Regional Environmental Change https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-018-1288-8 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Defining transformative climate science to address high-end climate change J. David Tàbara 1 & Jill Jäger 2 & Diana Mangalagiu 3 & Marco Grasso 4 Received: 17 October 2016 / Accepted: 22 January 2018 # The Author(s) 2018. This article is an open access publication Abstract High-end climate change requires transformative solutions, as conventional strategies and solutions will not be enough if major disruptions in social-ecological systems are to be avoided. However, conventional climate assessment approaches and methods show many limitations if they are to provide robust knowledge and support to the implementation of such solutions in practice. To this end, we define transformative climate science as the open-ended process of producing, structuring, and applying solutions- oriented knowledge to fast-link integrated adaptation and mitigation strategies to sustainable development. In particular, based on our experiences within regional cases in Central Asia, Europe, Iberia, Scotland, and Hungary, we have selected 12 dimensions that scientists and practitioners can use as a checklist to design transformative-oriented climate assessments. While it is possible to talk both about transformative adaptation and transformative mitigation, in this paper, we make the case that societal transformation does not depend on mitigation or adaptation policies and actions, mostly because they are related to sustainability innovations, which are endogenous developments derived from deliberate social learning Keywords Transformative solutions and pathways . High-end climate change . Sustainable development Introduction the end of the century; the safe levels also reported in Article 2 of the treaty (Peters et al. 2017; Hallegatte et al. 2016; Allen Although the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) part 2015). On the one hand, the lack of enforcement mechanisms of the Paris Agreement testifies to an unprecedented global and the weakness of the implementation instruments of the breadth of climate initiative, they did not set sufficient emis- Agreement make it very likely that this threshold will be sion cuts to achieve the main goal of limiting the global tem- surpassed. On the other hand, the absence of integrated strat- perature increase Bwell below^ 2 °C while pursuing 1.5 °C by egies for climate change, explicitly aimed at institutional change and aligned with the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals, will make climate trends also likely to * J. David Tàbara worsen. In these conditions, it is increasingly clear that con- joandavid.tabara@uab.cat ventional solutions will not be enough to prevent the world moving towards global warming scenarios of 4 °C or even Jill Jäger 6 °C by 2100. New science-policy assessment processes and jill.jaeger@speed.at modes of agent interaction, engagement, and knowledge co- Diana Mangalagiu production are needed (Boucher et al. 2016; Hulme 2016; diana.mangalagiu@ouce.ox.ac.uk Tàbara et al. 2017). Required in particular are those with an Marco Grasso orientation towards transformation and which go beyond the marco.grasso@unimib.it traditional sectoral, additive, and linear projections (still pres- 1 ent in the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report), and which are able Autonomous University of Barcelona, Campus UAB, to show a move towards more integrated, cross-sectoral, mul- 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallés, Spain 2 tiplicative, and non-linear developments. The overall goal of Independent Scholar, Vienna, Austria this paper is to set the conceptual basis for the development of 3 NEOMA Business School, Mont-Saint-Aignan, France such open and engaging integrated assessment (IA) proce- 4 Universita degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy dures to support the implementation of systems of situated J. David Tàbara et al. solutions and transformative capacities in the context of a approaches to assessing transformation pathways still heavily rapidly warming world. rely on traditional cost-benefit analyses. That is, analyses that The kind of transformative solutions required to address a are mostly based on top-down, linear and optimality based ap- global warming beyond 2 °C or high-end climate change praisal methods for a single representative agent. This raises a (HECC; Berry et al. 2017) is likely to be those that are able number of limitations, already acknowledged by the IPCC, to deal with the ultimate causes of the current climate crisis— through using existing tools and methods to represent transfor- namely the growing unsustainability of present global systems’ mations and even more to assess solutions aimed at supporting trends and by doing so, to create synergies between climate such transformations (Minx et al. 2017). In fact, Bthe difficulty in action and the achievement of a good quality of life and of representing these (transformation) processes in models has sustainability in general (Hackmann et al. 2014). In fact, many meant that societal change research has often been divorced from of the most important transformative social forces now visible the literature on transformation pathways^ (Clarke et al. 2014). in many regions of the world with a positive effect on climate In the research reported herein, we address this challenge change mitigation or adaptation often occur outside, or happen by operationalising the notion of transformative climate independently from, the United Nations climate negotiations. science (TCS) and provide 12 key dimensions that can be Hence, innovative climate strategies and solutions could take considered by scientists and policymakers interested in pro- advantage of and support a number of local transformative ducing robust solutions-oriented knowledge for transforma- initiatives not necessarily or explicitly driven by climate con- tion. Our arguments are based on the insights from the EU- cerns. This is why in this article we argue that even in the supported project IMPRESSIONS,1 aimed at co-producing context of HECC, transformation does not depend either on transformative strategies and solutions in the context of mitigation or adaptation policies and actions. However, under- HECC. Finally, we also discuss the limitations of this novel standing and connecting climate strategies to societal transfor- science-policy perspective. mations are necessary conditions to support the kind of pro- found institutional reconfigurations required to deal with HECC and realign global systems trends towards sustainabil- Transformation, sustainability, ity. Transformative solutions to respond to HECC can only and transformability emerge as processes of social learning, whereby experimenta- tion, openness, reflection, and strong collaboration are central In the IPCC 2012 Special Report on Managing the Risks of tenets for the emergence of new sustainable patterns of social- Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change ecological interaction at planetary scale. Adaptation (BSREX report^), transformation was referred to Therefore, the concepts of transformation and transformability as Bthe altering of fundamental attributes of a system (includ- are central to the development of new assessment research and ing value systems; regulatory, legislative, or bureaucratic re- policy approaches aimed at dealing with HECC. However, a gimes; financial institutions; and technological or biological systematic understanding of the meaning and implications of systems)^ (Field et al., 2012). The definition provided by the transformation both for science and policy practices—and soci- IPCC AR5 was similar but slightly different: transformation etal innovations at large—under the new climatic conditions is was defined as Ba change in the fundamental attributes of still lacking. The broad range and diversity, polysemy, and dif- natural and human systems [that] reflects strengthened, al- ferent understandings of transformation and transformability tered, or aligned paradigms, goals, or values towards promot- limits their concrete use both in the design of research and as- ing adaptation that supports sustainable development, includ- sessment processes as well as in the actual implementation of ing poverty reduction^ (Field et al., 2014). This later definition potential strategies to deal with either mitigation or adaptation. introduced a more pluralistic understanding of transformation Here, we use the notions of transformation and transformability and the word Bregimes^ was no longer there, while the words to refer to fundamental institutional and system changes needed sustainable development and poverty reduction were includ- to align development to sustainability (Fleurbaey et al. 2014). A ed. These modifications, which often go unnoticed, have im- special emphasis is placed on the identification of potential syn- portant and positive implications, mostly because the AR5 ergies and trade-offs between sustainable development policies definition: (i) was more attuned with achieving the and climate policies. Within the IPCC, it is argued that Btransfor- Sustainable Development Goals (SDG); (ii) was more condu- mation pathways need to yield deep reductions in GHG emis- cive to thinking in terms of multiple systems of interlinked sions and should be based on iterative learning^ (Clarke et al. distributed solutions (and not only one); (iii) helped to avoid 2014). In particular, it is stated that Bthe more ambitious the redundancies, ambiguities, and contradictions between stabilization goal, the more rapid this transformation must occur^ Bregimes^ and Bsystems^; and (iv) included a basic economic and that Btransformation pathways to long-term climate goals are component of poverty reduction, which is also more aligned best understood as a process of sequential decision-making and 1 learning^ (Clarke et al. 2014). Nevertheless, the IPCC economic www.impressions-project.eu. with the development of innovative solutions from an ethical, political systems (e.g. by women; see Elliot 2012), or the political, and distributional stance. development of open knowledge systems to support social In addition, several authors have underlined how the con- learning (Tàbara & Chabay 2013; Cornell et al. 2013). In cepts of transformation and transformability contrast with those addition, research focusing on transformation and sustainabil- of adaptation and adaptability. According to Olsson et al. ity is advancing in the making of a richer representation of (2014), Btransformability refers to the social-ecological capac- agency, mainly using more complex system perspectives in ities that enable shifts from one regime to another, and adapt- modelling as well as assessment tools and methods. In this ability refers to the capacities to deal with change and stay guise, the need to understand and integrate the role played within a regime.^ Likewise, Folke et al. (2010) define resil- by values, visions, and conflicting interests is triggering a ience as capacity of a social-ecological system: Bto continually whole new array of methodological innovations with the pur- change and adapt yet remain within critical thresholds.^ pose of developing more robust knowledge about possible Adaptability is part of resilience. It represents the capacity to transformative strategies and solutions supportive of sustain- adjust responses to changing external drivers and internal pro- able development (Clark et al. 2016; van Kerkhoff and Lebel, cesses and thereby allow for development along the current 2006; van der Kerkhoff 2014; Miller 2013; Miller et al. 2013; trajectory (stability domain) [while transformability is the] Lynam et al. 2007). More broadly, this can be seen as part of a Bcapacity to cross thresholds into new development general trend to: trajectories^ (see also Feola 2015; Pelling & O’Brien 2015; Gunderson & Holling 2002). Transformability constitutes a (i) Move from the traditional focus on the research question system property derived from agents’ actions, which can struc- about Bwhat is the problem,^ to exploring the question of ture the system in a way that either make adaptation and change Bwho is the solution^ and to better understand of the role processes inherent to the system or create policies that obstruct of agency (Westley et al. 2011; Westley et al., 2013), e.g. change. Thus, the system is either more or less able to undergo by promoting the institutionalisation of multiple networks continuous transformation. Such a relational property derived working on systemic innovation and win-win solutions; from agents’ transactions and structure configurations has to (ii) Consider how to redistribute long-term responsibilities contend with: (1) the capacities and abilities of agents to trans- accordingly (see Dangerman & Schellnhuber 2013; form the system (and themselves) deliberately and (2) the ca- Tàbara et al. 2010); pacity, degrees of freedom, and potential of the system to be (iii) Move away from the development of climate policy transformed and induce continuous transformation—through narratives about additional costs, impacts, and burden- learning and enhanced collective reflectivity. It should be noted sharing to those focused on opportunities (Jaeger et al. that transformability is not opposed to resilience, as transfor- 2013); and mation capacities may be needed to ensure system resilience in (iv) Focus new climate assessment processes on solutions the long-term. However, given the focus of our research and in that are able to yield multiplicative, non-linear, and sys- order to avoid further confusions, we will limit the use of the temic effects in contrast to the traditional additive, notion of transformations to those profound system changes wedge-based, or single-sector/scale approaches (see related to achieving sustainable development and likewise we Berry et al. 2015; Kates et al. 2012; Tàbara et al. 2013; will limit the concepts of adaptation and adaptability to those Wiek et al. 2012). that have to do with climate change. As it has been widely recognised in the literature, sustain- able development is a highly controversial concept Kates et al., 2012). Many attempts have already been made to pro- Defining transformative climate science duce practical insights into how to operationalise this concept and link it to climate policies and actions (Tàbara 2011). TCS has not emerged in isolation. To a large extent, it is the Without addressing these lengthy debates, which are out of result of the confluence of numerous integrative science- the scope of this article, we just want to underline that discus- policy approaches that started over three decades ago in the sions in sustainability science are increasingly placing greater attempt to address a growing number and complexity of emphasis on the exploration of specific options for institution- interlinked problems related to social and environmental al transformations and transformability, i.e. the ability to cre- change. Research adopting post-normal science (PNS), inte- ate a new system when the prevalent goals of the existing one grated assessment (IA), integrated sustainability assessment become unattainable (Burch et al. 2014; Burch 2010; Walker (ISA), transition management (TM), responsible research and et al. 2009; Walker et al. 2004). Transformations are under- innovation (RRI), science and technology studies (STS), and stood to encompass fundamental modifications in a set of transdisciplinary science (TDS) approaches, among others, de- institutions, including changes in property regimes (O’Brien veloped various approaches for opening up and ensuring the 2012; Ostrom 2009; Ostrom, 2009), access to education and engagement of multiple kinds of stakeholders in processes at J. David Tàbara et al. the science-policy interface. It has been claimed that the new Using the term Bincremental^ as opposed to the transformative designs would help the joint definition not only of societal and can be misleading, given that the notion of incremental may global issues at stake but also of solutions. In addition, they only refer to the speed of change rather than the actual nature would also secure a more robust co-construction of valid of the change in the overall configuration of the system.2 knowledge, by yielding more adequate framings of the prob- These dimensions can be described as follows: lems to be addressed. BNormal^ or traditional procedures of science, amply influenced by positivist thinking, were unable 1) Representation of agency in economic modelling: An to deal with the large-scale and irreducible uncertainties and the accurate representation of agents’ behaviour and dynam- conflicts derived from assessments which inevitably had to in- ics using a complexity perspective and heterogeneous clude strong ethical and normative decisions (Jamieson 2014; agency is a crucial component to improve current mac- Gardiner 2011; Owen et al. 2012; Rotmans et al. 2008; roeconomic tools and methods used in the assessment of Funtowicz & Ravetz 1991, Jäger 1998). With all this back- options and innovative solutions to HECC. Agent-based ground, transformation research has been particularly taken modelling, system dynamics, and science-policy ap- up by sustainability science (Mauser et al. 2013; Miller 2013; proaches looking at emergence and multiple kinds of Miller et al. 2013; Wiek et al. 2012; Ostrom 2009), and more agents’ rationalities beyond single utility maximisation recently, with the proposal of developing global systems sci- could play a central role in this endeavour and in partic- ence (GSS) (Jaeger et al. 2013), with special emphasis on find- ular in showing potential cooperation mechanisms re- ing Bglobally interconnected systems of solutions to global quired for systems’ transformation (Epstein 2012; problems^ of which climate change is but one. These ap- Preston et al. 2015). proaches have contributed to introducing a transformation fo- 2) Assessment of options for change of institutional, behav- cus in climate assessment procedures in which the integration ioural and social-ecological systems interactions: with sustainable development principles and goals is included. Transformative assessment tools and methods ought to This entails a fundamental change in science-policy practices, evaluate and provide a portfolio of feasible options for e.g. by focusing on ultimate interlinked causes—and their cu- institutional and behavioural transformations. Such as- mulative non-linear consequences—of societal problems and sessment needs to be based on a robust representation of system interactions. This change in orientation may also help core system interactions and the systemic effects of to think ahead about how to deal with possible rebound effects transformations in agents’ behaviours so both climate or even more problems derived from conventional and partial and sustainability imperatives are met (Tàbara et al. solutions to climate mitigation and adaptation. 2010, Koontz et al. 2015). However, and despite this wide range of new research ap- 3) Systems of systems approach: Most current models and proaches, few have focused on processes explicitly oriented to assessment procedures tend to take a sectoral approach designing transformative pathways under conditions of or deal only with one kind of system or sector—food, HECC. Following a terminology already used by Dusyk mobility, health, finance, population, and information, et al. (Dusyk et al., 2009), Table 1 provides 12 features, in so little is known about the interconnected effects of the form of a checklist of contrasting characteristic practices, multiple kinds of systems operating under different which can be used by scientists and practitioners to move from unique dynamic configurations. Promising approaches conventional to transformative approaches in the assessment such as those looking at a system nexus and the appli- and implementation of climate strategies and solutions. Taken cation of a Bnexus governance^ (Al-Saidi & Elagig singularly, these are not Bdistinctive^ or unique to TSC, as the 2017; Boas et al. 2016) are emerging in this regard, various strands of sustainability-oriented approaches men- including also GSS, understood as the search for and tioned before are already embracing many of these. assessment of Bglobal systems of interconnected However, these elements can be taken as practical solutions^ (Jaeger et al., 2013; Helbing 2013). requirements to produce more robust knowledge on solutions 4) Assumptions about the future attainability of existing and strategies aimed at addressing HECC. On the one hand, systems goals: Many advocates who believe that tech- we are talking about how the pathways of solutions are devel- nological solutions (including geoengineering) would oped—not the pathways themselves. On the other, not all suffice to cope with climate change tend to assume that features are necessarily symmetric or opposed to each other. For example, first-order learning is not opposed to second- 2 Hence, it is possible to talk of strategies that are both non-transformative and order learning. The table can be read as containing ideal- fast (e.g. the bail-out of the US banks that kept most of global financial system type characterisations of actual climate assessment practices. intact) or incremental but transformative strategies, if they aim at fundamen- Moreover, we argue that this conceptual framework is better tally changing the attributes of a given system. Similarly, the rather transfor- mative proposal of keeping most of the remaining fossil fuels in the ground, suited than the distinction that it is often used between Btrans- eliminating perverse energy subsidies and redirecting the extra revenue to formational^ and Bincremental^ (as in the SREX report). sustainable development goals could be taken in an incremental strategy. Table 1 Contrasts between conventional versus transformative approaches in the assessment of pathways, strategies, and solutions to high-end climate change Dimension/approach Conventional Transformative 1. Representation of agency in economic Single rationality, single representative agent Heterogeneous agency, multiple rationalities modelling 2. Assessment of options for change of Weak Strong institutional, behavioural and social-ecological systems interactions 3. Systems of systems approach and coordination Not necessary or minimal; only dealing with one Fundamental; dealing with multiple systems or system or sector or very few at a time sectors at a time, e.g. nexuses between food, energy, finance, health, mobility … 4. Assumptions about the future attainability of the The present system goals are believed to be still The present system goals are no longer believed existing system goals attainable in the future without profound to be attainable in the future, and hence reconfigurations require profound reconfigurations 5. Role of visions and normative futures Without visions: only exploratory/descriptive Including visioning processes which co-produce (non-normative, non-directional) scenarios desirable futures within the assessment process (to trigger and orient change) 6. Representation of system dynamics. Role of Linear representation of system dynamics; Non-linear and complex (e.g. multiple kinds of multiple feedbacks, cumulative processes, and multiple feedbacks, cumulative processes, and non-linear interactions; assessing emergence); irreversibilities, including tipping points, phase irreversibilities, including tipping points, multiple feedbacks, cumulative processes, transitions, bifurcations … phase transitions, bifurcations, rarely or not and irreversibilities, including multiple considered (or weakly so) tipping points, phase transitions, bifurcations, strongly considered 7. Time and space scales considered at the same Single; cumulative effects scantily addressed Multiple; including cumulative effects of past time and present actions at various scales 8. Uncertainty (assumptions and treatment) Low/medium; probability distributions assumed High and very high; probability distributions to be known (e.g. as risks). Probabilism mostly unknown, (e.g. as indeterminacies). Possibilism 9. Kind of learning required First-order (doing the same better and more) Second-order (doing something different under a different paradigm) 10. Expected outcomes of the assessment Single optimal solutions based on a single Multiple win-win solutions, multiple winners, equilibrium; win-lose solutions (e.g. burden based on multiple equilibria; integrated sharing) strategies for addressing multiple interconnected problems 11. Assessment of equity and distributional issues Weakly considered (e.g. only intragenerational Strongly considered (including both intra- & equity) intergenerational equity) 12. Criteria tools and methods used in the design One or very few criteria considered, mostly Multicriteria tools and methods promoted, to and assessment of solutions and strategies profitability or/and (eco)efficiency consider multiple criteria besides profitability. These include (eco and/or social) efficiency + sufficiency + sustainability. the existing institutional, production, and consumption the intersubjective formation of meanings and motives systems can continue functioning without major funda- and a co-production process can only be done in a par- mental transformations in their configuration. This view ticipatory way (Maggs & Robinson 2016; O’Brian contrasts with a position in which research is focused on 2016; Campos et al. 2016; Pereira et al. 2015; exploring and supporting alternative ways of Inderberg et al. 2014; Weaver et al. 2006). socioecological system reconfigurations based on the 6) Representation of system dynamics: Current emission assumption that their goals are no longer attainable or trends make it increasingly likely that the 2-°C threshold no longer viable in the future as they are now constituted will be exceeded, and this could lead to large-scale, non- (Moore et al. 2014; Pelling, O’Brien and Matyas 2015). linear, and unpredictable changes in global social- 5) Role of visions and normative futures: The development climate systems. However, little is known about how of climate assessment processes in TCS needs to inte- to assess multiple social feedbacks, irreversibilities, grate the role of explicit normative visions (the future we and cumulative effects of individual actions and bound- want) and subjective judgments on transformative fu- ed rationalities at global level, which include the poten- tures in reorienting policy strategies at various scales tial of multiple tipping points—both positive and nega- of action. This entails a perspective which acknowledges tive—phase transitions, bifurcations, chain cascades, J. David Tàbara et al. and others. These complex dynamics need to be linked 11) Assessment of equity and distributional issues: A central with the assessment of existing agents’ capacities to component in the development of TCS is equity—both cope with them. Assessing potential solutions and strat- between generations (intergenerational equity) and in egies to address HECC requires a more in-depth under- every generation (intragenerational equity) and both in standing of these more complex system dynamics. terms of distributive equity and procedural equity 7) Time and space scales considered at the same time: A (Grasso 2007). Conventional methods face many practi- more transformative approach would focus on making cal limitations to the inclusion of plural sources of equity explicit the synergies and trade-offs associated with considerations in climate assessments and thus more in- implementing solutions at different time scales and in clusive, procedural, and context-based approaches are connecting their consequences at different spatial scales. required (Grasso and Sachhi 2015)—so as to ensure also Transforming global energy systems or global resource the accountability of both procedures and outcomes of consumption patterns or even restoring global ecosys- the assessments. tems may take many decades or even centuries. 12) Criteria used in the design and assessment of solutions However, the implications and distributive effects of and strategies: One or very few criteria are considered in such possible strategies—such as keeping most of the the design of conventional solutions and strategies to remaining fossil fuels in the ground—need to be clearly climate change, e.g. profitability or (eco)efficiency, be- accounted for, both spatially and temporally. cause they can boost economic, personal, and environ- 8) Assumptions and treatment of uncertainty: The more mental gains without necessarily requiring institutional conventional approaches to risk assessment tend to be change. For transformative solutions and strategies, mul- based on using probabilistic methods. However, in a tiple criteria are taken into account (e.g. using situation of HECC, the uncertainties are so high and multicriteria methods) and include, among others, suffi- the changes are complex and non-linear that convention- ciency (setting limits to consumption and promoting de- al approaches to risk assessment cannot be used. In a mand management of resources, e.g. to fossil fuels) and context of HECC, a range of plausible options and their environmental sustainability (adapting societies to bio- potential consequences need to considered, e.g. using physical and ecosystems requirements). scenarios. That is, possibilism is then favoured as prob- ability distributions are mostly considered to be un- Very few if any of these criteria are met in conventional known (e.g. as indeterminacies). climate change assessment processes. TCS involves a differ- 9) Kind of learning required: first-order learning refers to ent way of positioning researchers’ roles with respect to the doing the same, but better, more or faster. Second-order Bobjects and Bsubjects^ of study. TCS demands different learning refers to doing something fundamentally differ- modes of interacting with knowledge-holders. That is, the ent and from a different cognitive and normative per- researchers are not experts detached from the communities spective or paradigm. The latter includes changes in of action where solutions need to be developed but more fa- agents’ modes of interaction, e.g. via institutional inno- cilitators and integrators of multiple sources of co-created vations. TCS could help sustainability learning, a class knowledge to support action. Nevertheless, there is still a long of second-order learning aimed at transforming social- way to go for integrated climate research to move away from ecological interactions in a viable way, so as to ensure a exploring Btransformation pathways^ mainly using conven- good quality of life and maintenance of life-support sys- tional approaches (hence being Btransformational^), to actual tems in the long run (Tàbara & Pahl-Wostl 2008). exploring and developing Btransformative solutions^ from a 1 0) G en e r a l ap p roa c h an d e x pe c t e d ou t co m e s: completely fresh theoretical and policy-oriented perspective Conventional methods in macroeconomics tend to look as proposed in TCS, as summarised in Box 1. for optimal solutions and consider climate policy as a In addition, implementing transformative solutions to cost and as a deviation from a single general equilibri- HECC also requires profound changes in mind frames and um. This makes the assessment of multiple win-win worldviews. Many of the present cultural, cognitive, and eth- solutions, new opportunities for green-growth, and ical boundaries that prevail in much of the ethos driving transformations and non-market values very difficult agents’ actions in present political, economic, and social sys- (Tàbara et al. 2013; Tinch et al. 2015; Stern 2016). In tems must be overcome. As part of a broader social learning TCS, there is no need to search for one single optimal process, TCS requires extending the current science and pol- solution, but to rather assess Bsystems of coupled icy cultural frames, dominant modes of thinking and ways of solutions.^ What is needed is to envision and consider acting upon social-ecological systems to modify fundamental- potential solutions (in plural) that are consistent with ly the dominant bounded rationalities, and normative refer- local values and culture, while contributing coherently ences used in individual and collective decision-making. to global sustainability. This requires a transformation also in the way climate Box 1 Transformative climate science (TCS) as a social learning pro- is mostly about identifying the processes and key elements cess which … that would be needed to share insights, support social • Focuses on solutions, not only on problems and trends; learning, and improve the societal relevance and quality • Integrates and promotes reflectivity on individual motives, beliefs, of the assessments aimed at supporting societal transfor- values, human nature and agency, e.g. via normative visions; mations so that they take climate and sustainability chal- • Focuses on deep causes and social-ecological interactions (mainly lenges into account in the context of HECC. In this way, global systems unsustainability), not only on symptoms; TCS operates at the interface of climate and social sci- • Links local/situated integrated solutions of multiple problems to global ences, using a solution orientation, rather than a processes; curiosity-driven orientation (see Hulme 2016); and in this • Supports the coordination of ‘global systems of solutions’ to support sustainable development; s e n s e , i t i s n e i t h e r Bb a s i c s c i e n c e ^ n o r p u r e Bimplementation^ but both at the same time. For these • Moves from a sectoral, incremental approach about solutions to an integrated, multiplicative, non-linear approach; reasons, TCS is not necessarily opposed to more conven- • Aims to understand and support agents’ transformative capacities; tional approaches but complementary to them. • Helps to redistribute rights and responsibilities and addresses TCS has, however, some clear limitations. In particular, institutional, behavioural change and fundamental equity issues; TCS should not be understood as another form of Bpromissory • Responds to two central questions: science^ nor it can claim to be the solution to all of our global • In transdisciplinary research: understanding BWho is the solution?,^ systems problems. Hence, it can also be argued that the pur- rather than BWhat is the problem?^ pose of climate science is not that of facilitating transforma- • Specifically for modelling: how to represent (heterogeneous) agent tion. But any attempt to support transformation without the interactions, multiple rationalities, cumulative/recursive effects, le- necessary robust knowledge on what can be done to achieve verage points, systems learning (as an emerging property), and ethical considerations? an improved situation would also be worthless or even create even a larger number and more acute kinds of problems. The ambition of TSC is not to produce full-fledged, universal, one size-fits-all solutions and strategies to the problem of global assessment processes are framed and carried out (Fig. 1) so climate change either (such as the optimal solutions generated that new practices: by the general equilibrium macroeconomic models). But rath- er to provide the necessary epistemological reflectivity to ex- (i) Take a long-term adaptive perspective into account: e.g. amine critically the existing concepts, tools, and methods and more than 5–15 generations, as systems may take a long support science-policy processes so that more situated and time to change or be restored to cope with HECC. Both robust kinds of knowledge can be generated; and to do so to short- and mid-term implications of win-win solutions identify, frame, and assess such solutions in concrete and di- need to be considered within long-term strategies. verse contexts of action. Hence, we do not claim to have the (ii) Use a global systems view: trade-offs and synergies be- final word but just to start a much-needed conversation. In any tween global and local/regional solutions and global case, the final outcomes of this proposed approach will be strategies need to be assessed, and largely contextual and dependent on the iterative process de- (iii) Overcome the many cultural dualisms and opposed signs in which knowledge deliberation and integration take identities between the value of humans and the value place. We cannot even assume that it will succeed in of the non-human world and ecosystems: e.g. move energising all the required capabilities and social forces need- away from the framing that sees climate change as a ed to rebuild the institutional milieu to adapt to and mitigate problem Bof the environment out there^ rather than an the effects of the new global climatic situation. But as an open intrinsic human, political, and economic one. mode of precautionary science and learning, it could provide guidance to set the basis for a more integrated systems reflec- tivity to deal with the endangerment of the basic conditions for Therefore, TSC can be understood as a transdisciplin- human survival as we know them today. It may also be an ary endeavour aimed at providing some practical guidance approach contributing to the development of global system to both climate scientists and practitioners to develop con- solutions through inclusive, robust knowledge production cepts, tools, and methods that are more fit for the quest of from diverse local contexts. developing robust strategies and solutions to the fast ac- celerating and closely intertwined climate and sustainabil- ity challenges. Hence, it may not necessarily be so much Discussion about identifying general axiomatic truths—although some are needed such as the assumption that conventional While addressing climate change can become a transformative approaches are not enough to deal with HECC. Instead, it driver by itself, transformative solutions at a global system J. David Tàbara et al. Fig. 1 Extended cognitive and normative framework of action for the development of transformative integrated solutions to high-end climate change. Source: adapted from (Tàbara 1999) level are bound to be triggered from forces outside the climate greater, although such solutions will not necessarily be imple- domain. We understand transformation as an independent di- mented because of the climate threat—but only if societies mension, albeit potentially connected to either mitigation or want to achieve an improved world situation. Hence, the most adaptation to climate change. The reason for that is that pos- innovative, robust, and persistent solutions to HECC are like- itive transformations, as those envisioned in sustainability ly to be those which contribute to building the appropriate thinking and practice, tend to be the result of endogenous conditions and capacities to support sustainable development. developments and deliberate social learning, instead of being After all, climate change may be understood not as the ulti- determined by external forces. Thus, TCS efforts need to be mate cause of any particular problem—and only an amplifi- placed to better understand the internal forces, visions, agents’ er—but simply as a symptom of unsustainability. Narrowing capacities, and conditions that have better chances to trigger the framing of global warming to a problem of GHG