Can Managing Climate Risks Be a Catalyst for Broader Transformative Change?

The proposed paper, submitted as a “Viewpoint”, Can managing climate risks be a catalyst for local development and welfare? From short-term risk avoidance to long-term transformative urban land-use policy, is highly informative and makes an important contribution to the pressing issue of adaptation with a particular view on cities. Formulated as a viewpoint and contribution to ongoing debates, the paper convincingly develops the argument that “the dominant framing of climate risk management in urban areas almost exclusively focus on short-term incrementalities” (p1) and “make the case for broadening the scope and rethink the framing of climate change adaptation in urban policy development” (p2). To this end, the authors not only discuss how integrating adaptation into broader contexts of policy planning is necessary (p3) and to some extend already achieved (Box 1), but also draw on the analytical differentiation of reactive, incremental, and transformative adaptation (p.6).

The authors, in my view, to develop a great contribution in a convincing manner, i.e. with regard to structure, argument, and academic rigour. Against this background, the following remarks are comments for potential improvement of an already good paper and may help to clearify some points:

Thank you for these positive words!

·       Title: I find the first part of the title, Can managing climate risks be a catalyst for local development and welfare? A bit misleading. While the second part (and abstract) correspond with the content of the article, the text doesn’t really talk about “welfare” and to a limited extent “development”. In the text, well-being is rather used. I suggest to reconsider this, given that this appears not as a major point. Focus more on the transformative part of the essay

We have changed the title to reflect the discussion in the paper: Can managing climate risks be a catalyst for broader transformative change? 

·       The introduction is good and presents the point of the paper in a convincing way. Part 2, material and method, can be short (this is not a methodology paper). But here a bit of context is missing, and the reader is kind of thrown into the “results” following the introduction. Give more context also which kind of documents (from where? Adaptation is also a very local specific phenomenon). Also give 1-2 sentences on how results are presented, that makes reading them much easier.

In this perspective paper, we develop our arguments based upon literature study and experiences working with cities around the world. We applied the Adaptation-Mitigation Interactions Assessment methodology of the C40 Cities Climate Leader-ship Group in six megacities (C40, 2020). Several cities within the global network of C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group have identified transformative climate actions as part of their climate action planning. eThekwini Municipality (Durban) in South Africa lists transformative actions in their Durban climate action plan 2019 (eThekwini Municipality, 2019), as well as in their Transformative Riverine Management Projects (C40 Cities Finance Facility, 2019). Kuala Lumpur’s Climate Action Plan (KLCAP2050) describes roadmaps for delivering Kuala Lumpur’s transformative actions (Kuala Lumpur City Hall, 2021). Quezon City in the Philippines identified transformative climate actions in 2020 and, as of 2022, has started implanting them (Quezon City municipality, 2022).

We analyzed literature to summarize relevant historical developments in urban land-use policy development in which climate challenges are incorporated. Then we proceed with discussing our experiences in a number of case studies where we worked with cities around the world. We note that the cases that we included started acting on adaptation to climate change without necessarily being obliged or encouraged to do so for legal reasons. In other cities or other regions legal obligations may encourage and/or steer such adaptation activities (e.g., see Turner A.E., & Burger, M. (2021) for a US example). We also note that various methods are available to plan for adaptation in an urban context, in addition to those used in the C40 work covered by this paper. One very promising example is the usage of serious gaming, such as in New Zealand (NIWA, 2022).

·       Starting to read the “results” and the challenges, in 3.1., I was a bit lost of the context the authors talk about. While I totally agree that this points can be “universal” arguments, the paper draws on “Western” (even European) experiences, I suggest to give some context here as well (and be a bit more reflexive about the empirical findings you’re talking about). Quiet a difference to talk about transformative adaptation in Nijmegen or Dhaka.

We agree with the reviewer, hence we have added some useful text about the limitation to western cities (because of the nature of the associated project) and the suggestion that we think that the results can be universally valid but have to be tested more widely in cities in the developing world. On the one hand, western cities may have more resources to implement the suggested approach, but on the other hand may be more constrained because their basic design has already been fixed, while in faster growing developing cities there may be more degrees of freedom to take a transformative approach. There may be publications about this. This may either be added in the intro, or in the (discussion and) conclusions section.

·       Minor issue: On page 4 the paper talks about “levels of scale”, in sociology, political science and geography levels and scales are, conceptually speaking, a big difference (some would argue the opposite).

Addressed

·       Really like the argument to develop a “positive narrative”, especially as climate science highlight difficulties of dealing with “dooms day” narratives in general. Though some difficulties arise with this of course: a) is a “positive narrative” or “framing” (concepts the paper seems to use interchangeably, though they are different, enough? At some points this reads a bit like “greenwashing” and I’m sure this is not your intention. I think being more clear on the terms you use, would help to avoid that impression.

B) the paper only mentions uncertainty in the final part, however I would already address this central feature of climate futures in 3.2.2., i.e. how can “positive narratives” reflected and deal with the fact of deep uncertainties?

We would say that the words are not used  interchangeably, but that a positive narrative requires a change of framing (from defensive management of risks to creating opportunities for positive change). We propose to change the indeed confusing sequence of “assets” in lines 250-263, with change of framing before change of outcomes.

The paper indeed doesn’t focus very much on uncertainty. This is more related to the eventual urban development process than to the idea of a positive vision, and we add some text on this in 3.2.1 where we mention learning by doing.

·       The “transformative adaptation” is at the heart of the paper and a really good contribution. Again here some clarity would be helpful in regard to what is transformative and sustainable adaptation? In other parts you highlight the term deep transformation. While in discussion on adaptation there are of course differences, it would help if you could highlight how they relate to each other. At some points, it reads a bit as if transformative and sustainable adaptation are the same. In particular, because you make a very valuable contribution to social agency with regard to dealing with climate change, this would be very helpful. You may find the Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook 2021 helpful, that also discusses social transformation and deep decarbonization (incl. references to sustainable adaptation).

We tend to agree here that we mix up sustainable and transformative a bit. We have edited text to make clear that small steps being made in a sustainable direction may be ok for the short term, but in many cases are insufficient for long-term sustainability which needs a transformative approach.

·       Figure 2 is also really helpful, yet, following your argument, I wonder whether the yellow incremental line would need to go back down in the long term with regard to “benefits of adaptation”?

Initially we thought that the answer would be No (i.e., benefits would remain, but not increase) but on 2^nd thoughts think that the reviewers does have a point: the incremental responses may work against you on the long run, thus decreasing the benefits. However, for this study and within the context, we consider the rationale adequate

·       As said before, Box 1 provides great examples and helps to understand your argument. Though the question is whether fewer examples with more detail and critical engagement (sometime the text seem to adopt the official narrative of cities) would be better to contextualize the examples into your framework, i.e. how do you see them along the lines of incremental and transformative adaptation?

As to fewer examples we would not do this because these were the cities we considered in the project and associated paper?

·       Explain “silo’d approach” mentioned twice, which is not clear to all readers.

Let’s add a definition. Like “a siloed approach ignores the intersectional nature of risk, i.e.  how different risk factors interact and reinforce each other” or “”.

·       Box 2 is also very helpful, yet see comment above: quiet some official framing with to little critical engagement, greening cities vs. greenwashing city policies.

Can we say that developing really transformative plans in a participatory fashion would help the avoidance of greenwashing by small incremental solutions?

·       I think the “co-designing” part is excellent and could be made stronger (or next paper). There is a lot of co-producing knowledge and policy research on climate justice, sustainability out there – and this would be a perfect add on.

We suggest that this opens up a vast new area, but we may suggest this as a next step (climate justice is – rightly - very fashionable now, more than when this project was done).

·       The concluding remarks are very good and add new aspects to the paper. I think that Figure 4 is somehow in a difficult place just at the end of the whole text. It seems to present something new (and important), but it is not in the main text. If this is the “answer” to your overall question. This should come at least a bit earlier.

Addressed

In sum, a great and strong contribution and I’m looking forward to see this published. 

Thanks!

