Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-023-10095-0 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Incremental and transformational adaptation to climate change among Indigenous Peoples and local communities: a global review Marijn Zant1 · Anna Schlingmann2 · Victoria Reyes‑García2,3 · David García‑del‑Amo2 Received: 13 December 2022 / Accepted: 23 November 2023 © The Author(s) 2023 Abstract Around the world, Indigenous Peoples and local communities are exposed to different cli- mate change impacts to which they respond in a myriad of ways. Despite this diversity, there are few comparative studies assessing the magnitude of livelihood system change resulting from Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ responses to climate change impacts. Drawing on the analysis of 210 peer-reviewed publications, we analyze 3292 Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ responses to climate change impacts, focusing on the magnitude of change they entail. Globally, Indigenous Peoples and local communi- ties are actively adjusting their livelihood activities, most frequently applying incremental responses. However, in half of the case studies, communities fully or partially transform their livelihoods to respond to climate change impacts. Both incremental and transforma- tional responses can have adverse impacts on Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ lives. Trends in the magnitude of livelihood changes are similar across climates and live- lihoods except for responses in (semi-)arid climates, where most intermediate and trans- formational responses take place, and for responses in cultivation, where most incremen- tal changes take place. When transformational adaptation occurs, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often not only give up their livelihood strategy, but also their culture and way of living. Keywords Autonomous adaptation · Climate change adaptation · Coping · Local livelihood strategies · Systematic literature review · Transformative adaptation * Victoria Reyes‑García victoria.reyes@uab.cat 1 Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 8, 3584 CS Utrecht, The Netherlands 2 Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain 3 Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, 08010 Barcelona, Spain 13 Vol.:(0123456789) 57 Page 2 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 1 Introduction Impacts from anthropogenic global warming are setting in motion cascading effects that affect a wide array of natural systems, which in turn affect humans and their livelihoods (Lawrence et al. 2020). For example, changes in the atmospheric system (e.g., changes in temperature and precipitation) affect the physical system (e.g., water availability), which in turn influences the biological system (e.g., abundance, distribution, and behavior of plants and animals), as well as human managed systems (e.g., crops and livestock). It is acknowl- edged that climate change impacts on human livelihoods result in a vulnerability increase, particularly among those who directly depend on nature for their subsistence (IPCC 2018; Reyes-García et al. 2019; Rosenzweig and Neofotis 2013). Indeed, in many regions of the world, climate change impacts, from declining Arctic sea ice (Min et al. 2008), to changes in hydrology (Rosenzweig and Neofotis 2013), or the increasing frequency of wildfires and coastal flooding (IPCC 2014), are hindering not only food production but also other living conditions such as access to shelter, sanitation, and water (Sommer et al. 2013). Among the groups most affected by climate change are Indigenous Peoples (IPs) and local communities (LCs) (Reyes-García et al. in press), here defined as groups and indi- viduals who self-identify as Indigenous (IPs) or as members of specific local communities (LCs) and who maintain intergenerational connection through livelihood, cultural identity and worldviews, institutions, and ecological knowledge (IPBES 2022). Many IPs and LCs have a long history of interaction with the environment and—in many cases—have expe- rienced climate variability throughout history (Makondo and Thomas 2018). This experi- ence can be important to deal with the changes associated with emerging climate change impacts (Anik and Khan 2012; Belfer et al. 2017; Fairhead et al. 2017). However, given the unprecedented speed and magnitude of current climate change (IPCC, 2021; Makondo and Thomas 2018), traditional responses to climatic change and variability may not be suffi- cient, particularly as climate change impacts often act in combination with other socioeco- nomic factors (IPCC, 2022; Junqueira et al. 2021; Kates et al. 2012; Magesa and Pauline 2019; Maru et al. 2014; Reyes-García et al. 2023). Greater magnitude and frequency of local climate change impacts increase the likelihood of surpassing traditional adaptation limits (IPCC 2022), forcing IPs and LCs to change their livelihoods in fundamental ways (Fedele et al. 2019; Magesa and Pauline 2019). Local responses to climate change impacts have been discussed in terms of being “incremental” versus “transformational” (e.g., Barnes et al. 2017; Kates et al. 2012; Käy- hkö et al. 2020; Magesa and Pauline 2019; Park et al. 2012; Tàbara et al. 2018; Termeer et al. 2017; Wilson et al. 2020). “Incremental” responses to climate change impacts refer to minor changes to existing and familiar practices while maintaining the state and function of a social-ecological system (SES) (Barnes et al. 2017; Fedele et al. 2019; Folke et al. 2010; Kates et al. 2012; Nelson et al. 2007; Termeer et al. 2017). Examples include the reduc- tion of livestock or cultivated area or the increased use of fertilizer or water (Fedele et al. 2019). Contrastingly, “transformational” responses involve the creation of a fundamentally new state or system (Walker et al. 2004) or the recombination of the elements of a sys- tem in fundamentally new ways (Moore et al. 2014). Transformational responses are often described as innovative, multiscale, and addressing the root cause of vulnerability (Fedele et al. 2019), as the result of the sum of different kind of changes (Moore et al. 2014), as consisting of several phases in time (Olsson et al. 2004), and as encompassing a change in paradigm, power structures, and institutional arrangements (IPCC 2022). Transformational responses may include the adoption of practices at a large scale, the adoption of practices 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 3 of 24 57 that are truly new to a particular region or system, or shifts in locations (Kates et al. 2012). Examples of transformational responses include far-away migration (Birkmann et al. 2022) or giving up traditional livelihoods (Barnes et al. 2017; Dam et al. 2021). Transformational responses can be deliberate, if they are initiated as a precautionary measure by the people affected, or forced, if they result from an absolute necessity from changing environmental or socioeconomic circumstances (Folke et al. 2010; O’Brien 2012; Pelling et al. 2015). Deliberate transformation is not common because people tend to maintain the system they are part of “as they know it” and are generally reluctant towards large changes due to unfa- miliarity and potential high costs, even if transformation would be more appropriate (Fed- ele et al. 2019; Kates et al. 2012). Researchers have argued that incremental responses might potentially trap those who adopt them in an undesired state (Barnes et al. 2017; Rickards and Howden 2012). Exam- ples of such traps include cases in which common water saving techniques have failed in countering climate change induced water scarcity (Magesa and Pauline 2019) or cases in which herders are forced to sell all their livestock at once, since the animals are so thin that selling only a part of the herd will not account for basic living expenses (Zhang et al. 2013). As climate change impacts intensify, transformational responses are becoming increasingly needed for avoiding these traps (Ajulo et al. 2020; Rickards and Howden 2012). Neverthe- less, transformational strategies, particularly when traditional livelihoods are replaced, can also have far-reaching consequences for IPs’ and LCs’ livelihoods, such as the loss of tra- ditional values, identity and knowledge, the loss of social bonds, or an increase in precari- ous living and working conditions when people migrate (Granderson 2017; Meldrum et al. 2018; Panikkar et al. 2018). Relatedly, both incremental and transformational responses to climate change impacts can turn out to be maladaptive. Juhola et al. (2016) describe three types of maladaptive out- comes: those that rebound vulnerability, those that shift vulnerability, and those that erode sustainable development. For example, an incremental response such as the application of agrochemicals can result in maladaptive outcomes that counteract sustainable develop- ment through the pollution of nearby water bodies and an increase in soil acidity above the required threshold for crop production (Guodaar et al. 2020). Similarly, a transformational response such as labor migration of an individual household member can shift and rebound household vulnerability by shortening available labor resources, thereby increasing food insecurity (Jacobson et al. 2019). IPs’ and LCs’ responses to climate change are important to examine, not only because they affect the management of more than a quarter of global land areas (Garnett et al. 2018; Li et al. 2013), but also because IPs and LCs hold profound knowledge that is vital for environmental management, resulting from their direct dependence on nature for their live- lihoods, cultures, and identities (Belfer et al. 2017; Birkmann et al. 2022; IPBES 2019). Therefore, it is increasingly acknowledged that Indigenous and local knowledge of the environment is key for successful climate change adaptation strategies (Baul and McDon- ald 2015; Brondízio et al. 2021; García-del-Amo et al. 2020; Li et al. 2021; Reyes-García et al. 2019; Savo et al. 2016) and that local responses to climate change can serve as an important source informing climate change adaptation at larger scales (Belfer et al. 2017; Fairhead et al. 2017; Makondo and Thomas 2018). For example, (sub)tropical forests, of which large parts are managed by IPs and LCs (Garnett et al. 2018), have the potential to mitigate up to 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in tropical nations, if managed to foster biodiversity (Griscom et al. 2020). Including IPs and LCs and their knowledge systems in national adaptation plans could contribute to this biodiversity support and improve local livelihoods at the same time (Reyes-García et al. 