emis- positive transformative changes aligned with sustainability. sions leaves too many issues aside that need to be addressed if And do so in ways that connect them to climate policy narra- more transformative and long-lasting solutions are to be found tives aimed at finding and implementing innovative solutions to cope with HECC. to HECC. In this paper, we started with a strong normative assump- Our distinction between conventional versus transforma- tion by stating that climate science should embrace more tive science-policy approaches can also be used to categorise transformative-oriented approaches, but only if such assess- different mitigation and adaptation strategies, as represented ment work is explicitly intended to provide robust knowledge in Fig. 2. on practical solutions and strategies to address high-end cli- That is, and in contrast to conventional adaptation and con- mate change. Hence, we do not claim that all climate science ventional mitigation, Btransformative adaptation^ and inquiry should follow that path, and we agree that a curiosity- Btransformative mitigation^ would be purposefully oriented driven, open, and non-implementation-oriented research to modify fundamentally the attributes and global conditions should still be encouraged—as after all, it is also the necessary in which particular agents and system interactions occur and basis for a more transformative perspective and practice. The align such climate actions to sustainable development. core argument of the paper is that in conditions of HECC if Moreover, it can be argued that, as we move to a more high- science is to contribute not only to describing the problems but end climate world (represented in red), the urgency of to the design of credible and robust assessments of its possible assessing and implementing transformative solutions is solutions, a more transformative approach is needed. In Fig. 2 Mapping out different conceptual approaches to Convenonal climate Transformave climate adaptation, mitigation, and science and policy science and policy transformation approaches approaches Convenonal Migaon Transformave migaon Transformaon Convenonal Transformave adaptaon Adaptaon Convenonal economic Sustainable growth (BaU) development practice, this means not just doing more of the same but doing actions. In this regard, a key challenge for the design of climate something radically different both in science and policy prac- transformative strategies would be to expand and reframe the tice—which is what has been put forward in the description of main current focus of climate research from the conventional the various elements in Table 1. and limited question about Bwhat is the problem^ (or impacts, risks, and vulnerabilities) to Bwho is the solution.^ This in- cludes on the one hand, the support of open processes that Conclusion: how transformable are human would allow for a joint definition not only of the problems, societies in the face of high-end climate but above all, for the development of concrete opportunities change? and agent capacities for change. Ensuring the openness of knowledge systems for citizens to participate in the design In this paper, we provided a reflection on how to overcome the and implementation of practical solutions to improve their qual- limitations of existing concepts, tools, methods, and processes ity of life and cope with current unsustainability trends, such as being used in the framing, assessment, and implementation of those leading to high-end climate change, may be one of the solutions in the context of high-end climate change; and in most transformative ways to move forward. In this regard, particular, the need to develop a space for a science-policy many questions for this new approach still remain unanswered interface aimed at supporting transformation. To a large extent, and among these: How to best characterise and operationalise climate science has developed both as a Bregime^ and as an transformative dynamics in the context of high-end scenarios? Bisolated expert mindset^ detached from the object of study— With what criteria and tools? How to select, harmonise, and which is people and society in their biophysical interactions. create synergies between various transformative solutions and This is precisely what the various (normative) dimensions cap- strategies? How to deal with cross-scale interactions? How to tured in Table 1 want to underline (and prevent). In this regard, identify the main triggers, leverage points and conditions for TCS only seeks to show some procedural elements to develop system change, and institutional and behavioural learning? Bscience in context, and co-produced with and for society at How to ensure accountability and fair representation? … large^; that is, a kind of civic climate science which, in our case Hence a consequent overarching question streaming from and in the context of high-end climate change, is oriented to them is not only how adaptable are human societies to global support transformations. A crucial aspect in transformation pro- warming but also mostly how transformable are contempo- cesses is to support transformative capacities, which entails rary global systems to achieve a situation which follows a developing a sense of ownership of the policy narratives which desired and positive vision of the future, even in the are to be co-created and used to reorient action in concrete impending situation of HECC? We have argued that TCS will regional and local contexts. This demands a clear identification only be able to contribute to the development of decisive of the agents in charge of participating in the assessment pro- systems’ innovations to cope with HECC if the innovations cesses and in taking the attendant climate-related decisions and are linked to main global social transformative forces already J. David Tàbara et al. evident outside the climate domain. In the context of HECC, change research. PNAS 113(27):7287–7290. https://doi.org/10. 1073/pnas.1607739113 conventional strategies and solutions will not be enough and Burch S (2010). Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate are likely to reinforce current unsustainability trends. Then, a change: insights from three case studies in British Columbia, main challenge is to explore the implications for climate sci- CanadaGlob Environ Chang, 20, 287–297, https://doi.org/10.1016/ ence and policy of existing or potential transformative forces j.gloenvcha.2009.11.009 in ways which can be connected to integrated solutions on the Burch S, Shaw A, Dale A, Robinson J, Climate Policy (2014) Triggering transformative change: a development path approach to climate ground that are able to support sustainable development. In change response in communities. Clim Pol 14(4):467–487. https:// this regard, climate change can be seen not only as an ampli- doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2014.876342 fier of global risks and problems but also as a source of trans- Campos IS, Alves FM, Dinis J, Truninger M, Vizinho A, Penha-Lopes G formative opportunities for sustainable development, capable (2016) Climate adaptation, transitions, and socially innovative action-research approaches. Ecol Soc 21(1):13. https://doi.org/10. of improving global equity and boosting global governance 5751/ES-08059-210113 capacities to cope with global problems. Transformation- Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L, Gallopin GC (2016) Crafting usable oriented research ought to be able to understand the necessary knowledge for sustainable development. PNAS 113(17):4570– conditions for linking climate and sustainable development 4578. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1601266113 solutions emerging outside the climate domain. Or in few Clarke LK, Jiang K, Akimoto M, Babiker G, Blanford K, Fisher-Vanden JC, Hourcade V, Krey E, Kriegler A, Löschel D, McCollum S, words, societies may only be transformable and embrace suc- Paltsev S, Rose PR, Shukla M, Tavoni BCC, van der Zwaan, van cessfully the challenge of high-end climate change, if they are Vuuren DP (2014). Assessing transformation pathways. In: Climate able to embrace the broader societal challenges posed by sus- Change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of tainable development. Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change In Edenhofer O, et al. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New Acknowledgements We would like to thank Sander van der Leeuw, Niki York, NY, USA. p.413–510. Frantzeskaki, Ilan Chabay, and Pam Berry for their constructive Cornell S, Berkhout F, Tuinstra W, Tàbara JD, Jäger J, Chabay I, de Wit comments. B, Langlais R, Mills D, Moll P, Otto I, Petersen A, Pohl C, van Kerkhoff L (2013) Opening up knowledge systems for better re- Funding information The research has received funding from the EU sponses to global environmental change Project. Environ Sci project IMPRESSIONS—Impacts and Risks from High-End Scenarios: Policy 28:60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.11.008 Strategies for Innovative Solutions (www.impressions-project.eu; EC Dangerman ATJ, Schellnhuber HJ (2013) Energy systems transforma- FP7/2007–2013 grant no. 603416). tion. PNAS 110(5):49–E558. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. 1219791110 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Dusyk N, Berkhout T, Burch S, Coleman S, Robinson J (2009). Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// Transformative energy efficiency and conservation: a sustainable de- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, velopment path approach in British Columbia, Canada. Energy Effic distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro- 22 (4): 387–400, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12053-009-9048-8 priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Elliott J (2012) An introduction to sustainable development. Routledge, London and New York Epstein B (2012). Agent-based modeling and the fallacies of individual- ism. Models, Simulations, and Representations, 115–44. References Feola G (2015) Societal transformation in response to global environmen- tal change: a review of emerging concepts. Ambio 44(5):376–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-014-0582-z Allen M (2015). Paris emissions cuts aren’t enough – we’ll have to put Field CB, Barros V, Stocker TF, Qin D, Dokken DJ, Ebi, KL, carbon back in the ground. The Conversation, 14 December 2015. Mastrandrea MD, Mach KJ, Plattner GK, Allen SK, Tignor M, Retrieved from: https://theconversation.com/paris-emissions-cuts- Midgley PM (eds.) (2012). Managing the risks of extreme events arent-enough-well-have-to-put-carbon-back-in-the-ground-52175 and disasters to advance climate change adaptation. A special report Al-Saidi M, Elagib NA (2017) Towards understanding the integrative of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on approach of the water, energy and food nexus. Sci Total Environ Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 574:1131–1139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.046 and New York, NY, USA Berry PM, Brown S, Chen S, Kontogianni A, Rowlands O, Simpson G, Field CB., Barros VR, Dokken DJ, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea MD, Bilir TE, Skourtos M (2015) Cross-sectoral interactions of mitigation and Chatterjee M, Ebi KL, Estrada YO, Genova RC, Girma B, Kissel adaptation measures. Clim Chang 128:381–393. https://doi.org/10. ES, Levy AN, MacCracken S, Mastrandrea PR, White LL (eds.). 1007/s10584-014-1214-0. (2014). Summary for policymakers. In: Climate Change 2014: im- Berry PM, Betts RA, Harrison PA, Sanchez-Arcilla A (Eds.) 2017. High-end pacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Cambridge University Press, climate change in Europe. Available at http://highendclimateresearch.eu/ Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–32 Boas I, Biermann F, Kanie N (2016) Cross-sectoral strategies in global Fleurbaey M, Kartha Bolwig S, Chee YL, Chen Y, Corbera E, Lecocq F, sustainability governance: towards a nexus approach. Int Environ Lutz W, Muylaert MS, Norgaard RB, Okereke C, Sagar AD. (2014). Agreements Polit Law Econ 16(3):449–464. https://doi.org/10. Sustainable development and equity. In: Climate Change 2014: mit- 1007/s10784-016-9321-1 igation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Boucher O, Bellassen V, Benveniste H, Ciais P, Criqui P, Guivarch C, Le Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Treut H, Mathy S, Seferian R (2016) In: the wake of Paris Change [Edenhofer, O, et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Agreement, scientists must embrace new directions for climate Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. p.283–350 Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin FS, Rockstrom J Maggs D, Robinson J (2016) Recalibrating the Anthropocene: sustain- (2010). Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and ability in an imaginary world. Environ Philos 13(2):175–194. transformability. Ecology and Society 15, 20. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.5840/envirophil201611740 5751/ES-03610-150420 Mauser W, Klepper G, Rice M, Schmalzbauer BS, Hackmann H, Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1991) A new scientific methodology for glob- Leemans R, Moore H (2013) Transdisciplinary global change re- al environmental issues. In: Constanza R (ed) Ecological economics: search: the co-creation of knowledge for sustainability. Curr Opin the science and management of sustainability. Columbia University Environ Sustain 5(3-4):420–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust. Press, New York, pp 137–152 2013.07.001 Gardiner S (2011) Is no one responsible for global environmental trage- Miller TR (2013) Constructing sustainability science: emerging perspec- dy? Climate change as a challenge to our ethical concepts. In: tives and research trajectories. Sustain Sci 8(2):279–293. https://doi. Arnold D (ed) The ethics of global climate change. Cambridge org/10.1007/s11625-012-0180-6 University Press, Cambridge, pp 38–59. https://doi.org/10.1017/ Miller TR, Wiek A, Sarewitz D, Robinson J, Olsson L, Kriebel D, CBO9780511732294.003 Loorbach D (2013) The future of sustainability science: a Grasso M (2007) A normative ethical framework in climate change. Clim solutions-oriented research agenda. Sustain Sci 9(2):239–246. Chang 81(3–4):223–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9158-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0224-6 Grasso M, Sacchi S (2015) Impure procedural justice in climate gover- Minx JC, Callaghan M, Lamba WF, Gararda J, Edenhofer O (2017) Learning nance systems. EnvironValues 24(6):777–798. https://doi.org/10. about climate change solutions in the IPCC and beyond. Environ Sci 3197/096327115X14420732702699 Pol 77:252–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.05.014 Gunderson LH, Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy. Understanding transfor- Moore ML, Tjornbo O, Enfors E, Knapp C, Hodbod JA, Baggio A, mations in human and natural systems. Island-Press, Washington, 493p Noström A, Olsson P, Biggs D (2014) Studying the complexity of Hackmann H, Moser SC, St Clair AL (2014) The social heart of global change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliber- environmental change. Nat Clim Chang 4(8):653–655. https://doi. ate social-ecological transformations. Ecol Soc 19(4):54. https://doi. org/10.1038/nclimate2320 org/10.5751/ES-06966-190454. Hallegatte S, Rogelj J, Allen M, Clarke L, Edenhofer O, Field CB, O'Brien K (2012) Global environmental change. II. From adaptation to Friedlingstein P, van Kesteren L, Knutti R, Mach KJ, Mastrandrea deliberate transformation. Prog Hum Geogr 36(5):667–676. https:// M, Michel A, Minx J, Oppenheimer M, Plattner G-K, Riahi K, doi.org/10.1177/0309132511425767 Schaeffer M, Stocker TF, van Vuuren DP (2016) Mapping the cli- O'Brien K (2016) Climate change and social transformations: is it time for mate change challenge. Nat Clim Chang 6(7):663–668. https://doi. a quantum leap? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 7(5):618–626. org/10.1038/nclimate3057 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.413 Helbing D (2013) Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature Olsson P, Galaz V, Boonstra WJ (2014) Sustainability transformations: a 497(7447):51–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12047 resilience perspective. Ecol Soc 19(4):1. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- Hulme M (2016) 1.5 °C and climate research after the Paris Agreement. 06799-190401 Nat Clim Chang 6(3):222–224. https://doi.org/10.1038/ Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of nclimate2939 social-ecological systems. Science 324(5939):419–422 Inderberg TH, Eriksen S, O'Brien K, Sygna L (2014) Climate change Owen R, Macnaghten P, Stilgoe J (2012) Responsible research and inno- adaptation and development: transforming paradigms and practices. vation: from science in society to science for society, with society. Sci Routledge, London Public Policy 39(6):751–760. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs093 Jaeger C, Jansson P, van der Leeuw S, Resch M, Tàbara JD, Dum R Pelling M, O’Brien K, Matyas D (2015) Adaptation and transformation. Clim (Eds.). (2013). Global system science orientation paper. Chang 133(1):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1303-0 Background material and synthesis. http://www.gsdp.eu/about/ Pereira L, Karpouzoglou T, Doshi S, Frantzeskaki N (2015) Organising a global-systems-science/ safe space for navigating social-ecological transformations to sus- Jäger J (1998) Current thinking on using scientific findings in environ- tainability. Int J Environ Res Public Health 12(6):6027–6044. mental policy making. Environ Model Assess 3(3):143–153. https:// https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606027 doi.org/10.1023/A:1019066907165 Peters GP, Andrew RM, Canadell JG, Fuss S, Jackson RB, Korsbakken Jamieson D (2014) Reason in a dark time: why the struggle against JI, Le Quéré C, Nakicenovic N (2017) Key indicators to track cur- climate change failed—and what it means for our future. Oxford rent progress and future ambition of the Paris Agreement. Nat Clim University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ Chang. Advance online publication. 7(2):118–122. https://doi.org/ 9780199337668.001.0001 10.1038/nclimate3202 Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ (2012) Transformational adaptation Preston BL, King AW, Ernst KM, Absar SM, Nair SS, Parish ES (2015) when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Scale and the representation of human agency in the modeling of PNAS 109(19):7156–7161. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas. agroecosystems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:239–249. https:// 1115521109 doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.05.010 van Kerkhoff L (2014) Developing integrative research for sustainability Rotmans J, Jäger J, Weaver P (2008) ‘Editorial’. Special issue on inte- science through a complexity principles-based approach. Sustain Sci grated sustainability assessment. Int J Sustain Dev Innov 3(1/2):1–8 9(2):143–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-013-0203-y Stern N (2016) Economics: current climate models are grossly mislead- van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for sus- ing. Nature 530(7591):407–409. https://doi.org/10.1038/530407a tainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31(1):445–477. Tàbara JD (1999). Acció ambiental. Aprenentatge i participació vers la https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.102405.170850 sostenibilitat. (Environmental action. Learning and participating to- Koontz TM, Gupta D, Mudliar P, Ranjan P (2015) Adaptive institutions in wards sustainability). Balearic Islands: di7 edició social-ecological systems governance: a synthesis framework. Environ Tàbara JD (2011). Integrated climate governance and sustainable devel- Sci Pol 53:139–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.01.003 opment’. In: Jaeger, C. C. Tàbara, J. D. And Jaeger J. (2011). Lynam T, De Jong W, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans, K (2007) A review European research on sustainable development. Vol I: transforma- of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences, and tive science approaches for sustainable development. Heidelberg, values into decision making in natural resources management. Ecol Germany: Springer and European Commission, pages 91–109 Soc 12(1):5 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/ Tàbara JD, Chabay I (2013) Coupling human information and knowledge vol12/iss1/art5/ systems with social-ecological systems change. Reframing research, J. David Tàbara et al. education and policy for sustainability. Special Issue on BResponses Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adapt- to Environmental and Societal Challenges for our Unstable Earth ability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9(2): (RESCUE)^. Environ Sci Policy 28:71–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 5 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/ j.envsci.2012.11.005 Walker B, Abel N, Anderies JM, Ryan P (2009) Resilience, adaptability, Tàbara JD, Pahl-Wostl C (2008). Sustainability learning in natural re- and transformability in the Goulburn-Broken Catchment, Australia. source use and management. Ecol Soc, 12 (2): 3. [online] URL: Ecol Soc 14(1):12 [online] URL: http://www.ecologyandsociety. www.ecologyandsociety.org/viewissue.php?sf=28 org/vol14/iss1/art12 Tàbara JD, Dai X, Jia G, McEvoy D, Neufeldt H, Serra A, Werners S, Weaver PM, Haxeltine A, van de Kerkhof M, Tàbara JD (2006) West JJ (2010) The climate learning ladder. A pragmatic procedure Mainstreaming action on climate change through participatory ap- to support climate adaptation. Environ Policy Gov 20(1):1–11. praisal. Int J Innov Sustain Dev 1(3):238–259. https://doi.org/10. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.530 1504/IJISD.2006.012425 Tàbara JD, Mangalagiu D, Kupers R, Jaeger CC, Mandel A, Paroussos L Westley F, Olsson P, Folke C, Homer-Dixon T, Vredenburg H, Loorbach (2013) Transformative targets in sustainability policy-making: the D, Thompson J, Nilsson M, Lambin E, Sendzimir J, Banerjee B, case of the 30% EU mitigation goal. J Environ Plan Manag 56(8): Galaz V, van der Leeuw S (2011) Tipping toward sustainability: 1180–1191. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.716365 emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio 40(7):762–780. Tàbara JD, St. Clair AL, Hermansen EAT (2017) Transforming commu- https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9 nication and knowledge production processes to address high-end Westley FR, Tjornbo O, Schultz L, Olsson P, Folke C, Crona B, Bodin Ö climate change. Environ Sci Policy 70:31–37. https://doi.org/10. (2013) A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological 1016/j.envsci.2017.01.004 systems. Ecol Soc 18(3):27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072- Tinch R, Schoumacher C, Grasso M, Grasso ME, Mandel A., Lamperti F, 180327 Napoletano M, Roventini A, Sapio A, Jäger J, Tàbara JD (2015). Wiek A, Ness B, Brand FS, Schweizer-Ries P, Farioli F (2012) From Evaluation of economic approaches under high-end scenarios. complex systems analysis to transformational change: a comparative IMPRESSIONS Project Deliverable D5.1. Available at www. appraisal of sustainability science projects. Sustain Sci 7(S1):5–24. impressions-project.eu/documents/ https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0148-y