The proposed paper, submitted as a “Viewpoint”, Can managing climate risks be a catalyst for local development and welfare? From short-term risk avoidance to long-term transformative urban land-use policy, is highly informative and makes an important contribution to the pressing issue of adaptation with a particular view on cities. Formulated as a viewpoint and contribution to ongoing debates, the paper convincingly develops the argument that “the dominant framing of climate risk management in urban areas almost exclusively focus on short-term incrementalities” (p1) and “make the case for broadening the scope and rethink the framing of climate change adaptation in urban policy development” (p2). To this end, the authors not only discuss how integrating adaptation into broader contexts of policy planning is necessary (p3) and to some extend already achieved (Box 1), but also draw on the analytical differentiation of reactive, incremental, and transformative adaptation (p.6).

The authors, in my view, to develop a great contribution in a convincing manner, i.e. with regard to structure, argument, and academic rigour. Against this background, the following remarks are comments for potential improvement of an already good paper and may help to clearify some points:

Thank you for these positive words!

·       Title: I find the first part of the title, Can managing climate risks be a catalyst for local development and welfare? A bit misleading. While the second part (and abstract) correspond with the content of the article, the text doesn’t really talk about “welfare” and to a limited extent “development”. In the text, well-being is rather used. I suggest to reconsider this, given that this appears not as a major point. Focus more on the transformative part of the essay

We have changed the title to reflect the discussion in the paper: Can managing climate risks be a catalyst for broader transformative change? 

·       The introduction is good and presents the point of the paper in a convincing way. Part 2, material and method, can be short (this is not a methodology paper). But here a bit of context is missing, and the reader is kind of thrown into the “results” following the introduction. Give more context also which kind of documents (from where? Adaptation is also a very local specific phenomenon). Also give 1-2 sentences on how results are presented, that makes reading them much easier.

In this perspective paper, we develop our arguments based upon literature study and experiences working with cities around the world. We applied the Adaptation-Mitigation Interactions Assessment methodology of the C40 Cities Climate Leader-ship Group in six megacities (C40, 2020). Several cities within the global network of C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group have identified transformative climate actions as part of their climate action planning. eThekwini Municipality (Durban) in South Africa lists transformative actions in their Durban climate action plan 2019 (eThekwini Municipality, 2019), as well as in their Transformative Riverine Management Projects (C40 Cities Finance Facility, 2019). Kuala Lumpur’s Climate Action Plan (KLCAP2050) describes roadmaps for delivering Kuala Lumpur’s transformative actions (Kuala Lumpur City Hall, 2021). Quezon City in the Philippines identified transformative climate actions in 2020 and, as of 2022, has started implanting them (Quezon City municipality, 2022).

We analyzed literature to summarize relevant historical developments in urban land-use policy development in which climate challenges are incorporated. Then we proceed with discussing our experiences in a number of case studies where we worked with cities around the world. We note that the cases that we included started acting on adaptation to climate change without necessarily being obliged or encouraged to do so for legal reasons. In other cities or other regions legal obligations may encourage and/or steer such adaptation activities (e.g., see Turner A.E., & Burger, M. (2021) for a US example). We also note that various methods are available to plan for adaptation in an urban context, in addition to those used in the C40 work covered by this paper. One very promising example is the usage of serious gaming, such as in New Zealand (NIWA, 2022).

·       Starting to read the “results” and the challenges, in 3.1., I was a bit lost of the context the authors talk about. While I totally agree that this points can be “universal” arguments, the paper draws on “Western” (even European) experiences, I suggest to give some context here as well (and be a bit more reflexive about the empirical findings you’re talking about). Quiet a difference to talk about transformative adaptation in Nijmegen or Dhaka.

We agree with the reviewer, hence we have added some useful text about the limitation to western cities (because of the nature of the associated project) and the suggestion that we think that the results can be universally valid but have to be tested more widely in cities in the developing world. On the one hand, western cities may have more resources to implement the suggested approach, but on the other hand may be more constrained because their basic design has already been fixed, while in faster growing developing cities there may be more degrees of freedom to take a transformative approach. There may be publications about this. This may either be added in the intro, or in the (discussion and) conclusions section.

·       Minor issue: On page 4 the paper talks about “levels of scale”, in sociology, political science and geography levels and scales are, conceptually speaking, a big difference (some would argue the opposite).

Addressed

·       Really like the argument to develop a “positive narrative”, especially as climate science highlight difficulties of dealing with “dooms day” narratives in general. Though some difficulties arise with this of course: a) is a “positive narrative” or “framing” (concepts the paper seems to use interchangeably, though they are different, enough? At some points this reads a bit like “greenwashing” and I’m sure this is not your intention. I think being more clear on the terms you use, would help to avoid that impression.

