Explores transformative thinking in flood risk management among stakeholders, suggesting a scalable methodology.
The interplay between climate extremes, urbanisation, and land use planning poses a complex challenge for policymakers, disaster managers and residents of flood-prone areas. Stakeholders must navigate these factors to reduce flood risk while also sustaining livelihoods against increasing extremes and intensifying flood hazards. Transformative adaptation, involving system changes to socio-ecological system, is an effective way to address structural drivers and causes of vulnerability. Existing adaptation measures often produce uneven outcomes and can lead to maladaptation, highlighting the need for a transformative approach. This study explores how combining collaborative exploratory scenario development with backcasting can foster transformative thinking and raise awareness for the risk of maladaptive responses. We applied this approach in Ghana and involved stakeholders from three flood-prone regions (Accra, Kumasi and Bolgatanga) in two workshops. We implemented a three-step process: 1) qualitative system analysis to understand “What is?”, 2) exploratory scenario analysis to explore “What could happen?”, and 3) backcasting adaptation measures to identify “How to get there?”. This process was complemented by focus group discussions and transect walks in flood-prone communities. The findings reveal a shift in stakeholder preferences from reactive interventions to more transformative and systemic strategies. The study illustrates that the approach can initiate transformative thinking in flood risk management by making assumptions, trade-offs, risk of maladaptation and enabling conditions visible before adaptation measures are implemented. It provides a scalable methodology for addressing flood risk in other socio-ecologically diverse and vulnerable regions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Höllermann et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: