PADM530Wk4

Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356

When is transformation a viable policy alternative?

Johanna Nalau a, John Handmer b,* a Griffith Climate Change Response Program, Gold Coast Campus, Griffith University, Queensland 4222, Australia b Centre for Risk & Community Safety, RMIT University, GPO Box 2476, Melbourne 3001, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 2 December 2014

Received in revised form 7 May 2015

Accepted 21 July 2015

Available online 13 August 2015

Keywords:

Policy change

Problem types

Transformation

Disaster risk management

Climate change adaptation

A B S T R A C T

The most common response to change by societies is either to take incremental steps and maintain the

current system or accept gradual partial change. Yet, given the current and future complex large-scale

challenges like climate change, such responses are increasingly inadequate. Calls are now made for

societies to implement transformative approaches in order to manage complex problems in a more

sustainable and adaptive manner. However, the discussion around transformative change is still

emerging and it is not clear as to what transformation means, how it can be evaluated, and how the

conceptions of transformation fit within the current understanding of dealing with policy problems in

practice. This paper explores the range of current understandings on transformation and its

characteristics, and uses Handmer and Dovers’ (2007, 2009, 2013) three-staged typology to investigate

different approaches to identifying and managing policy problems and the potential scope for

transformation. Examples from policy and practice within disaster risk management are used to

demonstrate how different management approaches attempt to deal with particular problems and to

investigate to what extent these could be transformative. It is argued that not all transformation is

positive and welcome, and that greater focus needs to be placed on how complex problems are managed

in a manner that enables long-term positive transformation.

� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Science & Policy

jo u rn al ho m epag e: ww w.els evier . c om / lo cat e/en vs c i

1. Introduction

Changing climatic conditions are bringing numerous challenges to policy and practice across all sectors (Handmer et al., 2012; Mechler and Bouwer, 2014). These challenges include for example increases in extreme events such as shifts in fire regimes due to increased drought conditions (Pausas and Fernández-Muñoz, 2012), extreme fire weather (Grose et al., 2014), extreme water deficits (Sippel and Otto, 2014), and extreme temperatures and heat waves (Hansen et al., 2012). The heatwaves in Europe in 2003 (Feuensenger, 2012; Larsen, 2006) and Russia in 2010 (Gallant, 2010) both broke temperature records and exposed multiple simultaneous vulnerabilities across service networks and econom- ic sectors. In 2010, NOAA National Climatic Data Center reported a range of extreme events across the globe, many which displayed increases in magnitude (NOAA National Climatic Data Center, 2010). Australia has broken its heatwave records first in 2013 and now in 2014 prompting discussion on the kinds of societal changes

* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Nalau), [email protected]

(J. Handmer).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.022

1462-9011/� 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

more intense and frequent heatwaves will pose to the society (Frew, 2014). Hence, policy problems in a variety of areas are likely to display increasingly complex features and lie outside of previous experience (O’Neill and Handmer, 2012; Preston et al., 2013).

Yet, while the evidence for climatic regime shifts is accelerating (IPCC, 2014), societies tend to respond to pressures to change mostly through incremental steps, which focus on maintaining the current system or accepting gradual partial change (Handmer and Dovers, 2009, 2013). Part of this problem lies in the human experience as Patt et al. (2010, p. 385) note: ‘‘Human society is inexperienced at trying to steer itself, deliberatively and quickly, in fundamentally new directions’’. In terms of risk management, organisations can be quite rigid in their management regimes and ‘‘the capacity to respond quickly and appropriately, once emergent signs are noted, often seems to be restricted’’ (Barnes et al., 2007, p. 9). As Kasperson (2011, p. 435) also remarks, ‘‘societies and decision-makers proceed on basic management or technological courses that accumulate over time. Major shifts away from these well-established developmental paths generally require either major risk events or incremental decisions made over long periods of time’’. There are exceptions to this view, but they are few.

While institutions and agencies have developed and adhered to particular approaches over time to manage policy problems

J. Nalau, J. Handmer / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356350

(Handmer and Dovers, 2013), the way the nature of policy problems is now changing has invoked thinking around which management approaches are sufficient and where transformative change, both in practices and perceptions, is necessary to respond more effectively to evolving complexity in the scope and scale of issues (Kates et al., 2012; O’Brien, 2012; Park et al., 2012; Pelling, 2011; Preston, 2013). Transformation is championed partly due to the urgency to change development pathways to adapt to climate change (Hallegatte, 2009; IPCC, 2014), and the accompanying increasing number of disasters associated with extreme weather and climate events (IPCC, 2012; Preston, 2013; Visser et al., 2014).

However, although the idea of transformation has become more prominent in particular among the scientific community (IPCC, 2012; Mustelin and Handmer, 2014; O’Brien, 2012; O’Brien and Sygna, 2014; Park et al., 2012; Pelling, 2011; Preston et al., 2013), there is no clear consensus as to what the concept means in practice, how it could be evaluated, and what role transformative approaches play in disaster risk management, policy and practice. For example, O’Brien (2012, p. 670) notes that despite the increasing interest in transformation research, the concept remains fairly vaguely defined specifically given that it can mean ‘‘different things to different people or groups, and it is not always clear what exactly needs to be transformed and why, whose interest these transformations serve, and what will be the consequences’’. This poses obvious problems regarding attempts to set and identify such elements as boundaries, scale, and the evaluation of transformation, even though most definitions agree that transformation involves fundamental change.

The aim of this paper is to explore the concept of transformation in its current usage and definition, and to demonstrate how different approaches to public policy and policy problems are more or less able to accommodate transformative approaches. It uses Handmer and Dovers’ (2007, 2009, 2013) typologies of common approaches to societal resilience and framing of policy problems, and examines the level of potential for transformation.