2022). However, despite their importance, 13 57 Page 4 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 IPs and LCs responses to climate change are often overlooked in climate change adapta- tion policy and research (Petzold et al. 2020). Moreover, despite the wealth of literature on climate change adaptation, few scholars focus on the global variety of IPs’ and LCs’ responses (e.g., Schlingmann et al. 2021), and even fewer on the possible trends of trans- formational adaptation led by IPs and LCs (Surugu and Chutab 2021). The main goal of this work is to assess the magnitude of livelihood system change resulting from the diversity of IPs’ and LCs’ responses to climate change impacts. To do so, we analyze local responses to climate change impacts by classifying whether IPs’ and LCs’ livelihood system change resulting from adopting these responses is incremental or transformational (Berrang-Ford et al. 2021; Pelling et al. 2015). Our work responds to calls for more comparative studies assessing the transformational character of responses to cli- mate change in small SESs (Berrang-Ford et al. 2021; Fedele et al. 2019; Lam et al. 2020; Magesa and Pauline 2019). Compared to previous studies, our classification focusses on response magnitude, rather than on response processes (Mapfumo et al. 2017) and includes a larger variety of livelihoods (Dam et al. 2021; Rana and Moniruzzaman 2021; Vermeulen et al. 2018). Since we assess the magnitude of change associated with local responses to climate change impacts, it is beyond the scope of this paper to evaluate the need for adap- tation, as well as to assess the potential benefits and impacts, including socio-ecological and financial aspects, arising from adaptation to climate change, although touched upon briefly in our discussion. Relatedly, some characteristics of transformational responses, as described in the literature, e.g., being the result of the sum of different kinds of changes (Moore et al. 2014) or addressing the root cause of vulnerability (Fedele et al. 2019), are not assessed here. Our classification system serves as the basis for a descriptive analysis of trends in local responses to climate change by IPs and LCs. Since local responses to climate change are very context-specific (Berman et al. 2020; Ensor et al. 2019; Shaffril et al. 2020; Waugh et al. 2018; Zin et al. 2019), we assess trends of incremental and transformational responses across different climates and livelihoods. Results from our work suggest that, to respond to climate change impacts, IPs and LCs mostly implement incremental responses, although the use of intermediate and transfor- mational responses is also widespread. Observed trends in the magnitude of livelihood changes are similar across climates and livelihoods, except for responses in (semi-)arid climates, where most intermediate and transformational responses were found, and for responses in cultivation, where most incremental changes were reported. We also find that IPs’ and LCs’ incremental responses entail active adjustments of practices rather than a mere continuation of those practises. When transformational adaptation occurs, we find that IPs and LCs often not only give up their livelihood strategy, but also their culture and way of living. 2 Methods 2.1 Literature review and synthesis We examined peer-reviewed publications appearing between 2002 and 2020 and report- ing IPs’ and/or LCs’ coping and adaptation strategies to climate change impacts. Publica- tions were selected through the web-based search engines Web of Science® (WOS) (http://​ scien​ce.​thoms​onreu​ters.​com) and Scopus® (https://​www.​scopus.​com/), using the search 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 5 of 24 57 keywords “climate change” AND (“indigenous knowledge” OR “local knowledge” OR “traditional knowledge” OR “traditional ecological knowledge”) AND (“adapt*” OR “cop- ing” OR “cope”) appearing in titles, abstracts, and keywords. We found 1042 publications. From these, we only kept studies based on first-hand empirical data reporting IPs’ and/or LCs’ coping and adaptation strategies to climate change impacts. Publications in languages other than English, publications reporting non-human responses, and publications report- ing responses to non-climatic drivers were discarded. Reflecting the inclusion criteria, 419 publications were excluded after reading the title and abstract and another 413 were excluded after reading the full text. A total of 210 publications met our inclusion criteria and were kept for assessment. For each selected publication, we collected bibliographic information (i.e., authors and publication year). As some publications reported more than one case study, our final sample includes a total of 313 case studies. From each case study we compiled (1) geographic location information (e.g., GPS coordinates, climate), (2) studied group characteristics (e.g., main livelihoods), and (3) responses to climate change impacts implemented. For further details on the review process, see Schlingmann et al. (2021). 2.2 Classifying incremental and transformational responses Based on the relevant literature on transformations in SES (e.g., Berrang-Ford et al. 2021; Fedele et al. 2019; Johnson et al. 2018; Kates et al. 2012; Moore et al. 2014; Surugu and Chutab 2021; Walker et al. 2004), we developed a classification that allows us to capture the magnitude of change in responses to climate change impacts. Our classification distin- guishes between incremental, intermediate, and transformational responses. Incremental responses entail small alterations in livelihood features, allowing for a preservation of the livelihood system as a whole (Barnes et al. 2017; Folke et al. 2010; Kates et al. 2012; Mag- esa and Pauline 2019; Nelson et al. 2007; Termeer et al. 2017). For example, changes in the planting and harvesting time (changes in “time management”) and the adoption of new crops species and varieties (changes in “livelihood product”) are classified as “incremental” (Ash et al. 2012; Fedele et al. 2019; Magesa and Pauline 2019; Maru et al. 2014; Nguyen et al. 2013; Nhemachena and Hassan 2007; Wilson et al. 2020). Contrary to Fedele et al. (2019), we classified reactive (coping) as well as anticipatory responses as “incremental” (Ash et al. 2012; Magesa and Pauline 2019; Wilson et al. 2020). To capture the diversity of alterations embedded in incremental responses, we differentiated between responses that revitalize, maintain, adjust, shift, or switch a livelihood feature, where “revitalize” is the weakest and “switch” the strongest change of a livelihood feature (Fig. 1). Transformational responses are those that fundamentally change the livelihood system (Barnes et al. 2017; Birkmann et al. 2022; Kates et al. 2012; Magesa and Pauline 2019; Moore et al. 2014; Walker et al. 2004). Hence, responses classified as transformational consist of changes such as permanent far-away relocation and a full switch of livelihood activity (Barnes et al. 2017; Birkmann et al. 2022; Kates et al. 2012). As the boundary between responses that “preserve” (i.e., incremental change) and those that “transform” a system is not unambiguous (Kates et al. 2012; Nelson et al. 2007; Termeer et al. 2017), we added a third, intermediate, response category (named “intermediate”) capturing responses that only partially change the livelihood system. Examples of intermediate responses are temporary relocation (Penning-Rowsell et al. 2013; Warner and Afifi 2014), diversifica- tion of livelihood categories, or partial engagement with commercial trading (Nelson et al. 2007). 13 57 Page 6 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Fig. 1  Response categories organized according to the magnitude of change they entail, from incremental (left) to transformational (right) To apply our classification (Table 1), we first grouped all reported responses according to the 3-level classification system proposed by Schlingmann et al. (2021). Specifically, each response was classified according to (1) the response sector, which defines the main liveli- hood activities in which a response occurs (i.e., cultivation, livestock rearing, hunting/gath- ering, fishing/aquaculture, and “other activities,” which includes low and non-nature-based income such as off-farm work and aspects related to housing and community life in general), (2) the response domain, which describes the livelihood features of a response (i.e., changes in time management, location, practices and techniques, livelihood product, productive resource input, social and human capacity building, or a change regarding the full livelihood system), and (3) the response type, which specifies the quantitative or qualitative character of a response (i.e., changes in the number versus the composition of livestock or cultivated crops). As a last step, responses were classified as “incremental,” “intermediate,” or “trans- formational” based on the direction of change (e.g., increase or decrease of livelihood prac- tices, see Supplementary Materials A: Table 1) and temporal dimension (“temporary” or “permanent”). See Supplementary Materials A: Table 2 for the resulting classification table. We provide a descriptive analysis of the resulting classification including (i) the distri- bution of case studies reporting at least one type of response and (ii) the absolute and rela- tive shares of different categories. We also examine the distributions of response categories across different climates and response sectors. To test whether differences observed were statistically significant, we used a generalized linear model (GML) including the ratio of incremental, intermediate, or transformational responses detected to all other responses as dependent variable and climate (or response sector) as explanatory variable, with a bino- mial distribution and a logit link (Zuur et al. 2007). Analysis was carried out using the Python IDE Spyder 4.1.5 (Raybaut 2009) and R 4.2.2 (R Core Team 2022). Graphs and Artwork were created using Microsoft Office package 16.67. 