Prerpints.org logo

You are currently viewing a beta version of our website. If you spot anything unusual, kindly let us know.

Leave Feedback
Preprint
Communication

Community-Based Adaptation as a Transdisciplinary Approach and Instrument for a Social-Ecological Transformation

Altmetrics

Downloads

120

Views

103

Comments

0

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

16 April 2024

Posted:

17 April 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Adaptation to the impacts of human induced global heating is inevitable. For a socially just and ecological sustainable adjustment to these new circumstances, we need to draw from diverse knowledge systems while, simultaneously, foster a social-ecological transformation. We approach these concerns through the concept of community-based adaptation (CBA) and discuss remedies. Synergies with feminist knowledge systems and indigenous ways of living show the transdisciplinary essence of CBA. By abstracting from its origin and overlapping disciplines, revealing the social metabolism as a common problem, CBA is prone to achieve more equitable and sustainable adjustments. Transdisciplinarity itself and the current related CBA literature point beyond mere adjustments and call for a redesign of the social metabolism, thereby shifting from adaptation to global heating towards adaptation with nature by focusing on social provisioning. An engagement with transformative adaptation and heterodox economics further shows the potential of CBA to serve as an instrument in support of a social-ecological transformation by addressing root causes of vulnerability and by fostering epistemic justice. Reflecting these points back on the epistemological and ontological assumptions of CBA, the viewpoint proposes critical realism as a guiding philosophy of science to move forward.
Keywords: 
Subject: Social Sciences  -   Other

1. Introduction

Human-induced global heating above 2°C will increase pressure on livelihoods and wellbeing. Alongside efforts in mitigation, adaptation will be required for social and ecological systems to function. Unequal distribution of the impacts of climate change geographically as well as within society further requires special attention to the most vulnerable groups, a concern that community-based adaptation (CBA) can address. CBA emphasises participatory, inclusive decision-making and a needs-focused design of activities. One challenge of more impactful adaptation is the information base for decision-making and the definition of needs to be addressed – in other words, a question of what knowledge to be used and (re)produce. It is widely recognized that in CBA projects, knowledge should be co-produced with the communities (Bronen et al., 2020; Ford et al., 2018; Kirkby et al., 2018), however, the extensive elaboration of transdisciplinarity to expand knowledge systems remains to happen (Kirkby et al., 2018). Another challenge is the application of CBA to empower communities while incorporating reduced efforts to disenfranchise and substitute oppressive structures that hinder more impactful adaptation in the first place (Galvin, 2019) e.g., social inequalities, unequal exchange, or neo-colonial exploitation. In turn, this calls for addressing the root causes of global heating through fundamental interventions to change the status quo (Morrison et al., 2022).
As first step, this viewpoint brings CBA principles in a conversation with transdisciplinarity answering the call from Kirkby et al. (2018) and consequently with indigenous and feminist approaches to knowledge, knowing, and the knower. Secondly, to distil the “common problem’ that transdisciplinary aims for the viewpoint abstracts from the origin disciplines of CBA – disaster risk reduction, community-based natural resource management, sustainable development – to suggest that its common denominator is adjustments to the currently destructive social metabolism - the material flow or exchange between ‘nature’ and ‘society’. As a third step, the viewpoint argues that a socio-ecological transformation incorporates changing the social metabolism that makes adaptation necessary in the first place (Brand and Wissen, 2017). This also contributes to several attempts in the literature to utilise CBAs potential for transformation and social change (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013; Fox et al., 2021; Nath, 2024). For that, yet another conversation for CBA with transformative adaptation, political economy, and heterodox economics offers insights into how adaptation needs fundamental politicalization and addresses root causes of vulnerability to be more impactful. To enable fruitful transdisciplinarity that uncovers and addresses structural causes the viewpoint proposes critical realism as an overarching philosophy of science as guidance in how to move forward - considering the above matters of transdisciplinarity as well as the causes of and need for a social-ecological transformation while simultaneously fostering epistemic justice. In line with feminist and indigenous critiques of positivist science of the Global North and the application standpoint theory (Foley, 2006; Hekman, 1997) we want to make transparent that the three authors are white, cis-male, able bodied, and born in the Global North which requires critical reflection upon reading.

