Activating transformation: integrating interior dimensions of climate change in adaptation planning

ABSTRACT
 The increasing number and complexity of urban risk and disasters have a significant bearing on the emotional and mental wellbeing of those who are exposed and hamper their responses. Nevertheless, current discourses and approaches to increase resilience tend to focus on broader socio-economic, physical and environmental systems. This reflects a failure by the academic and practitioner communities to consider the potential contribution of human interior dimensions in adaptation planning. Concomitantly, a growing body of knowledge highlights the need to bridge the gap between internal and external (systems) approaches for achieving sustainable transformations. Against this background, this article aims to increase knowledge on the operationalization of such more integrative approaches in marginal settings. Based on a case study of a flood adaptation project in Kibera, Kenya, we assess the need and potential ways to address interior dimensions in the context of project planning, design and implementation. We show how the integration of such dimensions occurs in existing adaptation projects and why this matters. On this basis, we provide methodological and operational recommendations regarding ways to support more integrative approaches that bridge subjective, intersubjective, objective and interobjective perspectives to support transformation.


Introduction
The nature of urban risk and disasters is changing. For the first time in human history, more people live in cities than in rural areas, and it is estimated 70% of the world's population will be living in urban areas by 2050 (UN, 2019). Many of these expanding communities develop in hazardous areas that are increasingly threatened by floods, storms, landslides, fires, heat or cold waves and drought. As urban corridors continue to be built in areas where such climate hazards are commonplace, more and more people will be living with the continual threat of socio-environmental upheaval and climate change, with marginal communities being the most affected (IPCC, 2018(IPCC, , 2021(IPCC, , 2022. In a context of societal and climate change, the unpredictable nature of risk and the associated impacts have a significant bearing on people's emotional and mental wellbeing. The suffering, fear and stress people experience under such circumstances, and after hazard impacts and loss, are profound. Concurrently, societal risk and resilience are a reflection of people's adaptive capacity and behaviour, which are, in turn, closely linked to their interior, emotional and mental wellbeing and perceptions (Doppelt, 2016;Wamsler et al., 2020).
Nevertheless, current risk reduction and climate adaptation strategies focus predominantly on sectoral and technological approaches that reflect objective, third-person perspectives and analyses (Burayidi et al., 2020;O'Brien & Hochachka, 2011). They tend to concentrate on building, sustaining or restoring socio-economic, environmental and physical structures and systems, such as housing rehabilitation or water and sanitation projects, the enforcement of building codes, compulsory insurance or livelihood and food security (Burayidi et al., 2020). This situation is reflected in a paucity of research that addresses the interior emotional and mental development and wellbeing of at-risk populations as a source of resilience that extends beyond the individual level (Burayidi et al., 2020;Manuel-Navarrete, 2015;Ver Beek, 2000;Wamsler, 2018). This knowledge gap has been confirmed by a recent review of research that links internal and external (systems) approaches to support transformation . 1 Whilst it is clearly important that the infrastructure and economy of vulnerable communities is adaptive and capable of being restored swiftly, it is equally important to pay attention to the interior dimensions and first-person perspectives of residents and responders in these emergent, at-risk spaces and to acknowledge the intertwined nature of personal and planetary development and wellbeing for achieving sustainable transformations. The concept of interior dimensions, or interiority, is here used as an umbrella term for people's individual and collective values, beliefs, worldviews, paradigms and associated cognitive-emotional capacities. For simplicity, it draws a boundary between what is 'inside' and what is 'outside' (a subject). It recognizes that values, beliefs and worldviews are inter-subjective (socially defined), and capacities are enacted, that is, cultivated and performed in relation to other subjects and the world at large . Interior dimensions can present both barriers and drivers for change and concomitantly are root causes of climate change, disasters and risk (Doppelt, 2016;Wamsler & Bristow, 2022). They relate, amongst other things, to people's internalized beliefs and perceptions about floods and other hazards, public safety, the political nature of marginal settlements and individuals' own agency to contribute to change at individual, collective and system levels. They become visible in tangible manifestations, such as climate change, risk, disasters and associated measures.
Accordingly, it is increasingly recognized that the dominant approaches to risk reduction and climate change adaptation have been insufficient (Adger et al., 2011;Aykut et al., 2020;Hausknost, 2020;Lucas, 2021;Manuel-Navarrete, 2015;Manuel-Navarrete & Pelling, 2015) and that what is needed is not only incremental adaptation but also the deliberate transformation of our systems, structures and actions that are driving climate change, risk and disasters (Biermann et al., 2012;Chaffin et al., 2016;De Witt, 2018;Ziervogel et al., 2016). Transformation, in this context, is understood as a complex process entailing changes at the personal, cultural, institutional and system levels (O'Brien & Sygna, 2013) and requiring a fundamental modification to thinking and practice (Tàbara et al., 2019;Folke et al., 2002). Such a holistic perspective requires the consideration of subjective, interior dimensions of climate change (Hochachka, 2021;O'Brien, 2010). It recognizes that sustainable change cannot occur without changing internal and external dimensions together, as an integrated system (Beddoe et al., 2009; see also Hochachka, 2021;O'Brien & Sygna, 2013).
In response, there are growing calls to bridge the current gap between internal and external (systems) approaches to achieve transformation by integrating interiority into adaptation research and practice (Ives et al., 2019;O'Brien & Hochachka, 2011;Wamsler, 2018. Interiority is thus a key, but hitherto under-researched dimension of sustainability transformations Woiwode et al., 2021). From the perspective of systems theory, it is seen as a deep leverage point, as it relates to the mindsets or paradigms from which systems arise (Ives et al., 2019;Meadows, 1999). Deep leverage points are places in complex systems where a small shift may lead to transformative changes throughout the system (Meadows, 1999).
Whilst there is growing awareness and calls for integrating interiority into adaptation practice to activate transformation, the paucity of empirical studies makes the operationalization (i.e. the 'how' of such approaches) a challenging endeavour (Burayidi et al., 2020). Our study addresses this gap. Using a case study of an adaptation project in Kibera (Nairobi, Kenya), we investigate the need and potential ways to integrate issues of interiority into practice in an informal context, to bridge internal and external (systems) approaches and enable more comprehensive transformations to sustainability. More specifically, we assess the potential integration of interiority in all project phases: planning (baseline data collection), design (co-creation), implementation and evaluation (measures and participatory assessment). The results demonstrate the potential and challenges of explicitly considering interiority in adaptation practice, offering both theoretical and operational guidance for future contextual enquiry and practice.