2.3 Caveats We acknowledge several caveats in our work. First, as our review did not include grey literature and non-English publications, e.g., reports about adaptation projects supported by NGOs (Piggott-McKellar et al. 2019) or publications covering climate change adapta- tion actions by IPs or LCs written in Spanish (Fernández-Llamazares et al. 2014), relevant 13 Table 1  Response categories with their response domain, description, and an example Response domain Description Example Incremental Time management, location, practices and tech- Revitalization (reuptake or readoption) of a measure/strat- Reintroducing indigenous salt-tolerant rice varieties and fish niques, livelihood product, productive resource egy applied in the past species to address increased water and soil salinity (Singh input, social and human capacity building et al. 2019) Purposely maintaining and preserving (or slightly enforc- Maintaining collective fishing agreements to deal with the ing) measures/strategies already in place or remaining at shallowing of lakes in the dry season (Oviedo et al. 2016) Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change the place of living/livelihood Slightly adjusting current practices, e.g., timing, frequency, Decreasing the use of water to respond to water challenges quantity, and close-by relocation (Makondo and Thomas 2018) Shifting towards or from a certain practice within liveli- Reducing cereal farming and instead grow vegetables that hood, but not totally abandoning older practices demand less water to deal with high temperatures and decreased rainfall (Baul and McDonald 2015) (2023) 28:57 Switching (stop or start) a livelihood practice/feature Change to drought-tolerant crop species to respond to increasing droughts (Rankoana 2016) Intermediate Location Temporary far-away relocation of livelihood activities Migrating temporarily to preserve livelihood (agriculture) during droughts (Ogalleh et al. 2013) Livelihood system (livelihood category) Start diversification of different nature-based livelihood Complementing fishing with crops or cattle farming to categories reduce vulnerability to climate hazards (Audefroy and Sánchez 2017) Page 7 of 24 57 13 Table 1  (continued) 57 Response domain Description Example 13 Livelihood system (income) Start diversification by additionally practicing other (low) Complementing main livelihood (cultivation) with bee farm- nature-based livelihood and income ing to respond to water shortage (Kupika et al. 2019) Start diversification by additionally practicing other non- Complementing main livelihood (agriculture) with off-farm Page 8 of 24 nature-based livelihood and income occupations to address water challenges (Sada et al. 2014) Start or stop commercial trading of livelihood products Starting to grow and trade cash-crops instead of traditional crops to deal with multiple climatic stresses (Meldrum et al. 2018) Start or stop taking insurance Starting livestock (Gentle and Thwaites 2016) or risk insur- ance (Kassie et al. 2013) Start or stop getting financial support, remittance, loans, Raising a loan to react to ENSO-related droughts (Binter- credits, and borrows nagel et al. 2010) Transformational Location Permanent far-away relocation of livelihood activities Migrating permanently as a reaction to adverse climatic conditions for agriculture/livestock rearing (Zampaligré et al. 2014) Start or stop seasonal migration/nomadic lifestyle Giving up pastoralist nomadic lifestyle due to changes such as increasing droughts (Omolo and Mafongoya 2019) Livelihood system (livelihood category) Start practicing a new nature-based livelihood category or Starting to practice agriculture and giving up fishing in stop practicing familiar nature-based livelihood category response to unstable climate, monsoons, more severe and frequent storms, and declining fishing resources (Ser- Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change eenonchai and Arunrat 2019) Livelihood system (income) Start or stop practicing other (low) nature-based livelihood Starting to sell prepared food as an alternative source of & income income to deal with climatic changes (Egbe et al. 2014) Start or stop practicing other non-nature-based livelihood Changing from fishing to rickshaw pooling as a reaction to and income climatic stresses (Barua et al. 2020) (2023) 28:57 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 9 of 24 57 information from these sources that potentially could change the observed trends was not accounted for. Second, we acknowledge that our sample might not be representative of adaptation sectors and locations, as we identify sectorial and geographical biases in the case studies analyzed. Third, as our unit of analysis is the case study, our work does not capture response variability at the household level, hiding potential internal differences in adaptation. Given these biases, reported trends might not fully reflect actual trends in underrepresented regions, climates, and sectors or might hide intrahousehold differences. Further work could improve the accuracy of results by enlarging the sample and incorpo- rating responses adopted at the household level. 3 Results The 210 reviewed publications report 313 case studies located in 65 different countries. Most case studies are in Asia (37%) and Africa (35%) and correspond to tropical (34%) and temperate climates (28%) (for more details, see Fig. 1, Supplementary Materials A: Fig. 1 and Supplementary Materials B). Three out of four case studies (76%) report responses in several livelihood categories. Agriculture is the most frequent livelihood activity, practiced in 82% of the case studies, followed by animal husbandry (48%), and fishing/aquaculture (32%) (Supplementary Materials A: Fig. 1). 3.1 Incremental, intermediate, and transformational responses We documented a total of 3292 responses to climate change impacts. Most of the reported responses were “incremental” (89%), while 7% were “intermediate,” and 4% “transfor- mational.” Incremental responses largely comprised of a switch (42%) or adjustment (41%) of livelihood features, such as switching livestock breeds, or adjusting the sowing time (Table 2 and Supplementary Materials A: Table 3). Intermediate responses mostly included a change in income generation (49%), such as a switch in commercial trading or complementing the main nature-based livelihood with additional non-nature-based income generation, followed by the diversification of nature-based livelihood categories (30%). Transformational responses predominantly included drastic changes in location (59%), such as migration, or in income generation activities (29%), e.g., a complete switch to a non-nature-based livelihood. An average of 11 responses were documented for each case study. In all case studies, at least one response was classified as “incremental,” and in 93% of the case studies at least one incremental response referred to an adjustment of existing livelihood practices (Fig. 2a). In many case studies (88%), people switched livelihood features to completely replace most affected ones (e.g., highly damaged crop species). In more than half of the case studies (58%), people responded to climate change impacts by shifting the relative weight of livelihood activities, instead of completely abandoning a livelihood activity; thereby maintaining a certain degree of diversity. Only in a few case studies, the active continuation of established practices (16%) and the revitalization of traditional practices (12%) were mentioned as local responses to climate change. Remarkably, in 51% of the case studies at least one intermediate (41% of case studies) or transformational response (26%) was reported. 13 57 Page 10 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Table 2  Frequency in percentages of incremental (n = 2936), intermediate (n = 236), and transformational (n = 120) responses to climate change impacts reported in the literature (n = 3292). See Supplementary Materials A: Table 4 for more detailed distributions of intermediate and transformational responses Incremental (89%) 0 20 40 60 80 100 Revitalize 2% Maintain 3% Adjust 41% Shi 12% Switch 42% Intermediate (7%) Paral change in income sources 49% Diversificaon of nature-based livelihood categories 30% Temporal migraon 21% Transformaonal (4%) Full change in income generaon (low/non-nature- 29% based livelihood) Switching nature-based livelihood category 12% Permanent far-away relocaon/start or stop with 59% nomadic lifestyle 3.2 Response categories across climates The distributions of response categories across climates (Fig. 2b) did not differ much from the distribution of the whole sample (Fig. 2a). In all climates, the shares of case studies with incremental responses that “adjust” or “switch” a livelihood feature were the highest, and the percentages of case studies with incremental responses that “revitalize” or “main- tain” a livelihood feature were the lowest. Similarly, the incremental response “shift” was the third most frequent response in most climates, although in the cold/boreal climate this type of incremental response was less frequent. The share of case studies reporting at least one intermediate (59%) or transformational response (35%) was highest in “(semi)-arid” climates (p = 0.0102 and p = 0.0373, respec- tively, see Supplementary Materials B). The share of case studies reporting at least one transformational response was also high in temperate climates (32%). In all climates, the share of case studies reporting transformational responses was lower than the share of those reporting intermediate responses, except in cold/boreal climates, where the share of case studies reporting intermediate responses was the lowest (13%). 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 11 of 24 57 Fig. 2  Percentages of case studies in which a response category was reported at least once. a Global dis- tribution. b Distribution of sites located in tropical (n = 106 case studies), (semi-)arid (n = 54), temperate (n = 87), cold/boreal (n = 31), and polar/alpine (n = 35) climates, following the Köppen-Geiger classification (Kottek et al. 2006). Totals are higher than 100% because in each case study, multiple responses occurred in different response categories 3.3 Response categories across sectors Incremental responses mostly occurred in the response sector “cultivation” (75% of case studies), e.g., rainwater harvesting for crop production; followed by the sectors “other activities” (65%), e.g., using mosquito nets to protect against malaria; and “livestock” (39%), e.g., slaughtering livestock during drought periods (Fig. 3a). Most intermediate (Fig. 3b) and transformational responses (Fig. 3c) occurred in the response sector “other activities” (75% and 71%, respectively), e.g., diversifying income sources with tourism (intermediate) or giving up the traditional livelihood and switching to a non-nature-based livelihood (transformational). The distribution of responses by sector (Fig. 4) shows that the incremental responses that “switch” and “adjust” livelihood features were highly common for all sectors, while the total share of intermediate and transformational responses reached a maximum of only 19% in the sector “other activities.” In the cultivation sector, most responses were incre- mental (97%, p < 0.001, see Supplementary Materials B), with a high share (48%) cor- responding to the incremental responses that ‘switch’ livelihood features (e.g., replacing traditional crop varieties by new ones). Intermediate and transformational responses only represented 2% and 1%, respectively. Relatively often, intermediate responses referred to hunting/gathering activities (13%, e.g., livelihood diversification by complementing the main livelihood with the hunting of alternative wild animals and gathering of different fruits), followed by “other activities,” fishing/aquaculture, and livestock (12%, 11% and 13 57 Page 12 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Fig. 3  Percentages of case studies in which a response sector was reported at least once. a Incremen- tal responses (n = 313 case studies); b intermediate responses (n = 128); and c transformational responses (n = 80). Totals are higher than 100% because in each case study multiple responses occur in different response sectors. See Supplementary Materials A: Fig. 2 for the distribution of response sectors across dif- ferent kinds of incremental responses Fig. 4  Percentages of response categories across response sectors. See Supplementary Materials A: Fig. 3 for the distribution of response sectors of the sample 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 13 of 24 57 10%, respectively). Shares of transformational responses were highest in the sectors “other activities” (7%) and fishing/aquaculture (5%), e.g., permanent migration to other fishing grounds. 4 Discussion We derive two main important findings from this work. First, the results suggest that, in response to climate change impacts, IPs and LCs modify their livelihood activities by implementing mostly incremental responses. Nevertheless, although the number of inter- mediate and transformational responses documented is low, their occurrence is widely spread, as they are reported in half of the case studies analyzed. Second, our findings also point at some trends. Namely, the distribution of incremental, intermediate, and transfor- mational responses is similar across different climate types except for (semi-)arid climates, where most intermediate and transformational responses take place. Across sectors, incre- mental responses are proportionally higher in crop cultivation. In this section, we dis- cuss these two findings before comparing them with general findings from the adaptation literature. 4.1 Types of responses to climate change impacts by IPs and by LCs and their implications We found that most recorded responses to climate change impacts are incremental, which suggests that, to face climate change impacts, IPs and LCs mostly change some elements within their livelihood system, keeping it generally unchanged. The tendency to maintain the system “as they know it” has also been found in previous work (Fedele et al. 2019; Kates et al. 2012; Magesa and Pauline 2019). However, our work reveals that most incre- mental responses are an active adjustment of known practices, rather than a mere continua- tion of those practices, as indicated in the high number of case studies reporting responses that “adjust,” “shift,” or “switch,” instead of those that “revitalize” and “maintain” liveli- hood features. Importantly, although intermediate and transformational responses are low in number, their occurrence is widely spread. For half of the case studies, we documented responses implying more far-reaching changes and for more than a quarter of the case studies these changes are transformational in the sense that they report profound changes of locations (far-away relocation) and livelihood systems (livelihood category switch). Examples of the analyzed case studies include the outmigration of pastoralists in the Hindu-Kush region as a response to climate change induced food insecurity (Wu et al. 2014) and switching from cocoyam farming to livestock rearing in Southeastern Nigeria as a response to extreme climatic interannual variability (Ifeanyi-obi et al. 2017). The widespread use of intermedi- ate and transformational responses suggests that IPs and LCs are being forced to trans- form their livelihoods considerably as a reaction to an increase of climate change impacts, a finding consistent with the latest IPCC-report on impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability (Birkmann et al. 2022). The literature reviewed shows that the implications of applying either incremental or transformational responses are context dependent (Enfors 2013; Ensor et al. 2019; Latham- Sprinkle et al. 2019; Rickards and Howden 2012). For example, Penning-Rowsell et al. (2013) show how women in Bangladesh are trapped in a risky home environment when 13 57 Page 14 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 male family members migrate to seek for employment in response to climate hazards. In other South Asian cases, remittances from migrants actually improve material well-being for those who did not migrate (Maharjan et al. 2020). Importantly, responses to climate change, either incremental or transformational, can have adverse local impacts. On the one hand, several authors have shown how applying incremental responses might result in being trapped in undesirable situations (Adams 2016; Barnes et al. 2017; Warner and Afifi 2014), with negative consequences such as increased vulnerability, e.g., through increased food insecurity (Adams 2016; Sommer et al. 2013) or distress because of environmental changes (or “solastalgia”) (Albrecht et al. 2007). On the other hand, the adoption of trans- formational responses might also result in drastic disruptions of people’s lives (Birkmann et al. 2022). For example, one of the most maladaptive reported transformational responses entailed the resorting to begging by farmers in Eastern Uganda, as a response to climate change induced food insecurity (Egeru 2012). Another case study showed how farmers in Burkina Faso, who’s transformational response entailed the migration to another area to continue practicing agriculture, encountered conflicts with pastoralists in the new area due to the increased pressure on the available land (West et al. 2008). Similarly, a case study of the Dassanech in Ethiopia showed how their migration to the borderlands of Kenya as a response to drought resulted in conflicts on scarce natural resources with the Turkana peo- ple (Gebresenbet and Kefale 2012). Other transformational responses entailing migration, such as the case of farmers in Myanmar, resulted in household labor shortage (Zin et al. 2019). Comparably, several authors have discussed how transformational responses involv- ing migration, particularly to urban areas, result in an increased risk of precarious living and working conditions (Latham-Sprinkle et al. 2019), but also grief and other strong social impacts related to loss (Adger et al. 2013; Clarke et al. 2018). Relatedly, urbaniza- tion and abandonment of nature-based livelihoods inevitably lead to a loss of Indigenous knowledge, because of the absence of contact with historical and sacred Indigenous sites (Hari 2020) and because of the pressures from non-Indigenous governance systems and technology (Sirayi and Beauregard 2021). Moreover, transformational responses that entail migration can also impact local ecosystems due to the loss of management practices. When Aboriginal peoples were removed in the 1960s from their ancestral homes—the central deserts of Australia, which they had actively managed for tens of thousands of years—their home area experienced uncontrolled wildfires and biodiversity loss. The eventual return of the Aboriginals to their land resulted not only in the improved health and well-being of the people, but also in a wildfire reduction and biodiversity increase (Fletcher et al. 2021). 4.2 Trends across different climates and response sectors Although IPs and LCs living in different climates use similar and mainly incremental responses to climate change impacts, there is a higher occurrence of intermediate and transformational responses in (semi)-arid climates. As it has been found that reports of climate change impacts partly depend on climate (Reyes-García et al. in press), we argue that differentiated responses by climate might be caused by the magnitude of climate change impacts in (semi-)arid climates and livelihoods. Globally, there has been a signifi- cant warming in (semi-)arid areas, resulting in frequent droughts (Mirzabaev et al. 2022). Droughts are reported to be among the natural hazards with the highest negative impacts on human livelihoods, e.g., by relating to a higher risk of undernutrition (Mirzabaev et al. 2022; Mishra and Singh 2010). Thus, it is possible that the large magnitude of climate change impacts forces communities living in (semi-)arid areas to respond in a more drastic 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 15 of 24 57 way. For example, one of the case studies analyzed showed how farmers on the Bolivian Altiplano increasingly seek off-farm work as a response to worsening climate conditions for crop farming (Meldrum et al. 2018). Although incremental responses are the most common type of responses across sectors, this is particularly the case in the cultivation sector, where responses mainly consist of switching livelihood features (Baul and McDonald 2014; Gyasi and Awere 2018; Meldrum et al. 2018). For example, it was reported that peasants in Nepal switched to other sources for water, such as a different natural spring, as a response to climate change induced water shortage (Baul and McDonald 2015). This prevalence of incremental agricultural responses might be inherent to the characteristics of agriculture, compared to other livelihoods, as— for example —switching target fishing species may be more difficult for fishers, who might need to switch fishing gear (Muringai et al. 2022), than switching crop varieties is for farm- ers, especially when new varieties are distributed by NGOs or extension services (Mulesa et al. 2021). Conversely, a transformational change may be more feasible for fishers, who relocate far-away seeking for new fishing grounds (Belhabib et al. 2016), than for farmers, who might face limited access to land when relocating (Oladehinde et al. 2018). Hence, our results provide the basis for arguing that changes of similar magnitude may face differ- ent barriers across sectors. This means that for successfully discerning the enablers of local adaptation, a framing of adaptation is required that goes beyond understanding adaptation as a response to climate change impacts but that also considers how the lived experience (e.g., sectoral and socio-economic circumstances) of the adapting community determines adaptation (Ensor et al. 2019). Notably, we find that IPs’ and LCs’ intermediate and transformational responses to cli- mate change impacts are more often related to non-nature-based livelihood activities, e.g., one of the analyzed case studies showed how Vietnamese farmers engage in construction work as a response to impacts of flooding (Le and Bond 2017). This finding is important as it suggests that for IPs and LCs transformational responses to climate change impacts entail not only abandoning traditional livelihoods, but also their way of living in close con- tact with the natural environment. The associated implications are illustrated by the case of farmers on the Bolivian Altiplano, where the migration of young people to seek non- nature-based work contributed to a loss of traditional knowledge on practices for crop rota- tion, seed selection and cleaning, and traditional food recipes (Meldrum et al. 2018). 4.3 IPs’ and LCs’ responses within the adaptation literature Most observed adaptations to climate change impacts are reported to be incremental, fragmented, and small in scale (Berrang-Ford et al. 2021; IPCC 2022). So, the observed high occurrence of incremental responses among IPs and LCs found here is no exception. Indeed, responses to climate change impacts in mining industries (Loginova and Batter- bury 2019), large cities (Heikkinen et al. 2019), or the transport sector (Aparicio 2017) have been reported to be incremental. However, there are numerous differences between responses to climate change by IPs and LCs and responses by other actors at different lev- els, scales, livelihoods, and circumstances. For example, as IPs’ and LCs’ responses typi- cally occur at the individual/household level, they tend to be more reactive and respond- ing to specific climate change impacts (e.g., altered resource availability) compared to responses at the institutional level, which are typically more anticipatory and typically respond to climate change in general (Berrang-Ford et al. 2011). Also, as responses by IPs and LCs usually occur at the personal or household scale, both the extent to which 13 57 Page 16 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 they can alleviate climate change impacts as well as their potential maladaptive outcome is possibly smaller compared to autonomous responses from actors acting at a larger scale. For example, autonomous climate change adaptation by large-scale farmers in Europe is found to be widely contributing to the mitigation of negative climate change impacts on crop yields, but these responses are also highly impacting European irrigation water with- drawal, thus adversely affecting Europe’s environment and exacerbating atmospheric car- bon dioxide concentration anomalies (Leclère et al. 2013). Further, as IPs and LCs have a strong dependency on nature for their livelihoods, they are more directly affected by cli- mate change impacts (IPBES 2019; McIntyre-Tamwoy et al. 2013) and hence more forced to respond, and possibly, to respond more drastically (as indicated by the considerable number of case studies found here applying intermediate and transformational responses) compared to individuals with livelihoods less affected by climate change impacts, such as citizens in developed countries (Kasemir et al. 2000), although the latter may also become subject to increased risk in the future if climate change mitigation efforts are insufficient, e.g., projected sea level rise in Northwestern-Europe (Nicholls and Cazenave 2010; van de Wal et al. 2022). In concert with their dependence on the environment, the amplified vulnerability of IPs and LCs to climate change impacts is related to their frequent position of socially marginal- ized group (IPCC 2022; Maru et al. 2014). As a result, their responses to climate change impacts are often shaped by their socioeconomical possibilities and needs (Junqueira et al. 2021; Maru et al. 2014) and are often autonomous of character, with little institutional sup- port. That is, IPs and LCs are often overlooked in climate change adaptation policies (Ford et al. 2016; Witter et al. 2015), which potentially results in a mismatch between govern- mental adaptation plans and local needs (Herse et al. 2020). Moreover, government sup- port in climate change responses is generally low in low-income countries (Berrang-Ford et al. 2011), where a considerable number of IPs and LCs live (Patrinos and Hall 2012), compared to those in high-income countries. Also, many funded adaptation actions in low- income countries involve capacity building, rather than implementation of tangible actions that support individual responses (Biagini et al. 2014). Additionally, institutional adap- tations often target cities (Berrang-Ford et al. 2021), rather than the remote areas where IPs and LCs generally live (IPBES 2019). Hence, it is clear that IPs and LCs are often overlooked in institutional climate change adaptation plans compared to others, despite the acknowledgment of their exacerbated vulnerability to climate change, and the importance of their knowledge for climate change adaptation plans (Baul and McDonald 2014; Belfer et al. 2017; Fairhead et al. 2017; García-del-Amo et al. 2020; Garnett et al. 2018; Li et al. 2021; Makondo and Thomas 2018; Reyes-García et al. 2022; Savo et al. 2016). 5 Conclusion To respond to climate change impacts, IPs and LCs most frequently implement incre- mental responses, although the use of intermediate and transformational responses is also widespread. Trends in the magnitude of livelihood changes are similar across climates and livelihoods, except for responses in (semi-)arid climates, where most intermediate and transformational responses take place, and for responses in cultivation, where most incremental changes take place. When transformational adaptation occurs, IPs and LCs not only give up their livelihood strategy but also their culture and way of living. Compared to other groups, IPs and LCs are particularly forced to respond to climate change impacts, 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 17 of 24 57 resulting from the dependence on the environment for their livelihoods. Although IPs’ and LCs’ responses to climate change impacts are frequently incremental, such responses entail active adjustments of practices rather than a mere continuation of those practices. IPs’ and LCs’ responses stand out as being reactive and autonomous, based on the household scale, and are often being shaped by IPs’ and LCs’ socioeconomic possibilities and needs. They typically respond to specific climate change impacts rather than to climate change in gen- eral, and both the extent to which they can alleviate climate change impacts as well as their potential maladaptive outcomes for the environment are small. Because both incremental and transformational responses can have far-reaching impli- cations for IPs’ and LCs’ future resilience, livelihoods, cultures, and general well-being, we argue that a full understanding of the consequences of responses to climate change impacts should include a focus on the magnitude and on the outcome of these responses. Our work provides a metric for magnitude, and in future research, it should be comple- mented by other tools able to measure the social and ecological impacts of responses. IPs and LCs and their responses to climate change impacts should be considered more in pol- icy and research, because of their vulnerability to climate change impacts, and because of the importance of their knowledge for informing institutional adaptation strategies on locally attuned climate change responses that both support biodiversity as well as local livelihoods. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1007/​s11027-​023-​10095-0. Acknowledgements We thank Petra Benyei, Irene Martinez Sanesteban, Andrea Marelle, Francesca Borghesi, and Marta Rosell Codina for their support in creating the database used in the review. We thank Santiago Alvarez Fernandez for carrying out the significance tests. The ideas discussed here have benefited from discussions with the LICCI core team. Author contribution MZ and AS conceptualized the research questions and design and were responsible for the final selection, coding, and quality check of the analyzed publications. The classification system was developed by MZ and supported by AS. The online literature search was carried out by AS. VRG and DGA provided advice on the research conceptualization and methods. MZ was responsible for the data analysis, methods, and writing of the original draft. All co-authors contributed to and commented on drafts of the final manuscript. Funding Open Access Funding provided by Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona. This project received funding from the European Research Council under a Consolidator Grant (FP7-771056-LICCI) and contrib- utes to the “María de Maeztu Unit of Excellence” (CEX2019-000940-M). Data availability All data generated and analyzed during this study are included in this published article and its supplementary information files: Supplementary Materials A and B. Declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Com- mons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 13 57 Page 18 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 References Adams H (2016) Why populations persist: mobility, place attachment and climate change. Popul Environ 37(4):429–448. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11111-​015-​0246-3 Adger WN, Barnett J, Brown K, Marshall N, O’brien K (2013) Cultural dimensions of climate change impacts and adaptation. Nat Clim Change 3(2):112–117 Ajulo OM, von Meding J, Tang P (2020) Relocalisation for degrowth and disaster risk reduction. Dis Prev Manage 29(6):877–891. ABI/INFORM Collection; Natural Science Collection. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1108/​DPM-​01-​2020-​0012 Albrecht G, Sartore G-M, Connor L, Higginbotham N, Freeman S, Kelly B, Stain H, Tonna A, Pollard G (2007) Solastalgia: the distress caused by environmental change. Australasian Psychiatry 15(1_ suppl):S95–S98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10398​56070​17012​88 Anik SI, Khan MASA (2012) Climate change adaptation through local knowledge in the north east- ern region of Bangladesh. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 17(8):879–896. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ s11027-​011-​9350-6 Aparicio Á (2017) Transport adaptation policies in Europe: from incremental actions to long-term visions. World Conf Trans Res - WCTR 2016 Shanghai. 10–15 July 2016, 25:3529–3537. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1016/j.​trpro.​2017.​05.​277 Ash A, Thornton P, Stokes C, r. s., & Togtohyn, C. (2012) Is proactive adaptation to climate change necessary in Grazed Rangelands? Rangel Ecol Manage 65(6):563–568. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2111/​ REM-D-​11-​00191.1 Audefroy JF, Sánchez BNC (2017) Integrating local knowledge for climate change adaptation in Yucatán, Mexico. Int J Sustain Built Environ 6(1):228–237. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ijsbe.​2017.​03.​007 Barnes ML, Bodin Ö, Guerrero AM, McAllister RRJ, Alexander SM, Robins G (2017) The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc 22(4). https://​ doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​09769-​220416 Barua P, Rahman SH, Barua S, Rahman IM (2020) Climate change vulnerability and responses of fisherfolk communities in the South-Eastern coast of Bangladesh. Water Conserv Manag 4(1):20–31 Baul TK, McDonald M (2015) Integration of indigenous knowledge in addressing climate change. https://​ nopr.​niscpr.​res.​in/​handle/​12345​6789/​32021 Baul TK, McDonald MA (2014) Agro-biodiversity management: using indigenous knowledge to cope with climate change in the Middle-Hills of Nepal. Agric Res 3(1):41–52. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ s40003-​014-​0096-8 Belfer E, Ford JD, Maillet M (2017) Representation of Indigenous Peoples in climate change reporting. Clim Change 145(1):57–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​017-​2076-z Belhabib D, Lam VWY, Cheung WWL (2016) Overview of West African fisheries under climate change: impacts, vulnerabilities and adaptive responses of the artisanal and industrial sectors. Mar Policy 71:15–28. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​marpol.​2016.​05.​009 Berman M, Baztan J, Kofinas G, Vanderlinden J-P, Chouinard O, Huctin J-M, Kane A, Mazé C, Nikulkina I, Thomson K (2020) Adaptation to climate change in coastal communities: findings from seven sites on four continents. Clim Change 159(1):1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​019-​02571-x Berrang-Ford L, Ford JD, Paterson J (2011) Are we adapting to climate change? Glob Environ Chang 21(1):25–33 Berrang-Ford L, Siders AR, Lesnikowski A, Fischer AP, Callaghan MW, Haddaway NR, Mach KJ, Araos M, Shah MAR, Wannewitz M, Doshi D, Leiter T, Matavel C, Musah-Surugu JI, Wong-Parodi G, Antwi-Agyei P, Ajibade I, Chauhan N, Kakenmaster W, … Abu TZ (2021) A systematic global stock- take of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nat Clim Change 11(11):989–1000. https://​ doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41558-​021-​01170-y Biagini B, Bierbaum R, Stults M, Dobardzic S, McNeeley SM (2014) A typology of adaptation actions: a global look at climate adaptation actions financed through the Global Environment Facility. Glob Environ Chang 25:97–108. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2014.​01.​003 Binternagel N, Juhrbandt J, Sebastian K, Purnomo M, Schwarze S, Barkmann J, Faust H (2010) Adapta- tion to climate change in Indonesia—livelihood strategies of rural households in the face of ENSO droughts. In Env Sci Eng (Vol. 2). https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​642-​00493-3_​16 Birkmann J, Liwenga E, Pandey R, Boyd E, Djalante R, Gemenne F, Leal Filho W, Pinho PF, Stringer L, Wrathall D (2022) Poverty, livelihoods and sustainable development. In: Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B (eds) Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribu- tion of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 19 of 24 57 Brondízio ES, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bates P, Carino J, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Ferrari MF, Galvin K, Reyes-García V, McElwee P, Molnár Z, Samakov A, Shrestha UB (2021) Locally based, regionally manifested, and globally relevant: indigenous and local knowledge, values, and practices for nature. Annu Rev Environ Resour 46(1):481–509. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev-​envir​on-​012220-​012127 Clarke D, Murphy C, Lorenzoni I (2018) Place attachment, disruption and transformative adaptation. J Environ Psychol 55:81–89. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jenvp.​2017.​12.​006 Dam THT, Tur-Cardona J, Speelman S, Amjath-Babu TS, Sam AS, Zander P (2021) Incremental and trans- formative adaptation preferences of rice farmers against increasing soil salinity—evidence from choice experiments in north central Vietnam. Agric Syst 190:103090. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​agsy.​ 2021.​103090 Egbe CA, Yaro MA, Okon AE, Bisong FE (2014) Rural peoples’ perception to climate variability/change in cross river state-Nigeria. J Sustain Dev 7(2):25 Egeru A (2012) Role of indigenous knowledge in climate change adaptation: a case study of the Teso Sub- Region, Eastern Uganda. IJTK Vol.11(2) [April 2012]. http://​nopr.​niscpr.​res.​in/​handle/​12345​6789/​ 13849 Enfors E (2013) Social–ecological traps and transformations in dryland agro-ecosystems: using water sys- tem innovations to change the trajectory of development. Glob Environ Chang 23(1):51–60 Ensor JE, Wennström P, Bhatterai A, Nightingale AJ, Eriksen S, Sillmann J (2019) Asking the right ques- tions in adaptation research and practice: seeing beyond climate impacts in rural Nepal. Environ Sci Policy 94:227–236. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2019.​01.​013 Fairhead J, Fraser J, Amanor K, Solomon D, Lehmann J, Leach M (2017) Indigenous soil enrichment for food security and climate change mitigation in Africa and Asia: a review. In Indigenous knowledge: Enhancing its contribution to natural resource management. CABI Fedele G, Donatti CI, Harvey CA, Hannah L, Hole DG (2019) Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environ Sci Policy 101:116–125. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ envsci.​2019.​07.​001 Fernández-Llamazares Á, Díaz-Reviriego I, Méndez-López ME, Sánchez IV, Pyhälä A, Reyes-García V (2014) Cambio climático y pueblos indígenas: Estudio de caso entre los Tsimane’, Amazonia bolivi- ana. Revista Virtual REDESMA 7:110 Fletcher M-S, Hall T, Alexandra AN (2021) The loss of an indigenous constructed landscape following Brit- ish invasion of Australia: an insight into the deep human imprint on the Australian landscape. Ambio 50(1):138–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s13280-​020-​01339-3 Folke C, Carpenter SR, Walker B, Scheffer M, Chapin T, Rockström J (2010) Resilience thinking: integrat- ing resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecol Soc 15(4) Ford JD, Cameron L, Rubis J, Maillet M, Nakashima D, Willox AC, Pearce T (2016) Including indigenous knowledge and experience in IPCC assessment reports. Nat Clim Change 6(4):Article 4. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1038/​nclim​ate29​54 García-del-Amo D, Mortyn PG, Reyes-García V (2020) Including indigenous and local knowledge in cli- mate research: an assessment of the opinion of Spanish climate change researchers. Clim Change 160(1):67–88. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​019-​02628-x Garnett ST, Burgess ND, Fa JE, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Molnár Z, Robinson CJ, Watson JE, Zander KK, Austin B, Brondizio ES (2018) A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for conservation. Nature Sustainability 1(7):369–374 Gebresenbet F, Kefale A (2012) Traditional coping mechanisms for climate change of pastoralists in South Omo, Ethiopia Gentle P, Thwaites R (2016) Transhumant pastoralism in the context of socioeconomic and climate change in the mountains of Nepal. Mt Res Dev 36(2):173–182. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1659/​MRD-​JOURN​ AL-D-​15-​00011.1 Granderson AA (2017) The role of traditional knowledge in building adaptive capacity for climate change: perspectives from Vanuatu. Weather Clim Soc 9(3):545–561 Griscom BW, Busch J, Cook-Patton SC, Ellis PW, Funk J, Leavitt SM, Lomax G, Turner WR, Chapman M, Engelmann J, Gurwick NP, Landis E, Lawrence D, Malhi Y, Schindler Murray L, Navarrete D, Roe S, Scull S, Smith P, … Worthington T (2020) National mitigation potential from natural climate solu- tions in the tropics. Philos Trans R Soc B: Biol Sci 375(1794):20190126. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1098/​rstb.​ 2019.​0126 Guodaar L, Asante F, Eshun G, Abass K, Afriyie K, Appiah DO, Gyasi R, Atampugre G, Addai P, Kpenekuu F (2020) How do climate change adaptation strategies result in unintended maladaptive outcomes? Perspectives of tomato farmers. Int J Veg Sci 26(1):15–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​19315​ 260.​2019.​15733​93 13 57 Page 20 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Gyasi EA, Awere KG (2018) Adaptation to climate change: lessons from farmer responses to environmental changes in Ghana. In O. Saito, G. Kranjac-Berisavljevic, K. Takeuchi, & E. A. Gyasi (Eds.), Strate- gies for building resilience against climate and ecosystem changes in Sub-Saharan Africa (pp. 291– 312). Springer Singapore. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-​981-​10-​4796-1_​16 Hari CA (2020) The relevance of indigenous knowledge systems in local governance toward environmental management for sustainable development: a case of Bulawayo City Council, Zimbabwe. Quest J Man- age Soc Sci 2(1):100–114 Heikkinen M, Ylä-Anttila T, Juhola S (2019) Incremental, reformistic or transformational: what kind of change do C40 cities advocate to deal with climate change? J Environ Plan Policy 21(1):90–103. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​15239​08X.​2018.​14731​51 Herse MR, Lyver PO, Scott N, McIntosh AR, Coats SC, Gormley AM, Tylianakis JM (2020) Engag- ing indigenous peoples and local communities in environmental management could alleviate scale mismatches in social–ecological systems. Bioscience 70(8):699–707. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ biosci/​biaa0​66 Ifeanyi-obi CC, Togun AO, Lamboll R, Arokoyu S (2017) Socio-economic determinants of cocoyam farmer’s strategies for climate change adaptation in Southeast Nigeria. J Agric Ext 21(2):Article 2. https://​doi.​org/​10.​4314/​jae.​v21i2.8 IPBES (2022) Annex I: glossary of the thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5281/​zenodo.​76957​81 IPBES (2019) Eduardo S Brondizio, Josef Settele, Sandra Díaz, Hien T Ngo (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPCC (2014) Rajendra K Pachauri, Myles R Allen, Vicente R Barros, John Broome, Wolfgang Cramer, Renate Christ, John A Church, Leon Clarke, Qin Dahe, Purnamita Dasgupta. Climate change 2014: synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC (2021) Climate change 2021: The physical science basis. In: Masson-Delmotte V, Zhai P, Pirani A, Connors SL, Péan C, Berger S, Caud N, Chen Y, Goldfarb L, Gomis MI, Huang M, Leitzell K, Lonnoy E, Matthews JBR, Maycock TK, Waterfield T, Yelekçi O, Yu R, Zhou B (eds) Contribu- tion of working group I to the sixth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​97810​ 09157​896 IPCC (2022) Summary for policymakers [Pörtner H-O, Roberts DC, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Tignor M, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A (eds.)]. In: Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Pörtner H-O, Rob- erts DC, Tignor M, Poloczanska ES, Mintenbeck K, Alegría A, Craig M, Langsdorf S, Löschke S, Möller V, Okem A, Rama B (eds)]. Cambridge University Press IPCC (2018) IPCC, 2018: Annex I: Glossary. In Global warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Matthews, Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W. Moufouma-Okia, C. Péan, R. Pid- cock, S. Connors, J.B.R. Matthews, Y. Chen, X. Zhou, M.I. Gomis, E. Lonnoy, T. Maycock, M. Tignor, and T. Waterfield (eds.)] Jacobson C, Crevello S, Chea C, Jarihani B (2019) When is migration a maladaptive response to climate change? Reg Environ Change 19(1):101–112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10113-​018-​1387-6 Johnson JL, Zanotti L, Ma Z, Yu DJ, Johnson DR, Kirkham A, Carothers C (2018) Interplays of sustain- ability, resilience, adaptation and transformation. In: W. Leal Filho, R. W. Marans, & J. Callewaert (Eds.), Handbook of Sustainability and Social Science Research (pp. 3–25). Springer International Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​319-​67122-2_1 Juhola S, Glaas E, Linnér B-O, Neset T-S (2016) Redefining maladaptation. Environ Sci Policy 55:135– 140. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2015.​09.​014 Junqueira AB, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Torrents-Ticó M, Haira PL, Nasak JG, Burgas D, Fraixedas S, Cabeza M, Reyes-García V (2021) Interactions between climate change and infrastructure projects in changing water resources: an ethnobiological perspective from the Daasanach, Kenya. J Ethno- biol 41(3):331–348. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2993/​0278-​0771-​41.3.​331 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 21 of 24 57 Kasemir B, Dahinden U, Swartling ÅG, Schüle R, Tabara D, Jaeger CC (2000) Citizens’ perspectives on climate change and energy use. Glob Environ Chang 10(3):169–184. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​ S0959-​3780(00)​00022-4 Kassie BT, Hengsdijk H, Rötter R, Kahiluoto H, Asseng S, Van Ittersum M (2013) Adapting to climate variability and change: experiences from cereal-based farming in the Central Rift and Kobo Val- leys, Ethiopia. Environ Manage 52(5):1115–1131. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​013-​0145-2 Kates RW, Travis WR, Wilbanks TJ (2012) Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(19):7156. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1073/​pnas.​ 11155​21109 Käyhkö J, Wiréhn L, Juhola S, Neset T-S (2020) Integrated framework for identifying transformative adap- tation in agri-food systems. Environ Sci Policy 114:580–586. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2020.​ 10.​002 Kottek M, Grieser J, Beck C, Rudolf B, Rubel F (2006) World map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classifica- tion updated. Meteorol Z 15(3):259–263. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1127/​0941-​2948/​2006/​0130 Kupika OL, Gandiwa E, Nhamo G, Kativu S (2019) Local ecological knowledge on climate change and ecosystem-based adaptation strategies promote resilience in the Middle Zambezi Biosphere Reserve, Zimbabwe. Scientifica 2019:3069254. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1155/​2019/​30692​54 Lam DPM, Hinz E, Lang DJ, Tengö M, Wehrden H von, Martín-López B (2020) Indigenous and local knowledge in sustainability transformations research: a literature review. Ecol Soc 25(1). https://​doi.​ org/​10.​5751/​ES-​11305-​250103 Latham-Sprinkle, J., David, F., Bryant, K., & Larsen, J. (2019). Migrants and their vulnerability to human trafficking, modern slavery and forced labour. Lawrence J, Blackett P, Cradock-Henry NA (2020) Cascading climate change impacts and implications. Clim Risk Manag 29:100234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​crm.​2020.​100234 Le S, Bond J (2017) Agricultural adaptation to flood in lowland rice production areas of Central Vietnam: understanding the ‘re-generated rice’ ratoon system. Climate Dev 9:274–285. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​ 17565​529.​2016.​11494​40 Leclère D, Jayet P-A, de Noblet-Ducoudré N (2013) Farm-level autonomous adaptation of European agri- cultural supply to climate change. Ecol Econ 87:1–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ecole​con.​2012.​11.​010 Li C, Tang Y, Luo H, Di B, Zhang L (2013) Local farmers’ perceptions of climate change and local adaptive strategies: a case study from the Middle Yarlung Zangbo River Valley, Tibet, China. Environ Manage 52(4):894–906. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00267-​013-​0139-0 Li X, Junqueira AB, Reyes-García V (2021) At the crossroad of emergency: ethnobiology, climate change, and indigenous peoples and local communities. J Ethnobiol 41(3):307–312 Loginova J, Batterbury SPJ (2019) Incremental, transitional and transformational adaptation to climate change in resource extraction regions. Global Sustain 2:e17. Cambridge Core. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1017/​sus.​2019.​14 Magesa BA, Pauline NM (2019) Responses of water insecure coastal communities of Tanzania to climate change impacts. Is it incremental or transformative adaptation? Clim Dev 11(9):745–754. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1080/​17565​529.​2018.​15628​64 Maharjan A, de Campos RS, Singh C, Das S, Srinivas A, Bhuiyan MRA, Ishaq S, Umar MA, Dilshad T, Shrestha K, Bhadwal S, Ghosh T, Suckall N, Vincent K (2020) Migration and household adaptation in climate-sensitive hotspots in South Asia. Curr Clim Change Reports 6(1):1–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1007/​s40641-​020-​00153-z Makondo CC, Thomas DSG (2018) Climate change adaptation: linking indigenous knowledge with western science for effective adaptation. Environ Sci Policy 88:83–91. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2018.​ 06.​014 Mapfumo P, Onyango M, Honkponou SK, El Mzouri EH, Githeko A, Rabeharisoa L, Obando J, Omolo N, Majule A, Denton F, Ayers J, Agrawal A (2017) Pathways to transformational change in the face of climate impacts: an analytical framework. Climate Dev 9(5):439–451. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17565​ 529.​2015.​10403​65 Maru YT, Smith MS, Sparrow A, Pinho PF, Dube OP (2014) A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for adaptation pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Glob Environ Chang 28:337–350 McIntyre-Tamwoy S, Fuary M, Buhrich A (2013) Understanding climate, adapting to change: indigenous cultural values and climate change impacts in North Queensland. Local Environ 18(1):91–109. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13549​839.​2012.​716415 Meldrum G, Mijatović D, Rojas W, Flores J, Pinto M, Mamani G, Condori E, Hilaquita D, Gruberg H, Padulosi S (2018) Climate change and crop diversity: farmers’ perceptions and adaptation on the Bolivian Altiplano. Environ Dev Sustain 20(2):703–730. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10668-​016-​9906-4 13 57 Page 22 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Min S-K, Zhang X, Zwiers F (2008) Human-induced arctic moistening. Science 320(5875):518. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​11534​68 Mirzabaev A, Stringer LC, Benjaminsen TA, Gonzalez P, Harris R, Jafari M, Stevens N, Tirado CM, Zakiel- deen S (2022) Cross-chapter paper 3: deserts, semi-arid areas and desertification. In: Climate change 2022: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assess- ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)] Mishra AK, Singh VP (2010) A review of drought concepts. J Hydrol 391(1–2):202–216 Moore M-L, Tjornbo O, Enfors E, Knapp C, Hodbod J, Baggio JA, Norström A, Olsson P, Biggs D (2014) Studying the complexity of change: toward an analytical framework for understanding deliberate social-ecological transformations. Ecol Soc 19(4). https://​doi.​org/​10.​5751/​ES-​06966-​190454 Mulesa TH, Dalle SP, Makate C, Haug R, Westengen OT (2021) Pluralistic seed system development: a path to seed security? Agronomy 11(2). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​agron​omy11​020372 Muringai RT, Mafongoya P, Lottering RT (2022) Climate change perceptions, impacts and adaptation strat- egies: insights of fishers in Zambezi River Basin, Zimbabwe. Sustainability 14(6). https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 3390/​su140​63456 Nelson DR, Adger WN, Brown K (2007) Adaptation to environmental change: contributions of a resilience framework. Annu Rev Environ Resour 32(1):395–419. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1146/​annur​ev.​energy.​32.​ 051807.​090348 Nguyen Q, Hoang MH, Öborn I, van Noordwijk M (2013) Multipurpose agroforestry as a climate change resiliency option for farmers: an example of local adaptation in Vietnam. Clim Change 117(1):241– 257. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​012-​0550-1 Nhemachena C, Hassan R (2007) Micro-level analysis of farmers adaption to climate change in Southern Africa. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Nicholls RJ, Cazenave A (2010) Sea-level rise and its impact on coastal zones. Science 328(5985):1517– 1520. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1126/​scien​ce.​11857​82 O’Brien K (2012) Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate transformation. Prog Hum Geogr 36(5):667–676 Ogalleh SA, Vogl C, Hauser M (2013) Reading from farmers’ scripts: local perceptions of climate variabil- ity and adaptations in Laikipia. Rift Valley, Kenya 3(2):77–94 Oladehinde GJ, Olayiwola LM, Popoola KO (2018) Land accessibility constraints of migrants in rural bor- der settlements of Ogun State, Nigeria. Environ Socio-Econ Stud 6(1):46–56 Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: the devel- opment of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden. Ecol Soc 9(4) Omolo N, Mafongoya PL (2019) Gender, social capital and adaptive capacity to climate variability. Int J Clim Change Strat Manage 11(5):744–758. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCCSM-​01-​2018-​0009 Oviedo AFP, Mitraud S, McGrath DG, Bursztyn M (2016) Implementing climate variability adaptation at the community level in the Amazon floodplain. Environ Sci Policy 63:151–160. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1016/j.