Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Global Environmental Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/gloenvcha

Pathways for climate resilient development: Human well-being within a

safe and just space in the 21st century
Pramod K. Singh *, Harpalsinh Chudasama
Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA), Anand 388001, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The concept of climate resilient development pathways (CRDPs) introduced in IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report
Climate resilient development remains poorly conceptualised. We have attempted to deepen the conceptualisation of climate resilient devel­
Climate compatible development opment (CRD) or climate compatible development, while charting its pathways through fuzzy cognitive maps
Governance
(FCMs)-based simulations aided by knowledge based on stakeholders’ insights. We conceptualise CRD as a
Planetary health
Sustainable development
development embracing mitigation, adaptation and inclusive sustainable development to advance planetary
Well-being health and well-being for all. The FCMs-based simulations demonstrate that appropriate enabling conditions are
critical to the achievement of CRD, the most important of them being (i) the ethics, values, and worldviews
shaping CRD’s directions by framing appropriate climate narratives and action; (ii) partnerships and commit­
ment to finance and technology by the governments; (iii) interactions between the actors and arenas of en­
gagement facilitating CRD decisions and actions; and (iv) dimensions of governance at multiple levels involving
policy, institutions and practice. Citizens’ defence against climate change as a human right, along with planetary
health and well-being, demands synergies while implementing mitigation, adaptation and sustainable devel­
opment. Short-term decisions and actions related to mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development could
have long-term effects on CRDPs. CRD could entail a societal transformation to eudaimonic living for ensuring
universal well-being. The findings of this research could have profound implications for multilateral
negotiations.

1. Introduction
IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report introduced the concept of climate
resilient development pathways (CRDPs) as ‘development trajectories
that combine adaptation and mitigation to realise the goal of sustainable
development’ (Denton et al., 2014, p.1104). The emerging CRD litera­
ture highlights the urgency of climate actions facilitating substantial
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions while pushing gains in human
and natural system resilience (Haines et al., 2017; Shindell et al., 2017;
Nerini et al., 2018). Mitchell and Maxwell (2010) coined the term
climate compatible development (CCD) to describe a ‘triple win’ sce­
nario showcasing adaptation, mitigation, and development actions.
Interdependence between development trends, climate risk, and miti­
gation and adaptation action is central to the definition of CRDPs
(Fankhauser and McDermott, 2016).
In addition, the United Nations 2030 Agenda aims at time-bound
targets for 5Ps: prosperity, people, planet, peace and partnership with
the commitment that no one will be left behind in achieving the
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (UN, 2015). The Paris Agree­
ment provided a CRD paradigm by establishing a mitigation-centered
target of ‘limiting warming well below 2 ◦ C above pre-industrial level’
to reduce risks associated with higher warming (Craft and Fisher, 2018).
Different climate scenarios (1.5 ◦ C, 2 ◦ C, or even higher ones) could
potentially create various degrees of impacts across sectors and regions
(Solecki et al., 2018). The current nationally determined contributions
of mitigation pledge would have a slim chance of reaching even the 2 ◦ C
target despite the great hopes on carbon dioxide removal efforts (Grassi
et al., 2017). Mitigation risks have jeopardised national and local efforts
to eradicate poverty, end hunger, reduce inequalities, and achieve
several SDGs, especially in the Global South (Seneviratne et al., 2018).
Thus, the underlying conceptualisation of CRD appears inadequate and
needs more holistic consideration.
Meeting SDGs will not only enhance ecological integrity and human
well-being but also help improve mitigation and adaptation planning
and execution (Conway et al., 2015; Griscom et al., 2017; Allen et al.,
2018; Roy et al., 2018). However, pursuing SDG priorities to promote

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: pramod@irma.ac.in, pramodirma@gmail.com (P.K. Singh), harpalsinh@irma.ac.in (H. Chudasama).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102277
Received 1 November 2020; Received in revised form 25 March 2021; Accepted 31 March 2021
0959-3780/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
ecological security and human well-being highlights the complex dy­
namics of synergies and trade-offs between socio-economic develop­
ment and climate change responses (Santika et al., 2019). The
integration of climate justice (Patterson et al., 2018), ethics, values
(O’Neill et al., 2015; O’Brien, 2018), and worldviews (Hayward, 2012;
Wolf et al., 2013) plays a crucial role in shaping the ethical goal of CRD.
Extant literature indicates that multiple players and a plurality of
knowledge are required to inform inequitable partnerships and improve
structures and processes for climate resilience (Klenk et al., 2017;
Hulme, 2018). Climate resilience is feasible only if the SDGs have been
fulfilled (de Loma-Osorio, 2016). There are, however, inherent contra­
dictions in fulfilling all SDGs (Spaiser et al., 2017).
While deepening the conceptualisation of CRD and CRDPs, this paper
suggests pathways for CRD with the aid of FCMs-based simulations that
are used to model the interactions occurring within a complex and hard-
to-model socio-ecological system. The paper attempts to explore the
following two major research questions.
• What are the relative roles of adaptation, mitigation, and SDGs in
attaining CRD?
• How do various enabling conditions help in charting CRD?
1.1. Rationale for FCM approach
Quantitative models like integrated assessment models, while
acknowledging real-world dynamics (Geels et al., 2016), are not
designed to reflect the multiple dimensions of well-being, poverty, and
inequalities of various climate policies and pathways (O’Neill et al.,
2018). In quantitative research, primary attention is often given to
output with validity and reliability being proved through statistical tests
of how the data fit together. Many dimensions of life like well-being,
poverty, equity, justice, and similar constructs are subjective and their
multi-dimensional nature makes them susceptible to quantitative
modelling tools and analysis (White and Jha, 2014; Singh and Chuda­
sama, 2020). In qualitative research, stronger attention is given to the
process of data acquisition. Here, validity and reliability are about
whether the data gathered faithfully represent the circumstances and
viewpoints of the respondents. The qualitative methods are vital to
exploring local understandings of well-being (White and Jha, 2014).
Maxwell (2013) believes that qualitative research works with the realm
of meanings, motives, aspirations, beliefs, values, and attitudes, which
corresponds to a deeper space of relationships and processes and cannot
be reduced to the operationalisation of concepts.
Identifying the dynamics of interconnected relationships in the
extremely complex climate-environment-development system is para­
mount while developing climate-resilient solutions. In this context,
FCM, which relies on knowledge gained from experts on the basis of
their experience, knowledge, and perception, becomes handy in
modelling the interactions occurring within the complex and hard-to-
model qualitative climate-environment-development system (Singh
and Chudasama, 2017, 2020, 2021; Gray et al., 2019; Fonseca et al.,
2020; Pereira et al., 2020). The main advantages of FCM over other tools
like quantitative research methodologies and models, such as correla­
tional study, multivariate analysis, systems dynamics model, structural
equational modelling, Ensemble Bayesian Model Averaging, etc., in so­
cial science studies include (i) its participatory approach allowing
knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs of stakeholders to aid evidence-
based decision-making in a socio-ecological system with multiple feed­
back loops; (ii) its ability to model complex and hard-to-model quali­
tative socio-ecological systems; and (iii) its ability to reveal the roles of
hidden feedback in the system.
2. Assessment framework for CRD
Seeing SDGs as short-term (2030) goals for prosperity, people,
2
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
planet, peace and partnership, we considered human well-being on a
healthy planet as CRD’s ultimate goal. We propose CRD or CCD as a
development embracing mitigation, adaptation, and inclusive sustainable
development to advance planetary health and well-being for all. Accord­
ingly, CRDPs are alternate trajectories of CRD.
The current conceptualisation of CRD and CRDP evolved through the
lead authors’ meetings of chapter 18 of the IPCC Working Group II of its
Sixth Assessment Report. The aim of adaptation, mitigation, and sus­
tainable development is to promote human well-being on a healthy
planet. The SDG and Paris Agreement goals are interdependent (Nilsson
et al., 2016) with dynamic interconnections between human, techno­
logical and natural processes (Sachs et al., 2019). The climate-
environment-development system is extremely complex and dynamic
(Singh and Nair, 2014), with the occurrence of complex cross-scale so­
cial-ecological-economic interactions (Sellberg et al., 2018). Hence, we
chose to model the complete climate-environment-development system
to understand the relationships between adaptation, mitigation and
SDGs, which ultimately influence planetary health and human well-
being. These include: (a) Climate and development-induced negative
externalities comprising key drivers influencing climate processes,
climate processes, climate change, adverse impacts, losses and damages,
key risks, and shocks; (b) CRD action and solution spaces comprising
adaptation, mitigation, sustainable development, and enabling condi­
tions; and (d) End goal of CRD comprising planetary health and human
well-being (Fig. 1).
2.1. Climate and development-induced negative externalities
Past development, including maldevelopment, has been a key driver
of climate processes and climate change. Climate change continues to
impact ecosystem functioning with adverse consequences on the liveli­
hoods, health, and security of people in all regions. All this, in turn,
exerts severe adverse impacts on the low-income populace, thus raising
social inequity. These impacts are expected to intensify in the future,
putting the planet’s environment and human well-being in jeopardy.
The harm incurred by observed impacts and projected risks is referred to
as losses and damages. Key risks include potentially severe adverse
consequences on natural or human systems caused by the interaction of
climate-related hazards with vulnerabilities of societies and ecosystems
exposed (O’Neill et al., 2017). Consequences arising out of the key risks
of climate change could adversely impact CRDPs. Thus, key drivers and
development trends, climate processes, climate change, adverse im­
pacts, losses and damages, and key risks are part of the climate-
environment-development system.
The shocks in our assessment framework are somewhat external to
the climate-environment-development system, requiring further expla­
nation. Here shocks are significant phenomena that could potentially
derail the development trajectory. We have experienced COVID-19, a
recent pandemic that triggered unparalleled devastation of human life,
economy, and livelihoods across the globe. Synthetic biology holds the
ability to generate bacteria and viruses with novel and deadly charac­
teristics. Solar radiation management has the potential to cause un­
precedented regional ecological disruptions. In the arsenals of nine
possessor countries (Kristensen and Korda, 2020), even a small fraction
of the approximated 13,410 nuclear arms could theoretically end civi­
lisation within one day.