The paper is organised as follows: Section 2 reviews briefly common definitions for transformation as qualitative change. After that Section 3 discusses different framings of policy problems and introduces the typology used to illuminate different dimensions of problem types and management responses. Section 4 discusses in more detail what different responses and framings mean in terms of identifying and understanding the nature of transformative change by using several practical examples from disaster risk

Table 1 Transformation as a qualitative change.

Source Definition

The Free Dictionary by Farlex a. ‘‘The act or an instance of transforming’’

b. ‘‘The state of being transformed’’

‘‘A marked change, as in appearance or cha

Dictionary.com ‘‘change in form, appearance, nature, or ch

‘‘Theatre. a seemingly miraculous change i

Oxford Dictionaries 1. ‘‘a marked change in form, nature, or ap

Merriam-Webster ‘‘an act, process, or instance of transformin

‘‘false hair worn especially by a woman to

Business Dictionary ‘‘In an organizational context, a process of

and takes it to an entirely different level o

no resemblance with the past configuratio

Macmillan Dictionary ‘‘a change into someone or something com

Wordsmyth Thesaurus ‘‘a significant change in the form, structure

management. Section 5 summarises the arguments and suggests some strategies to better understand such processes of change.

2. Defining transformation

The concept of transformation is frequently used and widely applied across diverse fields such as mathematics, genetics, leadership, organisational change, education, and theatre. Over time particular characteristics have formed to distinguish and explain transformation from the perspective of qualitative change (Table 1), seen as a fundamental system change. Most of these definitions see transformation as an act or process, which demands significant change. This change, as the Farlex Free Dictionary (2013) notes, is ‘‘usually for the better’’. Transformative change in other words should lead to a positive change, which is ‘‘profound and radical’’ at heart (Business Dictionary, 2013). After transfor- mation, the system should be significantly different with ‘‘little or no resemblance with the past configuration or structure’’ (Business Dictionary, 2013). Transformation then requires a significant shift from the status quo.

While most definitions agree with the need for ‘‘significant change’’, some of these refer to a different nature and durability of change. For example, Merriam-Webster’s (2013) second definition describes transformation as ‘‘false hair worn especially by a woman to replace or supplement natural hair’’ while another describes transformation as ‘‘a seemingly miraculous change in the appearance of scenery or actors’’ (Dictionary.com, 2013). Trans- formation in other words can appear to have taken place without changing the actual underlying system. This raises an important qualitative aspect of change and its evaluation: how do we know when transformation is ‘‘real’’ and sustainable? Where can the line be drawn between appearance and rhetoric and actual transfor- mation?

Several disciplines have investigated transformation in the context of global environmental change including risk manage- ment, climate change adaptation, sustainable development, emergency management, and disaster risk reduction. The defini- tion and characteristics of transformation have inspired scholarly thinking in recent years in particular in the context of climate change adaptation. O’Brien and Sygna (2014, p. 16) remark that four approaches to transformation dominate the climate change discourse: transformational adaptation, transformations to sus- tainability, transforming behaviours, and social transformation.

racter, usually for the better’’

aracter’’

n the appearance of scenery or actors in view of the audience’’

pearance’’

g or being transformed’’

replace or supplement natural hair’’

profound and radical change that orients an organization in a new direction

f effectiveness. . .transformation implies a basic change of character and little or

n or structure’’

pletely different, or the process by which this happens’’

, character, or nature of something or someone’’

Table 2 Transformation and adaptation in the current discourse.

Term Definition

Transformational adaptation Key features: Adopted at a much larger scale or intensity; Truly new to a particular region or resource system, and Transforms

places and shifts locations

Nature: both reactive and anticipatory, can be collective, individual, organisational, both autonomous and planned; spin-offs from

other actions, incremental or rapid (Kates et al., 2012, p. 7165)

Often novel, large-scale approaches where incremental adaptation is not enough (O’Brien and Sygna, 2014)

Transformation = ‘‘A fundamental alteration of the nature of a system once the current ecological, social, or economic conditions become untenable

or are undesirable’’: no distinct boundary between incremental adjustments and transformation (Nelson et al., 2007, p. 397)

‘‘A discrete process that fundamentally (but not necessarily irreversibly) results in change in the biophysical, social, or economic

components of a system from one form, function or location (state) to another, thereby enhancing the capacity for desired values

to be achieved given perceived or real changes in the present or future environment’’ (Park et al., 2012, p. 199)

‘‘a complex process that entails changes at the personal, cultural, institutional and systems levels’’ (O’Brien and Sygna, 2014, p. 16)

‘‘the altering of fundamental attributes of a system (including value systems; regulatory, legislative, or bureaucratic regimes;

financial institutions; and technological or biological systems)’’ (IPCC, 2012, 564)

Deliberate transformation = Multi-definitional concept depending on one’s values and worldview; associated with changes in meaning-making processes,

calls for new critical approaches and challenges paradigms (O’Brien, 2012)

Transformative adaptation Distinct deliberate changes in practices, learning through monitoring and re-evaluation (O’Neill and Handmer, 2012)

Adaptation as transformation Fundamental shifts in power and representation of interests and values (Pelling, 2011, p. 84)

Adaptive transformation A fundamental alteration of ‘‘actors’ perspectives on sustainability, societal objectives and how they can be achieved’’

Main issue whether transformation is optional and voluntary or obligatory and externally mandated (Preston et al., 2013, p. 1025)

J. Nalau, J. Handmer / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356 351

Here we note some others (Table 2), which are also emerging in the literature.