2. Learn from Various Sources

To increase the potential of adaptation, Eriksen et al. (2015) argue that adaptation practice and analysis must “engage with multiple adaptation knowledges, to question subjectivities inherent in discourses and problem understandings, and to identify how emancipatory subjectivities [...] can be supported”. One way to do that can be the practice of transdisciplinarity that resonates with CBA (Kirkby et al. 2018) and which Alvargonzález (2011) conceptualises in general in four trends.
First, the systematic integration of knowledge refers to the emphasis on co-production of local and ‘scientific’ knowledge for CBA (Magee, 2013) meaning that transdisciplinarity and community-based approaches ought to include indigenous and feminist ways of knowing. Second, transgressiveness as the pushing of the boundaries of constructed identities (class, gender, race, and so on) takes on the rising interest in power imbalances and critical aspects within CBA literature along the lines of social inequalities (Nath, 2022; Yates, 2014). This will be reflected in the conversation with CBA and heterodox economics linked with the transformation of root causes of vulnerabilities. Third, going beyond the boundaries of disciplines’ perspectives by embracing a more holistic approach was integrated into a CBA (Clarke et al., 2019). Fourth, ‘problem-solving’ as a focus on the practice and its reflection back on ‘theory’, with its main example and application in environmental research, corresponds to the practical approach that CBA had from the beginning (Ayers and Forsyth, 2009; Forsyth, 2013; Reid et al., 2009). This leads this viewpoint at the end to suggest a philosophy of science to uncover previously overlooked spatiotemporal structures enabling an applicable CBA that solves problems on the ground. In line with the above and the valuation of epistemological diversity in climate adaptation (Mills-Novoa, 2023), the next sections look at the engagement of CBA with local indigenous and feminist knowledge.
  • Local Indigenous Knowledge
The importance and inclusion of Local Indigenous Knowledge (LIK) for CBA projects in co-production with Global North epistemologies has been acknowledged and used (Assani et al., 2024; Bronen et al., 2020; Ford et al., 2018). LIK can be described in various ways, however, some basic characteristics resonate with CBA: 1. A strong connection with the (local) environment 2. A holistic approach towards being together 3. Dynamic and communal essence of knowledge and 4. Place-based. CBA with its origin in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), the material exchange with the local environment, rather relates to an ontological dualism. Ontological dualism bears the risk to interpret global heating as an external shock rather than understanding its endogeneity. Opposing dualist tendencies of separating ‘nature’ and ‘society’, LIK tends to minimise the separation of people and the environment. LIK emphasises not only the importance of observation but the engagement and integration of the perspective(s) of the studied objects (Cruikshank, 2012; De Castro, 2019). Based on their ontological understandings, many communities and LIK systems avoid the Eurocentric reductionist philosophy which further includes the separation of disciplines or fields like art and science and instead approach things holistically which arises within CBA (Ayers et al., 2017; Fox et al., 2021). The dynamic and communal essence of LIK resonates as well. Jarillo and Barnett (2021) argue that communities are spatio-temporal dynamic networks, so a fluid definition of community, while acknowledging that communality, a common purpose, is an important factor for project success. Furthermore, place-based knowledge is central to CBA as first local needs depending on the nearby environment must be addressed (Magee, 2013) and they differ from community to community. In most LIK systems, knowledge as a noun rarely exists. It is then connected to the knowing entity and rather understood as a verb in its practical application and linked to the feedback from the local environment. A more just term could be thereby ‘indigenous way of living’ (Morris, 2010; Semali and Kincheloe, 2002).
  • Feminist Epistemology
Western epistemology, as masculine or patriarchal, should not only be challenged, supplanted, or supplemented by indigenous ‘ways of knowing’ but rather a feminist lens on knowledge production and meaning-making should be applied. Feminist epistemologies can be described in various ways however some characteristics resonate with CBA. We find it as follows: 1. Epistemological relevance of the standpoint of (marginalised) communities and their members 2. Inclusive decision-making processes 3. Normativity of science opposing neutrality 4. Empowerment as a goal 5. Participatory action research as a method. The core of CBA concerns focusing on the most vulnerable with the emphasis on co-production of knowledge, design, and evaluation. In doing so CBA aims to counter technocratic approaches of adaptation (Eriksen et al., 2015), which are based on epistemic injustices by applying ‘global’ knowledge produced by the Global North (Hulme, 2010). As such, CBA aligns with feminist epistemologies that view universal knowledge held by a minority critically. Further, to include those formerly excluded marginalised voices into decision-making is seen by both as highly valuable for the outcome due to a wider and more even epistemological foundation let alone the moral necessity. All in all, feminist epistemologies highlight the value of participatory or practical action research as an important tool to make the former four points more of a reality. This is a key pillar and method of CBA as well (Ensor and Berger, 2009). However, feminist perspectives further advocate for a deeper understanding of effects and how subjectivities formed by institutions influence adaptation. Approaching CBA via feminist epistemologies has the potential to address various issues such as (neo)colonialism, care for community development, and bringing gender justice (Dengler and Lang, 2022; Dengler and Seebacher, 2019).

