833

Adaptation

Needs and Options

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Ian R. Noble (Australia), Saleemul Huq (Bangladesh/UK)

Lead Authors:

Yuri A. Anokhin (Russian Federation), JoAnn Carmin (USA), Dieudonne Goudou (Niger),

Felino P. Lansigan (Philippines), Balgis Osman-Elasha (Sudan), Alicia Villamizar (Venezuela)

Contributing Authors:

Jessica Ayers (UK), Frans Berkhout (Netherlands), Kirsten Dow (USA), Hans-Martin Füssel

(Germany), Joel Smith (USA), Kathleen Tierney (USA), Helena Wright (UK)

Review Editors:

Anthony Patt (Austria), Kuniyoshi Takeuchi (Japan)

Volunteer Chapter Scientist:

Eric Chu (USA)

This chapter should be cited as:

Noble

, I.R., S. Huq, Y.A. Anokhin, J. Carmin, D. Goudou, F.P. Lansigan, B. Osman-Elasha, and A. Villamizar, 2014:

Adaptation needs and options. 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., V.R. Barros, D.J. Dokken, K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea,

T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken,

P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New

York, NY, USA, pp. 833-868.

834

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 836

14.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 838

14.2. Adaptation Needs ................................................................................................................................................... 839

14.2.1. Biophysical and Environmental Needs .............................................................................................................................................. 840

14.2.2. Social Needs ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 841

14.2.3. Institutional Needs ........................................................................................................................................................................... 842

14.2.4. Need for Engagement of the Private Sector ...................................................................................................................................... 843

14.2.5. Information, Capacity, and Resource Needs ..................................................................................................................................... 844

14.3. Adaptation Options ................................................................................................................................................ 844

14.3.1. Structural and Physical Options ........................................................................................................................................................ 845

14.3.1.1. Engineering and Built Environment ................................................................................................................................... 846

14.3.1.2. Technological Options ....................................................................................................................................................... 846

14.3.1.3. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation ............................................................................................................................................ 846

14.3.1.4. Service Options ................................................................................................................................................................. 847

14.3.2 Social Options ................................................................................................................................................................................... 847

14.3.3. Institutional Options ......................................................................................................................................................................... 848

14.3.4. Selecting Adaptation Options ........................................................................................................................................................... 849

14.4. Adaptation Assessments ......................................................................................................................................... 850

14.4.1. Purpose of Assessments .................................................................................................................................................................... 850

14.4.2. Trends in Assessments ...................................................................................................................................................................... 850

14.4.3. Issues and Tensions in the Use of Assessments ................................................................................................................................. 851

14.4.4. National Assessments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 852

14.5. Measuring Adaptation ............................................................................................................................................. 853

14.5.1. What Is to Be Measured? ................................................................................................................................................................. 854

14.5.2. Established Metrics ........................................................................................................................................................................... 855

14.5.2.1. Vulnerability Metrics ......................................................................................................................................................... 855

14.5.2.2. Metrics for Resource Allocation ......................................................................................................................................... 855

14.5.2.3. Metrics for Monitoring and Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 856

14.5.3. Validation of Metrics ........................................................................................................................................................................ 856

14.5.4. Assessment of Existing and Proposed Metrics for Adaptation .......................................................................................................... 857

Table of Contents

835

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

14.6. Addressing Maladaptation ...................................................................................................................................... 857

14.6.1. Causes of Maladaptation .................................................................................................................................................................. 858

14.6.2. Screening for Maladaptation ............................................................................................................................................................ 858

14.6.3. Experiences with Maladaptation ...................................................................................................................................................... 858

14.7. Research and Data Gaps ......................................................................................................................................... 859

References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 860

Frequently Asked Question

14.1: Why do the precise deﬁnitions about adaptation activities matter?.................................................................................................. 853

836

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

Executive Summary

Since the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the framing of adaptation has moved further from a focus on biophysical vulnerability

to the wider social and economic drivers of vulnerability and people’s ability to respond (robust evidence, high agreement). These

drivers include the gender, age, health, social status, and ethnicity of individuals and groups, and the institutions in place locally, nationally,

regionally, and internationally. Adaptation goals are often expressed in a framework of increasing resilience, which encourages consideration

of broad development goals, multiple objectives, and scales of operation, and often better captures the complex interactions between human

societies and their environment. The convergence between adaptation and disaster risk management has been further strengthened since AR4,

building on the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX).

{14.1-3}

Adaptation needs arise when the anticipated risks or experienced impacts of climate change require action to ensure the safety

of populations and the security of assets, including ecosystems and their services (medium evidence, medium agreement).

