Search

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.

Despite continuing technological advancement in hazard and vulnerability assessment, risk modelling and hazard mitigation techniques, losses to disasters associated with natural hazards continue and in some cases are increasing across Europe and worldwide. This paper focuses on the need to bridge the gap between technical solutions and the sociopolitical contexts in which these are produced, to better understand and create more effective risk management regimes. We do so with application of the science–policy co-production frame to landslide risk management in Italy. The methodology deployed included a desk study informed by semi-structured interviews carried out with selected key stakeholders at national, regional and municipal level. We propose a normative and analytical framework for transferring co-production into natural hazard research by presenting a matrix identifying four contexts within which co-production may unfold. The matrix is based on two axes, which distinguish between innovation and its absence in science and policy domains. We examine several examples of co-production, such as the water–soil integrated approach to risk management or the implementation of hazard/risk assessment. The results highlight that the insulation of science from the institutional context within which knowledge is produced and used is a very problematic issue. This often hinders the implementation of desirable policies and undermines the effectiveness of interventions. Moreover, innovation in science and policy does not automatically result in successful solutions for landslide risk management. Finally, results confirm the utility of co-production but also highlight methodological challenges associated with the introduction of this new conceptual paradigm into the well-structured communities of scientists and policy-makers.