Background
Our case study adaptation project is in Kibera, one of the largest marginal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya, with high levels of poverty, insecurity and exposure to flooding, fire, and other hazards (climate-related and otherwise) (Mitra et al., 2017). The study's geographical focus is Andolo community, which borders the flood-prone Ngong River (Figure 1). It is one of the areas most impacted by flooding and is the location of the project's first physical flood mitigation interventions. See Figure 1 and Suppl. Material A for additional information.
The project began in 2017 and will conclude in 2022. It involves co-designing, implementing and evaluating a series of local flooding adaptation measures in partnership with residents of informal settlements, local government and academic partners in order to reduce risk and provide evidence of the delivery, costs and impacts of flood adaptations that integrate community input. Research suggests that community-level approaches are often more about coping with flood risk than adapting to or mitigating it, while government-led initiatives have had mixed success, and can even increase risk (Douglas, 2018;IPCC, 2018;2022;Jha et al., 2012). The project aims to address this shortcoming, with the co-development of local infrastructure and services being the entry point.
The explicit consideration of interiority was not part of the adaptation project's original design and development. Stakeholder awareness of the issue only emerged during implementation, due to the changing discourses on climate adaptation and transformation described in Section 1 (Bredhauer, 2016). It led to the study described here, which assessed local needs and potential ways to integrate issues of interiority in future project development. The fact that interiority was not explicitly included in the original project design made it an interesting case. It allowed an assessment of the relevance and operationalization of its integration during project planning, design and implementation to support sustainable transformations. This involved examining past activities (participatory community workshops, project measures) and implementing and assessing new activities (baseline data collection and local stakeholder assessments), as described in Section 3. The study (conducted from 2018 to 2022) was funded by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).

Methodology
Participatory case study methodology (Scholz et al., 2006;Yin, 2009) was applied to self-assess the above-mentioned project activities (see Section 2). This approach entails including diverse stakeholders in data interpretation and meaning-making processes (Burns, 2007;Glassman & Erdem, 2014;Greenwood & Levin, 2006). Among the stakeholders involved were project managers, local project staff, the project's 'enumeration team' (consisting of eight Kibera residents) and residents from the Andolo community. 2 The case study methodology comprised three steps described below, in which past project activities were examined (participatory community workshops, project measures) and new activities were implemented and assessed (participatory baseline data collection and local stakeholder assessments).

Baseline data collection
Interiority had so far not been explicitly considered in the project and, consequently, previous household surveys had not assessed related aspects either. Against this background, the aim of the first methodological step was (i) to identify the relevance of integrating interiority in the project overall, and (ii) test the feasibility of integrating related considerations during planning (baseline data collection). This endeavour was challenging since there was very little experience to draw upon (see Section 1). Following internal discussions, it was decided to base the data collection on a survey implemented in an empirical study that highlighted the role of interiority in climate adaptation . The survey drew upon an established method and questionnaire developed to assess people's cognitiveemotional disposition regarding four dimensions: observing, (non)judging, (re)acting and acting with awareness (Baer et al., 2006;Shaurya Prakash et al., 2013). Six operational steps were taken: select team for data collection; agree on a format to deliver a similar survey; train the team to collect the data; select a target sample; refine and scope the questions jointly with the team; and assess the outcomes to improve future baseline data collection.
Team, format and target group: The data were collected by the local field enumeration team, as it had been supporting the project from the outset, for example, by running household panel surveys. Internal discussions between the team, project management and residents' representatives revealed that the original survey format needed to be adjusted to the Kibera context. A written survey, even in Swahili, would not have been feasible. This was mainly because (unlike most household surveys) a certain level of trust had to be established before people would respond to more sensitive questions regarding interiority, and because the questions needed careful contextualization. Many residents were, for instance, known to have experienced flood and other traumatic events that in some cases had resulted in significant personal or family loss. It was therefore decided to collect the data verbally through semi-structured interviews. A three-day training event prepared the team to collect the information. Twelve Andolo community members were selected as the target sample. 3 Scope and questions: To assess the interior (emotional-cognitive) needs and capacities of the settlement's residents to react, respond, adapt and support transformation, the original survey questions were adjusted to the context of flooding, and then broken down to improve contextualization and comprehensibility: . Observing: Whenever there are flooding challenges, do you experience emotions? What are the emotions you encounter during this period? Are you aware you are experiencing  To identify themes and patterns for each dimension, the notes and transcripts collected by the enumeration team were subjected to thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006;Nowell et al., 2017) involving five steps: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generating initial ideas and themes through open coding, (3) interpreting and systematically categorizing the content into themes and associated patterns, (4) reviewing and (5) further defining through axial and selective coding (Braun & Clarke, 2006;Nowell et al., 2017). These steps are part of a circular (not linear) process, and data interpretations were triangulated among the researchers until agreement and data saturation was achieved.