Nelson et al. (2007) observe that there is rarely a good understanding of the difference between incremental adjustments and transformation leading to obvious difficulty in evaluating ‘‘transformative’’ change. Park et al. (2012) also note the interdependency between incremental and transformative change. In transition and resilience theory, transformation is conceptua- lised as a necessary step once the system becomes unviable in its current structure. In this view, transformation is not necessarily a choice but rather the last phase before or during system collapse. O’Brien (2012) however considers transformation through an anticipatory perspective in which transformation is a deliberative choice that intends to change the system into a new state before such collapse takes place. Similar to the dictionary definitions is the characteristic of distinct change, which is manifested by a new state of the system.

Park et al. (2012) further describe transformation as a fundamental deliberate change but one that can be reversed if needed. The main aim or attribute of transformation therefore is to enable actors to follow their ‘‘desired values to be achieved’’ within the current or future context (Park et al., 2012: 199). The difference between incremental and transformational change lies in the ‘‘extent of change’’ (Park et al., 2012: 199). On the question of scale, Park et al. (2012: 199) note that transformation has the potential to take place at ‘‘any level, from the individual through to the collective, industry or region’’, while acknowledging that simul- taneous transformative processes can occur independently within a complex system. The IPCC’s (2012) definition stresses the fundamental nature of the change needed, including changes in value systems.

Kates et al. (2012) refer to ‘‘transformational adaptation’’, which emphasizes the novelty, intensity, and scale in an attempt to differentiate between transformational and incremental change. Transformational adaptation can be taken by multiple actors at multiple scales over multiple time periods. There is however, a major difference between the transformation of a household or small enterprise, such as a farm, and a sector, city or nation – the

change at the small scale may be profound for those involved, but is unlikely to make any difference to the trajectory of a community, sector or society.

O’Neill and Handmer (2012) propose that transformative adaptation will become a necessity in the future, for example within fire management where the events will most likely lie outside the range of previous experience. The authors propose that central for any transformative practice is to challenge the existing norms and practices and to identify ‘‘unacceptable risk’’ (O’Neill and Handmer, 2012: 5) in order to facilitate discussions about the need to change routines and practices. Given the pulsed nature of change processes (Moench, 2009), continuous learning and re- evaluation become key factors for transformative planning as events reveal inefficiencies and injustices in the current structures and operations.

Such continuous learning and re-evaluation could be achieved through ‘adaptive transformation’ that includes actor-specific understandings of, for example, the meaning of sustainability (Preston et al., 2013, p. 1025). Adaptive transformation enables actors to embrace alternative ways of action despite the commitments to particular pathways. In other words, adaptive transformation changes the perceived feasibility of particular options hence enabling a broader acknowledgement of what in fact is a ‘good’ path of action. The important point is whether the transformation process is conducted on voluntary bases or whether transformative change becomes the only alternative driven by external pressures (Preston et al., 2013).

The majority of the proposed definitions and existing assump- tions regarding transformation centre on the characteristic of a ‘fundamental’ shift that questions and challenges values and routine practices (Handmer and Dovers, 2007, 2009; Pelling, 2011; O’Neill and Handmer, 2012) and changes prior perspectives employed to rationalise decisions and pathways (Poutiatine, 2009; O’Brien, 2012; Preston et al., 2013). Change is perceived more often than not as something inherently positive and achievable. As Preston et al. (2013) note, climate change adaptation literature for example, suggests such concepts as ‘no-regret’ and ‘win-win’ in order to prove that changes in

J. Nalau, J. Handmer / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356352

practices and policies can result in positive outcomes even under uncertainty. While change evidently brings some loss for particular factors and elements, its aim is to transform the system for the better.

Most of the cited definitions and conceptualisations do not however address explicitly the issue of scale and the durability of transformative actions. The basic expectation seems to be that the end state or the new state can be known and planning and policy responses can be undertaken. Yet, much of the information regarding the future is severely limited. In addition, responses to change are varied and differ also based on the current management practices and principles in use, and not all change is necessarily positive (Handmer and Dovers, 2009). The extent that changes can be made and their consequences, are dependent on current norms and practices and on previous commitments to vulnerability (Preston et al., 2013). The next section explores some of these current norms and practices inherent in managing change and introduces a typology that delineates different types of policy problems we commonly face and the range of management responses undertaken.

3. Problem types and management approaches

Handmer and Dovers (2007, 2009, 2013) propose three different types of problems and dimensions of resilience and practices, which describe the general societal attitude or

Table 3 Typology for problem definition and management approach (adapted from Handmer a

Routine – Type I:

Resistance and maintenance

Non-routine – Type II:

Change at the margins

Science:

Applied science where most conventional

methods are suitable to deliver results

Science:

Professional consultancy where

is more valued and seen necess

Uncertainty:

The extent of uncertainty is known and

quantifiable

Uncertainty:

The extent of uncertainty is fair

understood but less quantifiabl

Adaptation/sustainability:

(1) Implications: Not sustainable, possible

collapse (2) Approach: Denial of need to change

Adaptation/sustainability:

(1) Implications: Awareness of

current system, minimal scale o

Approach: Treat symptoms

Elements:

(1) Positive: Maintaining status quo, stability and

certainty (2) Negative: Lack of flexibility, narrow

options, inability to adjust

Elements:

(1) Positive: Incremental chang

problem (2) Negative: Showcas

changing only ‘details’, not syst

Typical arguments:

(1) Denial (2) Appeals to ignorance (3) Costs a

major issue

Typical arguments:

(1) Problem may exist (2) Delay

enquiries) (3) Minor changes

Approach to hazard:

(1) Anticipatory planning for obvious threats (2)

Resources devoted to maintain the status quo

Approach to hazard:

(1) Less anticipatory planning (

hazard adjustments

Power structure:

(1) Existing power structures

Power structure:

(1) Existing power structures b

issues e.g. environment

Emphasis:

(1) Individual sovereignty (2) Professional hazard

management (3) Control of public information

and agenda

Emphasis:

(1) Use of right rhetoric (2) Slig

responsibility for emergency m

individuals (3) Control of agend

participatory mechanisms

Example from climate change:

Does not exist. The issue is natural variability.

