Defining and assessing Transformational Adaptation: the TransformAr Scorecard

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • OPEN ACCESS Defining and assessing Transformational Adaptation: the TransformAr Scorecard To cite this article before publication: Charlotte Fabri et al 2025 Environ. Res. Commun. in press https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/ae165e Manuscript version: Accepted Manuscript Accepted Manuscript is “the version of the article accepted for publication including all changes made as a result of the peer review process, and which may also include the addition to the article by IOP Publishing of a header, an article ID, a cover sheet and/or an ‘Accepted Manuscript’ watermark, but excluding any other editing, typesetting or other changes made by IOP Publishing and/or its licensors” This Accepted Manuscript is © 2025 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd. As the Version of Record of this article is going to be / has been published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY 4.0 licence, this Accepted Manuscript is available for reuse under a CC BY 4.0 licence immediately. Everyone is permitted to use all or part of the original content in this article, provided that they adhere to all the terms of the licence https://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0 Although reasonable endeavours have been taken to obtain all necessary permissions from third parties to include their copyrighted content within this article, their full citation and copyright line may not be present in this Accepted Manuscript version. Before using any content from this article, please refer to the Version of Record on IOPscience once published for full citation and copyright details, as permissions may be required. All third party content is fully copyright protected and is not published on a gold open access basis under a CC BY licence, unless that is specifically stated in the figure caption in the Version of Record. View the article online for updates and enhancements. This content was downloaded from IP address 146.175.207.13 on 23/10/2025 at 08:17 1 Defining and assessing Transformational Adaptation: the TransformAr Scorecard Charlotte Fabri1*, Teresa Geidel², Tine Compernolle1, Jan Cools1 1Department Engineering Management, University of Antwerp, Belgium ²Fresh Thoughts Consulting, Austria *Corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract As the impacts of climate change intensify, traditional coping responses and incremental adaptation strategies are proving inadequate for addressing deep-rooted vulnerabilities and long-term risks. This has led to a growing call for transformational adaptation, which entails systemic changes that restructure societal and ecological systems to enhance long-term resilience. While the concept is relatively well-developed in academic and policy documents, its practical implementation remains limited due to a lack of operational tools. This paper presents a scorecard developed to assess the transformational character of climate adaptation projects or programmes. Building on the EU Policy Brief ‘Understanding Transformational Adaptation’, the scorecard translates five core principles— scope, depth, impact areas, temporality, and inclusivity—into a set of more concrete, easy-tounderstand statements. Designed for use by local authorities and project stakeholders, the tool supports self-assessment of an adaptation project’s alignment with transformational principles, both ex ante and ex post. The scorecard does not measure adaptation effectiveness in terms of risk reduction, but rather assesses whether a project incorporates the elements necessary for systemic and lasting change. To demonstrate its utility, the paper applies the tool to two EU-funded adaptation case studies, showing how projects can exhibit both incremental and transformational features. By identifying strengths and gaps in transformational potential, the scorecard guides users toward more impactful, durable, and inclusive adaptation strategies. This way, this tool contributes to bridging the gap between theory and practice, supporting more effective implementation of transformational adaptation and helping build climate-resilient societies across Europe. Keywords Climate change adaptation, Transformational adaptation, Systemic change 1. Introduction Climate change presents a challenge to societies worldwide, as it exacerbates existing vulnerabilities and introduces new risks to human and ecological systems. Temperature increases in densely built cities, for example, lead to an urban heat island effect which deteriorates the health and liveability of its residents (Leal Filho et al., 2022). Severe precipitation in combination with insufficient drainage, especially in urbanised areas, makes communities susceptible to flooding. This increasing frequency and intensity of extreme weather events necessitate urgent and effective adaptation strategies to mitigate these impacts (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021; Kates et al., 2012; Warner et al., 2019). While coping responses and incremental adaptation efforts have been the traditional response, they are proving insufficient in the face of severe climate disruptions. Coping responses to climate change are typically initial, short-term, reactive strategies aimed at managing immediate impacts and are often characterised by their temporary nature and limited scope, focusing on immediate relief rather than long-term solutions (Chhetri et al., 2019; Fischer, 2019). Incremental adaptation involves gradual adjustments and modifications to existing systems and practices to manage climate risks better. These adaptations are often planned and proactive, aiming to enhance resilience by making small-scale changes (such as technological fixes) (Barnes et al., 2020; Chhetri et al., 2019; Fischer, 2019). Although Page 1 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 2 both approaches contribute to reducing climate damage, they become insufficient when the rate and magnitude of climate change result in severe harm to communities and/or infrastructure. Bendell (2018) argues in his disputed paper on ‘Deep Adaptation’ that climate change is leading us towards social collapse and that we can no longer assume that, through adaptation, we can sustain our civilisation. This inadequacy highlights the need for transformational adaptation, which involves fundamental changes in systems and practices to address the root causes of vulnerability through more comprehensive and long-term measures which consider both current and future climate risks (Fedele et al., 2019; Kates et al., 2012; Vermeulen et al., 2018). These fundamental changes adjust social-ecological relationships and cause the system to move toward a more resilient state (Barnes et al., 2020; Deubelli & Mechler, 2021). Jem Bendell’s ‘Deep Adaptation’ goes beyond this: he challenges the assumption that we can maintain our current way of life, suggesting that we may have to let go of our current values, behaviours and systems. He puts forward that adaptation means that we should abandon all things that make the climate crisis worse or that are no longer viable, such as striving for economic growth (Bendell & Read, 2021). This brings us to the concept of ‘degrowth’, a movement within ecological economics which pushes for a societal transformation towards sustainability rather than relying on incremental technological solutions and efficiency improvements (Kongshøj, 2023). Although both are highly interesting concepts, they lack public support 1 (Kongshøj, 2023). Hence, the current study looks at transformational adaptation as a more radical practice than incremental adaptation, but still feasible to implement and in line with current growth-dependent welfare states. Coping responses and incremental adaptation can, however, lay the foundation for transformational adaptation if the process is carried out dynamically and iteratively, through cross-scale interactions and feedback loops (Chhetri et al., 2019). The distinction between incremental and transformational adaptation can also be made using the ratio of continuity versus change. A transformative approach suggests that change is more substantial than continuity, while continuity is the main driver in an incremental approach. Incremental approaches maintain the system’s essence, meaning that the majority is kept as it was and only a small part of the system is changed (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021). A technological solution, for example, is in this sense an incremental approach. Defining transformational adaptation is crucial for guiding policy and practice, as it provides a framework for understanding what is required to achieve sustainable adaptation outcomes (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021; Kasdan et al., 2021; Ulibarri et al., 2022). However, there is no single definition of transformational adaptation (Kasdan et al., 2021). The IPCC defines transformational adaptation, in their Sixth Assessment Report (AR6), as “actions aiming at adapting to climate change resulting in significant changes in structure or function that go beyond