3. From the Origins to the Roots

Transdisciplinarity can be seen as a tool to address climate action more thoroughly and to grasp complex social and ecological problems by expanding the horizon of knowledge production. This requires the description of a “common problem” in the first place, around which transdisciplinary can take shape (Cundill et al., 2019; Gugerell et al., 2023). Such a common problem description can be brought out by reviewing and abstracting from the origins of CBA - disaster risk reduction (DRR), sustainable development (SD), and community-based natural resource management (CBNRM). By examining the activities of the three disciplines placing them in a social-ecological system (SES) and describing their relation to CBA it is possible to name the social metabolism as a common denominator. The social metabolism makes up the physical material interaction between a social and ecological system (Brand and Wissen, 2017) and can as such reveal overproduction and -consumption of resources which is an essential information for communities to shift towards sustainable practices and the identification of vulnerabilities. DRR can be described as a response, CBNRM as stabilisation, and SD as an optimization of the social metabolism in its current destructive form.
The notion of “social” indicates that the metabolism is mediated by specific local structures of production and labour. Further, the social metabolism can be a useful concept for CBA as it also requires a holistic and transdisciplinary understanding by fusing and showing the interconnectedness of the natural and social sciences, thereby advocating for a diverse integration of stakeholders. As such, it takes a central role in analysing SES where CBA can be seen as embedded (Basel et al. 2020; Ensor, 2014; Ensor et al., 2018).
There are multiple understandings of adaptation (e.g., Pelling, 2010) from which aspects can contribute to the concept of CBA. Climate change adaptation itself is historically influenced by multiple disciplines ranging from systems ecology to political ecology and resilience theory. Adaptation can be explained as the phenomenon of adjustment to current or anticipated climate impacts and their repercussions. Within human-environment systems, adaptation aims to mitigate or prevent harm and capitalise on advantageous opportunities. Given the current state of the human-environmental system, this basically amounts to an adjustment to the current destructive social metabolism. Taking the forward-looking perspective of adaptation further, the ongoing crisis resembles a moment with a higher transformative potential (Novalia& Malekpour, 2020). This leads to question how and in what direction adaptation should exploit benefits while adjusting to climate impacts.
DRR means the systematic minimisation of vulnerabilities and mitigating the impacts of or preventing disasters. This is commonly approached through activities like early warning systems, capacity building, and infrastructure development. CBA also includes parts of the comprehensive approach of vulnerability assessments to increase community resilience – not only for climate related impacts. Both recognize that affected people are ideally positioned to understand and manage the specific risks they face. Essentially, DRR is a response to shocks in a SES which is based on how the social metabolism works.
CBNRM refers to a sustainable economy with the surrounding ecosystems and emphasises the interconnectedness of local natural resources and communal well-being. Realising, managing, and strengthening this interrelated exchange increases the resilience of the community which is in line with CBA. CBNRM is essentially a way to stabilise the connection between the social and ecological, managing the social metabolism in a regenerative manner, it constantly seeks to balance extraction and conservation of resources in the local context.
SD emphasises meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs. It can act as guidance for CBA to design projects in a socially, economically, and ecologically sustainable manner which enhances communal adaptive capacity by focusing on livelihood improvements and linking adaptation to broader goals of justice. Essentially, SD attempts to optimise the social metabolism, while not depleting natural resources at an unsustainable rate, and distribute its benefits more equitably.
CBA has proven to be beneficial together with multiple disciplines like biodiversity protection, nature-based solutions, or ecosystem-based adaptation (Reid, 2016, 2014) for adjustments to the destructive social metabolism. However, CBA should extend beyond this scope, make use of the differentiated insights, and attempt to redesign its mechanisms towards a (socio-ecological) transformation that addresses root causes of vulnerability to climate change (Dodman and Mitlin, 2013; McNamara and Buggy, 2017; Nath, 2024). It is these root causes that require adaptation in the first place and if not addressed continue to do so until adaptation limits are reached. Engaging with these ‘multiple adaptation knowledges’ above holds the potential for a social-ecological transformation (Eriksen et al., 2015). Ensor (2014) states that “[...] seeing communities embedded in linked [SESs] means that transformation will need to account for ecological as well as socio-political sustainability. Integration of these themes - of equity, economy and ecology - is at the heart of the challenge of transformation and CBA.” The questions remain as to what does the relationship between CBA and a social-ecological transformation involve and what is required to go beyond the current “mere adjustment´”?