Community workshops
The second methodological step involved assessing the 13 participatory community workshops conducted in the area since the project began in 2017 (see Section 2). The workshops were intended to increase knowledge of the area, understand its inhabitantsparticularly their needs, capacities and prioritiesand to establish the knowledge base and good relationships needed for project co-creation and implementation. Against this background, our analysis aimed to identify lessons learned about the potential relevance and operationalization of aspects of interiority during project design (i.e. tools and methods used to capture or engage with interiority for co-creation). In total, approximately 500 residents attended the workshops (20-50 per workshop).
For the assessment, the workshop reports, which were prepared by project staff and validated by the local enumeration team, underwent stepwise thematic analysis (see Section 3.1). Additionally, staff involved in the workshops were consulted when further information was required and to ensure correct interpretation of the data.

Follow-up stakeholder assessments for validation and visioning
Finally, the third methodological step involved structured group discussions to assess past project measures and activities using the Integral Theory framework (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2010; Wilber, 2017; see Figure 2). The discussions were held with ten local project leaders, field staff and community representatives who had been involved in the baseline data collection and/or the community workshops. The aim was to validate and reflect on preliminary research outcomes (see Sections 3.1-3.2) and identify future pathways for integrating interiority during project planning, design and implementation. In addition, this step allowed us to test the operationalization of the Integral Theory framework for accounting for interiority in project activities.
Integral Theory helps to capture individual and collective interior as part of four dimensions (perspectives) of reality: subjective, intersubjective, objective and interobjective (Esbjörn-Hargens, 2010;Wilber, 2017). Together, they yield an integrative understanding of the problems and solutions that must be addressed in any adaptation intervention (Hochachka, 2021;O'Brien & Hochachka, 2011). The approach stipulates that if we choose to work on only some of these four dimensions and exclude others, efforts will not lead to sustainable transformation, as the dimensions are co-constitutive and interdependent. In accordance with our research aim, it underlines the need for those who facilitate and undertake adaptations to consider interiority, that is, different levels of consciousness or awareness, notably beliefs, worldviews, values, paradigms and associated emotional and cognitive capacities (see Section 1). In line with our self-reflexive approach, Integral Theory helped project stakeholders to step out of their field of expertise by engaging with the four dimensions (Hochachka, 2021). It can be understood as both a theoretical framework and practice and has been applied to different complex settings relevant for adaptation planning in the Global South (O'Brien & Hochachka, 2011).

Results
Below, we present the results from the assessment of the baseline data collection, community workshops and follow-up assessments with key stakeholders (see Sections 3.1-3.3). They reflect the themes and patterns for operationalizing interiority that emerged from the data regarding: (i) the tools used and challenges encountered when engaging with interiority; (ii) the relevance and key aspects of engaging with interiority in informal settings; and (iii) the resultant implications for integrating interiority in adaptation planning.

Tools and challenges for engaging with interiority
Our analyses revealed that the community workshops considered interior dimensions through a variety of participatory methods and processes that provide important lessons for operationalizing interiority. Most workshops started with a prayer from community members to acknowledge their cultural context and individual and collective beliefs and values.
In addition, storytelling and visioning methods were applied to expand data collection beyond issues of cognitive knowledge and understanding. Participants were, for instance, asked to identify and tell stories about: (i) when the community supported them, (ii) what they were good at, (iii) their dream for Andolo in 10 years' time and (iv) how to get there. This approach helped identify individual and collective identities, needs, capacities, skills and opportunities and revealed people's emotions, values, beliefs, worldviews and priorities. Storytelling and visioning methods were combined with follow-up group discussions. These involved, for instance, comparing different stories and reflecting on how people's skills and capacities could benefit or serve the community. Skills and capacities such as dancing, singing, communication and motivation were mentioned as important ways to exploit one's full potential and hence be able to engage positively at the community level. Participants discussed what they were passionate about and liked in their community (now and in future) and were asked to distinguish between physical and non-physical aspects, which helped to identify and increase awareness of a range of important interior dimensions. Responses in the non-physical category highlighted many cognitive-emotional qualities, capacities and/or values that participants considered supportive of transformation towards sustainability. They included (ordered by frequency): (1) love, (2) unity, (3) peace, (4) cooperation/social cohesion, (5) respect, (6) a sense of belonging/sense-making, (7) sharing/ caring, (8) no corruption, security/safety, and (9) equity. Storytelling, visioning and group discussions were combined with mind-mapping exercises, the aim being to identify human, social, financial, natural and physical resources in the community. The category of social and human resources captured a range of relevant aspects. Social resources included the importance of groups and institutions dedicated to wellbeing, welfare and spirituality (e.g. local faith-based organizations, churches and mosques). Human resources included personal capacities, qualities and values, including togetherness and peace.
Although the combined methods implemented during the community workshops proved very useful, they also underlined some challenges regarding the integration of interiority. One important aspect that emerged was that it takes time to build trust and adjust methods to specific contexts and target groups. Moreover, some community members found it difficult to engage in introspection through storytelling and visioning. Some found it not easy to understand certain terminology (e.g. 'non-physical'). One workshop report noted, for instance, that it would have been easier to elicit information from children by engaging them in play, before asking them to participate in storytelling or discussion. Since interiority was not an explicit aspect of the initial project design, there was no systematic exploration and recording of connections between interior (subjective) and exterior (objective) dimensions at individual and collective levels (e.g. cultural or spiritual practices as shaping or reinforcing certain beliefs, the potential role of physical environmental change disrupting collective norms). Moreover, the interior aspects identified were not followed up when planning and implementing the project's subsequent local measures.
Nevertheless, some issues related to interiority were incorporated into the implementation process. For example, the importance of giving people a feeling of unity and sense of identity with the improvements made was considered in various contexts; illustrations include the status given to the local management group, the drafting of a memorandum of understanding, project inaugurations, logos and signs. In addition, the workshops highlighted the importance of issues of transparency, sense of community, inclusion and cooperation, which were translated into the project's guiding principles (see also Section 4.3). The latter guided leadership and management to improve local administration and cooperation through better problem-solving, decision-making, task delegation, a sense of ownership and communication. The ultimate aim according to local staff was to 'identify, develop and use each individual's capabilities and strengths to help achieve the dreams of the community'. The guiding principles were consistent with the implementing organization's values of non-tolerance of corruption, and participation and long-term cooperation (hence the workshops' participatory and trustbuilding approach).
The participatory baseline data collection was the first activity explicitly targeting the consideration of interior dimensions (see Section 3.1). Whilst the process and questions were initially challenging for both enumerators and respondents, they proved to provide the enumeration team and participants with an important opportunity for deep reflection and learning. Through the 3-day training, the enumeration team members realized that the previous household baseline surveys had focused solely on peoples' physical, economic and societal challenges and their capacities and resilience regarding flooding but had ignored their emotional and cognitive resilience and related implications. Unlike the workshop format, the personal narratives the data collection captured were not influenced by group discussions and thus provided more in-depth information. They afforded new insights into future project design and planning to the enumerators and respondents (e.g. more comprehensive versus one-sided technology-focused approaches) and to project staff (e.g. regarding the type of baseline data needed for capturing change/impacts, identifying target groups and associated measures to support individual and collective coping and resilience planning). The contextualization and detailed breakdown of the questions helped the team easily interpret them and thus supported the comprehensive capture of important key elements. Respondents could readily understand the questions, and the flow created room for them to open up. It allowed respondents to freely express and reflect on the emotions they feel in the event of flooding, how they manage their emotions and distracting thoughts, how they are able to get back on track and their temporary and long-term coping mechanisms. Importantly, the data collection complemented and augmented the common household surveys and the assessment of the intersubjective and interobjective/collective dimensions addressed during the workshops.
In the third methodological step, the project activities and the preliminary research outcomes were systematized and discussed in relation to subjective, intersubjective, objective and interobjective perspectives (see Section 3.3). Whilst the format was initially felt to be very abstract, it ultimately proved to be useful for systematically reflecting on current strengths and weaknesses and identifying future pathways for integrating interiority and supporting change (see also Section 4.3).