Existing emergency management can deal with

that

Example from climate change:

Human induced CC exists and n

More research is needed. At thi

with it with our existing appro

minor changes

perception of dealing with risks and hazards (Table 3). The typology portrays different ways a particular policy problem can be framed, which has obvious consequences for strategy choice and subsequent policy pathways. As Handmer and Dovers (2007) note, the first step in problem solving is to define what the policy problem at hand is. The very framing of the issue affects the way it is dealt with, what options are understood as feasible, and what values are brought forward (Adger et al., 2005; Aragón-Durand, 2011). For example, Cohen (2006, p. 26) argues that the way an issue is understood within a political system affects the way it will be acted upon: ‘‘We define the policy problem in terms of what we consider to be the most significant dimension of the problem’’.

Berkhout et al. (2010, p. 147) further demonstrate that problem definition is the very base that directs how other decisions related to the problem are formulated:

‘‘How a problem is perceived by governments and the public at large shapes decisions over whether policy action should be taken, when it should be taken, what instruments will be employed, at what administrative level that action should be focused and what resources will be devoted to it’’ (Berkhout et al., 2010, p. 147).

The importance of how an issue is defined should not be underestimated as ‘‘the way in which an issue is defined when it reaches the attention of decision-makers may well delimit the range of alternatives subsequently considered’’ (Cobb and Elder,

nd Dovers (2007: 92–95, 2009: 198–199, 2013)).

Complex – Type III:

Transformation

specialised expertise

ary

Science:

Post-normal science where multidisciplinary

approaches and innovation are necessary due to

problem complexity

ly well known and

e

Uncertainty:

The extent of uncertainty is often not known and cannot

be quantified; multiple dimensions of simultaneous

uncertainty

unsustainability of

f change (2)

Adaptation/sustainability:

(1) Implications: Ability to manage change and

uncertainty, major change, chance of maladaptive

decisions (2) Approach: Treat causes

e, awareness of the

es change but

ems

Elements:

(1) Positive: Flexibility, adaptability and undertakes

major changes (2) Negative: Can lead to wrong

decisions, can reduce optimal capacity for current and

near future

ing tactics (e.g.

Typical arguments:

(1) Change essential (2) Change because of uncertainty

(3) Longer-term view

2) Minor changes in

Approach to hazard:

(1) Maximum flexibility to accommodate unexpected

threats

ut may include new

Power structure:

(1) Major changes in power structures

ht shift in

anagement towards

a with some

Emphasis:

(1) Humanity and biosphere (2) Emergency

management for all (3) Participatory information

systems

eeds addressing.

s stage we can deal

aches, with some

Example from climate change:

CC is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced. Only

fundamental change to society and our economic

system will enable us to survive

J. Nalau, J. Handmer / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356 353

1972, p. 30). Problems can be thus framed or constructed in various ways that then determine how we approach them, and we can assess the utility of the approaches. In this context, Handmer and Dovers (2007, 2013) distinguish between routine, non-routine and complex problems, which describe different framings given to particular issues. The authors further identify three different management responses that societies adopt: Routine (Type I), Non- routine (Type II), and Complex (Type III) (Table 3). Institutions do not necessarily only choose or display one type but often use a combination of types across different sectors and decisions. While the typology is a simplification of multiple dimensions and processes, it provides a useful way of thinking through which aspects of change management could be transformative and where it might not necessarily be beneficial to pursue transformative actions. Ideally, a combination of all these different types would normally provide the most robust response. The problem types and management responses are reviewed next before discussing the implications that each of these pose.

3.1. Routine – Type I

Routine issues or problems are something most agencies, institutions and individuals face every day and can be addressed fairly quickly. In routine cases, the extent of uncertainty is relatively well-known, there is less need to introduce drastic changes to the existing tested practices, and the responsibility attribution is more or less clear. Type I describes rather rigid management structures, which resist change through the denial of the existing risk and intends to keep the system functioning as business-as-usual. The focus lies on maintaining system stability even if this proves to be difficult and costly. The denial of risk legitimises strong focus on routine practices and incremental change. The knowledge and science used to inform the decision- making process is conventional and relies on commonly deployed methods and leaves little space for innovation. Uncertainties in the operational environment are well understood and can be calculated according to one’s needs. Broader changes are resisted in particular due to significant costs in changing the system.

While this approach does not challenge the existing practices or lead to change, it however provides stability and certainty in an operational sense, and hence can be preferred in particular situations. Type I makes sure the existing power structures are kept intact and exerts significant control even over how informa- tion regarding particular hazards is managed. The sustainability of the system can be called into question as it often leaves it too late to consider anticipatory planned transformation leading the system into a state of collapse, and hence forced transformation or eventual destruction. However, by some definitions, Type I could result in transformation exactly because of its rigidity in the face of change leading to a whole-system collapse, and hence, involuntary transformation.

Heatwaves provide an example (Coates et al., 2014). In Australia the traditional response has been to acknowledge them as a phenomenon or event, but not usually as a problem. People were advised to keep out of the sun, there was some travel and infrastructure disruption, but nothing considered worthy of special attention, or emergency planning. For a comparison with climate change issues, see the example at the end of Table 3.

