TY - JOUR

T1 - Changing the decision context to enable social learning for climate adaptation

AU - Colloff, Matthew J.

AU - Gorddard, Russell

AU - Munera-Roldán, Claudia

AU - Locatelli, Bruno

AU - Lavorel, Sandra

AU - Allain, Sandrine

AU - Bruley, Enora

AU - Butler, James R.A.

AU - Dubo, Titouan

AU - Enokenwa Baa, Ojongetakah

AU - González-García, Alberto

AU - Lécuyer, Lou

AU - Lo, Michaela

AU - Loos, Jacqueline

AU - Palomo, Ignacio

AU - Topp, Emeline

AU - Vallet, Améline

AU - Walters, Gretchen

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2025 The Author(s). People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

PY - 2025

Y1 - 2025

N2 - Successful adaptation often involves changes to the decision context to enable new ways of thinking and acting on climate change. Using 16 adaptation initiatives the authors were engaged with, we analysed how and why decision contexts changed to identify ways to improve adaptation as a process of collective deliberation and social learning. We used the scope of the adaptation issue and governance arrangements to classify initiatives into four types and scored changes in the decision context using three frameworks: (1) the values, rules and knowledge (VRK) perspective to identify changes to adaptation decision-making; (2) the five dimensions of futures consciousness to identify the building of adaptation capabilities and (3) the social learning cycle to reveal evidence of reflexive learning. Initiatives using novel governance arrangements for discrete problems (‘problem governance’) or complex, systemic issues (‘systems governance’) scored highest for influences of VRK, futures consciousness and the social learning cycle on the decision context. Initiatives using existing management for discrete problems (‘problem management’) scored moderately for change in the decision context, while those using existing management for systemic issues (‘systems management’) scored low because change was often impeded by existing rules. All three frameworks influenced decision contexts in systems governance initiatives. Problem governance initiatives revealed interactions of VRK and futures consciousness but limited influence of VRK on the social learning cycle. Scope and governance arrangements differ with the adaptation issue and initiatives adapt over time: some small-scale ones became more systemic, developed novel governance arrangements and changed the decision context. Our findings do not show that some adaptation initiatives are better or more transformative than others; just that their scope and appropriate governance arrangements are different. This questions the notion that successful adaptation requires building generic transformative adaptation approaches and capabilities. There is a diversity of arrangements that work. What is important is to align the approach to the adaptation problem. We suggest two directions for improving adaptation initiatives: first, by influencing how they can shift between problem and systems focus and between standard management and novel governance, and secondly, by using methods to diagnose and direct change in the decision context. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

AB - Successful adaptation often involves changes to the decision context to enable new ways of thinking and acting on climate change. Using 16 adaptation initiatives the authors were engaged with, we analysed how and why decision contexts changed to identify ways to improve adaptation as a process of collective deliberation and social learning. We used the scope of the adaptation issue and governance arrangements to classify initiatives into four types and scored changes in the decision context using three frameworks: (1) the values, rules and knowledge (VRK) perspective to identify changes to adaptation decision-making; (2) the five dimensions of futures consciousness to identify the building of adaptation capabilities and (3) the social learning cycle to reveal evidence of reflexive learning. Initiatives using novel governance arrangements for discrete problems (‘problem governance’) or complex, systemic issues (‘systems governance’) scored highest for influences of VRK, futures consciousness and the social learning cycle on the decision context. Initiatives using existing management for discrete problems (‘problem management’) scored moderately for change in the decision context, while those using existing management for systemic issues (‘systems management’) scored low because change was often impeded by existing rules. All three frameworks influenced decision contexts in systems governance initiatives. Problem governance initiatives revealed interactions of VRK and futures consciousness but limited influence of VRK on the social learning cycle. Scope and governance arrangements differ with the adaptation issue and initiatives adapt over time: some small-scale ones became more systemic, developed novel governance arrangements and changed the decision context. Our findings do not show that some adaptation initiatives are better or more transformative than others; just that their scope and appropriate governance arrangements are different. This questions the notion that successful adaptation requires building generic transformative adaptation approaches and capabilities. There is a diversity of arrangements that work. What is important is to align the approach to the adaptation problem. We suggest two directions for improving adaptation initiatives: first, by influencing how they can shift between problem and systems focus and between standard management and novel governance, and secondly, by using methods to diagnose and direct change in the decision context. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

KW - adaptation governance

KW - adaptation initiatives

KW - futures consciousness

KW - incremental and transformative adaptation

KW - people–nature relationships

KW - social–ecological systems

KW - values, rules and knowledge

KW - Biology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105004173689&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/pan3.70043

DO - 10.1002/pan3.70043

M3 - Journal articles

AN - SCOPUS:105004173689

JO - People and Nature

JF - People and Nature

SN - 2575-8314

ER -