Editing
IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4
(section)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
== 4.4.2.4 Co-operative institutions and social safety nets == <div id="section-4-4-2-4-block-1"></div> Effective cooperative institutions and social safety nets may help address energy access and adaptation, as well as distributional impacts during the transition to 1.5°C-consistent pathways and enabling sustainable development. Not all countries have the institutional capabilities to design and manage these. Social capital for adaptation in the form of bonding, bridging, and linking social institutions has proved to be effective in dealing with climate crises at the local, regional and national levels (Aldrich et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1012|1012]]</sup> . The shift towards sustainable energy systems in transitioning economies could impact the livelihoods of large populations in traditional and legacy employment sectors. The transition of selected EU Member States to biofuels, for example, caused anxiety among farmers, who lacked confidence in the biofuel crop market. Enabling contracts between farmers and energy companies, involving local governments, helped create an atmosphere of confidence during the transition (McCormick and Kåberger, 2007) <sup>[[#fn:r1013|1013]]</sup> . How do broader socio-economic processes influence urban vulnerabilities and thereby underpin climate change adaptation? This is a systemic challenge originating from a lack of collective societal ownership of the responsibility for climate risk management. Explanations for this situation include competing time-horizons due to self-interest of stakeholders to a more ‘rational’ conception of risk assessment, measured across a risk-tolerance spectrum (Moffatt, 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1014|1014]]</sup> . Self-governing and self-organised institutional settings, where equipment and resource systems are commonly owned and managed, can potentially generate a much higher diversity of administration solutions, than other institutional arrangements, where energy technology and resource systems are either owned and administered individually in market settings or via a central authority (e.g., the state). They can also increase the adaptability of technological systems while reducing their burden on the environment (Labanca, 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1015|1015]]</sup> . Educational, learning and awareness-building institutions can help strengthen the societal response to climate change (Butler et al., 2016; Thi Hong Phuong et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1016|1016]]</sup> . <span id="enabling-lifestyle-and-behavioural-change"></span>
Summary:
Please note that all contributions to ClimateKG are considered to be released under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 (see
ClimateKG:Copyrights
for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource.
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
IPCC
Discussion
English
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Recent changes
Random page
Help about MediaWiki
Special pages
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Page information