3.2. Non-routine – Type II

In non-routine cases, risks and events are still often within experience but stretch the boundaries of known and tested practices. These events can have a profound way of introducing new uncertainty dimensions but as they are generally far less frequent than ‘‘routine’’ emergencies, the push for significant

changes in current management practices does not necessarily take place. Type II describes management systems where the need for change is acknowledged but this awareness does not necessitate large-scale transformations. The knowledge and science utilised is heavily focused on professional expertise and consultancy where particular expert areas and niches exert significant control over what kind of knowledge is used and needed. Uncertainty is still fairly well understood but at times cannot be quantified. The system focuses on managing risks and might attempt to consider innovative new approaches that are not part of the current practice as part of a range of solutions. However, the main focus lies in treating symptoms rather than the actual causes of problems.

Common to this type is the use of enquiries to provide more detailed information about the nature, scale, and extent of problems, but these lead often to incremental changes rather than large-scale system transformations. The use of appropriate rhetoric is common; this however only displays possible transfor- mation as ‘‘false hair’’ (Merriam-Webster, 2013): to give an appearance of change but with little done to enact the necessary changes for a deeper transformation. Institutional power struc- tures are retained and the focus is on the role of individuals in enacting change.

Recent heatwaves in south-eastern Australia provide an example of the ‘‘non-routine’’. The heatwave accompanying the Black Saturday 2009 fires in Victoria, and the more recent heatwaves in South Australia and Melbourne in 2013–14 were seen as problems needing management, with significant death tolls and infrastructure disruption (Plummer et al., 2013). Vulnerable groups have been identified, and warning systems and emergency plans have been developed (Department of Health, 2012). These approaches are very popular as they can lower the risk without any fundamental changes to agencies or social or economic sectors. They can also be used to delay action: the problem may be acknowledged, but research or minor change at the margins give the appearance of action while ensuring little change. Table 3 comments on this with respect to climate change.

3.3. Complex – Type III

Many of the policy problems in today’s society can however best be described as complex (Handmer and Dovers, 2007, p. 95– 96). Complex unbounded problems are most often outside of previous experience, have high uncertainties, involve multiple scales, and have high levels of unpredictability. Attribution of responsibility is more diffuse as complex problems call for whole- of-society responses where the success of the response depends on multiple scales and sectors. This in itself calls for transformative and new ways of managing change where experience cannot be harnessed for the simple reason that it does not yet exist.

Type III describes management systems where the need for major change is acknowledged and transformation of practices and systems becomes an option. The needed knowledge and science is multidisciplinary and attempts to draw information across sectors in a holistic manner. The extent of uncertainty often cannot be known, is outside of previous experience, involves multiple scales and have high levels of unpredictability. The rationale is that transformative change can actually increase system flexibility and hence keep opportunities open under uncertain conditions. However, if taken hastily, it has the potential to result in maladaptive decisions in particular if the scale of change is too broad and rapid for the system to function adequately. Type III includes also changes in power structures and strongly advocates participatory mechanisms in order to expand the responsibility and subsequent opportunities in decision-making and in the choice of options. Uncertainty is not viewed as negatively as in

J. Nalau, J. Handmer / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356354

Type I and II, since in Type III uncertainty can become a major rationale for undertaking and implementing change. This in itself calls for transformative and new ways of managing change where experience cannot be harnessed for the simple reason that it does not yet exist. This particular approach would stress whole-of- society and system change, and be best paired with complex problem approaches.

3.3.1. Heatwaves as a complex problem in emergency management

To continue with our heatwave examples: the European and Russian heatwaves of 2003 and 2010 had an extraordinary impact with tens of thousands of fatalities, serious disruption to energy production, transport, food supplies, tourism and recreation, etc. The very severe problems were exacerbated by damaging wildfires and the associated air pollution, especially in Russia.

With the 2003 heatwave in France, hospitals, funeral homes, and other service providers were overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of increases in deaths and patients while the Ministry of Health in France denied a problem existed (Larsen, 2006). Later analysis has prompted European meteorological stations to develop an early warning system specific for heatwaves (Feuen- senger, 2012). During Russia’s heatwave in 2010, temperatures were consistently 7–8 degrees higher than usual. The heat also interacted with pollution to exacerbate breathing issues in combination with smoke from uncontrollable peat and forest fires that further contributed to health impacts especially in Moscow (Gallant, 2010). Some of the wheat crop was destroyed, prices soared and exports were halted with severe impacts in Egypt among other places.

Climate analysis suggests that the heatwaves are connected with climate change (Barriopedro et al., 2011) and that the future holds more of the same. This would all appear to point to a very complex continental wide, if not global, problem, with poorly defined problem boundaries, and extreme impacts. It demands transformative action. However, solutions to this problem are being sought within the existing policy toolkit suited to non- routine, fairly tractable problems. Emergency planning and warnings will reduce the risk a little and are likely to reduce fatalities, but will likely have limited effect on the overall impact of a repeat event. After initial denials, the heatwaves were widely acknowledged as major challenges for most of the countries concerned. Yet, there appears to be no attempt to make major or fundamental changes to better deal with heat: changes to policy and practice align well with a Type II problem and response, not a Type III (see Table 3).