4. Tackling the Root by Bridging Disciplines Pieces Together

In the face of human-induced global heating, transformation in the form of fundamental change for global and local societies to counter, stabilise, and adapt to the ecological collapse is inevitable. It became increasingly clear that ecology and social inequality must be thought together leading to the widely used term social-ecological transformation as a remedy (Brand&Wissen 2017). A socio-ecological transformation as a concept has very different meanings along academic and practical lines but fundamentally refers to what we think is the reparation and stewardship of the social metabolism in an equitable and sustainable manner (Brand and Wissen, 2017; Bruckmeier, 2016; De Molina and Toledo, 2014). This brings CBA into play. It implies that „responding to climate change should be seen not as a technical problem to be managed away but as an opportunity to radically rethink and rebuild social, ecological, and economic relations.“ (Manuel-Navarrete, 2010).
Achieving such a transformation of the social metabolism on the local and larger scales requires politicisation or as Brand and Wissen (2017) put it with Görg (2011): “The societal regulation of interaction with nature is possible and does in fact occur; herein lies a central dynamic of politics.” A normative orientation is then necessary to guide how a transformation should occur and where it should lead to. Transformative adaptation (TA) literature offers the contribution to a more sustainable and equitable society as a normative aim (Deubelli and Mechler, 2021; Scolobig et al., 2023). TA entails the reshaping of power relations in society through radical political change as a condition for the normative aim (Pelling, 2010).To address root causes of vulnerability, such as political economic structures, and to facilitate community voices in decision-making ensuring local needs are met, are prerequisites for a social-ecological transformation (Fedele et al., 2019). However, TA mostly falls short to be transformative in practice (Fazey et al., 2017). A more rigorous understanding of structural and higher-level drivers such as “capitalism and materialism” (Morrison et al., 2022) as well as asymmetrical power relations (Nath, 2024) with a focus on political economy (Walker and Cooper, 2011) becomes a prerequisite for transformative adaptation (Roberts and Pelling, 2019). These are structures beyond a particular community level but nevertheless influence CBA projects. The interaction between root causes from different spatiotemporal structures with the local context is therefore a relevant focus for transdisciplinary and holistic CBA.
Involving disciplines that challenge these root causes can amplify CBA in two ways. First, it allows for CBA to expand to far-less explored contexts. A variety of power structures that reproduce the root drivers and repeatedly feed into them originate in the Global North. Second, understanding those structures and how they manifest increases CBA’s potential for a socio-ecological transformation. This leads us to review three heterodox economic projects for three reasons. First, they are closely related to CBA in certain aspects enabling synergies. Second, they provide a deeper understanding on how to achieve a socio-ecological transformation. Third, the economy is the core system behind the destructive social metabolism justifying the limitation on economic strands of thought.
One theoretical strand capturing all three aspects mentioned by Ensor (2014) (economy, ecology, and equity) is degrowth as a heterodox economic approach. Degrowth aims explicitly at the reduction of the material metabolism in a democratic manner reshaping power relations in societies (Kallis et al. 2018). Social justice and community well-being within a changed metabolism are a normative orientation by overcoming the economic growth paradigm as the root cause of vulnerability (Hickel et al., 2022). Yet, degrowth focuses its scope and strategies for change on the Global North by acknowledging its historic responsibility to minimise global heating (Hickel, 2021). While degrowth increasingly recognises the role of the state it has a long tradition of focusing on communities and increases its engagement with Global South perspectives (Dengler and Seebacher, 2019) on which CBA can draw.
Focusing more on the theory of change, evolutionary economics provides another heterodox economic perspective that can increase CBA’s potential for change. Evolutionary economics argues that change occurs mainly on the meso, so communal, level (Dopfer et al., 2004). Particularly in niche situations, where oppressive structures inhibiting change are absent, new institutions develop (Pagano, 2011). CBA focuses on the meso level and can bring a deeper understanding of how changes at the different levels interact by engaging with evolutionary economics.
Another beneficial strand can be feminist economics. It views economic processes through a gender-sensitive lens thereby revealing social inequalities, the (de)valuation of care work and (un)just access and treatment on the labour market (Dengler and Lang, 2022; Perkins, 2007). Feminist economics emphasis inclusive decision making, social justice, equitable distribution of resources and local agency (Power, 2004) which resonates with the CBA need-based approach like the focus on local contexts, community empowerment, power imbalances and activities like women-led initiatives and gender sensitivity workshops.
A discussion between CBA, degrowth, evolutionary and feminist economics can yield benefits for the former in form of a better integration of how to tackle political economic root causes of climate change vulnerabilities. Next to the question of disciplines that provide insights for CBA comes the question of how to avoid implicit misunderstandings but to enable a fruitful engagement between disciplines. A critical engagement with epistemological and ontological assumptions can support transdisciplinary CBA in addressing this issue.