Engaging with interiority in informal settings: relevance and key aspects
Despite the challenges identified when engaging with interiority described above, our results confirm the importance and urgent need to integrate interiority into adaptation planning and highlight some key elements of consideration. The analysis of the community workshops showed that flood resilience (at personal, collective and system levels) and interiority are inherently interconnected. Whilst the workshops did not explicitly address interiority, related aspects emerged in all sessions, particularly in relation to what enables or hinders individual and community engagement in project-related activities and, more broadly, change towards sustainability (see Section 4.1).
In addition, the outcomes of the baseline data collection yielded detailed information on the importance of interiority in climate change adaptation in informal settings and the potential to address floods and flood risk more comprehensively. Regarding the observing dimension, the baseline data collection clearly captured individuals' experience and awareness of emotions when dealing with flood challenges, the kind of emotions they experienced, their effect on thoughts and behaviour and the particular ways in which thoughts and behaviour are impacted. All respondents experienced strong emotions in the event of flooding. Fear and stress dominated (91%). A majority (75%) stated that their emotions often affected their thoughts and behaviour. The results also showed that thoughts and behaviour were affected in diverse ways. Most frequently mentioned direct impacts were poor concentration, confusion, restlessness, nervousness, appetite loss and/ or exhaustion. Thoughts related to the topic of relocation and concerns about children's mobility and safety. Ninety-one percent of respondents stated that while going through a difficult situation, they were frequently aware of their emotional reaction, which often led to rumination, as was confirmed in relation to the (non-)judging dimension.
In this context, the baseline data collection captured how individuals relate to their emotions. Many (75%) said that their emotional reactions were often followed by self-criticism or self-blame. In turn, this was expressed in various forms, including regret over one's actions, rumination about one's living environment and anger. This was reported to lead to irrational (automatic) actions, such as beating children, which links to the dimension of (non-)reacting.
The (non-)reacting dimension captured the individual's capacity to be aware of their thoughts without being taken over, or caught up by them, while clearly indicating how subjective and objective responses to flooding overlap. In all instances, thoughts about flooding were negative. More specifically, one-third of the respondents noted that they often thought about drowning (either themselves, their children, family members and/or other loved ones). Others reported thoughts about the impact on their house if it was flooded and mentioned poor access. Access affects not only local businesses but also children, who may be unable to go to school, and workers, who may be unable to reach their workplace. In addition, some had distressing thoughts about health (e.g. the outbreak of disease, a lack of adequate sanitation). The vast majority (91%) noted that they were aware of these distressing thoughts and most (67%) used distraction to cope with them. Distractions included listening to music, talking to neighbours, visiting friends, carrying out household chores, watching television and sleeping. Others referred to active forms of relaxing or active engagement in finding solutions to better adapt to flooding through cooperating with neighbours (e.g. to jointly assess the situation) and identifying alternative behaviours (e.g. locating other routes in the neighbourhood for carrying out daily activities). 75% indicated that distressing thoughts often overwhelmed them, while the remainder stated that they suppressed their thoughts by seeking distraction.
Acting with awareness captured the individual's capacity to attend to certain activities, and act with awareness when faced with challenging situations, again highlighting how subjective and objective responses to flooding overlap. Whilst the answers highlighted a certain amount of repetition, new aspects also emerged. Routine activities included household chores, running errands, operating a business, going to work and churchgoing. Running errands included activities such as taking children to and from school and attending chamas (community savings/loan groups). The majority of respondents (75%) noted that in the event of a flood they were unable to conduct their daily activities for practical and emotional reasons. The former related to (i) flood impacts (e.g. being unable to access work, blackouts and brownouts making home-based work impossible, needing more time to do certain tasks); and (ii) flood management and risk reduction activities, such as clearing drains and water from the house, raising doors and door frames to prevent water from flowing into the house and moving household items to higher areas to prevent water damage. Inability to conduct daily activities triggered emotions similar to those identified in the context of observing and (non-)judging (see above), and included a combination of fear, stress, anger, exhaustion and regret. Additional emotions were sadness (25% of all emotions mentioned), numbness and embarrassment (15%). Finally, 83% noted that they were aware of their emotions and confirmed that these interfered negatively with their work and wellbeing (see non-reacting and other dimensions).