2.2. CRD action and solution spaces
Adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development are the CRD
action spaces. These actions and social choices are determined by the
available solution space involving the presence of appropriate enabling
conditions. We would like to provide definitional clarifications of some
of the enabling conditions identified as important by the respondents,
namely: (i) ethics, values, and worldviews; (ii) governance; (iii) actors
and arenas of engagement; and (iv) societal transformation.
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
Fig. 1. Assessment framework for climate resilient development.
While ethics represent noble visions and high ideals (Hayward,
2012), values reflect intrinsically desirable principles or qualities.
Values ‘serve as standards or criteria to guide not only action but also
judgment, choice, attitude, evaluation, argument, exhortation, ration­
alisation, and, one might add, attribution of causality’ (Rokeach, 1979).
Schwartz (1994) identified 10 types of basic and universal val­
ues—security, tradition, conformity, power, achievement, hedonism,
stimulation, self-direction, universalism, and benevolence—and the
characteristic motivations that organise them into value systems.
Worldview is a synthesis of the value orientation of an individual—‘the
lens through which the world is seen’ (van Egmond and de Vries, 2011).
Governance, which determines how collective interests are defined,
negotiated and pursued, and how economy and society are steered or
governed (Sørensen and Torfing, 2018), is one of the most important
enabling conditions in the development process. Governance actors
(government, industry, media, civil society, and science) make social
choices either independently or collectively (Sørensen and Torfing,
2018) across political, economic, socio-cultural, ecological, community,
and knowledge and technology arena of engagements.
IPCC (2019) defines societal transformation as ‘a profound and often
deliberate shift initiated by communities toward sustainability, facili­
tated by changes in individual and collective values and behaviours, and
a fairer balance of political, cultural, and institutional power in society.’
2.3. Planetary health
Planetary health is a growing concept focused on the interdepen­
dence of human, animal, and environmental health and well-being. It is
defined as the ‘health of human civilisation and the state of the natural
systems on which it depends’ (Horton et al., 2014). Rockstrom et al.
(2009) identified nine ‘planetary boundaries’ representing ‘thresholds
below which humanity can safely operate and beyond which the sta­
bility of planetary-scale systems cannot be relied upon.’ Anthropogenic
perturbation levels of four of the Earth system processes/ features
(climate change, biosphere integrity, biogeochemical flow, and land
system change) have been identified to exceed the ‘planetary
3
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
boundaries’ (Steffen et al., 2015). Planetary health signifies restricting
climate change and, maintaining regenerative ecosystem processes to
ensure that the ecosystem delivers its services adequately. Both plane­
tary health and human well-being are profoundly ethical issues as they
relate to how humans can live a healthy life without endangering
ecological security.
2.4. Human well-being
Human well-being is an abstraction that applies to a representation
of the status of an individual’s life circumstances (Mcgillivray and
Clarke, 2006) and reflects an optimal experience and functionality. Two
schools of human well-being—hedonic and eudaimonic—have been
locked in a debate in this context. Hedonic well-being reflects a sub­
jective condition of human motivation and is linked to one’s assumed
degrees of happiness or pleasure. It has gained traction in the psycho­
logical evaluation of ‘subjective well-being’ including happiness and life
satisfaction, assuming that the individual is driven to enhance personal
freedom and self-preservation (Lamb and Steinberger, 2017; Ganglmair-
Wooliscroft and Wooliscroft, 2019). Eudaimonic well-being focusses on
the individual in a broader context, associating happiness with virtue
(Sirgy, 2012), encouraging social institutions and political systems to
thrive while enabling individuals to flourish. Thus, it fixates not so much
on the outcome but the process of good living. Based on Self-
Determination Theory, Ryan et al. (2008) propounded four motiva­
tional concepts for eudaimonic living: (i) pursuing intrinsic goals and
values; (ii) behaving in autonomous, or volitional ways; (iii) acting with
a sense of full awareness; and (iv) exhibiting behavior to fulfill basic
psychological needs of relatedness, and autonomy. Eudaimonic well-
being embraces development approaches including capabilities (Sen,
1985) and human needs (Doyal and Gough, 1991). Such needs subsume
the survival (physiology, safety, security), the psychological (love,
belonging, esteem, self-actualisation), and the spiritual (self-transcen­
dence) (Dominati et al., 2010) needs.
Human well-being can best be seen as a multidimensional phenom­
enon that involves elements of both hedonic and eudaimonic concepts of
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
well-being. It not only fulfills a range of human needs but also
strengthens the ability to endevour towards a satisfying life. Well-being
components involve health, happiness, meaningful work and social re­
lationships, freedom and liberties, and determinants like food, shelter,
water, and access to knowledge and information (Dasgupta, 2001). They
concentrate on intrinsic goals and values, relatedness, connectedness
with nature, and the development of human potential. Sen (1993) sees
human capabilities relevant for human well-being as physical life,
health, physical integrity, senses, imagination, thinking, emotions,
reflection, and relationship with other species along with political and
material control over one’s own environment. SDGs 1 (end poverty), 2
(end hunger), 3 (good health), 4 (equitable quality education), 5 (gender
equality and women empowerment), 10 (reduced inequality) and 16
(peace, justice, and strong institutions) are the main facets of enhancing
human well-being.
The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) proposed five di­
mensions to measure human well-being: (i) basic material for a good life
(food, water, shelter, adequate income, household assets), (ii) health,
(iii) good social relations (develop institutional linkages that create so­
cial capital, show mutual respect, have good gender and family re­
lations), (iv) security, and (v) freedom of choice. The Stiglitz-Sen-
Fitoussi Commission set-up by the French government suggested eight
key dimensions of human well-being: (i) material living standards (in­
come, consumption, and wealth), (ii) health, (iii) education, (iv)
freedom of personal activities including work, (v) political voice and
governance, (vi) social connections and relationships, (vii) present and
future social and physical environmental conditions, and (viii) physical
and economic securities (Stiglitz et al., 2009). The resilience of the
community will be extremely crucial for well-being in the context of
climate change. Thus, well-being not only involves equity, justice,
connectedness to nature and society, and resilience but also embraces
Maslow’s higher-order needs of fulfillment, esteem, ultimate pleasure,
self-actualisation, and self-transcendence.
3. Methods
Fuzzy cognitive mapping is a participatory modelling technique in
which participants create FCMs reflecting their perceived cause-and-
effect relationships in a complex system (Fonseca et al., 2020; Pereira
et al., 2020; Singh and Chudasama, 2020, 2021). The approach helps
visualise how interrelated variables/ factors/ concepts (referred to as
‘concepts’ in this study) affect one another and represent feedback
within the system (Nápoles et al., 2016; Singh and Chudasama, 2017,
2020, 2021; Gray et al., 2019; Fonseca et al., 2020). Here, participants
focus on the cause-and-effect relationships between the qualitative
concepts and generate quantitative data dependent on their experiences,
knowledge, and perceptions (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004; Reckien, 2014;
Singh and Nair, 2014; Singh and Chudasama, 2017, 2020, 2021; Fonseca
et al., 2020; Pereira et al., 2020). The following is a multi-step FCM
process of assessment framework operationalisation, research protocol
design, knowledge elicitation and analysis.
3.1. Operationalising the assessment framework
FCM-based literature describes various approaches to designing
participatory FCMs, including ‘through literature review’, the ‘Delphi
method’, ‘survey’, or ‘facilitating participants directly’ to construct
FCMs (Gray et al., 2019), which can be classified under two categories:
‘pre-designed concept’ and ‘open-concept design’ (Singh and Chuda­
sama, 2020). We adopted a ‘pre-designed concept’ approach through a
literature review (Morone et al., 2019) and informal discussions with
IPCC authors.
In order to model the complex social-ecological-economic dynamics
occurring within the complex climate-environment-development system
centred on our conceptualisation of CRD, we identified 12 major di­
mensions (concepts)—C1: key drivers and development trends, C2:
4
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
climate processes, C3: climate change, C4: adverse impacts, C5: losses
and damages, C6: key risks, C7: shocks, C8: adaptation, C9: mitigation,
C10: sustainable development, C11: enabling conditions, and C12:
planetary health and human well-being (Fig. 1). The literature review
(supplementary material 1) and informal discussions with IPCC authors
helped us identify 107 sub-concepts within these 12 concepts (supple­
mentary material 2). The nomenclature of several sub-concepts
(detailed concepts) evolved over time. Initially, we began with 97 sub-
concepts, which went up to 107 after discussions with several IPCC
authors.
3.2. Designing research protocols
In order to gather the views of researchers, academicians, practi­
tioners engaged in adaptation and mitigation measures, and IPCC au­
thors on CRDPs we designed three instruments/ research protocols: (a)
the causal relationships of the main concepts, (b) the causal relation­
ships of sub-concepts, and (c) prioritisation of the sub-concepts listed
within each of the main concepts based on their relative importance in
the system. The survey instruments/ research protocol ‘a’ and ‘c’ were
merged into a graphic (presented in supplementary material 2(i)). Be­
sides, all the three instruments had tabular versions: causal relationship
statement table for 12 main concepts—instrument ‘a’ (shown in sup­
plementary material 2(ii)); causal relationship statement table for the
107 sub-concepts—instrument ‘b’ (shown in supplementary material 3)
and prioritisation exercise table of sub-concepts— instrument ‘c’ (shown
in supplementary material 2(iii)).
3.3. Knowledge elicitation
For several days at the IPCC lead author meetings’ side-lines,
particularly in the evenings, we held informal discussions, with over
70 authors in small groups of 10–17 participants, including several one-
to-one meetings. We circulated the instruments in printed form to the
IPCC authors during our meetings. Many IPCC authors completed in­
struments ‘a’ and ‘c’ on the printed graphic and instrument ‘b’ on the
printed table, returning them mostly the next day or after a few days,
while others sent scanned copies later. While interacting, we received
suggestions related to the inclusion of sub-concepts.