​envsci.​2016.​05.​017 Panikkar B, Lemmond B, Else B, Murray M (2018) Ice over troubled waters: Navigating the Northwest Pas- sage using Inuit knowledge and scientific information. Climate Res 75(1):81–94 Park SE, Marshall NA, Jakku E, Dowd AM, Howden SM, Mendham E, Fleming A (2012) Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Glob Environ Chang 22(1):115–126. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gloen​vcha.​2011.​10.​003 Patrinos HA, Hall G (2012) Indigenous peoples, poverty, and development. Cambridge University Press Pelling M, O’Brien K, Matyas D (2015) Adaptation and transformation. Clim Change 133(1):113–127. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10584-​014-​1303-0 Penning-Rowsell EC, Sultana P, Thompson PM (2013) The ‘last resort’? Population movement in response to climate-related hazards in Bangladesh. Global Environ Chang, Extreme Environ Events ‘Environ Migr’: Exploring Connect 27:S44–S59. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envsci.​2012.​03.​009 Petzold J, Andrews N, Ford JD, Hedemann C, Postigo JC (2020) Indigenous knowledge on climate change adaptation: a global evidence map of academic literature. Environ Res Lett 15(11):113007 Piggott-McKellar AE, McNamara KE, Nunn PD, Watson JEM (2019) What are the barriers to successful community-based climate change adaptation? A review of grey literature. Local Environ 24(4):374– 390. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​13549​839.​2019.​15806​88 R Core Team (2022) R: The R project for statistical computing. https://​www.r-​proje​ct.​org/ Rana MMP, Moniruzzaman M (2021) Transformative adaptation in agriculture: a case of agroforestation in Bangladesh. Environ Challenges 2:100026. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​envc.​2021.​100026 13 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Page 23 of 24 57 Rankoana SA (2016) Perceptions of climate change and the potential for adaptation in a rural community in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Sustainability 8(8):672 Raybaut P (2009) Spyder-documentation (4.1.5) [Python]. Pythonhosted.Org Reyes-García V, García-del-Amo D, Benyei P, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Gravani K, Junqueira AB, Labey- rie V, Li X, Matias DM, McAlvay A, Mortyn PG, Porcuna-Ferrer A, Schlingmann A, Soleymani- Fard R (2019) A collaborative approach to bring insights from local observations of climate change impacts into global climate change research. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2019(39):1–8. https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​1016/j.​cosust.​2019.​04.​007 Reyes-García V, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Benyei P, Bussmann RW, Diamond SK, García-Del-Amo D, Guadilla-Sáez S, Hanazaki N, Kosoy N (2022) Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio 51(1):84–92 Reyes-García V, García-del-Amo D, Porcuna-Ferrer A, Schlingmann A, Abazeri M, Attoh EMNAN, Ávila JVC, Ayandale A, Babai D, Benyei P, Calvet-Mir L, Carmona R, Caviedes J, Chah J, Chakauya R, Cuní-Sanchez A, Fernández-Llamazares Á, Galappaththi EK, Gerkey D, Graham S, Guillerminet T, Huanca T, Ibarra JT, Junqueira AB, Li X, López-Maldonado Y, Mattalia G, Samakov A, Schunko C, Seidler R, Sharakhmatova V, Singh P, Tofighi-Niaki A, Torrents-Tico M, LICCI Consortium (2023) Climate change impacts on Indigenous Peoples and local communities. A global perspective through local studies. Sustainable Earth Reviews. In press Reyes-García V, García-del-Amo D, Álvarez-Fernández S, Benyei P, Calvet-Mir L, Junqueira AB, Labeyrie V, Li X, Miñarro S, Porcher V, Porcuna-Ferrer A, Schlingmann A, Schunko C, Soleyani R, Tofighi-Niaki A, Abazeri M, Attoh E, Ayandale A, Avila J et al (in press) Indigenous Peoples and local communities report ongoing and widespread climate change impacts on local social- ecological systems. Commun Earth Environ in press Rickards L, Howden SM (2012) Transformational adaptation: agriculture and climate change. Crop Pas- ture Sci 63(3):240–250 Rosenzweig C, Neofotis P (2013) Detection and attribution of anthropogenic climate change impacts. Wires Clim Change 4(2):121–150. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​wcc.​209 Sada R, Shrestha A, Shukla AK, Melsen LA (2014) People’s experience and facts of changing climate: impacts and responses. Int J Clim Change Strat Manage 6(1):47–62. ABI/INFORM Collection; Natural Science Collection. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​IJCCSM-​04-​2013-​0047 Savo V, Lepofsky D, Benner JP, Kohfeld KE, Bailey J, Lertzman K (2016) Observations of climate change among subsistence-oriented communities around the world. Nat Clim Chang 6(5):462– 473. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​nclim​ate29​58 Schlingmann A, Graham S, Benyei P, Corbera E, Martinez Sanesteban I, Marelle A, Solemany-Fard R, Reyes-García V (2021) Global patterns of adaptation to climate change by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. a systematic review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 51:55–64. WorldCat.org. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cosust.​2021.​03.​002 Sereenonchai S, Arunrat N (2019) Fishers’ decisions to adopt adaptation strategies and expectations for their children to pursue the same profession in Chumphon Province, Thailand. Climate 7(2). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​cli70​20034 Shaffril HAM, Ahmad N, Samsuddin SF, Samah AA, Hamdan ME (2020) Systematic literature review on adaptation towards climate change impacts among indigenous people in the Asia Pacific regions. J Clean Prod 258:120595. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jclep​ro.​2020.​120595 Singh PK, Papageorgiou K, Chudasama H, Papageorgiou EI (2019) Evaluating the effectiveness of cli- mate change adaptations in the world’s largest mangrove ecosystem. Sustainability, 11(23). https://​ doi.​org/​10.​3390/​su112​36655 Sirayi M, Beauregard D (2021) Colonial, cultural planning, and decolonisation of South African urban space. In Culture and rural–urban revitalisation in south africa: indigenous knowledge, policies, and planning (pp 35–53). Routledge Sommer R, Glazirina M, Yuldashev T, Otarov A, Ibraeva M, Martynova L, Bekenov M, Kholov B, Ibragimov N, Kobilov R, Karaev S, Sultonov M, Khasanova F, Esanbekov M, Mavlyanov D, Isaev S, Abdurahimov S, Ikramov R, Shezdyukova L, de Pauw E (2013) Impact of climate change on wheat productivity in Central Asia. Agr Ecosyst Environ 178:78–99. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ agee.​2013.​06.​011 Surugu JIM, Chutab DN (2021) Going beyond incrementalism: climate projects’ beneficiaries’ perspec- tive on what could be described as transformational adaptation. Int J Rural Manag 17(1):55–74 Tàbara J, Frantzeskaki N, Hölscher K, Pedde S, Kok K, Lamperti F, Christensen JH, Jäger J, Berry P (2018) Positive tipping points in a rapidly warming world. Sustain Gov Transform 2018(31):120– 129. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​cosust.​2018.​01.​012 13 57 Page 24 of 24 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2023) 28:57 Termeer CJAM, Dewulf A, Biesbroek GR (2017) Transformational change: Governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. J Environ Plan Manage 60(4):558–576. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​09640​568.​2016.​11682​88 van de Wal RSW, Nicholls RJ, Behar D, McInnes K, Stammer D, Lowe JA, Church JA, DeConto R, Fettweis X, Goelzer H, Haasnoot M, Haigh ID, Hinkel J, Horton BP, James TS, Jenkins A, LeCo- zannet G, Levermann A, Lipscomb WH, … White K (2022) A high-end estimate of sea level rise for practitioners. Earth’s Future 10(11):e2022EF002751. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2022E​F0027​51 Vermeulen SJ, Dinesh D, Howden SM, Cramer L, Thornton PK (2018) Transformation in practice: a review of empirical cases of transformational adaptation in agriculture under climate change. Front Sustain Food Syst 2:65 Walker B, Holling CS, Carpenter SR, Kinzig A (2004) Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecol Soc 9(2) Warner K, Afifi T (2014) Where the rain falls: evidence from 8 countries on how vulnerable households use migration to manage the risk of rainfall variability and food insecurity. Climate Dev 6(1):1–17. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​17565​529.​2013.​835707 Waugh D, Pearce T, Ostertag SK, Pokiak V, Collings P, Loseto LL (2018) Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge of beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) under changing climatic conditions in Tuktoyak- tuk, NT1. Arctic Sci. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1139/​as-​2017-​0034 West CT, Roncoli C, Ouattara F (2008) Local perceptions and regional climate trends on the Central Plateau of Burkina Faso. Land Degrad Dev 19(3):289–304. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​ldr.​842 Wilson RS, Herziger A, Hamilton M, Brooks JS (2020) From incremental to transformative adaptation in individual responses to climate-exacerbated hazards. Nat Clim Chang 10(3):200–208. https://​doi.​org/​ 10.​1038/​s41558-​020-​0691-6 Witter R, Marion Suiseeya KR, Gruby RL, Hitchner S, Maclin EM, Bourque M, Brosius JP (2015) Moments of influence in global environmental governance. Environ Polit 24(6):894–912. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1080/​09644​016.​2015.​10600​36 Wu N, Ismail M, Joshi S, Yi S, Shrestha RM, Jasra AW (2014) Livelihood diversification as an adaptation approach to change in the pastoral Hindu-Kush Himalayan region. J Mt Sci 11(5):1342–1355. https://​ doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11629-​014-​3038-9 Zampaligré N, Dossa LH, Schlecht E (2014) Climate change and variability: Perception and adaptation strategies of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists across different zones of Burkina Faso. Reg Environ Change 14(2):769–783. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10113-​013-​0532-5 Zhang C, Li W, Fan M (2013) Adaptation of herders to droughts and privatization of rangeland-use rights in the arid Alxa Left Banner of Inner Mongolia. J Environ Manage 126:182–190. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1016/j.​jenvm​an.​2013.​04.​053 Zin WYL, Teartisup P, Kerdseub P (2019) Evaluating traditional knowledge on climate change (TKCC): a case study in the central dry zone of Myanmar: Environ Nat Resour J 17(2):Article 2 Zuur AF, Ieno EN, Smith GM (Eds) (2007) Generalised linear modelling. In: Analysing ecological data (pp. 79–96). Springer New York. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-0-​387-​45972-1_6 Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 13