Implications for integrating interiority in adaptation planning
To reflect on current strengths and weaknesses and identify future pathways for systematically integrating interiority and supporting change, past project activities and preliminary research outcomes were systematized and discussed in the final methodological step, in relation to objective, interobjective, subjective and intersubjective perspectives (cf. Section 3.3). The following aspects that should be addressed in future operationalization of interiority were identified: Objective and interobjective perspectives. During the adaptation project's planning, design and implementation, most activities focused on exterior, objective perspectives: the conventional baseline surveys and workshops, for instance, aimed to identify and map people's activities, behaviour, technical skills (e.g. manual, occupational) and 'objective' capacities (e.g. time, resources), plus the context in which they manifested. 4 The latter related to local urban features, hazard exposure and risk. Project design and implementation, therefore, focused on physical measures that addressed the community vision of a safe and clean environment (e.g. physical flood protection, improved water services). Importantly, successful implementation of these measures was, however, identified to result largely from the previous planning, which had taken some account of subjective and intersubjective perspectives (see Section 4.2). Awareness of the associated underlying processes was an important insight for both project staff and community representatives.
Subjective and intersubjective perspectives. Although the participatory workshops mainly aimed to identify objective capacities (see above), the methodological approach helped reveal relevant intersubjective (community/collective) and subjective perspectives. The storytelling and (verbal and artistic) visioning methods used during the workshops helped increase people's sense of agency, obtain understanding of shared 'objective' realities and, importantly, created trust and a shared vision. As aspects, such as peace and social cohesion were part of the community vision, the project also aimed to support a sense of community and cooperation (see Section 4.1). The latter manifested in the organizational and management approach, which included establishing collective rules regarding engagement and transparency, together with physical resources such as logos and signs. Intersubjective perspectives were also adopted to acknowledge local norms and practices in Kibera and Kenya more broadly, including community barazas, 5 and the typical protocols of words of thanks and prayers. The new baseline data collection (conducted for this research) was, however, the only activity explicitly intended to explore the subjective realities underlying risk and adaptation measures. 6 Future baseline assessments could include additional questions to more explicitly target intersubjective and interobjective/collective dimensions, which was not the original aim of the data collection.
Importantly, our assessment of past activities and follow-up reflections on the preliminary outcomes of this study showed that integrating interiority into the project would require more explicit and systematic consideration of people's interior individual and collective perspectives from planning, to design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. Whilst our analyses of the project activities and research outcomes clearly showed interiority was important for successful implementation and individual and collective learning (e.g. changes in understandings and beliefs regarding the causes, impacts and consequently ways of addressing climate change), it was not a key component in measures and was notably absent during project implementation. The potential for connecting personal and societal transformation was, thus, not fully exploited. Table 1 provides an overview of identified measures that could have supported more integrative climate adaptation and transformation. The latter would have required explicitly sourcing inner capacities and agency (subjective and intersubjective) for strategic action (objective and interobjective). In this context, local problems must be addressed, including cognitive-emotional aspects and, concomitantly, associated systems and underlying root causes, all of which are closely related to interiority. Inner capacities and agency relate to personal beliefs, values and worldviews. They were shown to shape the ways systems and local solutions are viewed, as they influence the framing of issues and which questions are or are not asked. Changes related to interiority thus lead to different ways of understanding and interacting with the world. In the project, this was partially achieved by identifying a common vision and repeatedly checking that decisions were in line with it. Nevertheless, no other policies, regulations, project management tools (e.g. results-based logical framework approaches) or working structures were adjusted to account for interiority. Consequently, the decisions taken and measures implemented focused strongly on exterior change and immediate flood risk problems, and less effort Table 1. Potential measures that support more integrative climate change adaptation and transformation and entail considering and addressing interiority across all project phases.

Project phases Key elements and aspects to consider Illustrative tools and approaches
Project planning Baseline data collection − Revision and/or completion of conventional baseline surveys to also capture aspect of interiority. − This can be done through adding questions to existing household surveys or conducting a separate data collection. Best is to combine both, to obtain breadth and depth of data. − Community mapping exercises and workshops can complement the data. − Consider cooperating with local authorities to support capacity development and long-term change.
Collect data to identify key issues of interiority in the project context and overlap in subjective and objective responses to flooding: − Basis: Pre-defined questions to assess people's capacity to react, respond and adapt (see Section 3.1 and Suppl. Material B). − Factor in sufficient time for adjusting methods and developing trust. − Adjust data collection and questions to specific context: survey or interviews, specific hazard focus (or not), etc. − Add questions to explore what supports or constrains peoplés efforts (culture and system level), both individually and collectively. − Test contextualized approach/questions and enumerators' training to ensure (i) capacity development of staff, and (ii) comprehensive and sensitive capture of key elements (see Sections 4.2-4.3).

Project design
Co-creation − Ensure that interior aspects identified during the baseline data collection are followed up. − Policy integration/mainstreaming: Revise organizations' vision statements, guiding principles, project management tools, working structures, policies, regulations, human and financial resource allocation, communication and collaboration to ensure interiority is systematically considered. See also under 'implementation'. − Ascertain people's sense of agency and the interconnection of subjective and objective realities; create trust and a joint vision.
Co-define a project vision and project guiding principles, including: − Transparency, − The dual consideration of immediate needs and releasing human potential for long-term transformation, and − Universal values, e.g. equity, dignity and compassion. Participatory workshops for co-creation (see Section 4.1): − Ensure that cultural context, norms and knowledge are considered (e.g. words of prayer). − Use storytelling, visioning and/or mind-mapping exercises to identify individual and collective beliefs, values, worldviews and associated capacities. See Section 3.1. − Discuss outcomes (e.g. comparing stories, reflecting on certain aspects) and related results from the baseline data collection, to allow for broader reflections and identify connections between interior (subjective) and exterior (objective) dimensions at individual and collective levels that must be jointly addressed in the project.

Project implementation
Project management and local project measures − Ensure that interior aspects identified in the previous project phases are followed up during project implementation. − Continue with policy integration/mainstreaming (see above). − Value and integrate different perspectives, meaningmaking and ways of knowing. − Address underlying paradigms and power inequalities. − Train and develop capacity of project staff, cooperation partners and target groups.
− Adjust results-based project management tools (logical framework approaches) to ensure interiority is systematically considered in all project measures. − Create capacity development, learning environments and/or communities of practice to source inner capacities, intrinsic values and agency (subjective and intersubjective) for strategic action and cooperation (objective and interobjective). The latter also involve people's capacity and tools to communicate with formal structures. − Actively involve local authorities and political leaders to increase awareness of issues of agency, fear, anxiety and trauma in adaptation planning. − Implement regenerative, nature-based activities to support adaptation and human-nature connectedness. − Create mechanisms to identify and support collective expressions of interiority (e.g. fear, grievance) to support agency collaboration with governmental actors. − Inaugurate project measures by acknowledging cultural context. − Consider emotional and physical time burden of project measures and maintenance. Project monitoring and evaluation − Ensure that integrative transformation and the explicit consideration of interior dimensions are part of monitoring and evaluation, instead of focusing solely on tangible, behavioural and technological aspects.
− Adjust results-based evaluation and monitoring approaches and formats (e.g. explicit consideration of interiority across all project phases as criterion). − Use the four dimensions or quadrants of adaptation (see Figure 2 and Section 4.3) for systematically assessing and continuously improving project design, implementation and follow-up (e.g. participatory stakeholder assessments; see Sections 2.3 and 4.3).

Aspects to consider across all project phases
To achieve integrative climate change adaptation and transformation: − Ensure systematic integration of interiority throughout the project, that is, from planning to design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. − Support people's sense of agency and purpose across all project phases (e.g. when coming together and defining a vision to guide strategies and actions for transformation, through targeted training or communities of practice). − Improve communication and collaboration between communities that goes beyond practical (technological, behavioural) aspects of adaptation, to bring about more equitable and lasting change. − Combine different methods and approaches across the project phases to link interior and exterior transformation toward sustainability.
was made to systematically nourish people's interior capacities, address ingrained beliefs (e.g. perspectives that reinforce risk and marginalization) and instil ethical decision-making principles to support equitable and sustainable outcomes. This also relates to cooperation partners and authorities at local and regional level and across all sectors of work (e.g. health, environment, development and planning). 7 The self-reflection and systematization of past project activities also led to discussions about entry points. In the assessed adaptation project, the entry point for addressing flood impacts, climate change and wider sustainability challenges was the joint development of local infrastructure and services. In this context, there are close interlinkages between interiority and exteriority, manifesting, for example, in mental and physical health and safety issues, and the value of nature for public health. The COVID-19 crisis has again brought these interlinkages and the roles of public space, inadequate housing and services into focus, especially in the context of dense low-income neighbourhoods. Kibera has experienced significant social and health impacts of the pandemic and associated governmental measures since 2020. Agency was identified as an important point connecting interior and exterior dimensions in infrastructure and service development, as sustainable flood risk governance requires broad engagement and interaction. It was thus seen as an important entry point for integrating interiority in adaptation planning. Nature and human-nature connectedness was identified as another entry point to be strengthened in future project design and planning. Regenerative, nature-based activities and solutions can, for instance, be designed to foster the development of infrastructure and services and, concomitantly, support people's nature-connectedness and associated transformative (pro-environmental and pro-social) capacities.
Finally, the analyses also showed that more could have been done to engage local authorities and political leaders. This is particularly challenging in informal areas where the governance of public space and local urban services often falls to residents and community groups without the capacity and tools to communicate with formal structures. Sourcing such capacities and tools is thus vital. In this context, our analyses also highlighted the need to integrate personal development interventions to target issues of fear, anxiety and stress, to ensure adequate communication, ongoing engagement and the agency needed to spur transformation. Creating better internal mechanisms to identify and address expressions of interiority (e.g. fear, grievance) were discussed as important ways forward. In Kibera, as in other informal areas, the social contract between citizens and state is often only activated when an extreme event occurs. The government does not intervene to address the everyday circumstances of local flood risk, which creates fear and stress among the local population. In such circumstances, more focus on interior aspects might help support collective expressions of grievance and channel residents to demand or spur government action and political engagement.

Discussion and conclusions
If international development goals and climate agreements are to be achieved, there is an urgent need to move from rhetoric to action (IPCC, 2018(IPCC, , 2022. This calls for a deeper inquiry into how to effect transformation towards equitable, ethical and sustainable futures. How we transform makes a difference to everyone (Bennett et al., 2019;Blythe et al., 2018) and requires exterior and interior dimensions be considered together, in an integrative system (Beddoe et al., 2009;Hochachka, 2021;O'Brien & Sygna, 2013). However, the lack of empirical work on integrating interior dimensions into sustainability and adaptation planning makes its operationalization (i.e. the how) challenging.
Our study helps close this gap, opening up new pathways and innovations for transformation. It explains how interiority relates to (and is entangled with) observed manifestations such as climate change, risk, disasters and associated measures. In fact, our results reveal how adaptation interventions and interiority are inherently interconnected. They demonstrate that interiority is central to many people's daily decisions about their own and their community's development, including individual coping strategies and whether to participate in potentially beneficial social or environmental actions. People develop complex ways of dealing with anxiety, fear and stress, leading to coping mechanisms and behaviours that can prevent change at individual, collective and system levels (Doppelt, 2016;Kegan & Lahey, 2009). Moreover, individuals and groups often reach the limit to the amount of negative emotions they can tolerate. If the discomfort becomes too great, it is easy to fall into indifference, denial, distraction and disengagement. This warrants calls for more integrative approaches, reflexivity and transformative learning as preconditions for collective and political engagement, enabling people to challenge, through different methods, their taken-for-granted frames of reference (perspectives, thinking habits) by integrating subjective and objective realities and multiple types of knowledge to support change (Mezirow, 2000;Pahl-Wostl, 2009;Romme & Van Witteloostuijn, 1999).
Our results demonstrate how interiority is already integrated in existing adaptation projects, and how further integration can be operationalized (see Table 1). They show the difficulties of engaging with the rather abstract concept of interiority in practice, across languages and cultures, and how these obstacles can be addressed to support change. Specifically, our study identifies the participatory processes and innovative community engagement methods that had most transformative potential. The newly developed participatory data collection and self-reflection formats, together with creative, emotive-physical storytelling tools, visioning exercises and principle-based project management approaches seemed particularly effective. Resultant learning was twoway, involving both residents and project staff, enabling them to reflect on their emotions, values and priorities, and act on them individually and collectively. It changed perceptions and reasoning processes, allowing new (individual and collective) values, identities and agency to emerge. 8 The integration of interiority through creative participation methods also brought out positive emotions such as hope, responsibility, care and solidarity that can support transformation (Ryan, 2016). Furthermore, the methods and processes applied created a foundation of trust and interpersonal connection that facilitators and residents could build upon when planning for flood resilience.
Furthermore, our results show that simply adding certain measures or tools for considering interiority in adaptation planning is not enough; leveraging systems to achieve equitable, ethical and sustainable futures requires the systematic integration and operationalization of interiority in climate adaptation across all project phases. Projects focusing on adaptation planning have historically developed out of a more technical perspective, which has hampered integration. The lack of a comprehensive approach to addressing the paradigms from which current unsustainable systems arise means that there is an ongoing focus on shallow, not deep, leverage points (Meadows, 1999).
To address the identified gaps, the systematic integration of interiority requires greater attention to self-reflection, intrinsic values and agency, and support for associated emotional-cognitive capacities in project planning, design and implementation. It entails addressing current problems and crises (including their internal aspects), whilst concomitantly sourcing internal potential and capacities to help society and the planet to thrive (Sharma, 2018). Such an approach can help address the tensions that frequently arise between contemporary needs and priorities and intergenerational equity. In turn, this requires support for cognitive-emotional capacities that influence our (relational) being, knowing and acting (Walsh et al., 2020(Walsh et al., , 2021. Support can, for instance, be provided through creating learning environments, communities of practice and methods that foster self-reflection and source people's intrinsic values. In addition, attention must be paid to how to apply this personal stance to design, planning and implementation through revising organizations' vision statements, project management tools, working structures, policies, regulations, human and financial resource allocation, communication and collaboration. In urban areas, citizens often expect the public sector to support their adaptation efforts and protect them from risk exposure (Eakin et al., 2020;Wamsler & Raggers, 2018). This expectation grounded in notions of the social contract between citizens and the state presumes that there are efficient feedback mechanisms between public sector actors (such as public works and specialized offices) and residents relating to conditions, hazards and adaptation needs. In this context, our results show that the creation of adequate communication platforms and the systematic analysis of expressions of interiority (e.g. perspectives of agency, stress, fear and grievances) could provide important feedback to actors. By making these expressions visible, we can address an important lever of system change, one that can highlight asymmetries in power, equity and rights.
Finally, our results show that integrating interiority in adaptation requires careful consideration of ethical issues. The question is to what extent individuals and citizens (in general and those living in marginal settings and conditions) should constitute deep leverage points for systemic change. This relates to the normative dimension of responsibility (i.e. who should do what) and the discussion regarding whether individual engagement is a process of 'responsibilization' (i.e. transferring the burden of risk and responsibility to individuals) or 'empowerment' (e.g. Kuhlicke et al., 2011). Our study supports other research that indicates that climate change will produce responsibilization, whilst increased individual and collective action and agency can benefit those most at risk . Responsibilization must thus accompany empowerment to support equitable adaptation, which can be achieved by integrating interiority in adaptation planning. The ultimate aim is to transform the unjust dysfunctional systems and paradigms that create and sustain risk and vulnerability to climate-related floods and hazards. Many methods offer ways to link knowledge and action for sustainability. But there are intense pressures to close down or narrow how knowledge is produced and used for instrumental ends. Appropriate methodological assemblages, frameworks, tools and associated ways of being could help challenge these pressures, open up more perspectives and participation and allow us to pursue more plural pathways to sustainability. The aim is not to change people's beliefs, values and worldviews, as this turns them into objects to be changed rather than subjects of change (O'Brien, 2021;O'Brien & Sygna, 2013;Wamsler et al., 2021). Instead, it is about valuing and addressing different perspectives and meaning-making and creating spaces and conditions that can nurture a culture of personal development and growth, mutual support and engagement towards sustainability, from a space of shared, universal values and connection (Irving & Williams, 1999;Maslow 1987;Sharma, 2018;Wamsler et al., 2021). 9 It is about assisting people to exploit their full potential to support change and integrate different perspectives and knowledges. It thus requires us to decolonize our approaches and is both personal and political.
In conclusion, adaptation to climate change requires interiority to be systematically integrated to support transformation by changing our understanding of risk from something that humans simply respond to and manage from a rational-objective perspective to something that humans relate to and create in different ways, based on their emotions, internal values and meaning-making systems. Our study shows that this requires new approaches, measures and tools that can bridge subjective, intersubjective, objective and interobjective perspectives for addressing climate change and other sustainability challenges. Four of the stakeholders were involved in writing of this paper: a project manager, two local project staff and one academic cooperation partner. 3. A household baseline survey was first conducted in the project, after which gaps regarding interior dimensions were noted. Our data collection was then rolled out, targeting the most vulnerable households to flooding (households close to Ngong' river). 12 households (with a total of 46 household members) were identified for this data collection, and each of the households had one respondent. The respondents had been actively engaged in the project over the previous nine months and were therefore more likely to agree to be interviewed. The reported percentages in the Results relate to the 12 respondents. 4. In contrast, the Integral Theory framework recognises that reality cannot be assessed from only one perspective and associated validity claims (see Section 3.3). For instance, risk and adaptive capacity cannot be measured only by exterior validity claims (e.g. measuring what people do) or by interior validity claims (e.g. asking how people feel). It is best assessed by including diverse sets of indicators and measurement methods. The relevance of the additional baseline data collected during this study confirmed this. Consequently, basing the community's selection and prioritisation of the project features and measures (e.g. flood protection, a laundry pad, a water point and a play space) on both their situated understanding of risk and a science-based interpretation of potential flood hazard (Mulligan et al., 2019) is important, but not enough to support transformation. 5. Baraza is Kiswahili for the local public meetings used as a platform for creating awareness, responding to issues affecting a given community, sharing vital information and giving citizens an opportunity to identify and propose solutions to concerns. 6. All the workshops and design processes were based on people's current abilities and practices; the aim was to build on them and support their ideas and vision, but without explicitly considering their emotional-cognitive capacities and associated social paradigms. Accordingly, residents' priorities were physical interventions because of the personal toll of flood events, and the understanding of climate change and hazards as a technological and or environmental problem. The personal resilience and interior capacity of people (individually and collectively) is, however, key and must also be addressed. 7. Involving different actors is needed to elicit inner dimensions and increase uptake of interiority concerns and their integration into climate solutions. Two such actors are the County Health department and the department of planning. It also involves capacity development of their own staff, for example, to explore ingrained beliefs and tap into their full potential to cooperate and engage sustainably with at-risk people. 8. So-called triple loop learning (Johannessen et al., 2019;Pahl-Wostl, 2009;Romme & Van Witteloostuijn, 1999) and transformative learning (Walsh et al., 2020) were thus supported. 9. Personal development and personal growth refer broadly to the development of a person's inner qualities and capacities. In the context of this study, the latter relates to the development of socalled transformative qualities/capacities that can support transformational change .