B) the paper only mentions uncertainty in the final part, however I would already address this central feature of climate futures in 3.2.2., i.e. how can “positive narratives” reflected and deal with the fact of deep uncertainties?

We would say that the words are not used  interchangeably, but that a positive narrative requires a change of framing (from defensive management of risks to creating opportunities for positive change). We propose to change the indeed confusing sequence of “assets” in lines 250-263, with change of framing before change of outcomes.

The paper indeed doesn’t focus very much on uncertainty. This is more related to the eventual urban development process than to the idea of a positive vision, and we add some text on this in 3.2.1 where we mention learning by doing.

·       The “transformative adaptation” is at the heart of the paper and a really good contribution. Again here some clarity would be helpful in regard to what is transformative and sustainable adaptation? In other parts you highlight the term deep transformation. While in discussion on adaptation there are of course differences, it would help if you could highlight how they relate to each other. At some points, it reads a bit as if transformative and sustainable adaptation are the same. In particular, because you make a very valuable contribution to social agency with regard to dealing with climate change, this would be very helpful. You may find the Hamburg Climate Futures Outlook 2021 helpful, that also discusses social transformation and deep decarbonization (incl. references to sustainable adaptation).

We tend to agree here that we mix up sustainable and transformative a bit. We have edited text to make clear that small steps being made in a sustainable direction may be ok for the short term, but in many cases are insufficient for long-term sustainability which needs a transformative approach.

·       Figure 2 is also really helpful, yet, following your argument, I wonder whether the yellow incremental line would need to go back down in the long term with regard to “benefits of adaptation”?

Initially we thought that the answer would be No (i.e., benefits would remain, but not increase) but on 2^nd thoughts think that the reviewers does have a point: the incremental responses may work against you on the long run, thus decreasing the benefits. However, for this study and within the context, we consider the rationale adequate

·       As said before, Box 1 provides great examples and helps to understand your argument. Though the question is whether fewer examples with more detail and critical engagement (sometime the text seem to adopt the official narrative of cities) would be better to contextualize the examples into your framework, i.e. how do you see them along the lines of incremental and transformative adaptation?

As to fewer examples we would not do this because these were the cities we considered in the project and associated paper?

·       Explain “silo’d approach” mentioned twice, which is not clear to all readers.

Let’s add a definition. Like “a siloed approach ignores the intersectional nature of risk, i.e.  how different risk factors interact and reinforce each other” or “”.

·       Box 2 is also very helpful, yet see comment above: quiet some official framing with to little critical engagement, greening cities vs. greenwashing city policies.

Can we say that developing really transformative plans in a participatory fashion would help the avoidance of greenwashing by small incremental solutions?

·       I think the “co-designing” part is excellent and could be made stronger (or next paper). There is a lot of co-producing knowledge and policy research on climate justice, sustainability out there – and this would be a perfect add on.

We suggest that this opens up a vast new area, but we may suggest this as a next step (climate justice is – rightly - very fashionable now, more than when this project was done).

·       The concluding remarks are very good and add new aspects to the paper. I think that Figure 4 is somehow in a difficult place just at the end of the whole text. It seems to present something new (and important), but it is not in the main text. If this is the “answer” to your overall question. This should come at least a bit earlier.

Addressed

In sum, a great and strong contribution and I’m looking forward to see this published. 

Thanks!

Reviewer’s comment

Authors response

Nice improvements!

We thank the reviewers for their immense contribution.

The article could still use one more proofreading,

The paper has been extensively reviewed

however. Also, some statement as to why this study is different from all the others that have concluded that cities need to improve and broaden their climate change adaptation planning would be helpful. What is different about your study?

This paper is one of the first to examine the potential for developing positive urban visions to fundamentally transform cities, capturing a broader spectrum of urban sustainability, resilience, and climate justice challenges. Many studies have recognized climate risks and taken steps to assess risk and develop incremental adaptive measures. However, few have looked beyond short-term responses, which risks the ineffectiveness of these measures over the long term. Drawing on practical examples from international urban networks in which the authors are involved, this paper advises cities to move beyond narrow, short-term measures and adopt a more comprehensive approach.