5. Bringing it Together - Ontology and Epistemology

CBA is well suited to challenge the positivist reductionist conception of science of the Global North by acknowledging the value of local (indigenous) knowledge and considering issues of power imbalances as structural obstacles to overcome for more impactful adaptation, actual livelihood improvement, and progressive social change. Our argument in this viewpoint is to push this further, facilitating CBA for a SET aligning with this trend and figuring out what is thereby reflecting back on the epistemological and ontological assumptions made for it. This is important because „changes in our systems of knowledge production could not only inform better understandings of ecological change but could also offer new possibilities for viable futures in the face of a variety of present and future threats“ (Paprocki, 2022, p. 2). Therefore, CBA can benefit from forming a pre-analytic vision necessary to engage with other disciplines. A pre-analytic vision includes an explicit ontological and epistemological understanding (Spash, 2012). Simply put, ontologies and epistemologies influence what methodologies and methods are used and how far disciplines can be combined. For example, CBA has differing ontological commitments compared to neoclassical economics and should refrain from integrating neoclassical methods in its approaches. While neoclassical economics has a closed system ontology consisting of isolated homogenous (rational) individuals (Arnsperger and Varoufakis, 2006; Lawson, 2013) CBA emphasises the existence of heterodox actors relating to each other (Aslany and Brincat, 2021; Chung, 2022; Kirkby et al., 2018). Methods used in the former capture individual preferences while CBA resonates more with deliberative formats emphasising connectedness. Yet, a pre-analytic vision has a certain transdisciplinarity because it allows researchers to reflect on their standpoints and look for other compatible worldviews enhancing the picture. We propose critical realism (CR) as an overarching philosophy of science as a base for CBA and its transdisciplinary endeavour. CR argues for a realist ontology combined with a weak relativist epistemology and judgemental rationality (Archer et al., 2013). While climate change vulnerabilities exist independent of our knowledge about them (realist ontology), CR points to the socially constructed understanding (relativist epistemology) of such vulnerabilities (Buch-Hansen and Nielsen, 2023). With such a differentiation CR informed CBA can avoid accepting vulnerabilities a priori but instead emphasise the causes that lead to empirically observed ones (McKeown et al., 2022). Causal explanations in CR refer to structures (e.g., economic growth) that operate through mechanisms (e.g., evaluation criteria) causing events (e.g., adaptation contributing to economic growth). Generally, CR considers reality as stratified. This puts importance on emergent phenomena making objects, including social structures, irreducible to their individual parts. This enables CR to allow for double hermeneutics, i.e., the interpretation of already interpreted phenomena, because "[a]lthough social phenomena cannot exist independently of actors or subjects, they usually do exist independently of the particular individual who is studying them” (Sayer, 2010, p. 33). This resonates with CBA and the study with communities and their social structures as emergent phenomena based on relations between people. Aligning with the LIK interpretation of knowing CR emphasises knowledge as work (Sayer, 2006). As such, knowledge is applied in the world and the practical adequacy of claims becomes a validity criterion for ‘truth’. Hence what is important is the relation between the real entity (transitive object) and how science refers to it (intransitive object). Aligning with feminist epistemologies a concept (intransitive object) is not a true representation of a real object in its entirety, but instead influenced by social constructions. Followingly, knowledge is always fallible. Nevertheless, judgemental rationality focusing on practical adequacy of statements and their alignment with previously adequate knowledge allows one to choose between contesting explanations (Sayer, 2010). Yet, CR does not state which substantive accounts are the most fitting ones (e.g., how CBA must look like) nor does it propose an encompassing method (Danermark et al., 2002). Instead, it enables different approaches to engage with each other on a common understanding of how to approach and study the world. As such, CR is “fundamentally pluralistic” (Buch-Hansen and Nielsen, 2023, p. 352). Consequently, CR provides applicable tools for place-based transdisciplinary research (Cockburn, 2022). This viewpoint argues that CBA theory and practise not only have the potential to adjust to but also restructure the mechanisms of the currently destructive social metabolism by being an instrument for a social-ecological transformation. Transdisciplinarity and engagement with heterodox economics might allow CBA to unleash its transformative potential and foster epistemic justice while ensuring that local community needs are met, well-being is improved, and root causes of vulnerability are tackled. Finally, to promote meaningful discussions between disciplines and knowledges we point to CR to guide CBA towards more impactful adaptation.