adjusting existing practices” (Nalau et al., 2023). Moreover, these adaptations “can be adopted at a large scale, can lead to new strategies in a region or resource system, transform places and potentially shift locations” and lead to “deep and longterm societal changes that influence sustainable development (including values, worldviews)”. The EU Policy Brief “Understanding Transformational Adaptation” (Cools et al., 2024), which this study is based on, is built on this IPCC definition. The policy brief provides a shared vision across EU Horizon projects and is developed under the Thematic Working Group (TWG) on Transformational Adaptation of the EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change's Implementation Platform (MIP4Adapt). It specifies characteristics and barriers of transformational adaptation and provides numerous examples of transformational adaptation, covering a broad range of domains. This paper presents the content of 1 Jem Bendell’s ‘Deep Adaptation’ also lacks academic support. His study was rejected by journals because it challenges foundational assumptions of academic research (that climate change can be managed or mitigated) and because it disheartens readers with its core message that we are inevitably approaching ecologically induced social collapse and should find ways to handle this. Page 2 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 3 the Policy Brief for an academic audience, while also further extending upon it by means of a scorecard for transformational adaptation. The policy brief compares incremental and transformational adaptation using Figure 1 as an illustration. Incremental adaptation here consists of implementing one measure at a time (the blue blocks), focusing on mitigating immediate climate risks, whereas transformational adaptation consists of a whole-of-society approach, leaving no one behind and considering other sustainability dimensions besides climate action. Figure 1: Incremental versus transformational adaptation, from Cools et al. (2024) The scorecard aims to close what Deubelli and Mechler (2021) call the ‘operationalisation gap’. There is an ambition for transformational change, visible from the vast academic and grey literature (policy documents, etc.), which is not met with the practical implementation of transformative strategies. Insights into the operational criteria which make up transformational adaptation allow policymakers and practitioners to develop recommendations for planning and implementing transformational adaptation. This involves integrating transformational strategies into risk management, expanding the range of more radical adaptation options, and ensuring that adaptation efforts are inclusive and equitable (Fedele et al., 2019; Kates et al., 2012; Ulibarri et al., 2022). Moreover, by defining and understanding the principles and criteria of transformational adaptation, stakeholders themselves can make informed decisions that lead to effective and sustainable adaptation strategies. This scorecard is intended for self-assessment by project developers or stakeholders with knowledge of the project’s design, planning and implementation processes. The scorecard is developed using the transformational adaptation principles and criteria identified in literature, and consolidated in a set of characteristics in the EU Policy Brief on Transformational Adaptation (Cools et al., 2024). In the scorecard, the characteristics of Transformational Adaptation are translated into concrete and easily understandable statements, referred to as ‘indicators’. After filling in the scorecard, respondents receive a results dashboard which provides scores for each of the criteria. This helps stakeholders identify areas of improvement or the solution’s strengths from a transformational adaptation point of view. The tool can be used ex ante or ex post. An ex ante assessment is useful when there is still room to improve or intervene (but perhaps not all information to fill in the scorecard is available yet). In an ex post assessment, the transformational potential of an adaptation solution which has already been implemented (at the pilot or demonstrator level) is evaluated. The scorecard was developed within the context of TransformAr, an EU-funded Horizon project that ran between 2021 and 2025, with the aim of developing and demonstrating pathways to achieve transformational adaptation related to water. In Section 4, we show how the scorecard is used to assess Page 3 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 4 the transformational potential of two adaptation projects: one of TransformAr’s demonstrators and also a demonstrator of IMPETUS, another EU Horizon project on climate adaptation. 2. Principles, criteria and indicators of transformational adaptation For the development of an assessment tool to evaluate transformational adaptation, we look towards principles, criteria and indicators (PC&I), an approach often used for sustainability assessments (Van Cauwenbergh et al., 2007). This approach, firstly, relies on the identification of principles or premises that define the general conditions needed to achieve transformational adaptation. Because the literature, both academic and grey literature, on transformational adaptation is extensive, we do this through a review of this literature. For a less studied topic, participatory methods such as expert consultation may have been preferred (e.g. Delphi study for achieving consensus). Secondly, these principles give rise to criteria. These are more specific and easier to assess than principles. They are concrete requirements to evaluate whether an adaptation project is in line with each of the principles or not (Bautista et al., 2016). These also arise from literature and were further refined and revised iteratively with MIP4Adapt’s TWG on Transformational Adaptation 2 . Finally, indicators are qualitative or quantitative expressions that allow performance to be assessed against the criteria. In what follows, we firstly describe the principles and criteria derived from the literature. In the next section, we explain the translation of these criteria into measurable indicators and the development of the TransformAr Scorecard. Based on a review of the literature on transformational adaptation, we arrive at the five general principles listed below. Each of these principles gives rise to several criteria 3 . A schematic overview of the principles and criteria is provided in Figure 2. 1. Scope: the adaptation solution should influence a large geographic area or sector or a large number of stakeholders, with potential spillovers in terms of weather risk reduction to other areas, communities or sectors. 2. Impact areas: the adaptation solution should have an impact on the public’s beliefs and attitudes towards climate change and adaptation and the governance structures and modes of cooperation. 3. Depth: the adaptation solution should change the core of the system (e.g., its economic focus) and/or its processes, i.e., the ‘before’ state should significantly differ from the ‘after’ state. 4. Temporality: the adaptation solution should have a long-term perspective, be non-reversible, generate future benefits and be flexibly adjustable to future (climatic) changes. 5. Inclusivity: the adaptation solution should consider other sustainability factors (such as nondiscrimination, environmental conservation, and climate mitigation) besides climate adaptation. The principle ‘scope’ consists of three different criteria. Some sources claim that transformational adaptation occurs at a large scale, either in terms of geographical area or the number of people affected (Kasdan et al., 2021). Others suggest that transformational approaches can occur at 'any level, from the individual through to the collective, industry or region' (Park et al., 2012, p. 199). We refer to the first criterion as ‘systemwide’, meaning that the adaptation solution affects an entire region, sector, 2 The 15 authors of the Policy Brief ‘Understanding Transformational Adaptation: A shared vision across EU Horizon projects’ were involved in reviewing and revising the criteria of transformational adaptation. These authors are considered experts on the topic, as they are representatives of European projects on transformational adaptation. In the policy brief, the criteria are referred to as ‘characteristics of transformational adaptation’ to avoid academic language. 3 Tables 1 to 5 give concise definitions of the criteria and examples for clarification. Page 4 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 5 ecosystem or community, rather than a single component of a system (Fedele et al., 2019; Kates et al., 2012; Scolobig et al., 2023). It is therefore more important to have a comprehensive approach, rather than operating at a very large scale. An important remark here is that there is no single definition of ‘the system’ as this is dependent on the context or location. The second criterion, ‘ multi-scale’, means that the adaptation solution influences other systems or contexts besides the one which is directly being targeted (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021). In other words, the effects spill over from one geographic area to a neighbouring area, or the effects in one sector spill over to another sector. For example, converting farmland to forests may be considered an adaptation measure for farmers suffering from climate change (Fedele et al., 2019). This conversion may also result in improved water quality for the non-farming community, a different stakeholder group. This criterion also refers to the involvement of actors at multiple scales and levels of government, i.e., local, regional and national (Barnes et al., 2020). Multi-scale can also refer to a pooling of financial resources from multiple channels. Adaptation solutions may start off from a publicly funded pilot project, but should be supplemented by local government, private or community-based funding sources to ensure longevity, for example (Chu et al., 2019). If the adaptation solution itself is not implemented at a large scale—because it is in a pilot or demonstrator phase, for example—its scope may be increased in the future. This third criterion is referred to as ‘scalable’ 4 . This may mean either that the system size is increased (e.g., the geographic area is made larger, the sector is broadened) or that the solution is replicated or reproduced elsewhere. This scalability should already be considered during the project planning phase. A condition for receiving funding from the UNFCCC Green Climate Fund, for example, is the project’s paradigm shift potential which is defined as the “degree to which the proposed activity can catalyse impact beyond a one-off project or programme investment” (Kasdan et al., 2021). This is achieved through either being multi-scale, i.e., having impact beyond the system boundaries, or through being scalable, i.e., expansion or replication elsewhere. The ‘impact areas’ principle consists of two impact areas: governance on the one hand, beliefs and attitudes on the other hand. A change in governance or institutional arrangements may refer to a switch from top-down governance to bottom-up initiatives or co-production. This is the involvement of and interaction between different stakeholders in the planning of the project and the consideration of diverse views (Scolobig et al., 2023). The organisation of the adaptation solution should involve a variety of actors from (local) government employees through engineers or other experts to (private) stakeholders (Chu et al., 2019). Transformational adaptation typically requires an iterative decisionmaking process involving all these actors (Chhetri et al., 2019) to address the needs and challenges perceived by the community, as well as to enhance community resilience to change (Barnes et al., 2020). New forms of cooperation can arise between stakeholders and policymakers, for example, through knowledge networks (purpose-driven partnerships for cross-disciplinary dialogue, communication and cooperation across scientists and stakeholders) (Eikebrokk et al., 2021). In the city of Leuven in Belgium, for example, a membership organisation named “Leuven 2030” with over 400 members (citizens, civil society organisations, businesses, authorities) was founded with a focus on driving actions to accelerate the climate transition at the local level. Also under governance, the adaptation solution may affect policies or regulations. For example, the Delta Programme in the Netherlands, a large-scale adaptation programme, was introduced in 2010 to protect the country 4 Moore et al. (2015) make a distinction between scaling out (spreading and replicating transformation geographically), scaling up (uptake of transformational solutions in law, policy and institutions) and scaling deep (solutions that change beliefs and norms rooted in people, communities and cultures). Scalability in this case refers to the ‘scaling out’. As will be mentioned later, uptake into policy falls under the ‘governance’ criterion, while scaling deep is part of the ‘beliefs and attitudes’ criterion (both of these are part of the ‘Impact areas’ principle. Page 5 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 6 against the effects of sea-level rise. To ensure a long-term commitment to the programme, the Dutch government passed the Delta Act into law in 2012. With this Act, a commissioner was also assigned, responsible for the programme and the Delta Fund (Centre for Public Impact, 2019). Also, the Danish Ministry of Environment made an amendment to its Planning Act, which required all municipalities to carry out climate risk assessments and integrate this into their local climate adaptation plans (Chu et al., 2019). The second criterion in the impact areas principle relates to the public’s beliefs and attitudes. Transformational adaptation requires challenging existing norms and values (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021) and increasing willingness to take risks in the transition towards higher climate resilience (Watkiss & Cimato, 2020). Several cognitive biases exist which make people risk-averse and unwilling to move away from the status quo in a disruptive—or transformational—way. Groupthink, for example, makes people reluctant to challenge previous decisions. Discipline-specific bias is a barrier to transformative solutions because individuals stick to their own discipline-specific knowledge (Kwan & Hung, 2025). For example, if decision-making is in the hands of engineers, they will likely only come up with engineering-based solutions, not looking towards other disciplines. This criterion, therefore, assesses whether the adaptation solution encourages out-of-the-box thinking. Encouraging the uptake of disruptive climate adaptation measures typically requires strong leadership (Chu et al., 2019). A change in mindset is at the heart of the previously mentioned ‘Deep Adaptation’ paradigm (Bendell & Read, 2021). It criticises the public of ‘collapse denial’ (reframing facts to make them feel safer or accepting the facts but continuing with business-as-usual) and proposes that grievance or despair encourages creative adaptation, i.e., imagining new ways of living in a world post-collapse. It could be argued that this is a rather pessimistic point of view, but it strongly supports the idea that transformational adaptation requires a change in the public’s beliefs and attitudes. The third principle, ‘depth’, determines whether the system is truly changed by the adaptation solution (Fedele et al., 2019). The first criterion here is ‘path-shifting’, which means that the solution leads to a real break from the system’s status quo. In other words, whether the system’s current trajectory is altered towards a new direction. This may be an entirely new economic focus or a shift in location (Kates et al., 2012). For example, Métabief in France was previously a ski resort. Because of climate change, snowfall has decreased and artificial snow has become and will become even more economically unviable. Because of this, the area is shifting its economic focus to other tourist activities such as mountain biking and hiking. The second criterion, ‘re-structuring’, refers to the infrastructures, technologies, or processes that are changed through the adaptation solution. The core focus of the system is not changed here; it is only the way things are done. An example of this is a shift from resource-intensive to regenerative agriculture. This changes agricultural practices and processes, but with the same goal of food production. A final criterion here is addressing root causes or drivers of climate or weather vulnerability rather than the symptoms or the proximate causes (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021; Scolobig et al., 2023). To achieve the aim of transformational adaptation, which is to increase resilience, addressing these root causes is crucial (Kasdan et al., 2021). When a municipality is vulnerable to floods, for example, a cause of this could be urbanisation, meaning that the area is largely paved and there is insufficient water drainage. A solution that addresses the symptoms would be to install pipes that carry away the excess water, whereas a solution that addresses the root causes would be to make surfaces semipermeable and install green roofs and sustainable drainage systems throughout the municipality. The Room for the River programme in the Netherlands is a good example of how the root causes of flooding are targeted at the landscape scale. By relocating dikes (further away from the river), space is provided for flooding in natural floodplains instead of protecting cities with ever-increasing Page 6 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 7 dikes (Rijke et al., 2012). Bosomworth (2018) gives the example of treating bushfires as a hazard rather than addressing the underlying drivers of social and ecological vulnerabilities. Addressing the root causes also requires an a priori assessment of vulnerabilities and how they can be addressed holistically. The principle ‘temporality’ relates to the solution’s time principle. The first criterion here is ‘persistent’ (Fedele et al., 2019), meaning that the adaptation solution is irreversible (without being rigid, as flexibility is needed). In other words, it leads to a long-term change, and there is no intention to go back to the previous state. An investment criterion of the Green Climate Fund is financial viability in the long run or financial resources that provide for long-term sustainable continuation of the activities (Kasdan et al., 2021). Secondly, the adaptation project should have a long-term vision, meaning that it foresees future climate risks rather than just past experienced risks. This requires an analysis of current and future climate risks during the project planning phase. The third criterion here is ‘future benefits’. The adaptation solution should generate benefits over time. There is a clear difference with incremental adaptation in this regard, which focuses on solving current risks and needs (Chu et al., 2019). The benefits of an adaptation solution can also persist by sharing the lessons learnt from the project, such that this learning can be incorporated into other projects (Kasdan et al., 2021). Because transformational adaptation involves fundamental changes in human and natural systems, the future impacts or benefits are likely difficult to foresee and uncertain (Kasdan et al., 2021; Walker et al., 2013). This brings us back to the risk-taking behaviour required for transformational adaptation. Acknowledging and quantifying uncertainty is thus a key aspect related to the study of transformational adaptation, so that we can identify robust transformations that show a satisfactory performance under most plausible futures (Adamson & Loch, 2021). The fourth criterion here is ‘dynamic’. This means that the adaptation solution is able to be flexibly adjusted as climatic conditions evolve (Termeer et al., 2017), not creating a lock-in (e.g. by building bikes that later on prove to be too low and get flooded). Note that within the temporality principle, there is no reference to the speed of the change, a criterion used in the IPCC definition of transformational potential (O'Neill et al., 2022). Termeer et al. (2017) underline that long time frames are needed for true institutional changes. Also, over time, several incremental adaptation measures can cumulate and result in transformational change (Deubelli & Mechler, 2021; Kasdan et al., 2021). Yet, a bundling of adaptation solutions will result in transformative change if they are part of a holistic programme, while avoiding maladaptation (e.g. through lock-in investments). Following this reasoning, transformational adaptation likely requires a portfolio of adaptation solutions (Kasdan et al., 2021). Finally, there is the principle of ‘inclusivity’. This first means that the adaptation solution should be equitable. This means a fair distribution of benefits and losses across space, time and communities (Chu et al., 2019). The project should benefit vulnerable groups equally, if not disproportionately (Scolobig et al., 2023). For example, an urban greening project placed in a deprived neighbourhood is considered more equitable than one in a privileged neighbourhood, as this generates benefits (health benefits, social benefits, housing appreciation, etc.) for likely disadvantaged communities. The concept of ‘stranded assets’ is important in this regard. A transformational change may require the abandonment of old infrastructure and the construction of new, more resilient infrastructure. There may, however, be people who rely on the old infrastructure and are therefore made more vulnerable by the change. Vulnerable groups should not only benefit from the intervention, but they should also be prioritised in stakeholder engagement in the adaptation planning phase (Chu et al., 2019). Moreover, an adaptation is considered ‘synergetic’ if it also contributes to climate change mitigation. This is the case when an adaptation solution reduces CO2 emissions through, for example, carbon Page 7 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 8 capture by trees or by using renewable energy for water treatment and distribution. Finally, if the project contributes to the achievement of additional Sustainable Development Goals—besides SDG13 ‘Climate action’ and SDG 11 ‘Sustainable cities and communities’, which are implicitly assumed to be addressed—it is considered ‘SDG-aligned’. This means that an adaptation project might for example contribute to education (SDG4) by including an educative component (such as workshops or information boards), might support life below water (SDG 14) or life on land (SDG 15), might contribute to health (SDG3) by encouraging outdoor activity or to decent work and economic growth (SDG8) by providing employment opportunities. Considering that the scorecard is a self-assessment tool, the user can self-decide to what extent the criteria are fulfilled. Kasdan et al. (2021) refer to these nonadaptation contributions as ‘co-benefits’. Figure 2: Illustration of the principles, criteria and indicators for transformational adaptation 3. Development of the TransformAr Scorecard based on indicators The TransformAr Scorecard is an online self-assessment tool that consists of seven tabs: an introductory page with general information, a tab for each of the five principles, and a final tab that presents a dashboard with results. The tool can be accessed via the TransformAr website 5 . The original scorecard was developed based on the literature review from Section 2. As validation, the scorecard was then tested with project developers or civil servants involved in five different adaptation solutions. This was done through interviews, with the main aim of ensuring that the indicators were feasible to answer. Minor adjustments were made as a result of these interviews, mainly to enhance ease of interpretation. The first tab consists of three questions, regarding the nature of the adaptation solution, the scope and the capacity in which the respondent is filling in the scorecard. Although these questions do not relate to the transformational adaptation principles and are not used for the calculation of the scores, they are important for the respondent to clearly define which actions the adaptation solution involves and what the boundaries of the solution are, in terms of geographic region and/or sector it is being applied to. For example, when the adaptation solution consists of an urban green space or park, is the 5 https://scorecard.transformar.eu/ Page 8 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 15 Figure 3: TransformAr Scorecard results dashboard for the Gjøvik case study Notes: poor suggests a score in the range 0-1, insufficient 1-2, good 2-3, excellent 3-4 The figure above shows the dashboard generated by the tool. For each criterion, a colour code is shown which offers an indication of how well the project scores. Based on this dashboard, a few suggestions for improvement can be identified. Firstly, the adaptation project’s scope could be increased by collaborating with the regional authorities (e.g., proposing the solutions to be implemented outside of Gjøvik) or by expanding the solutions through different funding sources. Secondly, although both solutions contribute to responding more rapidly to heavy rainfall events, the adaptation project does not fundamentally change the system. Some processes within the local government are altered, but the adaptation project does not affect the municipality’s general focus or the day-to-day lives of its citizens. Thirdly, as co-production is a crucial part of transformational adaptation, future changes to either of the solutions should ideally be consulted with citizens. What are the needs of citizens with regard to the Citizen App, for example? Is the process of reporting flooding events sufficiently userfriendly? Are there additional features which they need? How can the municipality, according to them, best respond to floods and avoid damage? Fourth, special consideration of vulnerable citizens is advised. Even to date, after implementing both solutions, vulnerable citizens, such as elderly people, can still be considered by questioning them about their satisfaction with the Citizen App. What could be improved, or which alternatives could be provided to ensure that they benefit from the solutions at least as much as non-vulnerable citizens? Finally, there is potential for the project to generate cobenefits besides stormwater management. The project could help mitigate climate change, for example, by integrating energy-saving advice for citizens in the Citizen App, raising awareness about energy consumption and carbon-based transport. Also, by integrating the water quality monitoring with a water treatment facility, the project could significantly contribute to ‘clean water’ (SDG6), for example. 4.2 Case study 2: Dune restoration along the Catalan Coast, Spain The second case study is an adaptation project implemented as part one of the demonstrators within the IMPETUS project: sand dune restoration along the Catalan Coast, Spain. Within the IMPETUS project, the University of Girona is carrying out an assessment of the effectiveness of nature-based solutions to preserve sand dunes. The measures are implemented on three different types of beaches: Page 15 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 16 urban, semi-urban and semi-natural beaches across two different areas along the Catalan Coast: in the North, Costa Brava (natural and semi-urban), and in the South, Costa Daurada (urban). The actions that are being implemented consist of sand fences and rope fences, and the cassation of the use of machines to clean the beaches. These measures are taken by the local authorities themselves. Before and after the actions, drone monitoring (with lidar, RGB and multispectral sensors) is done to create digital elevation models and surface models. These models give insights into the morphometric characteristics of the beaches (e.g., beach profile, volumetry) and allow the researchers to assess the efficiency of the measures. The ‘system’ is geographically defined as the Catalan Coast. The scorecard was filled in by one of the project developers responsible for the assessment of the measures, a geographer. In collaboration with other universities, they are developing a multi-disciplinary criterion for dune restoration potential (based on a set of variables derived from geography, biology, etc). In what follows, we will go over each of the transformational adaptation principles and provide justifications of the solution’s scores on each of the criteria. Regarding the principle ‘scope’, firstly, the two municipalities where the measures are being taken and the monitoring is done are just a small part of the Catalan Coast. In that sense, the project cannot be considered ‘systemwide’. However, the recommendations for dune restoration, which will result from the project, are applicable to the entire coastline. Due to the currents, going from North to South, the measures being taken also benefit the beaches further south due to increased sediment. However, these benefits are not measured within the project. The project is highly multi-scale. Firstly, because it requires the involvement of authorities at multiple levels. The measures are taken at the local level; municipalities manage the use of their own beaches. Beach regeneration decisions are taken both at the local and regional level, while the financing is provided at the national level through the General Directorate of Coasts and Marine Environment of the Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge, which is responsible for the protection and regulation of coastal areas. The project is financed through a range of different channels. The assessment part of the project is funded through the EU-subsidised IMPETUS project, while the measures in Costa Brava are paid by the National Park (which receives funding from the regional government) as the beach is part of this protected area, and the measures in the Costa Daurada are paid by the municipality itself (which receives funding from the state). Although the coastline is publicly accessible, there are some privatised areas, such as campsites. These private stakeholders are asked to help restore the beaches. Although the measures are currently implemented in only two municipalities, the project is highly scalable. The measures are cheap to implement, while it is much more costly to recover from damage after coastal erosion has taken place. Therefore, there is clear potential for the project to be expanded along the entire Catalan Coast or replicated elsewhere. The recommendations regarding which measures to implement can be transferred to other coastal regions. There is already a follow-up project 7 where the assessments will be repeated in Calafell as a continuation of the IMPETUS project. It will also extend to other parts of Catalonia and the south of France. Secondly, the principle ‘impact areas’. Within the adaptation project, a lot of effort is put into the dissemination of the results to the public—through talks at city halls and universities, for example—to create awareness on the impacts of coastal erosion and the actions which are needed. There has also been a change in willingness to actively take part in coastal restoration. For example, two campsites were asked to implement natural measures on their beaches. One of the two agreed, and the results showed significantly larger sediment volumes on that part of the beach. This has encouraged the other campsite to acknowledge the benefit of these measures and increased their willingness to adapt. The adaptation solutions are also in line with the national government’s aim to stop the artificial 7 The project is part of the INTERREG - POCTEFA framework. Page 16 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 17 nourishment of beaches. The results of this project contribute to this shift in mindset. This principle also relates to impacts on governance. The natural measures which were implemented were chosen by a small group of people. Both the Calafell municipality, located in the Costa Daurada, and the National Park of Aiguamolls de l’Empordà managers, in the Costa Brava, hired technicians to advise them on which measures to implement and how, but the decisions themselves were taken by a limited group of people within each of these organisations. Although there was thus no ‘co-creation’ with citizens within the project, the perceived acceptance of stakeholders was taken into account. If a measure was believed not to be accepted by the public, it was not chosen. Also, if the campsites did not want to take a certain measure, they were free not to do it. Although there is no direct impact of the adaptation project on policies and regulations, the current policies are in favour of nature-based solutions, and the findings of this project support this. There is thus an indirect contribution. Thirdly, the principle of ‘depth’. The project does not change the (economic) focus of the system and is therefore not considered ‘path-shifting’. The area mostly has a tourist orientation and the natural preservation of dunes allows this economy to persist. Without the measures, the beaches would degrade and tourism would be jeopardised. Naturally preserved beaches and dunes attract a different type of tourist than previously, though, those who attach more value to nature. The adaptation programme is highly ‘re-structuring’ because it introduces an entirely different approach to restoring beaches than before, when beaches were nourished artificially. Although these natural measures were used decades ago, they disappeared because of tourism. The measures have been reintroduced and are perceived as new by the area’s users. The risk addressed by this adaptation programme is storm erosion/coastal erosion and flooding, caused by a lack of sediment. This is not a result of climate change, but is the result of changes in in activities and land use. This change in activities is referred to as littoralization, or economic overdevelopment or urbanisation concentrated along coastlines. Due to this littoralization, sediment is no longer flowing to rivers and from rivers to the coast. Climate change is increasing this risk, but the root vulnerability is not due to climate change. This adaptation programme does not address this root cause. Rather, it addresses the symptoms by retaining sediment through natural measures. Fourthly, the principle of ‘temporality’. Maintenance is needed for the changes initiated by the adaptation programme to last. It is not sufficient to install rope fences, for example, and then leave them unattended. Although there is no intention to revert to the state from before the adaptation programme, the measures’ persistence will depend on whether funding is available for maintenance. This funding comes from national annual budgets and therefore relies on whether there is sufficient interest and awareness among politicians to put erosion on the agenda. The future of this adaptation programme is thus uncertain, leading to a ‘neutral’ score on persistence. Natural restoration measures can be flexibly adjusted to newly arising conditions on a yearly basis, such as a change in wind direction. The assessments done by the University of Girona will lead to recommendations regarding which measures are most effective in preserving beaches. By disseminating these results, the project will likely generate benefits beyond the end date of the IMPETUS project and beyond the current programme scope. Lastly, the principle of ‘inclusivity’. Although the decisions relating to which measures to implement were taken by a small group of local decision-makers, the needs of vulnerable people were considered. For example, footpaths were created to allow the beaches to be accessible to people with limited mobility. In the short run, restaurant holders will be disadvantaged by the adaptation programme because their terraces are not compatible with the natural measures. However, in the long run, the natural measures prevent the beaches from degrading, which allows restaurant holders to stay in business. Therefore, although restaurant holders consider themselves to be among the vulnerable Page 17 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 18 group, they are not considered or compensated within the adaptation programme. The project also has several co-benefits, although these are the project’s explicit goals. Through the adaptation programme, additional vegetation is created on beaches, which in turn reduces carbon dioxide concentrations. Previously contaminated areas are turned into natural spaces, reducing pollution. The project contributes to a socially, economically and environmentally sustainable use of the beach-dune system. This system was previously destroyed, leaving only the beach system. Economically sustainable here refers to the avoided cost of artificially restoring and nourishing beaches and ensuring the livelihoods of people who depend on these beaches. Although the adaptation programme does not create any employment opportunities or economic growth, it ensures that the current economy can continue to exist. Without natural dune restoration, the coast will degrade, and many economic activities will be lost. The adaptation programme contributes to biodiversity on land (through increased vegetation) and under water. The educational component of the adaptation project is realised through thorough public outreach (television, media, universities, conferences for citizens, etc). Finally, the programme contributes to the health and well-being of nearby inhabitants through improved air quality and creating nature-rich spaces for outdoor recreation. Figure 4: TransformAr Scorecard results dashboard for the Catalonia case study All these findings lead to the above results dashboard. The general assessment of this case study is positive. Although the measures themselves are being implemented in a small area, these measures are part of a wider programme which will likely affect other regions, and there are clear plans for extending the project beyond the current scope. Looking at the results dashboard, three improvements can be suggested from a transformational adaptation point of view. Firstly, the adaptation programme does not shift the economic focus of the area, which is tourism. Tourism or increased urbanisation contributes to the rapid degradation of beaches. To address this root cause, the programme could be more ‘path-shifting’, i.e., contribute to the rise of alternative economic activities (e.g., ecotourism). Secondly, the programme does not involve a wide range or large group of stakeholders in the planning and implementation process. To increase acceptance for certain measures—from restaurant holders, for example—a more bottom-up decision-making process may have been advisable. Transformational adaptation typically requires new forms of collaboration. Lastly, and relating to the previous point, the adaptation programme prioritises environmental goals and does not involve or compensate those groups which might be disadvantaged by the project. In order for a Page 18 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 19 transformational adaptation programme to be sustainable in the long term, there should be wide societal acceptance. 4.3 Comparison of case studies The Catalonian case study scores ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ on 12 out of 15 criteria. The case study in Gjøvik scores at least ‘good’ on 9 out of 15 criteria. We would therefore conclude that the Catalonian case study is more transformational than the Norwegian case study, the latter being more incremental. However, it is clear from these case studies that this distinction is not black and white, both case studies have positive and negative aspects to them, from a transformational adaptation point of view. In terms of geographic scale, both case studies take place at the municipality level and potentially apply to all citizens living in these municipalities. However, overall, we can conclude that the digital solutions introduced in the Gjøvik case study have little influence on the day-to-day lives of inhabitants and do not contribute to preventing damage from flood events. Rather, the solutions help reduce damage after the event has occurred. The dune restoration programme in Catalonia, although not targeting the root causes of littoralization (cf. economic overdevelopment of coasts), focuses much more on preventing damage. Through nature-based solutions, sediment is increased and coastal erosion is reduced. This ensures that the current economy, focused on tourism, can persist. Through nature-based solutions, the Catalan case study has several co-benefits such as contributing to biodiversity and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. These types of co-benefits are much harder to achieve with technological advancements or digital tools. So, in line with Park et al. (2012), these case studies confirm that adopting new technologies within an existing system cannot be considered transformational. Both case studies lack stakeholder engagement or interdisciplinary decision-making. In both case studies, all decisions are made by a small group of people from the respective municipalities. Transformational adaptation requires new forms of governance, including bottom-up decision-making and co-creation. This leads to broader acceptance of the measures, on the one hand, and ensures that everyone’s needs are met—especially those of vulnerable citizens, on the other hand. Moreover, having citizens invest in an adaptation project, for example by actively taking part in the planning or by implementing measures on their private property, is likely more effective in raising awareness on climate change and the urgency to act than solely communicating about adaptation. The importance of co-production and stakeholder engagement is further demonstrated by two Horizon Europe projects, CLIMAS and Adaptation AGORA, which both focus on developing methods for generating greater interest, engagement and co-creation and implementation of climate adaptation plans. 5. Complementarity between the TransformAr Scorecard and other assessment tools In the field of climate adaptation, users may benefit from the TransformAr Scorecard because of its potential to identify how an adaptation solution can be modified in order to lead to long-term, systemic, transformational changes. This aspiration ties in with the development and potential of other tools for adaptation in a complementary manner. The tools listed below, similarly to the scorecard, are also self-assessment tools related to adaptation and can be completed before, during or after an adaptation solution or project is implemented. They vary in their usage, inputs and outputs. A tabular comparison of the tools, while also giving references on where to find them, is provided in the Supplementary Information. • Adaptation Policy Credibility tool (APC) assesses the level of progress of climate change adaptation policies • REGILIENCE Self-Assessment Tool on Maladaptation focuses on spotting potential risk factors for maladaptation Page 19 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 20 • Pathways2Resilience (P2R) Self-assessment evaluates the capacity for climate resilience of local authorities and is used for assessing funding eligibility • Resilience Maturity Model supports cities in identifying their resilience stage and then helps to identify the correct policies to implement in order to evolve and increase their maturity • UNDRR Make Cities Resilient by 20230 (MCR2030) Resilience roadmap is a 3-stage roadmap to urban resilience for cities, linked to an initiative which increases cities’ resilience through a knowledge-sharing network MCR2030 • Climate Change Adaptation Scoring Tool (Euro LCP Initiative) is an online tool to score adaptation plans along five dimensions • Adaptation Good Practice Checklist Toolkit is a tool which aids the development of good adaptation proposals for funding from the Green Climate Fund, Adaptation Fund, etc. There are various similarities and differences between these tools and the scorecard. The P2R tool, the resilience maturity model and the Make Cities Resilient tool assess the organisational/institutional maturity to proceed towards transformational adaptation, whereas the Adaptation Policy Credibility (APC) tool and Euro LCP initiative assess existing adaptation plans and policies. The TransformAr scorecard is different in that it screens the transformational potential of adaptation solutions or programmes (while not considering the resilience maturity of the system). The REGILIENCE maladaptation tool assesses whether a solution will lead, or has resulted, in maladaptation. An analysis of the low scores (e.g., low score on inclusivity) shows insights into potential avenues of improvement. An overall trend in these tools is that they provide information on the degree to which certain aspects are addressed by adaptation projects, based on the project-specific variables or processes given as input by the users. Overall, these tools aim to bring the users’ attention to aspects that they may not have considered beforehand. We presume that exchange amongst colleagues about the output of each tool and across the different tools will enhance their complementarity and strengthen the associated adaptation solutions. The scorecard is considered a valuable addition to these previously published assessment tools. The scorecard specifically focuses on the transformational component of adaptation, which is rather weak, undefined or absent in the other tools. The P2R tool does have an explicit component on transformational adaptation, but also addresses other aspects of adaptation maturity at the organisational level. The scorecard is also solution-oriented as it screens adaptation solutions for their transformative potential, and hence provides opportunities for improvement. The scorecard is userfriendly and provides first insights to users in less than one hour (which could be an incentive for actual use). It therefore provides a balance between simplicity and depth. Many of the other tools are either very extensive (e.g., the P2R tool with its > 150 questions) or shallow (e.g., UNDRR MCR2030 with only a handful of questions). Moreover, the TransformAr scorecard can be completed by broad range of stakeholders, whereas some of the other tools target narrower user groups (e.g., the Resilience Maturity Model is only targeted at public authorities). Lastly, the tool does not require any technical expertise as it offers clear, accessible outputs which are suited for communication and discussion among diverse stakeholders. It is therefore a very inclusive and practical tool. The scorecard also comes with some drawbacks. The TransformAr Scorecard is more useful when used as a tool to assess the transformational potential of an adaptation solution ex ante, as this still allows for adjustments to the design and implementation of the solution (i.e., if citizens were originally not involved in co-production, it may not be too late to still do so). However, before implementing the project, the respondents may not have all the information required to fill out the questionnaire. Ex post, all the information is available, but it may be too late to intervene. For example, if an urban Page 20 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 21 greening project is placed in a high-income residential area with little benefit to vulnerable citizens, the project scores lowly on ‘equitable’, but there may be no opportunity to solve this anymore. A second limitation of the TransformAr Scorecard is reliability. In other words, if the scorecard were to be filled in by another respondent, in the same or another capacity, the obtained scores would likely differ. This is due to both subjectivity and differences in interpretation. To illustrate the former: a project developer who was involved in every stage of the adaptation solution, from design to implementation to upscaling, will likely be less critical of the solution than a local inhabitant who feels that they do not sufficiently benefit from the solution. This clearly demonstrates the subjectivity of the scorecard. The latter refers to a different understanding of the indicators. The indicators were developed in such a way that they can be answered for very different types of adaptation solutions (e.g., digital solutions versus infrastructural projects), leading them to be very general and broad. This implies that they can be interpreted in different ways, potentially resulting in different scores. A possible way to address both sources of unreliability is to have the scorecard completed by different types of respondents (e.g., project developers, local authorities, beneficiaries) and then average their scores. The first respondent could also provide justifications for their answers, helping subsequent respondents to align their interpretation. When the scorecard is used as a complementary tool for investment decisions (e.g., subsidy allocation under the EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change), reliability becomes particularly important. In such cases, it may be advisable to triangulate the scorecard results with external audits and to complement them with other assessment tools. A third limitation, closely related to the previous one, is validity. It is not possible to question respondents directly about the criteria (e.g., asking a project developer whether they consider their project ‘systemwide’ or ‘ multi-scale’ would lead to discussions on terminology and concepts, rather than a pragmatic assessment). The criteria, therefore, had to be translated to concrete indicators, which have a clearer interpretation and are easy to answer for anyone who is in possession of the adaptation project’s information. We cannot be certain, however, that with these indicators we are actually measuring the underlying criteria, or ‘latent’ variables. Also, the scorecard may not cover all aspects related to transformational adaptation. While innovation is frequently mentioned as a prerequisite for adaptation (Fedele et al., 2019; Kates et al., 2012), this study does not include a criterion for ‘innovative’. Among the authors of the policy brief it was argued that interventions should be novel for the area but not innovative in absolute terms. This dimension is, therefore, rather included as an indicator under ‘re-structuring’ (i.e., a statement which asks whether the adaptation project’s approach has previously been used in the area). Related to this, it is important to stress location or context dependency. What is transformational in one place is not necessarily transformational in another place. A condition important for transformational change is thus ‘the level of departure versus the outcome level of change’ (e.g., to what extent has governance changed, have the mindsets of people changed, have functions changed as opposed to before the intervention) (Watkiss & Cimato, 2020). Transformational adaptation is, therefore, a relative concept. Each of the criteria mentioned above should therefore be assessed in the context of the local adaptation solution (Kasdan et al., 2021). Although the scorecard could, in essence, be applied to any adaptation solution, it was developed keeping in mind EU projects, and it was validated with European stakeholders. For non-EU cases, the criteria may need to be reviewed and adapted to that context. It is furthermore to be noted that the scorecard does not provide quantitative insights on how effective a solution is in terms of increasing climate resilience or reducing the risks associated with extreme weather events. The scorecard is intended to assess the holistic aspects of a transformation. In a sense, these can be interpreted as enabling conditions. Also the other tools mentioned do not have this component of quantitative adaptation effectiveness. Only the Resilience Maturity Model provides a Page 21 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 22 list of more objectively assessable indicators, such as the number of trained volunteers or the number of weakness assessments. The latter measurable indicators however refer more to the operational progress of a project rather than a measurable change in adaptation effectiveness. The quantitative scoring of adaptation effectiveness is outside of the scope of this paper, and also at the international level, still a subject of debate. In the EU and the UN, an agreed list of indicators (and associated methods) to measure the impact of adaptation solutions is still pending. A consolidated list of 490 indicators has been agreed under the UNFCCC, as part of the global goal on adaptation, to measure progress on climate change adaptation. It is however not yet clear how the indicators have to be quantified, and especially the quantification of the effectiveness of adaptation at local scale is far from being operational (UNFCCC, 2025). An adaptation effectiveness assessment evaluates how climate resilience is increased or climate risks are reduced when implementing an adaptation solution. This requires technical know-how on the adaptation solutions being implemented (e.g., estimation of the (economic) damage from an extreme precipitation event with and without flood protection measures). The scorecard complements these assessments because, rather than quantifying effectiveness, it assesses whether the enabling conditions for achieving effective adaptation, such as co-creation and inclusivity, are in place. The drawbacks of reliability and validity, however, can be seen as relative drawbacks. The majority of tools are self-assessment tools and are intended to provide non-binding insights to the users. The interpretation of the results depends largely on the intention of the user. If the tool is used to demonstrate how well a particular solution has worked, the user will likely score higher compared to a user who aims to criticise the project. This bias is not necessarily problematic if the scorecard is used for internal communication or steequanring dialogue among diverse project stakeholders. More elaborate and technical assessments should be used to inform funding decisions. The scorecard does not allow for official reporting of how a region or city progresses on transformational adaptation. For the monitoring and evaluation of project funding, reliability and validity are essential. The scorecard cannot guarantee that a project’s money is well spent and has led to actual societal impacts. 6. Conclusion In this paper, we build further on the policy brief ‘Understanding Transformational Adaptation’ written under the EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change's Implementation Platform by developing a scorecard to assess the transformational character of a climate adaptation project. With this, we aim to bridge the gap between the academically defined term ‘transformational adaptation’ and its implementation in practice. Based on the literature, we identify five principles of transformational adaptation—scope, depth, impact areas, temporality, and inclusivity—and each consists of several criteria. These criteria are translated into indicators that are easily graspable and answerable for the non-academic audience. Using this scorecard, local authorities or other contributors to an adaptation programme or project can identify the strengths and weaknesses of their project from a transformational adaptation point of view. To illustrate the use of the tool, we describe two case studies from EU projects. The results show that an adaptation project is not either incremental or transformational, but it can have aspects from both. Note that the scorecard does not assess the effectiveness of an adaptation solution in terms of increasing climate resilience or reducing the risks associated with extreme weather events. For this, we refer to some of the other tools discussed Section 5. It purely assesses whether the project adheres to the principles of transformational adaptation, on the premise that transformational adaptation is needed to enhance systems’ resilience under the rapidly changing climate. Page 22 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 23 The scorecard will help decision-makers consider all aspects of transformational adaptation. Highlighting where the weaknesses lie, this tool can help decision-makers in making their adaptation programmes more transformational and thus more impactful and durable. In this way, the tool contributes to greater climate resilience through more effective, large-scale and widely accepted adaptation solutions and programmes. Acknowledgements This publication has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 innovation action programme under grant agreement 101036683 (TransformAr). We would like to thank Carla GarciaLozano from the University of Girona and Pål Godard from the municipality of Gjøvik for providing two interesting case studies. Moreover, we would like to thank Efren Feliu Torres (Tecnalia), Amaya Soto (CETMAR) and Bert Voortman (Rijkswaterstaat) for validating the scorecard through their adaptation solutions. Lastly, we are grateful to MIP4ADAPT and all contributors of the policy brief “Understanding Transformational Adaptation: A shared vision across EU Horizon projects” as this policy brief served as the starting point for this paper. 7. References Adamson, D., & Loch, A. (2021). Incorporating Uncertainty in the Economic Evaluation of Capital Investments for Water Use Efficiency Improvements. Land Economics, 100119-100143R. https://doi.org/10.3368/wple.97.3.100119-0143R Barnes, M. L., Wang, P., Cinner, J. E., Graham, N. A. J., Guerrero, A. M., Jasny, L., . . . Zamborain-Mason, J. (2020). Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 823-828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0871-4 Bautista, S., Narvaez, P., Camargo, M., Chery, O., & Morel, L. (2016). Biodiesel-TBL+: A new hierarchical sustainability assessment framework of PC&I for biodiesel production – Part I. Ecological Indicators, 60, 84-107. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.06.020 Bendell, J. (2018). Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy. University of Cumbria. https://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/deepadaptation.pdf Bendell, J., & Read, R. (2021). Deep Adaptation: Navigating the Realities of Climate Chaos. Bosomworth, K. (2018). A discursive–institutional perspective on transformative governance: A case from a fire management policy sector. Environmental Policy and Governance, 28(6), 415-425. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1806 Centre for Public Impact. (2019). The Delta Act: reinventing the Dutch approach to coastal management. Retrieved 19 December, 2024 from https://centreforpublicimpact.org/publicimpact-fundamentals/the-delta-act-reinventing-the-dutch-approach-to-coastalmanagement/ Chhetri, N., Stuhlmacher, M., & Ishtiaque, A. (2019). Nested pathways to adaptation. Environmental Research Communications, 1(1), 015001. https://doi.org/10.1088/2515-7620/aaf9f9 Chu, E., Brown, A., Michael, K., Du, J., Lwasa, S., & Mahendra, A. (2019). Unlocking the Potential for Transformative Climate Adaptation in Cities. World Resources Institute. Cools, J., Bjørnåvold, A., Fabri, C., Zorita, S., Castellani, C., Breil, M., . . . Goicolea-Güemez, E. (2024). Understanding Transformational Adaptation: A shared vision across EU Horizon projects. Projects' policy brief under the EU Mission on Adaptation to Climate Change's Implementation Platform (MIP4Adapt). Deubelli, T. M., & Mechler, R. (2021). Perspectives on transformational change in climate risk management and adaptation. Environmental Research Letters, 16(5), 053002. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd42d Eikebrokk, T. R., Garmann-Johnsen, N. F., & Olsen, D. H. (2021). Co-creation in networks of SMEs: a conceptual model of the co-creation process. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 360-366. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2021.01.179 Page 23 of 25 AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript 24 Fedele, G., Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hannah, L., & Hole, D. G. (2019). Transformative adaptation to climate change for sustainable social-ecological systems. Environmental Science & Policy, 101, 116-125. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.001 Fischer, A. P. (2019). Adapting and coping with climate change in temperate forests. Global Environmental Change, 54, 160-171. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.10.011 Kasdan, M., Kuhl, L., & Kurukulasuriya, P. (2021). The evolution of transformational change in multilateral funds dedicated to financing adaptation to climate change. Climate and Development, 13(5), 427-442. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2020.1790333 Kates, R. W., Travis, W. R., & Wilbanks, T. J. (2012). Transformational adaptation when incremental adaptations to climate change are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(19), 7156-7161. https://doi.org/doi:10.1073/pnas.1115521109 Kongshøj, K. (2023). Social policy in a future of degrowth? Challenges for decommodification, commoning and public support. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 850. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02255-z Kwan, L. Y. Y., & Hung, Y. S. (2025). Unveiling the influence of disciplinary biases on information sampling during an interdisciplinary collaboration creative task through eye-tracking analysis. New Ideas in Psychology, 77, 101129. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2024.101129 Leal Filho, W., Tuladhar, L., Li, C., Balogun, A.-L. B., Kovaleva, M., Abubakar, I. R., . . . Donkor, F. K. K. (2022). Climate change and extremes: implications on city livability and associated health risks across the globe. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, 15(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCCSM-07-2021-0078 Nalau, J., Eriksen, S., Gilmore, E., Ley, D., Schipper, L., Biesbroek, R., . . . Morecroft , M. (2023). Concepts, approaches and examples of transformational adaptation. Fifth workshop under the Glasgow– Sharm el-Sheikh work programme on the global goal on adaptation, Malé, Maldives. Natterer, E., Loder, A., & Bogenberger, K. (2024). Effects of the Plan Vélo I and II on vehicular flow in Paris - An Empirical Analysis. O'Neill, B., van Aalst, M., Zaiton Ibrahim, Z., Berrang Ford, L., Bhadwal, S., Buhaug, H., . . . Warren, R. (2022). Key Risks Across Sectors and Regions. In 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.), Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 2411–2538). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/9781009325844.025 Park, S. E., Marshall, N. A., Jakku, E., Dowd, A. M., Howden, S. M., Mendham, E., & Fleming, A. (2012). Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 115-126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.003 Rijke, J., Sebastiaan, v. H., Chris, Z., & and Ashley, R. (2012). Room for the River: delivering integrated river basin management in the Netherlands. International Journal of River Basin Management, 10(4), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.1080/15715124.2012.739173 Scolobig, A., Linnerooth-Bayer, J., Pelling, M., Martin, J. G. C., Deubelli, T. M., Liu, W., & Oen, A. (2023). Transformative adaptation through nature-based solutions: a comparative case study analysis in China, Italy, and Germany. Regional Environmental Change, 23(2), 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02066-7 Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., & Biesbroek, G. R. (2017). Transformational change: governance interventions for climate change adaptation from a continuous change perspective. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(4), 558-576. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2016.1168288 Page 24 of 25AUTHOR SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT - ERC-103666.R1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Accepted Manuscript