4. Addressing Type III problems through transformation

The section above has demonstrated how different framings, management and problem types determine often the kind of space available for transformative action. These issues relate to multiple factors such as the tolerance for uncertainty and its role in managing change, the kind of science and knowledge perceived as useful and necessary, the flexibility and sustainability of chosen options and pathways, and the scale, extent and speed of preferred change. The way climate change is perceived by actors becomes crucial as this also determines the level and extent of perceived change necessary in current practices. And yet, evaluating any need

for and scale of change is highly subjective and determined by a range of factors, both at smaller individual and broader institu- tional scales (O’Brien, 2012; Preston et al., 2013).

However, while the literature and definitions all signal particular features that should or could be found around transformation and related change management practices, none specifically note or investigate further the issue of scale. This is problematic regarding the evaluation and understanding of the

process of transformation. If transformation takes place across multiple scales, through multiple actors at multiple times (O’Brien, 2012), on what grounds can we differentiate between appropriate transformative management responses? And how do these processes guarantee that the change is actually for the better and reduces vulnerability in particular for neglected segments of society? Here we list several examples of current problems and investigate their relevance in the light of the introduced typology.

Of the three different problem types and management responses, such global issues as climate change clearly fall within the complex and Type III category. While Type III might appear enticing given its focus on flexibility, acknowledgement of uncertainty, and shifts in power structures, Handmer and Dovers (2009) caution that transformative change is not always positive. For example, large-scale rapid changes increase system instability and have the potential to produce irreversible choices, which can lead to inflexibility (Handmer and Dovers, 2009). Such changes include for example substituting a single source of livelihood, replacing diverse sources, and thereby creating vulnerability to a range of external pressures, or where legislation is changed at such a rapid pace that the existing system and practices do not have time to adjust leading to an operational vacuum.

Extreme events such as the 2003 European (Larsen, 2006) and more recent heatwave in Russia (Gallant, 2010) would fit the Type III category due not only to the huge number of deaths, but also the enormous disruption to infrastructure and industry with conse- quent flow on impacts outside across Europe and internationally (Feuensenger, 2012; Gallant, 2010; Larsen, 2006). These were continental wide long lasting events (Gallant, 2010), in contrast to local but intense heatwaves, which would be more easily classified as non-routine or routine. Hence, determining and understanding the nature of the problem, its familiarity to actors based on current and previous experience, and the number of scales and places impacted will all influence what kind of a management approach is suitable. Yet, many of these interactions are complex and hard to define. These types of events clearly demonstrate the need for longer-term and more complex thinking around where vulner- abilities exactly lie within systems, and how far-reaching systemic damage could be minimised.

A recent suggestion on how to manage complex policy issues, such as climate change and disaster risk reduction, has been their integration. The integration agenda has emerged from the acknowledgement that due to problem complexity, Type III approaches are increasingly necessary to tackle multiple scales and agendas simultaneously. A recent roundtable discussing this issue revealed how disaster practitioners acknowledged the changing nature of risk, increase in uncertainties and the need to proactively manage and transform some of their current practices (Handmer et al., 2014). The reflections on the need to change from Type I and Type II approaches towards Type III was evident in suggestions on how disaster risk reduction and emergency management would have to consider new norms and realities where previous experience could not be relied upon due to the increasing complexity and uncertainty of the problems at hand (‘change because of uncertainty’). A willingness was observed in changing power structures where both the risks and responsibility were now seen to rest with the whole of society instead of particular service providers (‘hazard management for all’). This meant for example adopting a more inclusive approach where civil society actors were seen as integral in both government deliberations and implementation processes (‘participatory infor- mation systems’).

While such reflection is encouraging as a step towards changing attitudes and hence management approaches, the probable push factors for transformation will still most likely continue to be event dependent (Moench, 2009). Often huge leaps are not sustainable

J. Nalau, J. Handmer / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356 355

or feasible especially in public policy (Lindblom, 1959, 1979) as these can destabilise the system before arriving to a new state (Handmer and Dovers, 2009) and not all systems can transform and become viable in a new state. The question is whether we have the opportunity to entertain incremental change and whether incremental change conveniently exempts us from not tackling the broader difficult questions of how we are currently arranging and managing our societies (Handmer and Dovers, 2009; O’Brien, 2012).

Yet, the current discourse on transformation includes both external and internal changes in values and goals (O’Brien, 2012; Pelling, 2011; Preston et al., 2013). Transformation will remain only as an appearance of change if the structures are ‘transformed’ and changed, such as introducing new regulatory frameworks, but the actors within the systems remain in their previous ways of thinking and do not adopt new ways of practice. For example, fragile states remain fragile and do not transform into effective states when the organisational objectives of good governance and transparency are not internalised by the very people who could or should be the drivers of change (London School of Economics, 2011). If transformation is really about challenging existing practices and beliefs, it could be identified and defined in terms of the challenges in implementing significantly different systems or the number, range, and scale of different obstacles in introducing new routines for example in emergency management (Handmer and Dovers, 2007; O’Neill and Handmer, 2012). Yet many processes are fluid in society: adaptation of social media, climate change, and attitudes to large corporate power often change societies rapidly while governance structures lag behind.

5. Conclusions

Transformation has recently emerged as a suggested approach to manage change in societies given the increased complexity of policy problems. Problem types and their familiarity to actors determine often how change is managed, and whether transfor- mative actions are undertaken. Yet, the question is whether non- routine events are enough to trigger transformation or whether management responses will only change when complex Type III problems and approaches become the new norm.

While complex unbounded problems demand new ways and practices that are distinctively different from the status quo, well- planned and facilitated transformation calls for a careful consid- eration of what exactly needs to be changed and how. Too rapid and drastic change can easily lead to losses, instability and confusion as to who for example is responsible for new routines, practices, and their implementation. The challenge is to under- stand the necessary level and scale of transformation in existing systems and practices. One option in generating such understand- ing would be to establish long-term robust monitoring and evaluation practices, which can track the outcomes produced by changes in policy and practice over time. The level of change in the end depends on the way institutions understand the policy issue, their willingness to address risk, and ability to use learning to transition from Type I and II approaches towards Type III, and the capacity to know when such a transition is best undertaken.