Besides holding discussions with IPCC authors, we submitted re­
quests to 380 authors who had written about certain aspects of the
climate system and to practitioners engaged in adaptation and mitiga­
tion measures. In addition, several IPCC authors shared the instruments
with their colleagues and perused them for completion. In these cases,
electronic copies of all the instruments were submitted, which are in
tabular form (supplementary materials 2(ii), 2(iii), and 3). In addition,
we distributed the survey instruments and definitions of the terminol­
ogies to the respondents other than IPCC authors. We also requested
them to incorporate additional relationship/s in the instruments relying
on their experience, knowledge and perceptions. Several participants
communicated that the dimensions were very extensive, with no addi­
tion required.
During the information elicitation phase, each participant was asked
to provide relationship weights of the main concepts on a scale of 1–10,
depicting the strength of the relationship between the concepts
regarding their importance to CRD, with 1 being the weakest and 10 the
strongest (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004; Singh and Chudasama, 2017; Ziv
et al., 2018; Pereira et al., 2020). Positive or negative interaction be­
tween two concepts Ci and Cj indicate the nature of the relationship
weights, i.e., an increase (or decrease) in concept Ci will result in an
increase (or decrease) in concept Cj (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004; Singh
and Chudasama, 2017; Ziv et al., 2018; Morone et al., 2019; Pereira
et al., 2020). The participants were asked to assign a zero value when
they did not agree with a relationship (Gray et al., 2019). We did not
obtain a zero value, however. The participants were communicated that
the values ranging 1–2 represented very low, 3–4 low, 5–6 moderate,
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
7–8 high, and 9–10 very high strengths (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004;
Singh and Nair, 2014; Singh and Chudasama, 2017, 2020, 2021; Ziv
et al., 2018). The participants were expected to ascribe relationship
weights of the sub-concepts (detailed concepts) on a scale of 1–10 as
above and prioritise the sub-concepts of each main concept separately
depending on its relative importance in the system by assigning the
value of 1 to the most important one, and so on.
Through a year-round data collection effort involving intense
persuasion, we ended up collecting 137 responses for instrument ‘a’, 97
for instrument ‘b’, and 148 for instrument ‘c’. On the basis of the IPCC
authors’ responses, additional sub-concepts were introduced in ‘b’ and
‘c’, during the advanced stage of the data collection process, while some
of the earlier respondents updated their answers. The participants hailed
from all six of the world’s continents while a quarter of the respondents
were female.
3.4. Constructing adjacency weight matrix
Individual cognitive maps of both main and detailed (sub) concepts
were coded into square adjacency weight matrices separately, where the
concepts were listed on the vertical and horizontal axes on a spreadsheet
forming an adjacency weight matrix (Singh and Chudasama, 2017,
2020, 2021; Ziv et al., 2018; Fonseca et al., 2020). The values allocated
by the participants were normalised between –1 and + 1 before being
encoded into an adjacency weight matrix, where − 1 indicates a strong
negative relationship and + 1 indicates a strong positive relationship
(Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004; Singh and Chudasama, 2017, 2020, 2021;
Ziv et al., 2018; Fonseca et al., 2020; Pereira et al., 2020). The weight
values assigned by the participants to each link between the concepts
were coded into the adjacency matrix (ibid).
3.5. Quantitative aggregation of individual cognitive maps
Individual cognitive maps were quantitatively aggregated to
construct a social cognitive map (SCM) for both main and sub-concepts
using the matrix addition (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004; Singh and Chu­
dasama, 2017, 2020, 2021; Gray et al., 2019). Most studies aggregate
the detailed weight matrix qualitatively to arrive at a condensed weight
matrix with fewer concepts. Since we had elicited knowledge for both
the main and sub-concepts independently, this approach carried the
advantage of triangulation. An arithmetic mean of the weight values was
computed to comprehend the cumulative perception of all the study
participants (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004; Singh and Chudasama, 2017,
2020, 2021; Ziv et al., 2018; Morone et al., 2019). The SCMs derived
from the main and detailed concepts of weight matrices reflected the
collective perceptions of the study participants.
3.6. Condensation of social cognitive map
While we already had the main concepts in a condensed form, the
SCM obtained from the quantitative aggregation of the sub-concepts was
further aggregated by the arithmetic mean of the links’ weight values in
each of the main concept categories (Singh and Chudasama, 2017, 2021;
Ziv et al., 2018). The resultant concept weight matrix had the same
number (36) of regular/inter-concept links with seven additional self-
loops (supplementary material 4).
3.7. Preparing final prioritisation score
We calculated the mode values of the prioritisation score to arrive at
a final prioritisation of the sub-concepts on the basis of their relative
importance, with the most important sub-concept comprising the lowest
value at 1, and so on. Where more than one mode value was found for a
specific sub-concept, we prioritised the sub-concept with the highest
number of the second-lowest prioritisation values over another sub-
concept.
5
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
3.8. Structural analysis
The matrix algebra of graph theory helps examine the structure of
cognitive maps through several indices, notably density, in-degree, out-
degree, degree centrality, complexity, and so on (Özesmi and Özesmi,
2004; Diestel, 2016; Gray et al., 2019; Morone et al., 2019). The in-
degree shows the cumulative strength of links entering the concept
while the out-degree represents the collective strengths of links exiting
the concept. The summation of in-degree and out-degree represents the
degree centrality of a concept. The higher the value of degree centrality,
the greater the importance of a concept in the system (Özesmi and
Özesmi, 2004; Diestel, 2016). The density index, a product of the
number of concepts and links, represents the connectivity of a cognitive
map (Singh and Chudasama, 2020).
3.9. FCMs-based simulations
FCMs-based simulations give a deeper understanding of the systems’
behaviour, and the extent to which one concept impacts the others
(Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004; Nápoles et al., 2016; Morone et al., 2019;
Singh and Chudasama, 2020; 2021). Thus, the FCMs-based simulations
help identify the critical role and relative importance of a concept. The
FCMs can be represented using four functions: FCM = (C, M, A, f) where
(i) C is the total number of concepts in the map, (ii) M : (Ci, Cj) → wij
represents the square adjacency weight matrix of the cognitive map, (iii)
Mn×n, A : (Ci) → A(t)i is a state vector that computes the activation degree
of each concept Ci at the discrete-time step t (t = 1, 2, … , T), and (iv) f
(x) is the transformation function (Nápoles et al., 2016; Gray et al.,
2019; Pereira et al., 2020; Singh and Chudasama, 2020, 2021).
FCMs-based simulation results have been generated by multiplying
the initial-state vector value Ai of a concept Ci with the adjacency weight
matrix M. The activation rule and the transformation function decide the
outcome of simulations (Nápoles et al., 2016; Singh and Chudasama,
2017, 2020, 2021; Gray et al., 2019; Pereira et al., 2020). The activation
rule computes the activation vector using the initial-state vector value of
the concepts (ibid). We used the activation rule introduced by Stylios
et al. (1997), as shown in equation (1), because of its memory
capabilities.
⎛ ⎞
⎜ ⎟
⎜ (t) ∑n ⎟
A(t+1) = f⎜
⎜A + j = i w ij × A (t) ⎟
⎟ (1)
i i j
⎝ j=1 ⎠
Here, A(t+1)
i is the vector value of concept Ci at the simulation step t
+ 1; A(t)
i is the vector value of concept Ci at the simulation step t; n is the
total number of concepts, while wij is the weight of the link between
concept Ci and concept Cj. A(t)j is the vector value of concept Cj at the
simulation step t while f() stands for the type transformation function
deployed during the simulation process.
The concepts are mapped to the real-valued activation level where Ci
takes values in the interval [0,1], which is the degree to which the
observation belongs to the concept. Because of the dynamic influence of
connected nodes, the concept’s state changes over time (Nápoles et al.,
2016; Pereira et al., 2020; Singh and Chudasama, 2020, 2021).
We used the hyperbolic tangent transformation function, as shown in
equation (2) because the state vector values of concepts are both positive
and negative (Singh and Chudasama, 2017, 2020, 2021; Pereira et al.,
2020).
eλx − e− λx
f (x) = , a ∈ R+ (2)
eλx + e− λx
Here, x is the vector value Ai of a concept for a given iteration; e is a
(t)
residual that describes the minimum error difference among the subse­
quent concepts; λ determines the steepness of the slope; and R+ is used to
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
keep the activation value of concepts in the (–1, +1) interval (Carvalho,
2013).
3.10. Development of input vectors for scenarios
We used the SCMs of the main and condensed weight matrices, along
with the detailed concepts’ (sub-concepts’) weight matrix for the sim­
ulations. The simulation results of the main and condensed weight
matrices provided us the impacts of climate change and the critical roles
of mitigation, adaptation, SDGs, and enabling conditions, while the
same for the detailed concepts weight matrix was used to identify the
role of various enabling conditions in promoting SDGs, climate action,
and reduction of climate risks.
We developed eight (baseline + seven) scenarios for FCMs-based
simulations of the main and condensed weight matrices to identify
various CRDPs. The baseline scenario was implemented by activating
the concept C3: climate change—while considering the increasing
climate change trends following global projections. Identifying critical
concepts for scenario preparation helps connect storylines to the quan­
titative model (Amer et al., 2016). We identified individual concepts
from the main and condensed weight matrices and their various plau­
sible combinations, depending on their mutual compatibility (i.e., input
vectors) in order to develop CRDPs. The seven input vectors corre­
sponding with seven independent scenarios were: (i) C7: shocks; (ii) C9:
mitigation; (iii) C8: adaptation; (iv) C10: sustainable development; (v)
C8: adaptation, C9: mitigation, and C10: sustainable development; (vi)
C8: adaptation, C9: mitigation, C10: sustainable development, and C11:
enabling conditions; and (vii) C7: shocks, C8: adaptation, C9: mitiga­
tion, C10: sustainable development, and C11: enabling conditions.
Considering the long-term climate change projections, the concept C3:
climate change was also activated with every input vector.
On the basis of results of the main and condensed weight matrices,
which established the critical role of enabling conditions, we conducted
eleven scenarios utilising the detailed concepts weight matrix to identify
the relative roles of various enabling conditions — one baseline scenario
by activating all the sub-concepts of climate change, and ten scenarios
for individual enabling conditions. Input vectors, corresponding to ten
independent scenarios, were arranged on the basis of prioritisation
ranking assigned by the study participants. These included: (i) EC3:
Dimensions of governance (policy, institutions, practice); (ii) EC4: Ac­
tors and arena of engagements; (iii) EC7: Ethics, values, and worldviews;
(iv) EC2: Societal transformation; (v) EC9: Innovations; (vi) EC5: Part­
nership & commitment to finance and technology; (vii) EC1: Social
justice; (viii) EC10: Digital transformation; (ix) EC6: Feasibility; and (x)
EC8: Regenerative and conscious capitalism.
A baseline was created to initiate the simulation process by acti­
vating the initial value of the climate change concept, in all instances,
consistent with the long-term climate change projections. The simula­
tion outcomes were then compared against the baseline. The climate
change concept was ‘activated’ every time for every scenario, in view of
climate change. Exploring the changes in concept values between the
baseline and other scenarios allows for a quantitative interpretation of
the impact of the key concepts on the system in relative terms.
3.11. Simulation process
Each concept in the FCM system has an input vector value that varies
from |0| to |1|, corresponding to a ‘non-activated’ or ‘activated’ state, in
that order (Pereira et al., 2020; Singh and Chudasama, 2020, 2021). The
‘activated’ concepts influence other concepts following the weighted
cause-and-effect relationships of the adjacency matrix (ibid). Due to the
recurrent neural network nature of FCM, the simulation process is
iterated by multiplying the ‘activated’ concepts (i.e., input vector) with
the adjacency matrix and by applying the threshold squashing function
(equation (2)) after each multiplication until the FCM system converges
to a steady-state (Carvalho, 2013; Nápoles et al., 2016; Singh and
6
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
Chudasama, 2017, 2020, 2021; Morone et al., 2019; Pereira et al.,
2020). As all the three main, condensed, and detailed FCM systems have
multiple feedback loops, repeated activation of concepts sets in as sim­
ulations occur (Nápoles et al., 2016; Singh and Chudasama, 2017, 2020,
2021; Morone et al., 2019). We implemented the simulation process in
each scenario described in section 3.8 with the initial state vector of the
input vectors clamped to 1 (A1) and the initial state vector of all the
other concepts clamped to 0 (A0). The FCMs-based simulation process
was implemented using the FCMWizard. We also ascertained the
sensitivity of the system by clamping the concepts of each input vector to
other non-zero values namely, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, and
0.9 to determine the stability of the system in yielding simulation
results.
4. Results
Enhancing planetary health and human well-being is the main aim of
CRDPs. Multiple factors play a critical role, directly or indirectly, in
achieving this aim. Certain variables including socio-economic drivers,
climate processes, climate change, shocks, consequent adverse impacts,
and losses and damages, along with future threats wield a negative
impact on CRD. On the other hand, variables like adaptations and
mitigation efforts, along with achieving SDGs, and their enabling con­
ditions help advance planetary health and human well-being. Multiple
interconnections and feedback loops characterise the above-mentioned
dimensions (Fig. 2).
4.1. Structural analysis
The maximum, minimum, and mean values of the relationship
strengths of the main concept are provided in supplementary material 5.
Various dimensions of the network statistics of the three weight matrices
included in the study — main, condensed, and detailed — are contained
in supplementary materials 6, 7, and 8. The SCM of the main concepts
weight matrix comprises 12 concepts and 36 links. The contribution of a
concept in a cognitive map may be understood by its degree of cen­
trality— the summation of in-degree and out-degree. The matrix has a
high-density index of 0.25, which implies that 25% of links are present
relative to the maximum number of links that may potentially occur
between the 12 concepts. The SCM of condensed concepts weight matrix
comprises 12 concepts and 43 links, of which 36 connections are regular
and seven self-loops. The matrix has an extremely high-density index of
0.298. Although the simulation results of both the main and condensed
concept weight matrices (with similar inter-concept links) reflect similar
findings (Table 1; supplementary material 9), most values of the later are
normalised due to relatively lower strengths of the relationships
compared to the former, and seven additional self-loops in case of later.
The detailed concepts weight matrix represents an extremely complex
system with 107 concepts and 360 connections. Few studies have used
such a large number of concepts available in our detailed weight matrix
for simulations.
4.2. Prioritisation ranking of important sub-concepts
Respondents prioritised sustainable agriculture, sustainable water
management, climate-smart agriculture, and conservation agriculture as
the most important adaptation measures (Fig. 2). They accorded high
importance to carbon dioxide removal, industrial system transition,
energy system transition, and land and ecosystem transition under the
mitigation category (Fig. 2). The respondents accorded high importance
to SDGs 1 (end poverty), 2 (food and nutritional security; sustainable
agriculture), 4 (equitable quality education), 13 (Climate action), and 7
(Affordable and sustainable modern energy) for implementation
(Fig. 2). Of the enabling conditions, the respondents accorded high
importance to the facets of governance, actors and arenas of engage­
ment, along with ethics, values, and worldviews in shaping the
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277

Fig. 2. Dimensions for modelling climate resilient development Note: Values in columns ‘P’ shows ‘mode values’ of prioritisation by the research participants with 1
representing as the most important.

Table 1
Simulation results of the main SCM.
Concepts Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 Scenario 6 Scenario 7
IV FV IV FV IV FV IV FV IV FV IV FV IV FV IV FV

C1: Key drivers and 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Development trends
C2: Climate processes 0 0.9033 0 0.9217 0 0.9033 0 0.9032 0 –0.9030 0 –0.9032 0 –0.9741 0 –0.9741
C3: Climate change 1 0.9208 1 0.9233 1 0.9208 1 0.9207 1 –0.9206 1 –0.9207 1 –0.9297 1 –0.9297
C4: Adverse impacts 0 0.9805 0 0.9841 0 0.9805 0 0.9805 0 –0.9804 0 –0.9805 0 –0.9947 0 –0.9947
C5: Losses and damages 0 0.9986 0 0.9989 0 0.9986 0 0.9986 0 –0.9986 0 –0.9986 0 –0.9997 0 –0.9997
C6: Key risks 0 0.9801 0 0.9840 0 0.9801 0 0.9801 0 –0.9801 0 –0.9801 0 –0.9986 0 –0.9986
C7: Shocks 0 0 1 0.1433 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 –0.8924 1 –0.8924
C8: Adaptation 0 –0.9264 0 –0.9265 0 –0.9264 1 –0.9264 0 0.9263 1 0.9264 1 0.9861 1 0.9861
C9: Mitigation 0 –0.9268 0 –0.9269 1 –0.9268 0 –0.9268 0 0.9267 1 0.9267 1 0.9870 1 0.9870
C10: Sustainable development 0 –0.9960 0 –0.9967 0 –0.9960 0 –0.9960 1 0.9960 1 0.9960 1 0.9998 1 0.9998
C11: Enabling conditions 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1
C12: Planetary health and 0 –1 0 –1 0 –1 0 –1 0 0.9999 0 0.9999 0 1 0 1
Human well-being

Legend
IV stands for initial value
FV stands for final value

pathways for CRD (Fig. 2).
4.3. Perturbation of the socio-ecological system
The key drivers of climate change and past developments, including
maldevelopment trends, lead to climate processes and eventually to
climate variability and change characterised by increasing temperatures
and global warming, rising sea-levels, oceanic acidification, precipita­
tion variabilities, and weather extremes including droughts, heatwaves,
floods, and cyclones (Fig. 2).
The FCMs-based simulation of the main/condensed weight matrix
suggests that climate change will adversely impact the socio-economic
and ecological systems. Climate change compound adverse impacts,
and losses and damages, while enhancing potential risks to socio-
economic and ecological systems. Hence, a dangerously warm planet
will become extremely inhospitable for human civilisation (Table 1:
baseline scenario/ supplementary materials 9 and 10: baseline
scenario).
The FCMs-based simulations of the detailed concept weight matrix
suggest that increased warming and the resultant impacts (baseline
scenario) could accelerate water insecurity, land degradation, decrease
productivity, increase food and fodder insecurity, reduce ecosystem
productivity, and impact human health while affecting natural,
ecological, and human systems (supplementary materials 11). The
baseline scenario also indicates a range of losses and damages including
loss of habitat, biodiversity, human lives, and economic loss, along with
damages to infrastructure, settlements, cultural heritage, and species
extinction (supplementary materials 11). According to the baseline

7
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
scenario, there are potential risks of water and food security, climatic
extremes (droughts, floods, heatwaves, etc.), decreased living standards
and equity, and reduced human health. Climate change could also
impact ecosystems and their services along with critical physical infra­
structure and networks while threatening peace and human settlements
(supplementary materials 11). Overall, the baseline scenario indicates
that climate change will render our planet unlivable.
4.4. Impacts of shocks
The FCMs-based simulations of the main/condensed concept SCM
demonstrate that the pathways of CRD are likely to be turbulent because
of large-scale external shocks like the threats of COVID-19-like
pandemic, synthetic biology generating bacteria and viruses, nuclear
wars, and solar radiation management (Table 1: scenario 1; supple­
mentary material 9 and 10: scenario 1). Climate change, along with
large-scale external shocks, is capable of aggravating key risks, climate
processes, and climate change (Table 1: scenario 1; supplementary
materials 9 and 10: scenario 1). Nuclear warfare and solar radiation, too,
can wield an adverse influence on climate change.
4.5. Climate action and SDGs in attaining CRD
Our findings of the FCMs-based simulations of the main/condensed
concepts demonstrate that climate adaptation or mitigation actions
alone cannot restore ecosystems (Table 1: scenario 2 and 3; supple­
mentary materials 9 and 10: scenario 2 and 3). Measures of SDGs, and
more importantly adaptation and mitigation measures along with
meeting SDG targets, can effectively reduce impacts, and losses and
damages to make way for CRD (Table 1: scenario 4 and 5; supplementary
materials 9 and 10: scenario 4 and 5; Fig. 3).
Adaptation, mitigation and SDG measures, coupled with the right
enabling conditions, could reduce climate change, its impacts, losses and
damages, and future risks to a greater degree; they will be required for
robust CRD (Table 1: scenario 6; supplementary materials 9 and 10:
scenario 6; Fig. 3). Results indicate that these combinations can provide
climate-resilience even in the face of shocks (Table 1: scenario 7;
Fig. 3. Pathways for climate resilient development Note: This figure is based on FCMs-based simulations of main and detailed SCMs. The dimensions of enabling
conditions are sorted based on their role in facilitating SDGs, mitigation and adaptations with the most crucial one at the top.
8
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
supplementary materials 9 and 10: scenario 7). Thus, climate action and
sustainable development are interdependent and need to be pursued in
an integrated manner to enhance human well-being on a healthy planet.
4.6. Enabling the CRD
The FCMs-based simulations of the main SCM established the critical
role of enabling conditions in promoting the successful implementation
of adaptation and mitigation, resilience building, and SDG achievement
(Table 1: scenario 6; supplementary materials 9 and 10: scenario 6;
Fig. 3), while significantly reducing the negative impacts of shocks
(Table 1: scenario 7; supplementary materials 9 and 10: scenario 7;
Fig. 3). In order to establish the relative role of enabling conditions in
meeting SDGs and implementation of adaptation and mitigation actions,
reducing key risks, and ultimately achieving planetary health and
human well-being, we implemented simulation exercises using the
detailed SCM.
Simulation analysis of the detailed SCM revealed a somewhat
different perspective to the prioritisations established by the study
participants. Considering the strength of the FCM model demonstrating
causal relationships and feedback loops in a complex system, the FCMs-
based simulations could help identify the critical role of specific con­
cepts with rigor while offering valuable insights for policymaking.
Without such simulations, human beings are unlikely to visualise such
complex causal interactions occurring in a complex system.
The FCMs-based simulations of the detailed (sub) concepts reveal
similar findings on the role of enabling conditions in reducing the im­
pacts of climate change, reducing losses and damages, and managing the
future consistent with the main concepts. The FCMs-based simulations
of the detailed (sub) concepts further reveal that enablers like: (i) ethics,
values, and worldviews, (ii) partnerships and commitment to finance
and technology by the national governments, (iii) actors and arena of
engagements, (iv) innovations, and (v) dimensions of governance that
are particularly critical to facilitating the implementation of SDGs,
mitigation, and adaptation actions (supplementary materials 12 and
13).
Thus, FCMs-based simulations laid out the functions of enabling
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
conditions to promote the successful implementation of SDGs and
climate actions to advance the achievement of planetary health and
human well-being in the following order of decreasing importance: (i)
ethics, values, and worldviews; (ii) partnerships and commitment to
finance and technology by the national governments; (iii) actors and
arena of engagements; (iv) innovations; (v) dimensions of governance;
(vi) social justice; (vii) digital transformations; (viii) societal trans­
formation; (ix) economic, financial, technological, social and geopolit­
ical feasibilities of system transitions; and (x) regenerative and
conscious capitalism (supplementary materials 12 and 13). In order to
advance planetary health and well-being for everyone, the enabling
conditions need to function in tandem.
5. Discussion: Charting CRDPs
Charting CRDPs entails facilitating the process of climate change
adaptation, mitigation and sustainable development. Climate change
mitigation and adaptation actions primarily help reduce GHG emission
concentration, atmospheric aerosols loading, climate change impacts,
losses and damages, and climate change risks (IPCC, 2019; Allen et al.,
2018; O’Neill et al., 2017). Coordinating adaptation and mitigation
measures with SDGs could help streamline funds and efforts to prevent
inconsistencies and accomplish the triple-wins (Nunan, 2017).
Ethics, values, and worldviews shape the narratives for the engage­
ment of actors (Omukuti, 2020) across multiple arenas (Fig. 4). Ethics
(dignity, equity, compassion) and values often constitute leveraging
points for shifting unsustainable development trajectories (O’Neill et al.,
2015; O’Brien, 2018). Public support for global climate policies and
public response to climate change in the domain of adaptation and
lifestyle changes are closely related to and are articulated via people’s
perceptions, ethical concerns, values, and worldviews (Hayward, 2012;
Wolf et al., 2013).
Our findings are consistent with the need for substantial financial
investments and changes in political and institutional foundations sup­
porting adaptation and mitigation actions and sustainable socio-
Fig. 4. Enabling conditions facilitating CRD Note: Interactions between actors
and arena of engagements across various scales are extremely complex and
shaped by ethics, values and worldviews.
9
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
economic development (Allen et al., 2018; de Coninck et al., 2018;
Roy et al., 2018). Article 9.2 of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015)
reiterates the requirement for developed countries to provide financial
support to developing countries for both mitigation and adaptation with
developing countries, possibly, voluntarily contributing to the financing
efforts. Climate financing included in the US$100 billion annual pledge
under the Paris Agreement is insufficient for climate change mitigation
and adaptation initiatives (Peake and Ekins, 2016). There has been,
however, a significant difference between the pledge and the actual
distribution of funds (Khan et al., 2020).
Article 9.2 of the Paris Agreement (UNFCCC, 2015) links adaptation
needs to the degree of mitigation. While adaptation financing stands at
about 20% of global climate finance, the US$50 billion pledge is not
enough to meet adaptation needs worldwide. Adaptation needs are
likely to go up to US$150–300 by 2030 and US$300–500 by 2050
(UNEP, 2016). Adaptation financing has remained limited relative to
mitigation, accounting for 5–7% of the overall climate finance at US
$100 billion per annum since 2015 (Carty et al., 2020). For instance, in
2018, developing countries received less than 25% of the total finance,
66% of which went into mitigation and 9% to cross-cutting projects
(ibid). Renewed levels of public finance commitments and increased
flow of climate finance from developed countries and budgetary allo­
cations of climate finance by developing countries are imperative even
in the short-term (2021–2030). Besides, low-income developing coun­
tries require substantially high development financing, including official
development assistance for SDGs (Gaspar et al., 2019). Similarly, tech­
nology transfer from developed to developing countries can promote
dematerialisation and decarbonisation measures (Hansen et al., 2019)
while adding the achievement of sustainable production and
consumption.
Dynamic interactions between governance actors, modes, and di­
mensions of governance (policy, institutions (norms, rules), and prac­
tice) (Sørensen, 2017) constitute arenas of engagement across domains
of action and decision-making—political, economic, ecological, socio-
cultural, community, and knowledge and technology that could even­
tually shape CRDPs (Fig. 4). Multiple actors — government, industry,
science, media, and civil society — have been engaging across multiple
arenas with asymmetric power relations to shape climate narratives,
decisions, actions and development goals. Such engagements occur
across various scales — local, sub-national, national, regional, and
global — and are bound by the ethics, values and worldview of actors
(Fig. 4). CRD will require multi-level, multi-stakeholder and trans­
national governance arrangements involving a variety of state and non-
state actors participating by varying capabilities and authority. How­
ever, a need for an enforceability mechanism for effective accountability
of such networks (Banerjee, 2010) and compliance-related norms and
soft laws for ensuring accountability (Korbin, 2009) cannot be ignored.
New networked climate governance models have established multi-
scalar polycentric governance structures (Jordan et al., 2015) that still
require a defined legal framework. (Mansbridge, 2014). Ostrom (2010)
also predicted that polycentric governance would be more diverse,
multi-scalar, with a greater focus on bottom-up measures to meet the
needs of different actors.
The IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ◦ C (SR1.5) states
that ‘without societal transformation and rapid implementation of
ambitious greenhouse gas reduction measures, pathways to limiting
warming to 1.5 ◦ C and achieving sustainable development will be
exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to achieve’ (Roy et al., 2018).
The societal transformations are deeply political, involving power
struggles and value conflicts (Patterson et al., 2016). Such a trans­
formation requires the use of innovative technologies, inventive use of
markets, and deeper structural change (Scoones et al., 2015). However,
without integrating social justice, the efforts of technology-led, market-
led, or state-led green transitions towards a low-carbon world, are un­
likely to succeed and remain sustainable in the long term (Scoones et al.,
2015). Besides, social justice and equity as core aspects of CRD demand
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
equality, including gender equality. As Sen (2009) suggested, a theory of
justice must provide both the fairness of the process and the fair dis­
tribution of opportunities.
Societal transformations call for accelerated innovations of all
kinds— technological, economic, institutional, and social. Innovations
can expand in scale, scope, and geography and ultimately help generate
new potential pathways for CRD. The digital revolution can help
enhance productivity while lowering production costs, reducing emis­
sions, improving resource efficiencies, supporting the circular economy,
enabling zero-carbon energy systems, and monitoring ecosystems (Sachs
et al., 2019) that are critical to achieving CRD.
The SR1.5 identifies four simultaneous and necessary system tran­
sitions to enable adaptations and mitigation actions— ‘energy’, ‘indus­
trial’, ‘land and ecosystems’, ‘urban and infrastructure’ (de Coninck
et al., 2018). System transitions have implications for social justice and
the long-term ecological consequences of proposed solutions (Blythe
et al., 2018). These system transitions help visualise the interdepen­
dence between adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development.
However, system transitions can only be accomplished when their eco­
nomic, technological, institutional, socio-cultural, environmental, and
geophysical feasibilities are ascertained (ibid). Ethics, values and
worldviews that shape aspirations, lifestyles and consumption patterns,
could act as enabling/ constraining condition for system transition. The
system transitions can not only widen the solution space but also
accelerate and deepen the process of CRD. However, such transitions
may pose potential risks to certain sectors, regions, or societies. Hence,
managing transition risk is a critical element of transforming society.
Systemic corporate strategies of regenerative and conscious capital­
ism could help industries create a self-organising, self-maintaining,
adaptive, and regenerative form of capitalism that generates lasting
social and economic vitality and human well-being (Fullerton, 2015).
These principles could be enabling factors of the industrial system
transition for a dematerialised and decarbonised world.
Today, the issue is whether the world will have just one pathway or
whether each country will create its own. Although both planetary
health and human well-being are profoundly ethical issues, planetary
health is perturbed by ongoing biogeochemical flows, climate change
and resultant impacts on biosphere integrity, and land system change
(Steffen et al., 2015). Human well-being, though, is more locale-specific.
Low and middle-income countries have the added responsibility of
addressing the basic needs (poverty, hunger, nutritional security, access
to safe drinking water, sanitation and energy, and inclusive develop­
ment) and survival needs (physiology, safety, and security) of their
citizens. In developed countries where basic needs are mostly satisfied,
some survival needs (safety, and security), particularly psychological
needs (love, belonging, esteem, and self-actualisation), and spiritual
needs (self-transcendence) required to be addressed. Besides, social
equity and social justice are other issues the world needs to pay heed to.
Affluent-apposite pathways may impose notable impacts and costs on
the vulnerable sections of the global society (Hickel, 2017), directly
contradicting the commitment to ‘leave-no-one-behind’ in meeting the
SDGs (UN, 2015). The imminent and pervasive challenge is to identify
ways in which the well-off can live within a safe limit of planetary
boundaries while allowing the poor to lead decent lives (Hayward,
2012). Hence, each nation may have its own pathways for human well-
being and eventually CRDPs, depending on its current stage of devel­
opment, and pace of SDG progress.
One may also ask: On what time scale should the CRD be defined? As
Costanza and Patten (1995) stated, ‘nothing lasts forever, not even the
universe as a whole.’ Kates (2011) proposed sustainability issues over
the span of a century. The timeline for CRD by the end of the twenty-first
century seems plausible considering the (i) complexities of planetary-
scale phenomena; (ii) high residence time of the greenhouse gases in
the environment; (iii) possibilities of technological, economic, institu­
tional, and social innovations; and (iv) shifts in human worldviews and
the subsequent interactions of facilitating circumstances.
10
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
There are no established pathways that will fulfill all the SDGs and
the goals of the Paris Agreement. Mediated by ethics, values and
worldviews, the CRD will be the outcome of a sequence of decisions,
actions, and interventions undertaken by different actors under different
arenas of engagements at local, sub-national, national, regional and
global scales for shaping development trajectories that eventually in­
fluence the state of planetary health and human well-being. Based on the
continuum of interactions between enabling conditions for adaptation,
mitigation, and SDG actions in the short term (2021–2030), and di­
mensions of sustainable development in the medium to long term
(beyond 2030), different pathways for planetary health and human well-
being will evolve for the developed and developing societies (Fig. 5).
Thus, a continuum of planetary health and human well-being will evolve
centered on pathways emerging as a vector product of the interactions
between enabling conditions for the implementation of adaptation,
mitigation, and SDGs/ sustainable development dimensions. While low
planetary health represents a dangerously warm world, disrupting
ecosystem processes beyond its regenerative potential, and impairing
ecosystem services, high planetary health suggests restricting climate
change and, maintaining regenerative ecosystem processes to ensure
that the ecosystem provides its provisioning, regulating, supporting and
cultural services adequately. While low human well-being signifies
inequality, injustice, alienation from nature and society, vulnerability,
dissatisfaction, disesteem, displeasure, self-degradation, and subservi­
ence, high human well-being signifies equity, justice, connectedness to
nature and society, resilience, fulfillment, esteem, ultimate pleasure,
self-actualisation, and self-transcendence. Consequently, each nation
may have its own pathways of CRD emerging as the vector product of the
interactions between enabling conditions, its current stage of develop­
ment, and pace of adaptation, mitigation and SDG progress. Accord­
ingly, there will also be a continuum of CRD in place (Fig. 5). Thus, CRD
is not only an outcome but also a process of actions and social choices
made by multiple actors. A holistic worldview by all actors that pro­
motes co-productive balance between human and nature, while
providing healthy and meaningful livelihoods for all through the just
and equitable sharing of resources, is likely to enhance CRD.
6. Conclusions
Achieving planetary health and human well-being requires synergies
in the implementation of mitigation, adaptation and SDG actions. Our
FCMs-based simulations have demonstrated the critical roles of the
following enabling conditions in advancing CRD: (i) ethics values and
worldviews; (ii) partnerships and commitment to finance and technol­
ogy by the national governments; (iii) actors and arena of engagements
across local to global scales; and (iv) innovations.
CRD transformation requires complementary and co-produced ac­
tions by multiple actors. The pathways for CRD involve struggles be­
tween divergent worldviews articulated in political, socio-cultural,
economic, knowledge-technology, ecological, and community dis­
courses. Indigenous knowledge and local knowledge, often grounded in
the worldviews of indigenous and local people, could shape locale-
specific CRD solutions. It is important to strengthen transnational and
trans-local networked governance structures with an appropriate legal
framework under polycentric arrangements for crafting and legitimising
societal choices to advance planetary health and human well-being.
Accordingly, we define CRD as a development embracing mitigation,
adaptation and inclusive sustainable development involving societal
transformation to eudaimonic living for advancing planetary health and
well-being for all. Thus, CRD enables humankind and nature to thrive in
unison.
Bounded by ethics, values, and worldviews, the emerging continuum
of complex interactions between various enabling conditions at local,
sub-national, national, regional and global scales will promote the de­
gree of adaptation, mitigation, and SDG achievements, thus dynamically
evolving the level of human well-being on a healthy planet along the
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
Fig. 5. Evolving pathways for climate resilient development Note: CRDPs emerge as a vector product of the interactions between enabling conditions for adaptation,
mitigation, and development actions.
continuum (Fig. 5). As a consequence, the CRDPs will be evolving
resultant vector products of complex interactions occurring between
various enabling conditions to facilitate SDGs and climate actions.
CRD is more of a journey than a destination. ‘Every long-term
pathway depends crucially not just on actions by today’s decision-
makers, but also by future decision-makers and future generations’
(Pörtner et al., 2014), However, short-term decisions and actions will
have huge implications for long-term impacts in shaping the pathways
for CRD. Besides, the window of opportunity for a decent life for globally
vulnerable communities will dramatically reduce in the future if the
right actions are not taken now.
Changes in actors’ ethics, beliefs, and worldviews will demand re-
engineering climate and development narratives and actions, and
hence the potential direction of CRD. Undoubtedly, the role of ethics,
11
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
values, worldviews, and social justice will be critical to the societal
transformation and protection of citizens against climate change as a
human right. All developed and developing societies need to chart their
context-specific pathways to CRD, bearing in mind that a shared planet
needs to regenerate healthier and offer meaningful livelihoods to all
through the just and equitable sharing of resources. The human race
needs to advance eudaimonic living while following a value-driven
system of production and consumption in both industrialised and
developing nations that value biodiversity, reintegrates humans with
nature, and allows humankind to flourish as genuinely Homo sapi­
ens—wise, sensible, and judicious beings in the Anthropocene.
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pramod K. Singh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation,
Investigation, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing,
Visualization, Supervision. Harpalsinh Chudasama: Investigation,
Data curation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The current conceptualization of CRD and CRDP has evolved during
the discussions of the lead authors’ meetings of chapter 18 of the IPCC
Working Group II of its Sixth Assessment Report. The authors sincerely
acknowledge their inputs during the rich discussions across IPCC lead
author’ meetings. We gratefully thank the domain experts, including
researchers, academicians, the IPCC authors who devoted their sub­
stantial time to complete the research schedule. Several of them
completed the schedules twice with the modified conceptualisation of
CRD and CRDP. We sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their
insightful comments and constructive suggestions. Finally, we thank Ms.
Indrani Talukdar language editing of the manuscript.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102277.
References
Allen, M., Dube, O.P., Solecki, W., Aragón–Durand, F., Cramer, W., Humphreys, S.,
Kainuma, M., Kala, J., Mahowald, N., Mulugetta, Y., Perez, R., Wairiu, M. and
Zickfeld, K., 2018. Framing and Context. In: Global Warming of 1.5◦ C. An IPCC
Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5◦ C above preindustrial levels
and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of
strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable
development, and efforts to eradicate poverty [Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P.,
Pörtner, H. O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W.,
Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I.,
Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M. and Waterfield, T. (eds.)]. In press.
Amer, M., Daim, T.U., Jetter, A., 2016. Technology roadmap through fuzzy cognitive
map-based scenarios: the case of wind energy sector of a developing country.
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 28 (2), 131–155. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09537325.2015.1073250.
Banerjee, S.B., 2010. Governing the global corporation: A critical perspective. Business
Ethics Quarterly 20 (2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq201020219.
Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N.J., Moore, M.-L., Morrison, T.H.,
Brown, K., 2018. The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary
Sustainability Discourse. Antipode 50 (5), 1206–1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/
anti.12405.
Carty, T., Kowalzig, J. and Zagema, B., 2020. Climate Finance Shadow Report 2020:
Assessing progress towards the $100 billion commitment. Oxfam International,
Oxford. [online] Available at: https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/climate-finance-
shadow-report-2020 [Accessed 14 November 2020].
Carvalho, J.P., 2013. On the semantics and the use of fuzzy cognitive maps and dynamic
cognitive maps in social sciences. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 214, 6–19. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.fss.2011.12.009.
Conway, D., van Garderen, E.A., Deryng, D., Dorling, S., Krueger, T., Landman, W.,
Lankford, B., Lebek, K., Osborn, T., Ringler, C., Thurlow, J., Zhu, T., Dalin, C., 2015.
Climate and Southern Africa’s water-energy-food nexus. Nature Climate Change 5,
837–846. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2735.
Costanza, R., Patten, B.C., 1995. Defining and predicting sustainability. Ecological
Economics 15 (3), 193–196.