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
The work was supported by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency Sida and the Swedish Research Councils FORMAS and VR (2016-06334; 2019-00390; 2019-01969).

Notes on contributors
Christine Wamsler is Professor of Sustainability Science at Lund University Centre for Sustainability Studies (LUCSUS), Sweden, and Director of the Contemplative Sustainable Futures Program. She is an internationally-renowned expert in sustainable development, disaster risk reduction, climate change adaptation and associated transformation processes, with 25 years of experience, both in theory and practice.
Joe Mulligan is an affiliated faculty at the KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden. Mulligan is also the Founding Principal and Executive Director of the Kounkuey Design Initiative (KDI), a nonprofit design and community development organization with its founding office in Nairobi, Kenya.
Vera Bukachi is a project manager and action researcher at the Kounkuey Design Initiative (KDI) in Nairobi, Kenya, where she has led their research since 2017. She is an expert in international development, and an advocate for social justice in the urban built environment, especially for underserved communities in Africa. She has deep experience working with communities, the private sector, academic institutions, bilateral and multilateral development organisations, foundations, and government.
Charity Mumbi is a project officer at the Kenya Federation of Slum Dwellers, Nairobi, Kenya. Among her key roles are: community planning, stakeholder engagement, community mapping, providing technical Arc-GIS skills, coordinating community-led plans and designs, projects' inception to implementation, research, data collection and analysis. Her professional background is in Urban and Regional Planning, with a Master (MSc) in Sustainable Urban Development.