PERSONALIDAD Y SU RELACIÓN CON LAS FORTALEZAS

4.5.1 What is transformation?

The concept of transformational change derives from resilience theory (Gunderson & Holling, 2002) and, in particular, from the notion that there are shifts over thresholds between stability domains (Scheffer, 2009). This change is described by (Walker, Holling, Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004) as the capacity to create a fundamentally new system when ecological, economic or social structures make the existing system untenable. In a climate change context Pelling (2011) questioned whether adaptation is merely accommodating change rather than contesting it. This makes a case for the concept of transformation by suggesting that current systems and paradigms, including institutional frameworks, are rarely critically challenged.

Park et al. (2012) suggested that transformational responses may be needed to address climate changes. Kates, Travis, and Wilbanks (2012) differentiated transformational adaptation from incremental adaptation as adaptations adopted at a large scale or intensity; adaptations that are new

72

to a location or system; and adaptations that change the location of activities (Kates et al., 2012). Howden, Crimp, and Nelson (2010) described transformational change in the agriculture sector as involving both incremental and transformational changes that sit on a continuum of responses to climate change. Nelson, Adger, and Brown (2007) made the distinctions between transformations as a result of a deliberate process and transformations that occur as a result of unexpected or unintended outcomes of an event. O'Brien (2012) has questioned whether transformational climate change adaptation decisions can be carried out in a deliberative manner that is sustainable, and whether transformational change can be distinguished from adaptations to other stressors such as economic and demographic change.

Specific transformations at various scales and locations (as defined by Kates et al. (2012)) require institutional design that is flexible, anticipatory and fit for a changing future (Dovers & Hezri, 2010). This is because the institutions that are responsible for managing climate risk may themselves need to transform. Inertia may mean that this can only happen after ‘shocks’ like extreme climate events or political and economic crises that lead to regime shifts (for example, the reforms of the 1980s in New Zealand (Lawrence, Wolf, & Reisinger, 2013)). At such times, decision makers are challenged to think about what they wish to achieve. Are they protecting the status quo or are they enabling what is valued to be resilient over time under different conditions, and for future populations that will have different values?

Answers to such questions are reflected in shifts in values, perceptions, the way individuals, groups and organisations interact in the governance and political context (Folke et al., 2010; Smith & Stirling, 2010) involving actors that bridge multiple governance scales (Olsson, Folke, & Hahn, 2004). The IPCC (Reisinger et al., 2014) highlighted the debate over whether transformational responses can be supported by existing institutional frameworks as the need for transformational adaptation increases with the rate and magnitude of climate change. This need becomes critical where long lifetimes and lead-times are involved (Stafford Smith et al., 2011) and highlights the importance of co-ordination across governance domains and levels of decision making (Palutikof et al., 2013; Productivity Commission, 2012).

4.5.2 Does transformational change address uncertainty and dynamic change?

Transformational change as a concept inherently addresses uncertainty and dynamic climate change, enabling decision makers to address changing flood frequency, climate surprises and sea- level rise. This is because it is based on the ability to move from one state to another, over defined timeframes. Transformations that typically occur after shocks to a system will inevitably be followed by a transitional period before adjustment to a ‘new normal’. The concept of

73

transformational change embodies notions of long timeframes and shorter ones that are step changes to new systems, thus can be applied to activities that endure for short and long timeframes. However, transformations can be arbitrary in much the same way as critiques of the precautionary principle claim. When transformational change results from exogenous conditions unrelated to climate change impacts (for example, from a catastrophic natural event (earthquake) or from human-made crises (a global financial crisis) or when transformational change occurs as a result of climate events, there is the possibility that the transformation misses adaptations that are based on using current levers (for example, by applying spatial planning measures in a way that reduces current risk). The IPCC (2014a, p. 25) observed that “A first step toward adaptation to future climate change is reducing vulnerability and exposure to present climate variability (high

confidence).”

Also, transformational change can be disruptive with many flow-on effects to other parts of society. Transformational changes can mean that decisions are made by those with a private interest in land-use activities, for example, that affect others who have no decision-making power. The idea of transformational change is most useful where the activities involved have long life timeframes and where lead-time needs to be considered because of potential adjustment costs (Stafford Smith et al., 2011). An example would be retreat of coastal and floodplain settlements and the services that support them from sea-level rise and coastal inundation. Such transformations would require targeted interventions to support governance and decision-making co-ordination and, as suggested by (O'Brien, 2012), this support may not be forthcoming.

The value of thinking about transformational change is that it ‘fits’ with the notion of dynamic change, in the sense that it contemplates system regime shifts. It enables the alignment of physical climate conditions to the potential impacts on society at the deep uncertainty end of the uncertainty spectrum. However, it is far from clear whether governance and institutions can be transformed deliberatively ahead of damage occurring, and thus whether they can anticipate dynamic changes that have not been experienced before and which are not seen as urgent policy priorities. More major changes that might require transformational responses are the very ones that society, through its governance and institutions, appears reluctant to intervene on. This is because they are perceived as uncertain and a distant threat (Weber, 2010) and thus do not get policy attention in advance of damage. Shocks to human systems often engender transformational change in governance and institutions only after the fact (Klein, 2005).

Transformational change as a theory has value for thinking about particular types of adaptations. There is a paucity of experience applying this thinking although it is growing. There are questions

74

about whether the definition of transformational adaptation may constrain its operationalisation in decision-making settings (Klein et al., 2014). Useful distinctions can be made about transformational change that are autonomous and undertaken by individuals and firms, and those that are deliberate and taken by public agencies that have responsibilities for the institutions of practice. There is therefore more research required in the context of institutions and their ability to facilitate transformational change (Klein et al., 2014).