Week 1
Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change,
133, 113-127.
They explore transformation as a vital adaptive response to climate change, distinguishing it from simpler
forms of adjustment and highlighting its profound policy implications.
Transformation: responses that generate non-linear changes in systems or their social and ecological
environments, which can be either forced (e.g., distress migration) or chosen (e.g., planned resettlement).
“transformation necessitates a critical examination of power and preferences in decision-making”
They emphasize transformation as fundamental change aimed at shifting existing social-ecological
systems onto alternative development pathways, even before the limits of incremental adaptation are met.
They refer to three narratives of transformation in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), but highlight
the third – transformation addressing underlying failures of development by linking adaptation,
mitigation, and sustainable development – as having the greatest political potential. They caution that
without considering transformative choices, adaptation might merely protect existing systems, potentially
leading to catastrophic collapse by failing to address the root causes of risk.
To analyze where transformation might emerge and spread, they introduce an "adaptation activity
space" framework, derived from David Harvey’s "methodology of moments". This framework
delineates seven coevolving spheres of activity:
● Individual: Focuses on fundamental changes in how individuals acquire knowledge and critically
reflect on assumptions, leading to "transformative learning".
● Technology: Encompasses material interventions (e.g., infrastructure, early warning systems) and
innovations in organizational structure.
● Livelihoods: Addresses skill sets, entitlements, and production/labor processes, recognizing
informal economies.
● Discourse: Refers to worldviews and narratives (political, popular) that shape what is considered
legitimate in adaptation.
● Behavior: Captures everyday practices and routines that embody values and reproduce social
relations.
, ● Environment: Includes biotic and abiotic realms, and their coevolution with social and
technological systems.
● Institutions: Covers formal and informal social rules that influence and constrain adaptation
pathways, noting how rigid or weak institutions can hinder change.
These spheres are interconnected and co-evolving, with power operating in the movement of
information and influence between them. The framework helps analyze how different interests might
prioritize transformation within specific spheres. It raises ethical questions about "who or what is
the subject of change" and how interventions might reinforce existing power dynamics.
Transformation can act as a "boundary object," allowing diverse actors with different priorities to
engage in activities.
Transformation is a critical addition to adaptation discourse, emphasizing that adaptation is an integral,
often contested, part of ongoing development efforts.
Anguelovski, I., Shi, L., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., Goh, K., Lamb, Z., ... & Teicher, H. (2016). Equity
impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from the Global
North and South. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(3), 333-348.
They present a critical assessment of urban climate adaptation planning, particularly land use
interventions, arguing that they frequently exacerbate existing socio-spatial inequalities and can lead to
maladaptive outcomes for disadvantaged communities.
Research across eight global cities (Boston, New Orleans, Medellin, Santiago, Manila, Jakarta, Surat and
Dhaka) questions the widespread promotion of "win-win" adaptation solutions, suggesting these often
obscure the uneven distribution of costs and benefits: "Adaptation for whom, by whom, and how?"
The authors contend that adaptation efforts can inadvertently repackage traditional land use planning
approaches that have historically marginalized vulnerable groups. They highlight challenges to achieving
distributive justice (fair resource allocation) and procedural justice (meaningful participation) due to
competing planning goals, political incentives, and a weak recognition of marginalized groups' needs.
They also differentiate between the Global North's focus on infrastructure and land use solutions and the
Global South's advocacy for "the right to development" and pro-poor, community-based adaptation.
Pelling, M., O’Brien, K., & Matyas, D. (2015). Adaptation and transformation. Climatic Change,
133, 113-127.
They explore transformation as a vital adaptive response to climate change, distinguishing it from simpler
forms of adjustment and highlighting its profound policy implications.
Transformation: responses that generate non-linear changes in systems or their social and ecological
environments, which can be either forced (e.g., distress migration) or chosen (e.g., planned resettlement).
“transformation necessitates a critical examination of power and preferences in decision-making”
They emphasize transformation as fundamental change aimed at shifting existing social-ecological
systems onto alternative development pathways, even before the limits of incremental adaptation are met.
They refer to three narratives of transformation in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), but highlight
the third – transformation addressing underlying failures of development by linking adaptation,
mitigation, and sustainable development – as having the greatest political potential. They caution that
without considering transformative choices, adaptation might merely protect existing systems, potentially
leading to catastrophic collapse by failing to address the root causes of risk.
To analyze where transformation might emerge and spread, they introduce an "adaptation activity
space" framework, derived from David Harvey’s "methodology of moments". This framework
delineates seven coevolving spheres of activity:
● Individual: Focuses on fundamental changes in how individuals acquire knowledge and critically
reflect on assumptions, leading to "transformative learning".
● Technology: Encompasses material interventions (e.g., infrastructure, early warning systems) and
innovations in organizational structure.
● Livelihoods: Addresses skill sets, entitlements, and production/labor processes, recognizing
informal economies.
● Discourse: Refers to worldviews and narratives (political, popular) that shape what is considered
legitimate in adaptation.
● Behavior: Captures everyday practices and routines that embody values and reproduce social
relations.
, ● Environment: Includes biotic and abiotic realms, and their coevolution with social and
technological systems.
● Institutions: Covers formal and informal social rules that influence and constrain adaptation
pathways, noting how rigid or weak institutions can hinder change.
These spheres are interconnected and co-evolving, with power operating in the movement of
information and influence between them. The framework helps analyze how different interests might
prioritize transformation within specific spheres. It raises ethical questions about "who or what is
the subject of change" and how interventions might reinforce existing power dynamics.
Transformation can act as a "boundary object," allowing diverse actors with different priorities to
engage in activities.
Transformation is a critical addition to adaptation discourse, emphasizing that adaptation is an integral,
often contested, part of ongoing development efforts.
Anguelovski, I., Shi, L., Chu, E., Gallagher, D., Goh, K., Lamb, Z., ... & Teicher, H. (2016). Equity
impacts of urban land use planning for climate adaptation: Critical perspectives from the Global
North and South. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 36(3), 333-348.
They present a critical assessment of urban climate adaptation planning, particularly land use
interventions, arguing that they frequently exacerbate existing socio-spatial inequalities and can lead to
maladaptive outcomes for disadvantaged communities.
Research across eight global cities (Boston, New Orleans, Medellin, Santiago, Manila, Jakarta, Surat and
Dhaka) questions the widespread promotion of "win-win" adaptation solutions, suggesting these often
obscure the uneven distribution of costs and benefits: "Adaptation for whom, by whom, and how?"
The authors contend that adaptation efforts can inadvertently repackage traditional land use planning
approaches that have historically marginalized vulnerable groups. They highlight challenges to achieving
distributive justice (fair resource allocation) and procedural justice (meaningful participation) due to
competing planning goals, political incentives, and a weak recognition of marginalized groups' needs.
They also differentiate between the Global North's focus on infrastructure and land use solutions and the
Global South's advocacy for "the right to development" and pro-poor, community-based adaptation.