We use heatwaves as examples of policy problem types within the emergency management domain. Historically, they have not been seen as problems worthy of serious attention, and have at best been treated as ‘‘routine’’. Recent heatwaves in Australia, Europe and elsewhere with significant death tolls and disruption, have changed this. When linked with climate change, severe heatwaves can be viewed as complex Type III problems. However, policy makers and emergency services are reluctant to see them as such, and seek solutions from the routine and non-routine problem space. Transformative thinking and action are thereby avoided.

References

Adger, W.N., Arnell, N.W., Tompkins, E.L., 2005. Adapting to climate change: perspectives across scales. Glob. Environ. Change A 15, 75–76.

Aragón-Durand, F., 2011. Disaster Discourses, Policy Values and Responses: The Social Construction of Urban Floods in the Peri-urban Interface of Mexico City. Lambert Academic Publishing, Germany.

Barnes, P., Charles, M.B., Branagan, M., Knight, A., 2007. Intelligence and anticipation: issues in security, risk and crisis management. Int. J. Risk Assess. Manage. 7 (8), 1209–1223.

Barriopedro, D., Fischer, E.M., Luterbache, J., Trigo, R.M., Garcia-Herrara, R., 2011. The hot summer of 2010: redrawing the temperature record map of Europe. Science 332, 220–224.

Berkhout, F., Haug, C., Rayner, T., Van Asselt, H., Hildingsson, R., Huitema, D., et al., 2010. How do climate policies work? Dilemmas in European climate governance. In: Hulme, M., Neufeldt, H. (Eds.), Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 137–164.

Business Dictionary, 2013. Transformation. http://www.businessdictionary.com/ definition/transformation.html (accessed 2.3.2013).

Coates, L., Haynes, K., O’Brien, J., Mcaneney, J., De Oliveira, F.D., 2014. Exploring 167 years of vulnerability: an examination of extreme heat events in Australia 1844–2010. Environ. Sci. Policy 42, 33–44.

Cobb, R.W., Elder, C.D., 1972. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-building. Allyn and Bacon, Boston.

Cohen, S., 2006. Understanding Environmental Policy. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dictionary, 2013. Transformation. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ transformation (accessed 2.3.2013).

Department of Health, 2012. Heatwave Plan for Victoria: Protecting Health and Reducing Harm from Heatwaves. State Government of Victoria, Melbourne. http://docs.health.vic.gov.au/docs/doc/ 45C7A59BDE5B1E95CA257A360015AAB5/$FILE/ Heatwave%20plan%20for%20Victoria.pdf.

Feuensenger, W., 2012. Learning from Europe’s Heatwave. Deutche Welle. http:// www.dw.de/learning-from-europes-heat-wave/a-15983027 (accessed 29.5.2012).

Frew, L., 2014. Australia Sweats Over Extreme Hot Weather. BBC News Australia. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-30225276 (accessed 30.11.2014).

Gallant, A., 2010. The Great Russian Heatwave of 2010. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society. http://www.amos.org.au/news/ id/83 (accessed 10.8.2010).

Grose, M., Fox-Hughes, P., Harris, R.B., Bindoff, N., 2014. Changes to the drivers of fire weather with a warming climate – a case study of southeast Tasmania. Clim. Change 124, 255–269.

Hallegatte, S., 2009. Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 19 (2), 240–247.

Handmer, J.W., Dovers, S., 2007. The Handbook of Disaster and Emergency Policies and Institutions, 1st ed. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA.

Handmer, J.W., Dovers, S., 2009. A typology of resilience: rethinking institutions for sustainable development. In: Schipper, E.L.F., Burton, I. (Eds.), The Earthscan Reader on Adaptation to Climate Change. Earthscan, London and Sterling.

Handmer, J.W., Dovers, S., 2013. Handbook of Disaster Policies and Institutions: Improving Emergency Management and Climate Change Adaptation, 2nd ed. Earthscan, London and Sterling, VA.

Handmer, J., Honda, Y., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Arnell, N., Benito, G., Hatfield, J., Mohamed, I.F., Peduzzi, P., Wu, S., Sherstyukov, B., Takahashi, K., Yan, Z., 2012. Changes in impacts of climate extremes: human systems and ecosystems. In: Field, C.B., et al. (Eds.), Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, pp. 231–290.

Handmer, J., Mustelin, J., Belzer, D., Dalesa, M., Edwards, J., Farmer, N., Foster, H., Greimel, B., Harper, M., Kauhiona, H., Pearce, S., Yates, L., Vines, K., Welegtabit, S., 2014. Integrated Climate Change Adaptation and Disaster Risk Reduction in Practice. A Roundtable Report, August 2013. RMIT University, Griffith University, National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility, Brisbane, Australia.

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Ruedy, R., 2012. Perception of climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, E2415–E2423.

IPCC, 2012. Managing the risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaptation – summary for policymakers. In: Field, C.B., Barros, V., Stocker, T.F., Qin, D., Dokken, D.J., Ebi, K.L., Mastrandrea, M.D., Mach, K.J., Plattner, G.-K., Allen, S.K., Tignor, M., Midgley, P.M. (Eds.), A Special Report of Working Group I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. . Available at: http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

IPCC, 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report – Approved Summary for Policymakers, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, In: http://www. ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPM.pdf.