References

  1. Alvargonzález, D., 2011. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, and the sciences. International studies in the philosophy of science 25, 387–403.
  2. Archer, M., Bhaskar, R., Collier, A., Lawson, T., Norrie, A., 2013. Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Routledge.
  3. Arnsperger, C., Varoufakis, Y., 2006. What is neoclassical economics. Post-autistic economics review 38.
  4. Aslany, M., Brincat, S., 2021. Class and climate-change adaptation in rural India: Beyond community-based adaptation models. Sustainable Development 29, 571–582. [CrossRef]
  5. Assani, A.S., Yarou, A.K., Dedehou, N.V., Worogo, H.S., Baco, M.N., Houinato, M., Alkoiret, I.T., 2024. Towards indigenous community-based adaptation to climate change: a typological analysis of tree-livestock integration in smallholding systems in dryland areas of Benin (West-Africa). Agroforestry Systems 98, 197–211.
  6. Ayers, J., Forsyth, T., 2009. Community-based adaptation to climate change: strengthening resilience through development. 51, 22–31. [CrossRef]
  7. Ayers, J., Huq, S., Wright, H., Faisal, A.M., Hussain, S.T., 2017. Mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development in Bangladesh, in: Community-Based Adaptation. Routledge, pp. 15–27.
  8. Basel, B., Goby, G., Johnson, J., 2020. Community-based adaptation to climate change in villages of Western Province, Solomon Islands. Marine Pollution Bulletin 156, 111266. [CrossRef]
  9. Brand, U., Wissen, M., 2017. Social-ecological transformation. International encyclopedia of geography 1–9.
  10. Bronen, R., Pollock, D., Overbeck, J., Stevens, D., Natali, S., Maio, C., 2020. Usteq: integrating indigenous knowledge and social and physical sciences to coproduce knowledge and support community-based adaptation. Polar Geography 43, 188–205. [CrossRef]
  11. Bruckmeier, K., 2016. Social-ecological transformation. Springer.
  12. Buch-Hansen, H., Nielsen, P., 2023. Critical realism, the climate crisis and (de)growth. Journal of Critical Realism 22, 347–363. [CrossRef]
  13. Chung, J., 2022. Who defines community in community-based adaptation: different perceptions of community between government and citizens in Ethiopia. Climate and Development 1–10.
  14. Clarke, T., McNamara, K.E., Clissold, R., Nunn, P.D., 2019. Community-based adaptation to climate change: lessons from Tanna Island, Vanuatu. Information Systems Journal 14, 59–80. [CrossRef]
  15. Cockburn, J., 2022. Knowledge integration in transdisciplinary sustainability science: Tools from applied critical realism. Sustainable Development 30, 358–374.
  16. Cruikshank, J., 2012. Are Glaciers ‘Good to Think With’? Recognising Indigenous Environmental Knowledge 1. Anthropological Forum 22, 239–250. [CrossRef]
  17. Cundill, G., Harvey, B., Tebboth, M., Cochrane, L., Currie-Alder, B., Vincent, K., Lawn, J., Nicholls, R.J., Scodanibbio, L., Prakash, A., 2019. Large-scale transdisciplinary collaboration for adaptation research: Challenges and insights. Global Challenges 3, 1700132.
  18. Danermark, B., Ekström, M., Jakobsen, L., Karlsson, J.C., 2002. Generalization, scientific inference and models for an explanatory social science, in: Explaining Society: An Introduction to Critical REalism in the Social Sciences. Routledge Ablingdon, London, pp. 73–114.
  19. De Castro, E.V., 2019. Exchanging perspectives: the transformation of objects into subjects in Amerindian ontologies. Common knowledge 25, 21–42.
  20. De Molina, M.G., Toledo, V.M., 2014. The social metabolism: a socio-ecological theory of historical change. Springer.
  21. Dengler, C., Lang, M., 2022. Commoning care: feminist degrowth visions for a socio-ecological transformation. Feminist Economics 28, 1–28.
  22. Dengler, C., Seebacher, L.M., 2019. What about the global south? Towards a feminist decolonial degrowth approach. Ecological Economics 157, 246–252.
  23. Deubelli, T.M., Mechler, R., 2021. Perspectives on transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation. Environmental Research Letters 16, 053002.
  24. Dodman, D., Mitlin, D., 2013. Challenges for community-based adaptation: discovering the potential for transformation. Journal of International Development 25, 640–659.
  25. Dopfer, K., Foster, J., Potts, J., 2004. Micro-meso-macro. Journal of evolutionary economics 14, 263–279.
  26. Ensor, J., 2014. Emerging lessons for community-based adaptation. Community-Based Adaptation to Climate Change. Emerging Lessons. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby 183–197.
  27. Ensor, J., Berger, R., 2009. Understanding climate change adaptation: lessons from community-based approaches. Practical Action Publishing.
  28. Ensor, J., Park, S., Attwood, S., Simon Attwood, Kaminski, A.M., Johnson, J.E., Johanna E. Johnson, 2018. Can community-based adaptation increase resilience? Climate and Development 10, 134–151. [CrossRef]
  29. Eriksen, S.H., Nightingale, A.J., Eakin, H., 2015. Reframing adaptation: The political nature of climate change adaptation. Global Environmental Change 35, 523–533.
  30. Fazey, I., Moug, P., Allen, S., Beckmann, K., Blackwood, D., Bonaventura, M., Burnett, K., Danson, M., Falconer, R., Gagnon, A.S., Harkness, R., Hodgson, A., Holm, L., Irvine, K.N., Low, R., Lyon, C., Moss, A., Moran, C., Naylor, L., O’Brien, K., Russell, S., Skerratt, S., Rao-Williams, J., Wolstenholme, R., 2017. Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda. Climate and Development 10, 197–217. [CrossRef]
  31. Fedele, G., Donatti, C.I., Harvey, C.A., Hannah, L., Hole, D.G., 2019. Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy 101, 116–125.
  32. Foley, D., 2006. Indigenous Standpoint Theory. International Journal of the Humanities 3.
  33. Ford, J.D., Sherman, M., Berrang-Ford, L., Llanos, A., Carcamo, C., Harper, S., Lwasa, S., Namanya, D., Marcello, T., Maillet, M., Edge, V., 2018. Preparing for the health impacts of climate change in Indigenous communities: The role of community-based adaptation. Global Environmental Change 49, 129–139. [CrossRef]
  34. Forsyth, T., 2013. Community-based adaptation: a review of past and future challenges. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 4, 439–446. [CrossRef]
  35. Fox, A., Ziervogel, G., Scheba, S., 2021. Strengthening community-based adaptation for urban transformation: managing flood risk in informal settlements in Cape Town. Local Environment 1–15.
  36. Galvin, M., 2019. Making Community-Based Adaptation a Reality: Different Conceptualisations, Different Politics: 12, 50–63. [CrossRef]
  37. Gugerell, K., Radinger-Peer, V., Penker, M., 2023. Systemic knowledge integration in transdisciplinary and sustainability transformation research. Futures 150, 103177. [CrossRef]
  38. Hekman, S., 1997. Truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society 22, 341–365.
  39. Hickel, J. (2021). What does degrowth mean? A few points of clarification. Globalizations, 18(7), 1105-1111.
  40. Hickel, J., Kallis, G., Jackson, T., O’Neill, D.W., Schor, J.B., Steinberger, J.K., Victor, P.A., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., 2022. Degrowth can work — here’s how science can help. Nature 612, 400–403. [CrossRef]
  41. Hulme, M., 2010. Problems with making and governing global kinds of knowledge. Global Environmental Change 20, 558–564.
  42. Jarillo, S., Barnett, 2021. Contingent communality and community-based adaptation to climate change: Insights from a Pacific rural atoll. Journal of Rural Studies 87, 137–145.
  43. Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, M. (2018). Research on degrowth. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43, 291-316.
  44. Kirkby, P., Williams, C., Huq, S., 2018. Community-based adaptation (CBA): adding conceptual clarity to the approach, and establishing its principles and challenges. Climate and Development 10, 1–13. [CrossRef]
  45. Lawson, T., 2013. What is this “school” called neoclassical economics? Cambridge Journal of Economics 37, 947–983.
  46. Magee, T., 2013. A field guide to community based adaptation. Routledge.
  47. Manuel-Navarrete, D., 2010. Power, realism, and the ideal of human emancipation in a climate of change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change 1, 781–785.
  48. McKeown, A., Hai Bui, D., Glenn, J., 2022. A social theory of resilience: The governance of vulnerability in crisis-era neoliberalism. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 9, 112–132. [CrossRef]
  49. McNamara, K.E., Buggy, L., 2017. Community-based climate change adaptation: a review of academic literature. Local Environment 22, 1–18. [CrossRef]
  50. Mills-Novoa, M., 2023. What happens after climate change adaptation projects end: A community-based approach to ex-post assessment of adaptation projects. Global Environmental Change 80, 102655. [CrossRef]
  51. Morris, B., 2010. Indigenous knowledge. The Society of Malawi Journal 63, 1–9.
  52. Morrison, T.H., Adger, W.N., Agrawal, A., Brown, K., Hornsey, M.J., Hughes, T.P., Jain, M., Lemos, M.C., McHugh, L.H., O’Neill, S., Van Berkel, D., 2022. Radical interventions for climate-impacted systems. Nature Climate Change 12, 1100–1106. [CrossRef]
  53. Nath, S., 2024. Mobilising transformative community-based climate change adaptation. Urban Transformations 6, 1.
  54. Nath, S., 2022. The Role of Structured Decision-making in Community-based Adaptation: A systematic scoping review. Conference Paper, 28th Annual Conference, International Sustainable Development Research Society 1.
  55. Novalia, W., & Malekpour, S. (2020). Theorising the role of crisis for transformative adaptation. Environmental science & policy, 112, 361-370.
  56. Pagano, U., 2011. Interlocking complementarities and institutional change. Journal of Institutional Economics 7, 373–392.
  57. Paprocki, K., 2022. On viability: Climate change and the science of possible futures. Global Environmental Change 73, 102487.
  58. Pelling, M., 2010. Adaptation to climate change: from resilience to transformation. Routledge.
  59. Perkins, P.E., 2007. Feminist ecological economics and sustainability. Journal of Bioeconomics 9, 227–244.
  60. Power, M., 2004. Social Provisioning as a Starting Point for Feminist Economics. Feminist Economics 10, 3–19. [CrossRef]
  61. Reid, H., 2016. Ecosystem- and community-based adaptation: learning from community-based natural resource management. Climate and Development 8, 4–9. [CrossRef]
  62. Reid, H., 2014. A natural focus for community-based adaptation. Community-based Adaptation to Climate Change: Emerging Lessons. Practical Action Publishing, Rugby 35–54.
  63. Reid, H., Alam, M., Berger, R., Cannon, T., Huq, S., Milligan, A., 2009. Community-based adaptation to climate change: an overview. Participatory learning and action 60, 11–33.
  64. Roberts, E., Pelling, M., 2019. Loss and damage: an opportunity for transformation? Climate Policy 20. [CrossRef]
  65. Sayer, A., 2010. Theory, observation and practical adequacy, in: Method in Social Science: Revised. Routledge.
  66. Sayer, A., 2006. Method in social science: revised 2nd edition. Routledge.
  67. Scolobig, A., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Pelling, M., Martin, J.G., Deubelli, T.M., Liu, W., Oen, A., 2023. Transformative adaptation through nature-based solutions: a comparative case study analysis in China, Italy, and Germany. Regional Environmental Change 23, 69.
  68. Semali, L.M., Kincheloe, J.L., 2002. What is indigenous knowledge?: Voices from the academy. Routledge.
  69. Spash, C.L., 2012. New foundations for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 77, 36–47. [CrossRef]
  70. Walker, J., Cooper, M., 2011. Genealogies of resilience: From systems ecology to the political economy of crisis adaptation. Security dialogue 42, 143–160.
  71. Yates, J.S., 2014. Power and politics in the governance of community-based adaptation. Community-based adaptation to climate change: Emerging lessons 15–34.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Enabling Environments? Examining Social Co-Benefits of Ecosystem-Based Adaptation to Climate Change in Sri Lanka

Stephen Woroniecki

Sustainability,

2019

Community Vitality: The Role of Community-Level Resilience Adaptation and Innovation in Sustainable Development

Ann Dale

et al.

Sustainability,

2010

Addressing the Environmental, Community, and Health Impacts of Resource Development: Challenges across Scales, Sectors, and Sites

Margot Parkes

et al.

Challenges,

2019

Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated