Editing IPCC:AR6/SR15/Chapter-4 (section)

== Box 4.6: Bottom-up Initiatives: Adaptation Responses Initiated by Individuals and Communities ==

<div id="section-4-4-3-2-block-1"></div>

To effectively adapt to climate change, bottom-up initiatives by individuals and communities are essential, in addition to efforts of governments, organizations, and institutions (Wamsler and Brink, 2014a) <sup>[[#fn:r1178|1178]]</sup> . This box presents examples of bottom-up adaptation responses and behavioural change.

Fiji increasingly faces a lack of freshwater due to decreasing rainfall and rising temperatures (Deo, 2011; IPCC, 2014a) <sup>[[#fn:r1179|1179]]</sup> . While some villages have access to boreholes, these are not sufficient to supply the population with freshwater. Villagers are adapting by rationing water, changing diets, and setting up inter-village sharing networks (Pearce et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1180|1180]]</sup> . Some villagers take up wage employment to buy food instead of growing it themselves (Pearce et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1181|1181]]</sup> . In Kiribati, residents adapt to drought by purchasing rainwater tanks and constructing additional wells (Kuruppu and Liverman, 2011) <sup>[[#fn:r1182|1182]]</sup> . An important factor that motivated residents of Kiribati to adapt to drought was the perception that they could effectively adapt to the negative consequences of climate change (Kuruppu and Liverman, 2011) <sup>[[#fn:r1183|1183]]</sup> .

In the Philippines, seismic activity has caused some islands to flood during high tide. While the municipal government offered affected island communities the possibility to relocate to the mainland, residents preferred to stay and implement measures themselves in their local community to reduce flood damage (Laurice Jamero et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1184|1184]]</sup> . Migration is perceived as undesirable because island communities have strong place-based identities (Mortreux and Barnett, 2009) <sup>[[#fn:r1185|1185]]</sup> . Instead, these island communities have adapted to flooding by constructing stilted houses and raising floors, furniture, and roads to prevent water damage (Laurice Jamero et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1186|1186]]</sup> . While inundation was in this case caused by seismic activity, this example indicates how island-based communities may respond to rising sea levels caused by climate change.

Adaptation initiatives by individuals may temporarily reduce the impacts of climate change and enable residents to cope with changing environmental circumstances. However, they may not be sufficient to sustain communities’ way of life in the long term. For instance, in Fiji and Kiribati, freshwater and food are projected to become even scarcer in the future, rendering individual adaptations ineffective. Moreover, individuals can sometimes engage in behaviour that may be maladaptive over larger spatio-temporal scales. For example, in the Philippines, many islanders adapt to flooding by elevating their floors using coral stone (Laurice Jamero et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1187|1187]]</sup> . Over time, this can harm the survivability of their community, as coral reefs are critical for reducing flood vulnerability (Ferrario et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1188|1188]]</sup> . In Maharashtra, India, on-farm ponds are promoted as rainwater harvesting structures to adapt to dry spells during the monsoon season. However, some individuals fill these ponds with groundwater, leading to depletion of water tables and potentially maladaptive outcomes in the long run (Kale, 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1189|1189]]</sup> .

Integration of individuals’ adaptation initiatives with top-down adaptation policy is critical (Butler et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1190|1190]]</sup> , as failing to do so may lead individual actors to mistrust authority and can discourage them from undertaking adequate adaptive actions (Wamsler and Brink, 2014a) <sup>[[#fn:r1191|1191]]</sup> .

<div id="section-4-4-3-2-block-3"></div>

Goal setting can promote mitigation action when goals are not set too low or too high (Loock et al., 2013) <sup>[[#fn:r1192|1192]]</sup> . Commitment strategies where people make a pledge to engage in climate actions can encourage mitigation behaviour (Abrahamse and Steg, 2013; Lokhorst et al., 2013) <sup>[[#fn:r1193|1193]]</sup> , particularly when individuals also indicate how and when they will perform the relevant action and anticipate how to cope with possible barriers (i.e., implementation intentions) (Bamberg, 2000, 2002) <sup>[[#fn:r1194|1194]]</sup> . Such strategies take advantage of individuals’ desire to be consistent (Steg, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1195|1195]]</sup> . Similarly, hypocrisy-related strategies that make people aware of inconsistencies between their attitudes and behaviour can encourage mitigation actions (Osbaldiston and Schott, 2012) <sup>[[#fn:r1196|1196]]</sup> .

Actions that reduce climate risks can be rewarded and facilitated, while actions that increase climate risks can be punished and inhibited, and behaviour change can be voluntary (e.g., information provision) or imposed (e.g., by law); voluntary changes that involve rewards are more acceptable than imposed changes that restrict choices (Eriksson et al., 2006, 2008; Steg et al., 2006; Dietz et al., 2007) <sup>[[#fn:r1197|1197]]</sup> . Policies punishing maladaptive behaviour can increase vulnerability when they reinforce socio-economic inequalities that typically produce the maladaptive behaviour in the first place (Adger et al., 2003) <sup>[[#fn:r1198|1198]]</sup> . Change can be initiated by governments at various levels, but also by individuals, communities, profit-making organizations, trade organizations, and other non-governmental actors (Lindenberg and Steg, 2013; Robertson and Barling, 2015; Stern et al., 2016b) <sup>[[#fn:r1199|1199]]</sup> .

Strategies can target intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. It may be particularly important to enhance intrinsic motivation so that people voluntarily engage in climate action over and again (Steg, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1200|1200]]</sup> . Endorsement of mitigation and adaptation actions are positively related (Brügger et al., 2015; Carrico et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1201|1201]]</sup> ; both are positively related to concern about climate change (Brügger et al., 2015) <sup>[[#fn:r1202|1202]]</sup> . Strategies that target general antecedents that affect a wide range of actions, such as values, identities, worldviews, climate change beliefs, awareness of the climate impacts of one’s actions, and feelings of responsibility to act on climate change, can encourage consistent actions on climate change (van Der Werff and Steg, 2015; Hornsey et al., 2016; Steg, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1203|1203]]</sup> . Initial climate actions can lead to further commitment to climate action (Juhl et al., 2017) <sup>[[#fn:r1204|1204]]</sup> , when people learn that such actions are easy and effective (Lauren et al., 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1205|1205]]</sup> , when they engaged in the initial behaviour for environmental reasons (Peters et al., 2018) <sup>[[#fn:r1206|1206]]</sup> , hold strong pro-environmental values and norms (Thøgersen and Ölander, 2003) <sup>[[#fn:r1207|1207]]</sup> , and when initial actions make them realise they are an environmentally sensitive person, motivating them to act on climate change in subsequent situations so as to be consistent (van der Werff et al., 2014a; Lacasse, 2015, 2016) <sup>[[#fn:r1208|1208]]</sup> . Yet some studies suggest that people may feel licensed not to engage in further mitigation actions when they believe they have already done their part (Truelove et al., 2014) <sup>[[#fn:r1209|1209]]</sup> .

<div id="section-4-4-3-3"></div>

<span id="acceptability-of-policy-and-system-changes"></span>