Transformative adaptation through nature-based solutions: a comparative case study analysis in China, Italy, and Germany

被引:0
作者
Anna Scolobig
JoAnne Linnerooth-Bayer
Mark Pelling
Juliette G. C. Martin
Teresa M. Deubelli
Wei Liu
Amy Oen
机构
[1] International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis,
[2] University of Geneva,undefined
[3] University College London,undefined
[4] Norwegian Geotechnical Institute,undefined
来源
Regional Environmental Change | 2023年 / 23卷
关键词
Transformative adaptation; Nature-based solutions; Polycentric governance; Climate adaptation policy; Disaster risk reduction; Planning;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
This paper explores how claims for transformative adaptation toward more equitable and sustainable societies can be assessed. We build on a theoretical framework describing transformative adaptation as it manifests across four core elements of the public-sector adaptation lifecycle: vision, planning, institutional frameworks, and interventions. For each element, we identify characteristics that can help track adaptation as transformative. Our purpose is to identify how governance systems can constrain or support transformative choices and thus enable targeted interventions. We demonstrate and test the usefulness of the framework with reference to three government-led adaptation projects of nature-based solutions (NBS): river restoration (Germany), forest conservation (China), and landslide risk reduction (Italy). Building on a desktop study and open-ended interviews, our analysis adds evidence to the view that transformation is not an abrupt system change, but a dynamic complex process that evolves over time. While each of the NBS cases fails to fulfill all the transformation characteristics, there are important transformative elements in their visions, planning, and interventions. There is a deficit, however, in the transformation of institutional frameworks. The cases show institutional commonalities in multi-scale and cross-sectoral (polycentric) collaboration as well as innovative processes for inclusive stakeholder engagement; yet, these arrangements are ad hoc, short-term, dependent on local champions, and lacking the permanency needed for upscaling. For the public sector, this result highlights the potential for establishing cross-competing priorities among agencies, cross-sectoral formal mechanisms, new dedicated institutions, and programmatic and regulatory mainstreaming.
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 153 条
[1]  
Abson DJ(2017)Leverage points for sustainability transformation Ambio 46 30-39
[2]  
Fischer J(2021)Socio-economic and ecological impacts of China’s forest sector policies For Policy Econ 127 1-61
[3]  
Leventon J(2012)Resilience: new utopia or new tyranny? Reflection about the potentials and limits of the concept of resilience in relation to vulnerability reduction programmes IDS Working Papers 2012 141-153
[4]  
Newig J(2015)Ecological restoration of small water courses, experiences from Germany and from projects in Beijing Int Soil Water Conserv Res 3 415-425
[5]  
Schomerus T(2018)A discursive–institutional perspective on transformative governance: a case from a fire management policy sector Environ Policy Gov 28 1-13
[6]  
Aguilar FX(2021)Climate adaptation in practice: how mainstreaming strategies matter for policy integration Env Pol Gov 2021 691-700
[7]  
Wen Y(2019)An assessment framework for climate-proof nature-based solutions Sci Total Environ 656 693-717
[8]  
Béné C(2020)Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability People Nat 2 11812-11817
[9]  
Wood RG(2009)Linking social norms to efficient conservation investment in payments for ecosystem services Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106 20-29
[10]  
Newsham A(2019)Core principles for successfully implementing and upscaling Nature-based Solutions Environ Sci Policy 98 101293-70