emissions can be measured through technical processes, there is no similar measurement for adaptation. No single indicator for adaptation will suffice. We argue
that adaptation has at least three distinct dimensions: (1) changes in social and
economic development that ensure that the outputs and outcomes are sustainable
from a climate change perspective; (2) preparedness for and dealing with natural
disasters that may increase in intensity due to climate change; (3) resilience of
populations and societies to tackle unexpected changes in the natural environment
that they are living in. The first dimension increasingly overlaps with mitigation
action. While mitigation may be primarily directed at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, the micro-macro paradox establishes clearly that for these actions to be
ultimately successful, systems need to change and become environmentally sustainable. This is the route towards durable emission reductions, and it is also the
route towards increased adaptive capacity. For this reason we see an increasing use
of the same transformative mechanisms for adaptation as for mitigation.
Adaptation and mitigation are two different but linked dimensions in social,
economic and environmental sustainability. Adaptation concerns the ways in which
the social and economic domains are “ready” for change in the environmental
domain, and includes resulting actions. Mitigation focuses on one particular way
society and the economy use natural resources and aims to make this use environmentally sustainable. Adaptation perspectives in mitigation often are termed “climate proofing” of actions; ensuring that the mitigation interventions will be
resilient against climate change. Both adaptation and mitigation ultimately require
action that transforms the interaction between the social, economic and environmental domains. One of us argued that sustainability is fundamentally an adaptation
issue (van den Berg 2014, p. 34–35): “achieving a sustainable balance among civil
society, the economy and the environment will require constant adaptation”. In this
light we include some of the evaluative evidence on adaptation in our discussion of
transformative action.
2.5 Three Priority Areas for Transformative Action
The seven evaluations and their predecessors also provide much information and
evaluative evidence on how transformative processes can be set in motion and what
is essential for these processes. A coherent picture emerges of action at the country
level, from civil society, the private sector and the government; action which
requires legal and regulatory amendments and changes in markets and behaviour
in society; of engaging with civil society which collaborates or is the main actor for
behaviour change; of engaging with the private sector which introduces new
solutions and technologies that could together with changed behaviour lead to
market change and transformation. A crucial cross-cutting issue is whether activities take gender, equity and inclusiveness into account, as they are essential to
ensure the transformation will not just have an economic and environmental, but
also a social impact. For this reason the next section of this chapter discusses briefly
24
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen
that adaptation has at least three distinct dimensions: (1) changes in social and
economic development that ensure that the outputs and outcomes are sustainable
from a climate change perspective; (2) preparedness for and dealing with natural
disasters that may increase in intensity due to climate change; (3) resilience of
populations and societies to tackle unexpected changes in the natural environment
that they are living in. The first dimension increasingly overlaps with mitigation
action. While mitigation may be primarily directed at reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, the micro-macro paradox establishes clearly that for these actions to be
ultimately successful, systems need to change and become environmentally sustainable. This is the route towards durable emission reductions, and it is also the
route towards increased adaptive capacity. For this reason we see an increasing use
of the same transformative mechanisms for adaptation as for mitigation.
Adaptation and mitigation are two different but linked dimensions in social,
economic and environmental sustainability. Adaptation concerns the ways in which
the social and economic domains are “ready” for change in the environmental
domain, and includes resulting actions. Mitigation focuses on one particular way
society and the economy use natural resources and aims to make this use environmentally sustainable. Adaptation perspectives in mitigation often are termed “climate proofing” of actions; ensuring that the mitigation interventions will be
resilient against climate change. Both adaptation and mitigation ultimately require
action that transforms the interaction between the social, economic and environmental domains. One of us argued that sustainability is fundamentally an adaptation
issue (van den Berg 2014, p. 34–35): “achieving a sustainable balance among civil
society, the economy and the environment will require constant adaptation”. In this
light we include some of the evaluative evidence on adaptation in our discussion of
transformative action.
2.5 Three Priority Areas for Transformative Action
The seven evaluations and their predecessors also provide much information and
evaluative evidence on how transformative processes can be set in motion and what
is essential for these processes. A coherent picture emerges of action at the country
level, from civil society, the private sector and the government; action which
requires legal and regulatory amendments and changes in markets and behaviour
in society; of engaging with civil society which collaborates or is the main actor for
behaviour change; of engaging with the private sector which introduces new
solutions and technologies that could together with changed behaviour lead to
market change and transformation. A crucial cross-cutting issue is whether activities take gender, equity and inclusiveness into account, as they are essential to
ensure the transformation will not just have an economic and environmental, but
also a social impact. For this reason the next section of this chapter discusses briefly
24
R.D. van den Berg and L. Cando-Noordhuizen