Craft, B., Fisher, S., 2018. Measuring the adaptation goal in the global stock take of the
Paris Agreement. Climate Policy 18 (9), 1203–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2018.1485546.
Dasgupta, P., 2001. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment. Oxford University
Press, p. 328.
de Coninck, H., Revi, A., Babiker, M., Bertoldi, P., Buckeridge, M., Cartwright, A., Dong,
W., Ford, J., Fuss, S., Hourcade, J.-C., Ley, D., Mechler, R., Newman, P., Revokatova,
A., Schultz, S., Steg, L. and Sugiyama, T., 2018. Strengthening and implementing the
global response. In: Global Warming of 1.5◦ C: An IPCC special report on the impacts
12
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
of global warming of 1.5◦ C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change [Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.,
Skea, J., Shukla, P.R., Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors,
S., Matthews, J.B.R., Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T.,
Tignor, M. and Waterfield, T. (eds.)]. In press.
de Loma-Osorio, G.F.Y., 2016. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development: Bringing
Climate Justice to Climate Action. Development 59 (3), 223–228. https://doi.org/
10.1057/s41301-017-0122-9.
Denton, F., Wilbanks, T.J., Abeysinghe, A.C., Burton, I., Gao, Q., Lemos, M.C., Masui, T.,
O’Brien, K.L. and Warner, K., 2014. Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation,
mitigation, and sustainable development. In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts,
Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of
Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J., Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.
D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O., Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel,
E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R., White, L.L., (eds.)]. Cambridge,
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.
pp.1101–1131.
Diestel, R., 2016. Graph theory. Springer-Verlag. e, Heidelberg.
Dominati, E., Patterson, M., Mackay, A., 2010. A framework for classifying and
quantifying the natural capital and eco- system services of soils. Ecological
Economics 69 (9), 1858–1868.
Doyal, L. and Gough, I., 1991. Introduction. In: Doyal, L. and Gough, I., 1991. A Theory
of Human Need. Palgrave, pp.1–2.
Fankhauser, S. and McDermott, T.K.J., 2016. CRD: an introduction. In: Fankhauser, S.
and McDermott, T.K.J., 2016. The Economics of CRD. Edward Elgar Publishing.
p.256. ISBN:978-1-78536-030-5.
Fonseca, J.P.C., Ferreira, F.A.F., Pereira, L.F., Govindan, K., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I.,
2020. Analyzing determinants of environmental conduct in small and medium-sized
enterprises: A sociotechnical approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 256, 120380.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120380.
Fullerton, J., 2015. Regenerative capitalism - How universal principles and patterns will
shape our new economy. Capital Institute.
Ganglmair-Wooliscroft, A., Wooliscroft, B., 2019. Well-Being and Everyday Ethical
Consumption. Journal of Happiness Studies 20, 141–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10902-017-9944-0.
Gaspar, V., Amaglobeli, D., Garcia-Escribano, M., Prady, D. and Soto, M., 2019. Fiscal
Policy and Development: Human, Social, and Physical Investment for the SDGs.
International Monetary Fund. p.45. ISBN:9781484388914.
Geels, F.W., Berkhout, F., van Vuuren, D.P., 2016. Bridging analytical approaches for
low-carbon transitions. Nature Climate Change 6, 576–583. https://doi.org/
10.1038/nclimate2980.
Grassi, G., House, J., Dentener, F., Federici, S., den Elzen, M., Penman, J., 2017. The key
role of forests in meeting climate targets requires science for credible mitigation.
Nature Climate Change 7 (3), 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3227.
Gray, S.R.J., O’Mahony, C., O’Dwyer, B., Gray, S.A., Gault, J., 2019. Caught by the fuzz:
Using FCM to prevent coastal adaptation stakeholders from fleeing the scene. Marine
Policy 109, 103688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2019.103688.
Griscom, B.W., Adams, J., Ellis, P.W., Houghton, R.A., Guy, L., Miteva, D.A.,
Schlesinger, W.H., David, S., Siikamäki, J.h.V., Smith, P., Woodbury, P., Zganjar, C.,
Blackman, A., Campari, J., Conant, R.T., Delgado, C., Elias, P., Gopalakrishna, T.,
Hamsik, M.R., Herrero, M., Kiesecker, J., Landis, E., Laestadius, L., Leavitt, S.M.,
Minnemeyer, S., Polasky, S., Potapov, P., Putz, F.E., Sanderman, J., Silvius, M.,
Wollenberg, E., Fargione, J., 2017. Natural climate solutions. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences 114 (44), 11645–11650. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1710465114.
Haines, A., Amann, M., Borgford-Parnell, N., Leonard, S., Kuylenstierna, J., Shindell, D.,
2017. Short-lived climate pollutant mitigation and the Sustainable Development
Goals. Nature Climate Change 7, 863–869. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-017-
0012-x.
Hansen, E., Lüdeke-Freund, F., Quan, X., West, J., 2019. Cross-National Complementarity
of Technology Push, Demand Pull, and Manufacturing Push Policies: The Case of
Photovoltaics. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 66 (3), 381–397.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2833878.
Hayward, T., 2012. Climate change and ethics. Nature Climate Change 2, 843–848.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1615.
Hickel, J., 2017. Is global inequality getting better or worse? A critique of the World
Bank’s convergence narrative, Third World Quarterly 38 (10), 2208–2222. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2017.1333414.
Horton, R., Beaglehole, R., Bonita, R., Raeburn, J., McKee, M., Wall, S., 2014. From
public to planetary health: a manifesto. The Lancet 383 (847). https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60409-8.
Hulme, M., 2018. ‘Gaps’ in Climate Change Knowledge: Do They Exist? Can They Be
Filled? Environmental Humanities 10 (1), 330–337. https://doi.org/10.1215/
22011919-4385599.
IPCC, 2019. Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change,
desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and
greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems [Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Calvo
Buendia, E., Masson-Delmotte, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R.,
Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Ferrat, M., Haughey, E., Luz, S., Neogi, S., Pathak, M.,
Petzold, J., Pereira, J.P., Vyas, P., Huntley, E., Kissick, K., Belkacemi, M., Malley, J.,
(eds.)]. In press.
Jordan, A., Huitema, D., Hildén, M., van Asselt, H., Rayner, T.J., Schoenefeld, J.J.,
Tosun, J., Forster, J., Boasson, E.L., 2015. Emergence of polycentric climate
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
governance and its future prospects. Nature Climate Change 5, 977–982. https://doi.
org/10.1038/nclimate2725.
Kates, R.W., 2011. What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proceedings National
Academy of Science 108, 19449–19450. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1116097108.
Khan, M., Robinson, S.-A., Weikmans, R., Ciplet, D., Roberts, J.T., 2020. Twenty-five
years of adaptation finance through a climate justice lens. Climatic Change 161,
251–269. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02563-x.
Klenk, N., Fiume, A., Meehan, K., Gibbes, C., 2017. Local knowledge in climate
adaptation research: moving knowledge frameworks from extraction to co-
production. WIREs Climate Change 8 (5), e475. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.475.
Korbin, S.J., 2009. Private Political Authority and Public Responsibility: Transnational
Politics, Transnational Firms, and Human Rights. Business Ethics Quarterly 19 (3),
349–374. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200919321.
Kristensen, H.M. and Korda, M., 2020. Status of World Nuclear Forces, Federation of
American Scientists. [online] Available at: https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/
status-world-nuclear-forces [Accessed 22 December 2020].
Lamb, W.F., Steinberger, J.K., 2017. Human well-being and climate change mitigation.
WIREs Climate Change 8, e485. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.485.
Mansbridge, J., 2014. The role of state in governing the commons. Environmental
Science & Policy 36, 8–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.07.006.
Maxwell, J., 2013. Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Sage
Publication, London, United Kingdom.
Mcgillivray, M. and Clarke, M., eds., 2006. Understanding Human Well-being. Tokyo:
UNU Press. p.386.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis/
current state and trends/ scenarios/ policy responses/ multiscale assessments. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Mitchell, T. and Maxwell, S., 2010. Defining climate compatible development. Climate &
Development Knowledge Network (CDKN) Policy Brief. Available at: https://cdkn.
org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CDKN-CCD-Planning_english.pdf [Accessed 03
September 2020].
Morone, P., Falcone, P.M., Lopolito, A., 2019. How to promote a new and sustainable
food consumption model: a fuzzy cognitive map study. Journal of Cleaner
Production 208, 563–574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.075.
Nápoles, G., Papageorgiou, E., Bello, R., Vanhoof, K., 2016. On the convergence of
sigmoid Fuzzy Cognitive Maps’. Information Sciences 349, 154–171. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.02.040.
Nerini, F.F., Tomei, J., To, L.S., Bisaga, I., Parikh, P., Black, M., Borrion, A., Spataru, C.,
Broto, V.C., Anandarajah, G., Milligan, B., 2018. Mapping synergies and trade-offs
between energy and the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Energy 3 (1),
10–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41560-017-0036-5.
Nilsson, M., Griggs, D., Visbeck, M., 2016. Policy: map the interactions between
Sustainable Development Goals. Nature 534, 320–322. https://doi.org/10.1038/
534320a.
Nunan, F., 2017. Making climate compatible development happen. London: Taylor &
Francis. p.284. eISBN:9781315621579.
O’Brien, K., 2018. Is the 1.5◦ C target possible? Exploring the three spheres of
transformation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 31, 153–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2018.04.010.
O’Neill, B.C., Oppenheimer, M., Warren, R., Hallegatte, S., Kopp, R.E., Pörtner, H.O.,
Scholes, R., Birkmann, J., Foden, W., Licker, R., Mach, K.J., Marbaix, P.,
Mastrandrea, M.D., Price, J., Takahashi, K., van Ypersele, J.-P., Yohe, G., 2017. IPCC
reasons for concern regarding climate change risks. Nature Climate Change 7, 28–37.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3179.
O’Neill, D.W., Fanning, A.L., Lamb, W.F., Steinberger, J.K., 2018. A good life for all
within planetary boundaries. Nature Sustainability 1, 88–95. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41893-018-0021-4.
O’Neill, S., Williams, H.T.P., Kurz, T., Wiersma, B., Boykoff, M., 2015. Dominant frames
in legacy and social media coverage of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report. Nature
Climate Change 5, 380–385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2535.
Omukuti, J., 2020. Challenging the obsession with local level institutions in country
ownership of climate change adaptation. Land Use Policy 94, 104525. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104525.
Ostrom, E., 2010. Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global
environmental change. Global Environmental Change 20, 550–557. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004.
Özesmi, U., Özesmi, L.S., 2004. Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-
step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling 176 (1–2), 43–64.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027.
Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C.,
Hurlbert, M., Anderton, K., 2016. Exploring the governance and politics of
transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal
Transitions 24, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001.
Patterson, J.J., Thaler, T., Hoffmann, M., Hughes, S., Oels, A., Chu, E., Mert, A.,
Huitema, D., Burch, S., Jordan, A., 2018. Political feasibility of 1.5◦ C societal
transformations: the role of social justice. Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability 31, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.11.002.
Peake, S., Ekins, P., 2016. Exploring the financial and investment implications of the
Paris Agreement. Climate Policy 17 (1), 832–852. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14693062.2016.1258633.
Pereira, I.P.C., Ferreira, F.A.F., Pereira, L.F., Govindan, K., Meidute-Kavaliauskiene, I.,
Correia, R.J.C., 2020. A fuzzy cognitive mapping-system dynamics approach to
energy change impacts on the sustainability of small and medium-sized enterprises.
Journal of Cleaner Production 256, 120154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2020.120154.
13
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
Pörtner, H.-O., Karl, D.M., Boyd, P.W., Cheung, W.W.L., Lluch-Cota, S.E., Nojiri, Y.,
Schmidt, D.N. and Zavialov, P.O., 2014. Ocean systems. In: Climate Change 2014:
Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., Barros, V.R., Dokken, D.J.,
Mach, K.J., Mastrandrea, M.D., Bilir, T.E., Chatterjee, M., Ebi, K.L., Estrada, Y.O.,
Genova, R.C., Girma, B., Kissel, E.S., Levy, A.N., MacCracken, S., Mastrandrea, P.R.
and White, L.L., (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press. pp.411–484.
Reckien, D., 2014. Weather extremes and street life in India—implications of fuzzy
cognitive mapping as a new tool for semi-quantitative impact assessment and
ranking of adaptation measures. Global Environmental Change 26, 1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.005.
Rockstrom, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin 3rd, F.S., Lambin, E.F.,
Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellnhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A.,
Hughes, T., van der Leeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sörlin, S., Snyder, P.K., Costanza, R.,
Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J.,
Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., Foley, J.A., 2009. A safe
operating space for humanity. Nature 461, 472–475. https://doi.org/10.1038/
461472a.
Rokeach, M., 1979. Some unresolved issues in theories of beliefs, attitudes, and values.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 27, 261–304.
Roy, J., Tschakert, P., Waisman, H., Abdul, H.S., Antwi-Agyei, P., Dasgupta, P., Hayward,
B., Kanninen, M., Liverman, D., Okereke, C., Pinho, P.F., Riahi, K. and Suarez
Rodriguez, A.G., 2018. Sustainable development, poverty eradication and reducing
inequalities. In: Global warming of 1.5◦ C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of
global warming of 1.5◦ C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse
gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the
threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty
[Masson-Delmotte, V., Zhai, P., Pörtner, H.-O., Roberts, D., Skea, J., Shukla, P.R.,
Pirani, A., Moufouma-Okia, W., Péan, C., Pidcock, R., Connors, S., Matthews, J.B.R.,
Chen, Y., Zhou, X., Gomis, M.I., Lonnoy, E., Maycock, T., Tignor, M. and Waterfield,
T. (eds.)]. Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA: Cambridge
University Press. pp.445–538.
Ryan, R.M., Huta, V., Deci, E.L., 2008. Living Well: A Self-Determination Theory
Perspective on Eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies 9, 139–170. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10902-006-9023-4.
Sachs, J.D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N.,
Rockström, J., 2019. Six Transformations to achieve the Sustainable Development
Goals. Nature Sustainability 2, 805–814. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-
0352-9.
Santika, W.G., Anisuzzaman, M., Bahri, P.A., Shafiullah, G.M., Rupf, G.V., Urmee, T.,
2019. From goals to joules: A quantitative approach of interlinkages between energy
and the Sustainable Development Goals. Energy Research & Social Science 50,
201–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.11.016.
Schwartz, S.H., 1994. Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human
values? Journal of Social Issues 50, 19–45.
Scoones, I., Leach, M. and Newell, P., eds., 2015. The Politics of Green Transformations.
London: Routledge. p.238. eISBN:9781315747378.
Sellberg, M.M., Ryan, P., Borgström, S.T., Norström, A.V., Peterson, G.D., 2018. From
resilience thinking to Resilience Planning: Lessons from practice. Journal of
Environmental Management 217, 906–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jenvman.2018.04.012.
Sen, A., 1985. Well-being, agency and freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal
of Philosophy. 82, 169–221. https://doi.org/10.2307/2026184.
Sen, A., 1993. Capability and Well-Being. In: Nussbaum, M. and Sen, A. The Quality of
Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press. ISBN-13:9780198287971.
Sen, A., 2009. The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books Ltd. p.496. eISBN:
9780141969480.
Seneviratne, S.I., Rogelj, J., Séférian, R., Wartenburger, R., Allen, M.R., Cain, M.,
Millar, R.J., Ebi, K.L., Ellis, N., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Payne, A.J., Schleussner, C.-F.,
Tschakert, P., Warren, R.F., 2018. The many possible climates from the Paris
Agreement’s aim of 1.5 ◦ C warming. Nature 558, 41–49. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41586-018-0181-4.
Shindell, D., Borgford-Parnell, N., Brauer, M., Haines, A., Kuylenstierna, J.C.I.,
Leonard, S.A., Ramanathan, V., Ravishankara, A., Amann, M., Srivastava, L., 2017.
A climate policy pathway for near-and long-term benefits. Science 356 (6337),
493–494. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aak9521.
Singh, P.K., Chudasama, H., 2017. Assessing impacts and community preparedness to
cyclones: a fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Climatic Change 143, 337–354.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-017-2007-z.
Singh, P.K., Chudasama, H., 2020. Evaluating Poverty Alleviation Strategies in a
Developing Country. PLoS ONE 15 (1), e0227176. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0227176.
Singh, P.K., Chudasama, H., 2021. Pathways for climate change adaptations in arid and
semi-arid regions. Journal of Cleaner Production 284, 124744. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124744.
Singh, P.K., Nair, A., 2014. Livelihood vulnerability assessment to climate variability and
change using fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Climatic Change 127, 475–491.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1275-0.
Sirgy, M.J., 2012. The psychology of quality of life: Hedonic well-being, life satisfaction,
and eudaimonia. Second. Netherlands: Springer. p.622. eISBN:978-94-007-4405-9.
Solecki, W., Rosenzweig, C., Dhakal, S., Roberts, D., Barau, A.S., Schultz, S., Ürge-
Vorsatz, D., 2018. City transformations in a 1.5 C warmer world. Nature. Climate
Change 8 (3), 177–181. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0101-5.
P.K. Singh and H. Chudasama
Sørensen, E., Torfing, J., 2018. Governance on a bumpy road from enfant terrible to
mature paradigm. Critical Policy Studies 12 (3), 350–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19460171.2018.1437461.
Sørensen, E., 2017. Political innovations: innovations in political institutions, processes
and outputs. Public Management Review 19 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14719037.2016.1200661.
Spaiser, V., Ranganathan, S., Swain, R.B., Sumpter, D.J.T., 2017. The sustainable
development oxymoron: quantifying and modelling the incompatibility of
sustainable development goals. International Journal of Sustainable Development &
World Ecology 24 (6), 457–470. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2016.1235624.
Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S.E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E.M.,
Biggs, R., Carpenter, S.R., de Vries, W., de Wit, C.A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J.,
Mace, G.M., Persson, L.M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S., 2015. Planetary
boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 347 (6223),
1259855. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855.
Stiglitz J., Sen A. and Fitoussi J.-P., 2009. Report by the commission on the measurement
of economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission on the
Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. p.291. [online]
Available at: https://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/rlms-hse/publications/1921
[Accessed 14 July 2020].
Stylios, C.D., Georgopoulos, V.C., Groumpos, P.P., 1997. The use of fuzzy cognitive maps
in modeling systems. In: In: Proceedings of 5th IEEE Mediterranean conference on
control and systems, pp. 21–23.
14
Global Environmental Change 68 (2021) 102277
UN, 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
United Nations (UN). [online] Available at: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/
content/documents/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development
%20web.pdf [Accessed 7 August 2020].
UNEP, 2016. The Adaptation Finance Gap Report 2016. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP). [online] Available at: https://climateanalytics.
org/media/agr2016.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2020].
UNFCCC, 2015. The Paris Agreement. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), p.27. [online] Available at: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/
files/english_paris_agreement.pdf [Accessed 18 September 2020].
van Egmond, N.D., de Vries, H.J.M., 2011. Sustainability: The search for the integral
worldview. Futures 43 (8), 853–867. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
futures.2011.05.027.
White, S.C., Jha, S., 2014. The ethical imperative of qualitative methods: Developing
measures of subjective dimensions of well-being in Zambia and India. Ethics and
Social Welfare 8 (3), 262–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2014.932416.
Wolf, J., Allice, I., Bell, T., 2013. Values, climate change, and implications for adaptation:
Evidence from two communities in Labrador. Canada. Global Environmental Change
23 (2), 548–562. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.11.007.
Ziv, G., Watson, E., Young, D., Howard, D.C., Larcom, S.T., Tanentzap, A.J., 2018. The
potential impact of Brexit on the energy, water and food nexus in the UK: A fuzzy
cognitive mapping approach. Applied Energy 210, 487–498. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.033.