Kasperson, R.E., 2011. Directions for closing the science/practice gap. In: Kasperson, R.E., Berberian, M. (Eds.), Integrating Science and Policy: Vulnerability and Resilience in Global Environmental Change. Science in Society Series. Earthscan, London & Washington, DC, pp. 427–439.

J. Nalau, J. Handmer / Environmental Science & Policy 54 (2015) 349–356356

Kates, R.W., Travis, W.R., Wilbanks, T.J., 2012. Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109 (19), 7156–7161.

Larsen, J., 2006. Setting the Record Straight: More than 52,000 Europeans Died from Heat in Summer 2003. Earth Policy Institute. http://www.earth-policy. org/plan_b_updates/2006/update56 (accessed 28.7.2006).

Lindblom, C.E., 1959. The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Adm. Rev. 19, 79–88.

Lindblom, C.E., 1979. Still muddling, not yet through. Public Adm. Rev. 39, 517–526.

London School of Economics, 2011. Building Effective States. Public Lectures and Events (Audio), Professor Paul Collier, Sushil Kumar Modi. http://www2.lse. ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/ player.aspx?id=1119 (accessed 13.10.2011).

Macmillan Dictionary, 2013. Transformation. http://www.macmillandictionary. com/dictionary/british/transformation (accessed 2.3.2013).

Mechler, R., Bouwer, L., 2014. Understanding trends and projections of disaster losses and climate change: is vulnerability the missing link? Clim. Change 1–13.

Merriam-Webster, 2013. Transformation. http://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/transformation (accessed 2.3.2013).

Moench, M., 2009. Adapting to climate change and the risks associated with natural hazards: methods for moving from concepts to action. In: Schipper, E.L.F., Burton, I. (Eds.), The Earthscan Reader on Adaptation to Climate Change. Earthscan, London; Sterling, VA.

Mustelin, J., Handmer, J., 2014. Triggering transformation: managing resilience or invoking real change? In: Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate, 19–21 June 2013. Oslo, Norway. University of Oslo.

Nelson, D.R., Adger, W.N., Brown, K., 2007. Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 32, 395–419.

NOAA National Climatic Data Center, 2010. State of the Climate: Global Hazards for July 2010. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/hazards/2010/7 (published online August 2010, accessed 27.9.2014).

O’Brien, K., 2012. Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 36 (5), 667–676.

O’Brien, K., Sygna, L., 2014. Responding to climate change: the three spheres of transformation. In: Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate, 19–21 June 2013. Oslo, Norway. University of Oslo.

O’Neill, S.J., Handmer, J., 2012. Responding to bushfire risk: the need for transformative adaptation. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 014018.

Oxford University Press, 2013. Transformation. http://oxforddictionaries.com/ definition/english/transformation (accessed 2.3.2013).

Park, S.E., Marshall, N.A., Jakku, E., Dowd, A.M., Howden, S.M., Mendham, E., Fleming, A., 2012. Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 115–126.

Patt, A., Reckien, D., Klein, R.J.T., Van Vuuren, D., Wrobel, M., Bauer, N., Eskeland, G.S., Downing, T.E., 2010. What can social science tell us about meeting the

challenge of climate change? Five insights from five years that might make a difference. In: Hulme, M., Neufeldt, H. (Eds.), Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives on Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 413, pp. 369–388.

Pausas, J., Fernández-Muñoz, S., 2012. Fire regime changes in the Western Mediterranean Basin: from fuel-limited to drought-driven fire regime. Clim. Change 110, 215–226.

Pelling, M., 2011. Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation. Routledge, Oxon, UK.

Poutiatine, M.I., 2009. What is transformation? Nine principles towards an understanding transformational process for transformational leadership. J. Transform. Educ. 7 (3), 189–208.

Plummer, N., Trewin, B., Jones, D., Braganza, K., Smalley, N., 2013. What’s Causing Australia’s Heat Wave? The Conversation. 18 January 2013, 7.41 am. AEDT. https://theconversation.com/ whats-causing-australias-heat-wave-11628.

Preston, B.L., 2013. Local path dependence of U.S. socioeconomic exposure to climate extremes and the vulnerability commitment. Global Environ. Chang. 23, 719–732, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.009.

Preston, B.L., Down, K., Berkhout, F., 2013. The climate adaptation frontier. Sustainability 5 .

Sippel, S., Otto, F.L., 2014. Beyond climatological extremes – assessing how the odds of hydrometeorological extreme events in South-East Europe change in a warming climate. Clim. Change 125, 381–398.

The Free Dictionary by Farlex, 2013. Transformation. http://www. thefreedictionary.com/transformation (accessed 2.3.2013).

Visser, H., Petersen, A., Ligtvoet, W., 2014. On the relation between weather- related disaster impacts, vulnerability and climate change. Clim. Change 125, 461–477.

Wordsmyth Thesaurus, 2013. Transformation. http://www.wordsmyth.net/ ?level=3&ent=transformation (accessed 2.3.2013).

Dr. Johanna Nalau is a joint Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Griffith Climate Change Response Program and Griffith Institute for Tourism at Griffith University. Her research focuses on understanding the usefulness of adaptation science for policy and practice in the Pacific and in Melanesia in particular. Johanna is a contributing author in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report and outcomes of her research have been published in Nature Climate Change, Environmental Science and Policy, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, and Climate and Development.

Professor John Handmer leads RMIT’s Risk and Community Safety research group. He was Convener of the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Network for Emergency Management, and Principle Scientific Advisor for the Bushfire CRC, and was also a Coordinating Lead Author for the IPCC’s special report on extremes. He works on the human dimensions of disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation.