwhichresultsfrominteractionsbetweentheprocessesin societyformingorrevealingvalues,rulesandknowledge.Thisperspectiveallowsustoaskofeachadaptationdecision:“doweknowtheoutcome?”(k)and,ifso,“dowewant theoutcome?”(v)and,ifso,“areweallowedtheoutcome(andthemeansofachievingit)?”(r);(b)anadaptationpathwayforplanningandsequencingdecisionsandactions fortransformativeadaptation.Optingfor‘businessasusual’atthefirstdecisionpointmayconstrainfutureoptionsandrequirefurtherdecisionstoavoidmaladaptation;(c) adaptationservices,wherebyoptionsforadaptationarecreatedaccordingtowhetherecosystemswillpersistortransformtoalternativestates.Whereecosystemspersist, somecurrently-valuedserviceswillcontinuetobesuppliedandused.Underecosystemtransformation,novelserviceswillbesuppliedandlatentservices(thosenot previouslyrecognisedorused),willprovideoptionsforadaptation.
moves beyond incremental approaches targeted at proximate causesofvulnerabilitytothosecapableofaddressing transforma-tive adaptation and strategically tackling long-term, systemic problems.
2.1.Thevalues,rulesandknowledgeperspective(vrk)
For anticipatory, transformative adaptationto be realised, a newperspectiveondecision-makingisrequiredthatrevealsthe need for transformative adaptation. Decision contexts are in-formedanddefinedbyinteractionsbetweensystemsofsocietal valuesandrulesandtheformsofknowledgeconsideredsalient andlegitimatebythedecisionmakers(Gorddardetal.,2016).The vrkperspectiveondecisioncontextshelpsidentifyhowdecision makingcanbeconstrainedbythepreferencesofdecisionmakers, theirinstitutional contextand their understandingof how the worldworks(Gorddardetal.,2016).
‘Values’inthevrkperspectivereferstothesetofindividualand collectivemotivationsthatguidegoalsandactions,prioritiesand moralframings(Schwartz,2012).However,thesemotivationsare expressedinadaptationdecisionmakingviatheotheruseofthe term‘value’,tomean ‘importance,worthor usefulness’.In this sense, we recognize the importance of values pluralism – the multiplewaysofunderstandingnaturebydiversesocialactors– under the categories of intrinsic, relational and instrumental values (Diaz et al., 2015). Inclusion of values pluralism in deliberationanddecision-making allowsfordifferentand novel adaptationapproaches (Martín-Lópezand Montes, 2015). Such approachesgobeyondjustinstrumentalvalues,wherenatureis regarded as a source of material benefit and wellbeing, and incorporateintrinsicvalues(i.e.inherentvalues,independentof usefulness) and relational values (i.e. desirable, and desired, relationships between people and nature [Chan et al., 2016]).‘Rules’in thevrk perspective refer toboth ‘rules-in-use’ (norms,practices,taboos,habits,heuristicsandbehaviours)and ‘rulesinform’(regulations,laws,treaties,ordinances,directives), while‘knowledge’includesevidence-based(scientificand techni-cal)knowledgeandexperientialandmeanings-basedknowledge (Gorddardetal.,2016).
Wherevalues,rulesandknowledgeareconsideredexplicitlyin adaptationdecision-making, theyare oftentreated as indepen-dent,disaggregatedentities(Fig.1a),ratherthaninterdependent components.Treatingthesecomponentsasdisconnectedobscures how certain forms of values, rules and knowledge and their interactions are excluded from decision making; for example, moral and ethical values relating to distribution of power, consideration of the rules of natural justice, local ecological knowledgeandIndigenousknowledgeandbeliefsystems.Insuch situations,adaptationisframedwithoutconsideringthecomplex, interactive behaviours of human agents and their social and institutionalsettings.Theresulttendstobepromotionof short-termtechnologicalsolutionsthatdonotaddressdynamic,complex humaninteractionsincircumstancesofsocial-ecologicalchange. Inthisregard,thediagnosticvalueofthevrkperspectiveechoes the outlook of Abson et al. (2016) that “biophysical, social, economic and political facets ofsustainability areaddressed in isolationfromeachotherAcommonfeatureofsuchframingsis thattheyoftenimplythatsustainabilityproblemscanberesolved without consideration of the structures, values and goals that underpincomplexproblemsatdeeperlevels.”Absonetal.(2016)
drawuponthedeepleveragepointsmodelofMeadows(1999):the placesinacomplexsystemwheresmallshiftsmayleadtolarge system changes. The vrk perspective represents a means of intervening at the deepest leverage points; of system design, which include rules, incentives, constraints and capacity for
change,andintent,whichincludegoals,paradigmsandthepower totranscendthem.
Shiftsinparadigms,norms,worldviews,interestsandvaluesby decisionmakersandpractitionersareneededtofosterchangesin societal rules relating to adaptation and the emergence of innovative governance systems for transformative adaptation (Chaffinetal.,2016).Andbychangingrules,sowemaychange values.New formsof knowledgeand newways oflearning are requiredtofacilitateadaptationdecisionsandactions,particularly thoseaimedatsystemiccausesofproblems(Cornelletal.,2013). Triple loop learning involves reflexive enquiry into changes in formsofknowingandlearning,includingquestioningthesystems of values, rules, and knowledge inherent to a paradigm or an organisationsuchasapolicydecision-makingbody(Toseyetal., 2012).Agencyforchangecanthenarisefromcollectivelearning and decision making.The vrkperspective augments tripleloop learning byemphasising that agencyand scopefor change are constrained. For example,the vrkperspective reveals that new scientificknowledgedoesnot,onitsown,translatetochangesin adaptation decisions (Gorddard et al., 2016; Fernandez, 2016). Researchershavelimitedagencytoachievechangewithoutalso consideringvaluesandrulesinrelationtonewknowledge.Instead, thevrkperspectiveallowspolicydecisionmakerstodeliberateof each adaptationdecision:“dowe knowtheoutcome?” [knowl-edge]and, ifso,havingconsideredknowledgeinteractionswith valuesandrules,ask“dowewanttheoutcome?”[values]and,ifso, havingconsideredknowledgeandrules,ask“areweallowedthe outcome?” [rules], considering knowledge and values. If the answeris“no”atanystage,thenthenextstepistoidentifywhat needstochangeinvalues,rulesandknowledgeinordertogetto “yes”, or toconsiderotheradaptation options.If theansweris uncertain,thissignalsthatmoredeliberation isrequiredonthe sourcesofuncertaintyandwhatneedstochangetogetto“yes”or “no”.
Thelegitimacyofadaptationobjectivesdependsonhowpeople perceive the impacts of change on their interests and values (O’BrienandWolf,2010).However,limitstoadaptationimposed by such perceptions are not immutable (Adger et al., 2009). Interestscanbeshiftedbynewknowledgeoftheoptionsavailable, suchastheprospectsforadaptationoflivelihoodsbasedonnew adaptationservices.Adaptationcanbefacilitatedbychangesin rulestohelprealisethoseoptionsandthroughplanning,learning andimplementationaspartofanadaptationpathwaysapproach. Forexample,threatenedspeciesareakeydriverofconservation, policyand practiceinmanycountries,inresponsetolegislative mandates and considerable societal values placed on certain species.Butshiftingfromathreatenedspeciesfocusto ‘climate-ready’conservationpracticeswillrequiremajorshiftsin knowl-edge,valuesandrulesofhowweplanandimplementconservation under climate change (Wyborn et al., 2016). Barriers to be addressedforadaptationinconservationincludelackofresources andpoliticalsupport,poorcross-sectorcoordination,uncertainty overgovernanceresponsibilities(rules);conflictingprioritiesand interests (values); and shortcomings of expertise or feasible, acceptablesolutions(knowledge)(Wybornetal.,2015).
Recently, some authors have considered binary interactions betweenvalues,rulesandknowledge,suchashowrulesinfluence valuesandnorms(Kinziget al.,2013;Rico García-Amadoetal., 2013);howpoweris usedbydecision makerstoexcludesome formsofknowledge(Cashetal.,2003;Termeeretal.,2011),how economicdriversprioritisetechnicalknowledgeattheexpenseof localecologicalknowledgethathasco-evolvedwiththe environ-ment(Iniesta-Arandiaetal.,2015),andhowsocietalinterestsand valuescanbeshiftedbynewknowledge(Cornelletal.,2013;Leith etal.,2014).Sequentialapproachestovrkinteractionshavebegun tobeappliedtoadaptationdecisionmaking(Hobdayetal.,2015).
Weconsidertheinteractionsofvalues,rulesandknowledgeare inseparableandmulti-directional.Interactionsare co-evolution-aryanduniquetoeachcontext:changeinoneofthedomainsof knowledge,vision, process and context of adaptive governance precipitateschangeinotherdomains(Wyborn,2015).Wesuggest thattheseinteractionscancatalysetransformativechangeinother domains.PartoftheTARAresearchagendaistodevelopgreater understandingof how interacting systems of values, rules and knowledgecanbothconstrainandenablethedecisioncontextfor transformativeadaptation.
2.2.Theadaptationpathwaysapproach
Metaphorsstructureoursense-makingofcomplexissuessuch asclimatechange.Meaningiscreatedforconceptsthroughtheir relationship with the metaphorical frame (Lakoff, 2014). The adaptationpathwaysmetaphorevokesanarrativejourneyintoan uncertainfuture(Fig.1b),complementinganotherclimatechange metaphorof“nevergoinghomeagain”(Chapman,2011).Onsucha path,problemsemergeandchoiceshaveuncertain,far-reaching consequences.Peoplemaystrivetobeforward-looking,learnand bechangedbythejourney; thoughtheprospectof changeis a sourceofresistanceformany. Optionsfor respondingtofuture uncertaintiesareenabledorconstrainedbychoicesmadealong thejourney,changingthepathinwaysthatmaybeirreversible. Moral and ethical dilemmas are explored en route; conflicts, resolution and co-operation play central roles. Interactions of decisions,socialdynamicsandenvironmentalchangedetermine theoutcomes.Theseelementsare arich basis toenvisionhow social-ecological systems may traverse the future: adaptation pathwayscanplayanimportantroleinbroadeningourthinking andactionsfortransformativeadaptation.
Aswellasmetaphor,theadaptationpathwaysapproachcanbe formalised as an adaptive decision process for ‘exploring and sequencingasetofpossibleactionsbasedonalternative,uncertain developmentsovertime’inwaysthatseektoavoidmaladaptation (Wiseetal.,2014)(Fig.1c).Thisconceptualisationexplicitlyaims toexamine trade-offs betweenthe benefits of maintaining the
flexibilitytorespondtofutureuncertaintiesagainstthecostsof attemptingtomaintainthestatusquo.Adaptationpathwayscan aidimplementationbyrevealingelementsrequiredfor transfor-mativeadaptation(Wybornetal.,2015)byfocussingonbothsocial andecologicaldynamics(Haasnootetal.,2013;Wiseetal.,2014). The adaptation pathways approach conceptualised by Wise et al.(2014),unlikemany futuresscenario approaches,enables examination and changes in the decision context at each sequenced decision point (Fig. 3), based on the following attributes:Thediagnosisoftheadaptationchallengeataparticular time, and over time, relies on the knowledge regarding the magnitude,rateandextentofbiophysicalchangeandimpactson ecosystems, livelihoods, economic development or other focal contexts.Thesettingofagreedanddesirableobjectivesforadaptation interventions takes into account the diverse values, rules and knowledgeframingsofmultiplestakeholders,includingtheuseof adaptation services under different scenarios of environmental change. The sequencing of decisions and actions for paving the pathwaytowardsnewadaptationactionsdependsonthesequence ofdecisionsandactionsaccordingtoleadtimes,thedurationthat suchdecisionsremainvalid(StaffordSmithetal.,2011)andthe role of each action in paving the pathway. The development of governancesystemsthatallowadaptationisbasedonmonitoring, evaluation and learning of the management actions upto that point and allows changes in decision processes to realise objectives. A mechanism – the vrk perspective – is critical for examining and changing thedecision context at each decision point in an adaptationpathwayin orderto avoid incremental, short-term, maladaptiveandpath-dependent(historically deter-minant)sequencingofadaptationactions.Changestothedecision context are the prerequisite for adaptation actions that are implementedbetweenthedecisionpointsthatpavethewayfor ensuringawider setofoptionsisavailable atthenextdecision point.
Theadaptationpathwaysapproachprovidesthebasisforactors tolearnand co-createsolutionsfromdoing,experimenting and innovatingbecauseasitsstartingpointitrequiresdecisionmakers toaddressquestionssuchas:aredecisionsandactionsrobustto
Fig.3. Anadaptationpathwaythatincorporatesshiftsinthedecisioncontextfor adaptationoptionsenabledbyinteractionsbetweenvalues,knowledgeandrules (vrk)ateachdecisionpoint.Thevrksystemevolvesalongeachpathwayenablingor constraining decisions ateachpoint.Adaptationservicesincreasingly provide optionsforadaptation,representedas‘bundles’ofecosystemservices.Ateach decisionpoint,thebundleavailablewillbedifferentfromthoseatpreviouspoints. Path dependenciesarisewhereadecisionlimitsfutureadaptation options,or managementforadaptationservicesenablesfutureoptions.Theboundarytowhat isconsideredmaladaptivespace(whereavailableecosystemservicesnolonger meetsocietalneedsandtherearelimitedornooptionstotransformtoadesirable state)alsochangesovertime.
Fig. 2.Linkages and interactions between adaptation pathways, adaptation servicesandthevalues,rulesandknowledge(vrk)perspectiveinthecontextof transformativeadaptationtoglobalchange.Thevrkinteractionsdefinethedecision contextsinanadaptationpathway.Theadaptationpathwayrepresentsasystemof adaptivegovernance foranticipatingand planningdecisions toenable future adaptability,basedonchangestoecosystemsandthesupplyofecosystemservices forlivelihoods and wellbeing. Adaptationservices the sub-setofecosystem servicesthatprovideoptionsforadaptation–formabasisfordecisions,integrated withinanadaptationpathway,forthemanagementanduseofecosystemsinthe future,consideringchangesinsupplyofecosystemservicesduetoecosystem change.Type1,Type2andType3refertotypesoftransformations(ofecosystems, decisioncontextsandcapacityforadaptivegovernance,respectively)detailedin
Box1.
futurescenariosandcantheybehaltedorreversedifconditions change? Will actions prevent the crossing of a biophysical threshold?Framingadaptationpathwaysinthisway(asopposed toaroutemaporsimpleplan)isbothnecessaryandmorelikelyto beeffectiveinsituationswheregoalsareambiguous,decisionsare contested, social-ecological systems are highly dynamic and trajectoriesofchangeareunpredictable(Butleretal.,2014).An example of vrk – adaptation pathways interactions is where decisionmakersinNewYorktransformedtheirdecisioncontextby includingincreasedfuturerisksofclimatechangeintoplansfor rebuilding after destruction caused by Hurricane Sandy ( Rose-nweigandSolecki,2014).
2.3.Theadaptationservicesconcept
Adaptation servicesare asub-set ofecosystem servicesthat providebenefitstopeoplefromincreasingtheircapacitytoadapt toenvironmentalchange(Lavoreletal.,2015;Colloffetal.,2016a, 2016b). Adaptation services are supplied via the properties of ecosystemstomoderateandadapttochangeandprovidefuture optionsandinsuranceforadaptation(Fig.1c).Benefitsaccruefrom (1)novelprovisioningandregulatingservicesthatbecome newly-available due to ecosystem transformation, such as timber, charcoalandforagefromaforestthatgrewonadrylakebedin Mali(Djoudietal.,2013);(2)latentservices,i.e.onesthatwere availablebutnotrecognisedasservicesorusedassuch,butwhich provideoptionsforadaptation.Anhistoricalexampleisferalgoats, a pest species in Australia, but now the basis of a profitable rangelandmeatexportindustrybyformerwoolproducers(Jones, 2012);(3)themanagementofsupportingandregulatingservices tounderpinprovisioningandculturalservicesand(4)theadaptive capacityofecosystemstoremainmore-or-lessinthesamestate andcontinuetoprovideexistingservices,ortransformtoanew stateandprovidenewones.Adaptationservicesalonearenota panacea,buttogetherwithecologicalrestorationandpreventing ecosystemdegradation, theyarecritical to themanagement of changingecosystems(Colloffetal.,2016a,2016b;Dohertyetal., 2016).
Theadaptationservicesconceptisrequiredfortransformative adaptationbecauseofthelimitsoftheecosystemservicesconcept asitrelatestoglobalchange,particularlywherethepredominant resourceallocationmechanismismarket-based,whichinevitably favoursprovisioningservices(andsomeregulatingservices)that canbecommodified,exchangedandpriced,overmostsupporting andregulatingservicesthatcannot(Rausdepp-Hearneetal.,2010). Sucha market economics-based approach generally constrains adaptationbecausethedelayedand uncertaineffects ofclimate changeonthefutureproductionandsupplyofecosystemservices cannot be accounted for (Norgaard, 2010). Instead, adaptation servicesarefocussedonfuture options,butthere isan explicit requirementfora trade-offframeworkaspartoftheir manage-menttoensurefutureoptionsarenotcompromised.
3.Integratingvrk,adaptationpathwaysandadaptationservices Integration of the values, rules knowledge perspective and adaptation services within an adaptation pathways approach enablesexplorationoftheinteractivedynamicsofecosystemsand socialsystemsintheiradaptationjourney(Fig.2).Inthisframing, theadaptationservicesconceptisanewwaytoevaluatescientific knowledge on changes to ecosystems and evolving societal perspectives on their use and management as part of vrk. Adaptation services and their underpinning ecological mecha-nisms provide newoptions for adaptation as well as enabling supply of some current ecosystem services to be maintained (Lavoreletal.,2015).Byfocussingonfutureoptions,theadaptation
servicesconceptcanhelpindividualsandcollectivesexplorehow touseadaptationservices,togetherwithpublicinstitutions(e.g. transport systems, economic freedom, democratic processes, healthandeducationsystems,landrights)toengagein transfor-mativeadaptation.Administrationscansupportthesecapabilities by co-producing acceptable, legitimate transformative policies. Suchpolicies,and thedecision contexts relatedtothem,would extendtheadaptationservicesconceptbeyonditsinstrumental value in providing future options, and including intrinsic and relationalvalues.
Realisingtheoptionsofadaptationserviceswilloftenrequire changingaspectsofthedecisioncontext,usingthevrkperspective todiagnosebarriersandidentifythesequencingofinterventions, andpurposefullyattempttochangetheprevailinginteractionsof vrkthatconstrainresponseoptions.Suchanapproachrepresents adaptationpathwaysaspossiblesequencesofstrategic interven-tions aimed at overcominginstitutional, culturalor knowledge constraints so that adaptation services can be legitimately considered byfuture decision makers in conservationor natu-ral-resourcemanagement(Fig.3).
The adaptation pathways approach represents a set of sequencedshifts inthe decisioncontext, and hencein systems ofvrkinresponsetotheuseofadaptationservicesandchangesto social-ecologicalsystems(Fig.3).Thesystemsofvrkevolvealong these pathways as adaptation decisions are implemented over time.Butthelinksarenotonlyonewaybecausevrkinfluences whichadaptationservicesmightbeused,andhencetheparticular routealongthepathway.Adaptationthusinvolvesinfluencingthe evolutionofsocietalresponsestobiophysicalchangesothatfuture decisionmakerscanunderstandtheopportunitiesandconstraints andselectoptionsintheadaptivespace.
Byidentifyingadaptationservicesandthevrkcontextofafocal social-ecological system, management and decision making to supportadaptationservices(e.g.habitatprotection,connectivity andrestoration;Lavoreletal.,2015)isintegratedintoplanningand implementation.Implementinganadaptationpathwaysapproach thenrequiresorganisationalandcommunityco-learning, includ-ingengagementinadaptivemonitoringandresearch, co-produc-ingandtriallingnewmanagementpracticesandnovelapproaches tolivelihoods,decision makingandgovernance(Wyborn,2015; vanKerkhoffandLebel,2015).Byconnectingmanagementactions withpolicy,planningandlearning,theTARAapproachprovidesa basistoidentifybarriersthatextendbeyondthescaleandcontext ofindividualmanagementactivities,andhelpscreatenewdecision contexts supported by co-diagnosis of constraints on decision making;co-developmentofacommonsystemsframingand co-creation of futures scenarios supporting the planning and implementationofadaptationpathwaysinawaythatstimulates deliberation,choiceandempowerment.
4.HowtheTARAapproachcomparesandlinkswithother adaptationframeworks
Thereisanincreasingnumberofadaptationapproaches,some withpropertiesin commonwiththeTARAapproach.Examples include Ecosystem-basedAdaptation (EbA; Vignolaet al.,2009; Munang et al., 2013; Doswald et al., 2014); Eco-disaster Risk Reduction(Eco-DRR;Renaudetal.,2013);resilience(Walkeretal., 2004)andCommunity-basedAdaptation(CBA;AyersandForsyth, 2009;DodmanandMitlin,2013).Theseapproachesaimtosupport sustainable adaptation under global change and focus on ecosystems(exceptCBA);theprospectofecosystem transforma-tion(TARAandresilience)andtransformativeadaptationof social-ecologicalsystems,eitherastheprimary focus(TARA)oras an observed phenomenon (other approaches). Initially, resilience
(Tanner etal.,2015), EbAandtheprecursortoEcoDRR(hazard mitigation)werenotprimarilyfocusedongovernancebutrather ontechnicalaspects,suchasecologicalengineeringand biodiver-sityconservation.
The focus on implementation, especially of transformative adaptation,hastendedtobestrongerinadaptation(e.g.EbAand Eco-DRR)thaninresilience(Milleretal.,2010),whichemphasises adaptationasthemobilisingofadaptivecapacityforabsorptionof stressandmaintenanceoffunctioninresponsetoenvironmental andsocial change(Berkes andJolly, 2001;Pelling,2011).While resilienceaddressessocialdimensions,ithasinvolveda general-isable,top-downapproachthatdoesnotaddressdecisioncontexts (Stone-Jovicic,2015).Resilienceisconcernedwithhumanagency andthepowertoactunderchangingsocial-ecologicalconditions, buthasbeencriticisedbecauseitdoesnotexplicitlyaddresspower relations or political realities (reviewed by Boonstra, 2016). In contrast,theTARAapproachisbottom-up,withaprimaryfocuson interactions of vrk systems and future-oriented reframing of decisioncontexts.Furthermore,thereframingofdecisioncontexts is a process that deliberatively addresses the redistribution of powerandagency.
Transformationofsocietalinterestsandvaluesareinherentto theimplementationoftheTARAapproach:neitherEbAorEco-DRR containanexplicitprocessfortransformingdecisioncontextsand societalvaluesaspartofimplementation,thoughthey(andalso resilienceandCBA)containtheimplicitobjectiveofachievingsuch transformations.Applying theTARAapproach toareframingof policyandgovernancecanstarttoshiftfromafocusonclimate impacts in isolation of peopleand institutions towardsholistic approachestoadaptation.Co-learningisembeddedateachstage: (1)inthediagnosisofconstraintsondecisionmakingandtheneed tochangedecisioncontexts,asrevealedbythevrkperspective;(2) intheco-developmentofa commonsystemsframing basedon environmental change, as enabled by the adaptation services concept;(3)intheco-constructionoffuturescenarios,drawingon the adaptation pathways approach and (4) in planning and
implementation of adaptation pathways. CBA and resilience thinkingalsoincludeco-learninginprinciple.
As these various approaches are modified though cycles of implementationandre-design,theyhavebeguntoresolveearlier shortcomings, resulting in a convergence of approaches. While there are areas of overlap between them, the choiceof which approachislikelytobeuseful(orwhichelements)dependsonthe adaptationtask;thestakeholdersinvolved;theprevailing social-political contextand the degreeof acceptance of the need for transformative change. Human agents may choosea particular approachordrawonpractical,complementaryelementsfroma varietyofapproaches(suchasbetweenEBAandTARA,cf.Box2). TheTARAapproachtakesthelatteroptionandrepresentsameans to assess advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The exampleofecologicalrestorationpractice(Box2)showshowthe context of existing approaches can be broadened to include complementaryapproaches(e.g.EBAandTARA).Suchbroadening of contexthighlights howrestorationmight contributetoother aspectsoftransformation;forexample,howEBAcouldshiftfroma focusonadaptationservicestoafocusondecisioncontext.Sucha shiftwouldenablepractitionerstoworkwithexistingstructures andprocesses,butstarttobuildanunderstandingoftherequired changestogovernancethatcanenabletransformativeadaptation. Thelinkingofadaptationservices,vrkandadaptationpathways in the TARA approach enables an integrated framework for transformative adaptation that can broaden the framing of adaptation problems. For example, in conservation practice by extending the decision context beyond the assessment of ecosystem changes and short-term maintenance of biophysical integrity, the TARAapproach canhelp conservationpolicy and governanceadaptandchangebyfocussingonbiophysicalchange tore-interpretandreframetheproblemandvaluedefinition(e.g. byusingthequestionsinSection2.1:“Doweknowtheoutcome? Do we want it? Are we allowed it?”). This shift then allows examinationoftheimplicationsofthereframingforconservation policy,managementandthengovernance.
Box2.AdaptationandecologicalrestorationunderclimatechangeandthecontributionoftheTARAapproach.
Restorationisnowconsideredonesolutiontoclimatechangeadaptationandmitigation,andanimportantpartofapproachesto implementingtheUnitedNationsconventionsonclimatechange,desertificationandbiologicaldiversity(UNFCC,UNCCDand UNCBD;AronsonandAlexander,2013).
Restoration,includingecologicalrestoration(ER),forestlandscaperestoration(FLR)andecologicalengineering(EE),focuseson restoringelementsofecologicalconditionsandfunction,andecosystemservices,oftenforsocietalbenefit(Stanturfetal.,2014). AlthoughERhasfocusedonrestoringecosystemstopastconditionsandfunctions,thisapproachmaynolongerberelevant(Choi, 2004).PractitionersofERnowconsiderhowtorestoreecosystemsunderachangingenvironment(Hobbsetal.,2011;Locatelli etal.,2015).EEfocuseslargelyonaddressingfuturesocietalissues,suchasdevelopingnovelecosystems(Mitsch,1996)inthe contextofcreatingwetlandstomitigateclimate-relatedflooding(Temmermanetal.,2013).
Theserestorationconceptslargelyfocusonecosystemsratherthanonthegovernancecontext,althoughitisnowrecognisedthat governanceiskeytomakingrestorationsuccessful(GuariguataandBrancalion,2014;Mansourian,2016).Forexample,inGhana, restorationworkconductedbymembersofaCommunityResourceManagementAreawasreducedineffectivenessbyissues relatedtoaccountabilityandtransparency(Baruahetal.inpress).
Already,FLRfocusesonaddressingcurrentsocietalneeds(Dudleyetal.,2005)andrecentlybegandevelopingnationaland sub-nationalmulti-stakeholder restoration discussion processes(Maginniset al., 2014) which canbetailored todiscussions on adaptation.Considerationofhowrestorationinterventionsandothernature-basedsolutionscanbeimprovedbyforwardthinking anddecisionmakingprocessisbeingproposed(Stanturf,2015;Cohen-Shachametal.,2016).Oneconcept,Ecosystem-based Adaptation(EBA)usesrestorationaspartofitstoolkittohelpsocietiesadapttoclimatechange(UNEP,2010).Althoughrestoration approachesareprogressingtowardshelpingsocietiesuseecosystemstoadapttoclimatechange,theycouldbenefitfromthe TARAapproach,specificallybyidentifyingadaptationservicesandshifting managementapproachestowardsenabling their delivery,usingthevrkandpathwaysframing.
Ofparticularvaluewouldbeensuringthatrestorationdecisionsincludeminorities,thatmultiplevaluesofecosystemsandtheir usesareincluded in decisionmakingand thatknowledge requiredfordecisionsisas inclusiveas possible.Someofthese outcomescanbeachievedbyengagingmoresocialscientistsinrestorationprocesses(EdenandTunstall,2006).
5.Conclusions
Enabling transformative adaptation requires new ways to evaluateandadaptivelymanagetrade-offsbetweenmaintaining desirableaspectsofcurrentsocial-ecologicalsystemsandadapting tomajorbiophysicalchangestothosesystems.Wehaveattempted to position the TARA framework within the context of linked social-ecologicalsystemsandemphasisethatweaddan adapta-tionlenstoasocial-ecologicalsystemsapproach(Fig.2).Binder etal.(2013)reviewedthedifferentapproachestoanalysing social-ecologicalsystemsand didnotmentionadaptationor transfor-mation.Fischeretal.(2015)linkedtheconceptofsocial-ecological systemstotheunderstandingofthedynamicsofenvironmental and societal change and set priorities for researchand policy, including inter-regional linkages and governance, long-term drivers,powerrelationsandastrongerscience-societyinterface. In this paper, we attempt to add an enabling transformative adaptationframeworktothe“lensofanalysisthatsharplyputsin focushumanity’sdependenceonnature,ourburgeoninginfluence onit,aswellasourethicalobligationstowardsit”(Fischeretal., 2015).
IntheTARAapproach,thereframingofdecisioncontextsisa processthatdeliberativelyaddressestheredistributionofpower and agency. We consider this redistribution as fundamental to overcomingamajorbarriertotransformativeadaptation.Acentral premiseoftheTARAapproachisthathumanagentsinvolvedin implementing adaptation to global change can achieve more powerandagency,notjustiftheinstitutionsanddecisionmaking systems were organized differently, but from the processes of beingactivelyengagedinquestioning,learning,changing,revising andreforming theinstitutional frameworkin whichadaptation occurs.
Thechallengesofimplementingtransformativeadaptationare formidableandfutureuncertaintyisakeytheme(Eisenacketal., 2014).TheTARAapproachhelpsaddressuncertaintyinadaptation decisionmakingbytakinganintegrated,holisticperspective to values, rules and knowledge, but it cannot always ensure knowledgewillbeadequatetohelp definethedecisioncontext underhighuncertainty.Integratedapproachesmayhelpmitigate uncertainty, but still require improved understanding of the emergentpropertiesof social-ecological systems(e.g.Liu etal., 2015).Weacknowledgethatdealingwithcomplexityneedstobe circumscribedappropriately,andeachsituationfortransformative adaptationwillbedifferent.Therewillalwaysbetheprospectof includingcertainformsofknowledgeinthedecisioncontextatthe expense of others, or ignoring the emotional attachment that stemsfromvaluesofidentityandculture.Shiftsinknowledgewill not overcome such values, sowe need tofind ways that new knowledgecan used toshift individualand collective interests without alienating or discounting societal values of identity. Reframingofadaptationdecisionstoonesthatcanbeconsidered astransformativethereforerequirestransformationofgovernance arrangements(Type3transformationsinBox1).
Revealingtheneedforchangestoaspectsofhuman organisa-tion that have been taken for granted hitherto is therefore an important adaptation task, as is supporting what people are alreadytryingtodoinordertotransform.WeconsidertheTARA approachisameanstointegratebetweenthetransformationof ecosystemsunderglobalchange,shiftsindecisioncontextsthat acknowledgetheneedforsocietalchangeandthedevelopmentof adaptive, transformative governance to enable transformative adaptation.
Bennett et al. (2016) considered that current global futures scenariosareoftenbasedonsimplifiedworldviewsthatcanbe improvedbyincorporating“seedsofagoodAnthropocene”,which are “diverse examples of good practice, innovations, and
experiments...that can help us to understand the different componentsofabetterfuturethatpeoplewant,andtorecognize theprocessesthatleadtotheemergenceandgrowthofinitiatives thatfundamentallychangehuman–environmentalrelationships.” Imbuedintheconceptof“seedsofagoodAnthropocene”isthe positive feedback relationship betweenhope, in thesense of a pragmatic, positive, forward-looking perspective, and agency, entrainingempowerment, optionsfor thefuture and collective motivation.WeconsiderthattheTARAapproachrepresentsone suchcontributiontoagoodAnthropocene.
Authorcontributions
Allauthorscontributedtodeveloping,interpretingandrefining conceptsandtheresearchframeworkduringthefirstandsecond TARAworkshops.M.J.C.ledthewriting,withmajorcontributions fromB.M.-L.,S.L.,B.L.,R.G.,P.-Y.L,L.V.K.andC.W.B.L.,B.M.-L.and MJCdesignedandproducedthefigures;R.G.andG.W.wrotethe textboxes.Allauthorscontributedtothewritingandeditingofthe paper.
Acknowledgements
ThispaperisacontributionfromtheTransformative Adapta-tion Research Alliance (TARA); an international network of researchersand practitionersdedicatedtothedevelopmentand implementationofnovelapproachestotransformativeadaptation toglobalchange.TheresearchwassupportedbyCSIROLandand Water. We thank the Embassy of France in Australia and the AustralianAcademyofSciencesforfundingthefirst Transforma-tiveAdaptationResearchAllianceworkshopinCanberra,October 27-31, 2014. Wethank Craig Beatty, Mirjam Kuzee (IUCN)and AlistairHobday(CSIROOceansandAtmosphere)forreviewingthe manuscriptandprovidingconstructivecomments.
References
Abson,D.J.,Fischer,J.,Leventon,J.,etal.,2016.Leveragepointsforsustainability transformation.Ambio doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y (publishedonline).
Adger,W.N.,Dessai,S.,Goulden,M.,etal.,2009.Aretheresociallimitstoadaptation toclimatechange?Clim.Change93,335–354.
Armsworth,P.R.,Larson,E.R.,Jackson,S.T.,etal.,2015.Areconservation organisationsconfiguredforeffectiveadaptationtoglobalchange?Front.Ecol. Environ.13,163–169.
Aronson,J.,Alexander,S.,2013.Ecosystemrestorationisnowaglobalpriority:time torollupoursleeves.Restor.Ecol.21,293–296.
Ayers,J.,Forsyth,T.,2009.Community-basedadaptationtoclimatechange. Environment51,22–31.
Barnett,J.,O’Neill,S.,2010.Maladaptation.GlobalEnviron.Change20,211–213.
Baruah,M.,Bobtoya,S.,Mbile,P.,Walters,G.,2016.Governanceofrestorationatthe communitylevel:workingwithGhana’sCommunityResourceManagement Areas.WorldDev.Perspect.(inpress).
Bennett,E.M.,Solan,M.,Biggs,R.,etal.,2016.Brightspots:seedsofagood Anthropocene.Front.Ecol.Environ.14,441–448.
Berkes,F.,Jolly,D.,2001.Adaptingtoclimatechange:social-ecologicalresilienceina CanadianwesternArcticcommunity.Ecol.Soc.5(2),18.
Bhaduri,A.,2008.Predatorygrowth.Econ.andPolit.Wkly.43(16),10–14.
Binder,C.R.,Hinkel,J.,Bots,P.,Pahl-Wostl,C.,2013.Comparisonofframeworksfor analysingsocial-ecologicalsystems.Ecol.Soc.18(4),26.
Boonstra,W.J.,2016.Conceptualizingpowertostudysocial-ecologicalinteractions. Ecol.Soc.21(1),21.
Butler,J.R.A.,Suadnya,W.,Puspadi,K.,etal.,2014.Framingtheapplicationof adaptationpathwaysforrurallivelihoodsandglobalchangeineastern Indonesianislands.GlobalEnviron.Change28,368–382.
Carpenter,S.,Walker,B.H.,Anderies,J.M.,Abel,N.,2001.Frommetaphorto measurement:resilienceofwhatforwhat?Ecosystems4,765–781.
Cash,D.W.,Clark,W.C.,Alcock,F.,etal.,2003.Knowledgesystemsforsustainable development.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.100,8086–8091.
Chaffin,B.C.,Garmestani,A.S.,Gunderson,L.H.,Benson,M.H.,Angeler,D.G.,Arnold, C.A.,Cosens,B.,Craig,R.C.,Ruhl,J.B.,Allen,C.R.,2016.Transformative environmentalgovernance.Annu.Rev.Environ.Resour.41,399–423.
Chan,K.M.A.,etal.,2016.Whyprotectnature?Rethinkingvaluesandthe environment.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.113,1462–1465.
Chapman,P.M.,2011.Globalclimatechangemeansnevergoinghomeagain.Mar. Pollut.Bull.62,2269–2270.
Choi,Y.D.,2004.Theoriesforecologicalrestorationinchangingenvironment: toward‘futuristic’restoration.Ecol.Restor.19,75–81.
Nature-basedSolutionstoAddressGlobalSocietalChallenges.In:Cohen-Shacham, E.,Walters,G.,Janzen,C.,Maginnis,S.(Eds.),IUCN,Gland.
Colloff,M.J.,Lavorel,S.,Wise,R.M.,Dunlop,M.,Overton,I.C.,Williams,K.J.,2016a. Adaptationservicesoffloodplainsandwetlandsundertransformational climatechange.Ecol.Appl.26,1003–1017.
Colloff,M.J.,Doherty,M.D.,Lavorel,S.,Dunlop,M.,Wise,R.M.,Prober,S.M.,2016b. Adaptationservicesandpathwaysforthemanagementoftemperatemontane forestsundertransformationalclimatechange.Clim.Change138,267–282.
Cornell,S.,Berkhout,F.,Tuinstra,W.,etal.,2013.Openingupknowledgesystemsfor betterresponsestoglobalenvironmentalchange.Environ.Sci.Policy28, 60–70.
Cross,M.S.,Zavaleta,E.S.,Bachelet,D.,etal.,2012.TheAdaptationforConservation Targets(ACT)framework:atoolforincorporatingclimatechangeintonatural resourcemanagement.Environ.Manage.50,341–351.
Diaz,S.,Demissew,S.,Carabias,J.,etal.,2015.TheIPBESconceptualframework— connectingnatureandpeople.Curr.Opin.Environ.Sustain.14,1–16.
Djoudi,H.,Brockhaus,M.,Locatelli,B.,2013.Oncetherewasalake:vulnerabilityto environmentalchangesinnorthernMali.Reg.Environ.Change13,493–508.
Dodman,D.,Mitlin,D.,2013.Challengesforcommunity-basedadaptation: discoveringthepotentialfortransformation.J.Int.Dev.25,640–659.
Doherty,M.D.,Lavorel,S.,Colloff,M.J.,Williams,K.J.,Williams,R.J.,2016.Moving fromautonomoustoplannedadaptationinthemontaneforestsofsoutheastern Australiaunderchangingfireregimes.AustralEcol.doi:http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/aec.12437publishedonline.
Doswald,N.,Munroe,R.,Roe,D.,etal.,2014.Effectivenessofecosystem-based approachesforadaptation:reviewoftheevidence-base.Clim.Dev.6,185–201.
Dow,K.,Berkhout,F.,Preston,B.L.,Klein,R.J.T.,Midgley,G.,Shaw,M.R.,2013.Limits toadaptation.Nat.Clim.Change3,305–307.
Dudley,N.,Morrison,J.,Aronson,J.,Mansourinan,S.,2005.Whydoweneedto considerrestorationinalandscapecontext?In:Mansourian,S.,Vallauri,D. (Eds.),ForestRestorationinLandscapes:BeyondPlantingTrees.Springer,New York,pp.51–58.
EEA,2015.TheEuropeanEnvironment–StateandOutlook2015:SynthesisReport. EuropeanEnvironmentAgency,Copenhagen.
Eden,S.E.,Tunstall,S.,2006.Ecologicalversussocialrestoration?Howurbanriver restorationchallengesbutalsofailstochallengethescience-policynexusinthe UnitedKingdom.Environ.Plann.C24,661–680.
Eisenack,K.,Moser,S.C.,Hoffmann,E.,Klein,R.T.,Oberlack,C.,Pechan,A.,Rotter,M., Termeer,C.J.A.M.,2014.Explainingandovercomingbarrierstoclimatechange adaptation.Nat.Clim.Change4,867–872.
Feola,G.,2015.Societaltransformationinresponsetoglobalenvironmentalchange: areviewofemergingconcepts.Ambio44,376–390.
Fernandez,R.J.,2016.Howtobeamoreeffectiveenvironmentalscientistin managementandpolicycontexts.Environ.Sci.Policy64,171–176.
Fischer,J.,Gardner,T.,Bennett,E.M.,etal.,2015.Advancingsustainabilitythrough maintainingasocial-ecologicalsystemsperspective.Curr.Opin.Environ. Sustain.14,144–149.
Gorddard,R.,Colloff,M.J.,Wise,R.M.,Ware,D.,Dunlop,M.,2016.Values,rulesand knowledge:adaptationaschangeinthedecisioncontext.Environ.Sci.Policy57, 60–69.
Guariguata,M.,Brancalion,P.,2014.Currentchallengesandperspectivesfor governingforestrestoration.Forests5,3022–3030.
Haasnoot,M.,Kwakkel,J.H.,Walker,W.E.,terMaat,J.,2013.Dynamicadaptivepolicy pathways:amethodforcraftingrobustdecisionsforadeeplyuncertainworld. GlobalEnviron.Change23,485–498.
Helbing,D.,2013.Globallynetworkedrisksandhowtorespond.Nature497,51–59.
Hobbs,R.J.,Hallett,L.M.,Ehrlich,P.R.,Mooney,H.A.,2011.Interventionecology: applyingecologicalscienceinthetwenty-firstcentury.Bioscience61,442–450.
Hobday,A.J.,Chambers,L.E.,Arnould,J.P.Y.,2015.Prioritizingclimatechange adaptationoptionsforiconicmarinespecies.Biodiver.Conserv.24,3449–3468.
Hodgkinson,J.A.,Hobday,A.J.,Pinkard,E.A.,2014.ClimateadaptationinAustralia’s resource-extractionindustries:readyornot?Reg.Environ.Change14,1663– 1678.
IPCC,2014.ClimateChange2014SynthesisReport.SummaryforPolicymakers. CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.
Iniesta-Arandia,I.,GarciadelAmo,D.,Garcia-Nieto,A.P.,Piñeiro,C.,Montes,C., MartínLópe,B.,2015.Factorsinfluencinglocalecologicalknowledge maintenanceinMediterraneanwatersheds:insightsforenvironmentalpolicies. Ambio44,285–296.
Jones,A.,2012.RangelandGoatProductioninWesternNewSouthWales.New SouthWalesDepartmentofPrimaryIndustries,Sydney.
Kates,R.W.,Travis,W.R.,Wilbanks,T.J.,2012.Transformationaladaptationwhen incrementaladaptationstoclimatechangeareinsufficient.Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci. 109,7156–7161.
Kinzig,A.P.,Ehrlich,P.R.,Alston,L.J.,etal.,2013.Socialnormsandglobal environmentalchallenges:thecomplexinteractionofbehaviours,valuesand policy.Bioscience63,164–175.
Klein,N.,2014.ThisChangesEverything:CapitalismVs.theClimate.Simonand Schuster,NewYork.
Lakoff,G.,2014.Mappingthebrain’smetaphorcircuitry:metaphoricalthoughtin everydayreason.Front.Hum.Neurosci.8Article958.
Lavorel,S.,Colloff,M.J.,McIntyre,S.,Doherty,M.,Murphy,H.,Metcalfe,D.,Dunlop, M.,Williams,R.,Wise,R.M.,Williams,K.,2015.Ecologicalmechanisms underpinningclimateadaptationservices.GlobalChangeBiol.21,12–31.
Leith,P.,O’Toole,K.,Haward,M.,Coffey,B.,Rees,C.,Ogiera,E.,2014.Analysisof operatingenvironments:adiagnosticmodelforlinkingscience,societyand policyforsustainability.Environ.Sci.Policy39,162–171.
Liu,J.,Mooney,H.,Hull,V.,etal.,2015.Systemsintegrationforglobalsustainability. Science347,1258832.
Locatelli,B.,Catterall,C.P.,Imbach,P.,etal.,2015.Tropicalreforestationandclimate change:beyondcarbon.Restor.Ecol.23,337–343.
Maginnis,S.,Laestadius,L.,Verdone,M.,DeWitt,S.,Saint-Laurent,C., Rietbergen-McCracken,J.,Shaw,D.M.P.,2014.AGuidetotheRestorationOpportunities AssessmentMethodology(ROAM):AssessingForestLandscapeRestoration OpportunitiesattheNationalLevel.InternationalUnionfortheConservationof Nature,Gland.
Mansourian,S.,2016.Understandingtherelationshipbetweengovernanceand forestlandscaperestoration.Conserv.Society14,267–278.
Martín-López,B.,Montes,C.,2015.Restoringthehumancapacityforconserving biodiversity:asocial-ecologicalapproach.Sustain.Sci.10,699–706.
Mawdsley,J.,2011.Designofconservationstrategiesforclimateadaptation.Wiley Interdiscip.Rev.Clim.Change2,498–515.
Meadows,D.,1999.LeveragePoints:PlacestoInterveneinaSystem.The SustainabilityInstitute,Harland.
Miller,F.,Osbahr,F.,Boyd,E.,etal.,2010.Resilienceandvulnerability: complementaryorconflictingconcepts?Ecol.Soc.15(3),11.
Mitsch,W.,1996.Ecologicalengineering:anewparadigmforengineersand ecologists.In:Schulze,P.(Ed.),EngineeringWithinEcologicalConstraints. NationalAcademyPress,Washington,pp.114–132.
Munang,R.,Thiaw,I.,Alverson,K.,Mumba,M.,Rivington,M.,2013.Climatechange andecosystem-basedadaptation:anewpragmaticapproachtobuffering climatechangeimpacts.Curr.Opin.Environ.Sustain.5,67–71.
Norgaard,R.B.,2010.Ecosystemservices:fromeye-openingmetaphorto complexityblinder.Ecol.Econ.69,1219–1227.
O’Brien,K.L.,Wolf,J.,2010.Avalues-basedapproachtovulnerabilityandadaptation toclimatechange.WileyInterdiscip.Rev.:Clim.Change1,232–242.
Park,S.E.,Marshall,N.A.,Jakku,E.,Dowd,A.M.,Howden,S.M.,Mendham,E., Fleming,A.,2012.Informingadaptationresponsestoclimatechangethrough theoriesoftransformation.GlobalEnviron.Change22,115–126.
Pelling,M.,2011.AdaptationtoClimateChange:FromResiliencetoTransformation. Routledge,London.
Peterson,G.D.,Beard,T.D.,Beisner,B.E.,etal.,2003.Assessingfutureecosystem services:acasestudyoftheNorthernHighlandsLakeDistrict,Wisconsin.Ecol. Soc.7(3),1.
Rausdepp-Hearne,C.,Peterson,G.D.,Tengö,M.,Bennett,E.M.,Holland,T., Benessaiah,K.,MacDonald,G.K.,Pfeifer,L.,2010.Untanglingthe
environmentalistösparadox:whyishumanwell-beingincreasingasecosystem servicesdegrade?Bioscience60,576–589.
Reid,H.,2015.Ecosystem-andcommunity-basedadaptation:learningfrom community-basednaturalresourcemanagement.Clim.Dev.8,4–9.
Renaud,F.G.,Sudmeier-Rieux,K.,Estrella,M.,2013.TheRoleofEcosystemsin DisasterRiskReduction.UnitedNationsUniversityPress,Tokyo.
Rickards,L.,Howden,S.M.,2012.Transformationaladaptation:agricultureand climatechange.CropPastureSci.63,240–250.
Rickards,L.,2013.Transformationisadaptation.Nat.Clim.Change3,690.
RicoGarcía-Amado,L.,ManuelRuizPérez,M.,BarrasaGarcía,S.,2013.Motivation forconservation:assessingintegratedconservationanddevelopmentprojects andpaymentsforenvironmentalservicesinLaSepulturaBiosphereReserve, Chiapas,Mexico.Ecol.Econ.89,92–100.
Rosenweig,C.,Solecki,C.,2014.HurricaneSandyandadaptationpathwaysinNew York:lessonsfromafirst-respondercity.GlobalEnviron.Change28,395–408.
Schwartz,S.H.,2012.AnoverviewoftheSchwartztheoryofbasicvalues.Online Read.Psychol.Culture2(1) Article11.
Smith,J.B.,1997.Settingprioritiesforadaptingtoclimatechange.GlobalEnviron. Change7,251–264.
StaffordSmith,M.,Horrocks,L.,Harvey,A.,Hamilton,C.,2011.Rethinking adaptationfora4Cworld.Philos.Trans.R.Soc.A369,196–216.
Stanturf,J.A.,Palik,B.J.,Williams,M.I.,Dumroese,R.K.,Madsen,P.,2014.Forest restorationparadigms.J.Sustain.For.33,S161–S194.
Stanturf,J.A.,2015.Futurelandscapes:opportunitiesandchallenges.NewFor.46, 615–644.
Stone-Jovicic,S.,2015.Probingtheinterfacesbetweenthesocialsciencesand social-ecologicalresilience:insightsfromintegrativeandhybridperspectivesinthe socialsciences.Ecol.Soc.20(2),25.
Streek,W.,Calhoun,C.,Toynbee,P.,2016.Doescapitalismhaveafuture?Soc.Econ. Rev.14,163–183.
Tanner,T.,Lewis,D.,Wrathall,D.,etal.,2015.Livelihoodresilienceinthefaceof climatechange.Nat.Clim.Change5,23–26.
Temmerman,S.,Meire,P.,Bouma,T.J.,Herman,P.M.J.,Ysebaert,T.,DeVriend,H.J., 2013.Ecosystem-basedcoastaldefenceinthefaceofglobalchange.Nature504, 79–83.
Termeer,C.,Dewulf,A.,vanRijswick,H.,vanBuuren,A.,Huitema,D.,Meijerink,S., Rayner,T.,Wiering,M.,2011.Theregionalgovernanceofclimateadaptation:a frameworkfordevelopinglegitimate,effective,andresilientgovernance arrangements.Clim.Law2,159–179.
Tosey,P.,Visser,M.,Saunders,M.N.K.,2012.Theoriginsandconceptualizationsof ‘triple-loop’learning:acriticalreview.Manage.Learn.43,291–307.
UN,2014.ConciseReportontheWorldPopulationSituation.UnitedNations,New York,pp.2014.
UNEP,2010.DecisionAdoptedbytheConferenceofthePartiestotheConventionon BiologicalDiversityatItsTenthMeeting.X/33BiodiversityandClimateChange. UnitedNationsEnvironmentProgramme,Nairobi.
Vignola,R.,Locatelli,B.,Martinez,C.,Imbach,P.,2009.Ecosystem-basedadaptation toclimatechange:whatroleforpolicy-makers,societyandscientists?Mitig. Adapt.Strateg.GlobalChange14,691–696.
Voss,J.P.,Newig,J.,Kastens,B.,Monstadt,J.,Nölting,B.,2007.Steeringfor sustainabledevelopment:atypologyofproblemsandstrategieswithrespectto ambivalence,uncertaintyanddistributedpower.J.Environ.PolicyPlann.9, 193– 212.
Walker,B.,Holling,C.S.,Carpenter,S.R.,Kinzig,A.,2004.Resilience,adaptabilityand transformabilityinsocial–ecologicalsystems.Ecol.Soc.9(2),5.
Wise,R.M.,Fazey,I.,StaffordSmith,M.,Park,S.E.,Eakin,H.C.,ArcherVanGardenen, E.R.M.,Campbell,B.,2014.Reconceptualisingadaptationtoclimatechangeas partofpathwaysofchangeandresponse.GlobalEnviron.Change28,325–336.
Wyborn,C.,Yung,L.,Murphy,D.,Williams,D.R.,2015.Situatingadaptation:how governancechallengesandperceptionsofuncertaintyinfluenceadaptationin theRockyMountains.Reg.Environ.Change15,669–682.
Wyborn,C.A.,Dunlop,M.,Dudley,N.,vanKerkhoff,L.,Guevara,O.,2016.Future OrientedConservation:knowledgegovernance,uncertaintyandlearning. Biodiver.Conserv.25,1401–1408.
Wyborn,C.,2015.Co-productivegovernance:arelationalframeworkforadaptive governance.GlobalEnviron.Change30,57–67.
vanKerkhoff,L.E.,Lebel,L.,2015.Coproductivecapacities:rethinking science-governancerelationsinadiverseworld.Ecol.Soc.20(1),14.