Adaptation needs are the gap between what might happen as the climate changes and what we would desire to happen. The use of the term

needs has also shifted with the framing of adaptation. In the National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) “needs” were usually

discussed in terms of major vulnerabilities and priority adaptation activities, and, in both developing and developed countries, this hazard-

based approach with a focus on drivers of impacts and options to moderate them is still used often for urban or regional programs. But more

recently, the focus has been on tackling the underlying causes of vulnerability such as informational, capacity, financial, institutional, and

technological needs. {14.2}

Engineered and technological adaptation options are still the most common adaptive responses, although there is growing

experience of the value for ecosystem-based, institutional, and social measures, including the provision of climate-linked safety

nets for those who are most vulnerable (robust evidence, high agreement).

Adaptation measures are increasing and becoming more

integrated within wider policy frameworks. Integration, though it remains a challenge, streamlines the adaptation planning and decision-making

process and embeds climate-sensitive thinking in existing and new institutions and organizations. This can help avoid mismatches with the

objectives of development planning, facilitate the blending of multiple funding streams, and reduce the possibility of maladaptive actions. The

increasing complexity of adaptation practice means that institutional learning is an important component of effective adaptation. {14.3}

Approaches to selecting adaptation options continue to emphasize incremental change to reduce impacts while achieving co-

benefits, but there is increasing evidence that transformative changes may be necessary in order to prepare for climate impacts

(medium evidence, medium agreement).

While no-regret, low-regret, and win-win strategies have attracted the most attention in the past

and continue to be applied, there is increasing recognition that an adequate adaptive response will mean acting in the face of continuing

uncertainty about the extent of climate change and the nature of its impacts, and that in some cases there are limits to the effectiveness of

incremental approaches. While attention to flexibility and safety margins is becoming more common in selecting adaptation options, many

see the need for more transformative changes in our perception and paradigms about the nature of climate change, adaptation, and their

relationship to other natural and human systems. {14.1, 14.3.4}

Among the many actors and roles associated with successful adaptation, the evidence increasingly suggests two to be critical to

progress: those associated with local government and those with the private sector (medium evidence, high agreement).

These

two groups will bear increasing responsibility for translating the top-down flow of risk information and financing and in scaling up the bottom-

up efforts of communities and households in planning and implementing their selected adaptation actions. Local institutions, including local

governments, non-government organizations (NGOs), and civil society organizations, are among the key actors in adaptation but are often

limited by lack of resources and capacity and by continuing difficulties in gaining national government or international support, especially in

developing countries. {14.2.3} Private entities, from individual farmers and small to medium enterprises (SMEs) to large corporations, will seek

to protect and enhance their production systems, supply lines, and markets by pursuing adaptation-related opportunities. These goals will help

expand adaptation activities but they may not align with government or community objectives and priorities without coordination and incentives.

{14.2.4}

837

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

Adaptation assessments, which have evolved in substance and style since AR4, have demonstrably led to a general awareness

among decision makers and stakeholders of climate risks and adaptation needs and options. However, such awareness has often

not translated into adaptation action (medium evidence, high agreement).

Most of the assessments of adaptation done so far have

been restricted to impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation planning, with very few assessing the processes of implementation and evaluation of

actual adaptation actions. {14.4.1} Assessments that include both top-down assessments of biophysical climate changes and bottom-up

assessments of what makes people and natural systems vulnerable to those changes will help to deliver local solutions to globally derived

risks. Also, assessments that are linked more directly to particular decisions and that provide information tailored to facilitate the decision-

making process appear to have most consistently led to effective adaptation measures. {14.4.3}

The evidence to support the most valuable metrics of adaptation needs and effectiveness is limited, but increasing (medium

evidence, high agreement). {14.5.2-3} At present, there are conflicting views concerning the choice of metrics, as governments, institutions,

communities, and individuals value needs and outcomes differently and many of those values cannot be captured in a comparable way by

metrics. {14.5} The demand for metrics to measure adaptation needs and effectiveness is increasing as more resources are directed to adaptation.

These indicators that are proving most useful for policy learning are those that track not just process and implementation, but also the extent

to which targeted outcomes are occurring. {14.5.2.3}

Maladaptation is a cause of increasing concern to adaptation planners, where intervention in one location or sector could

increase the vulnerability of another location or sector, or increase the vulnerability of the target group to future climate change

(medium evidence, high agreement). {14.7.3}

The definition of maladaptation used in AR5 has changed subtly to recognize that

maladaptation arises not only from inadvertent badly planned adaptation actions, but also from deliberate decisions where wider considerations

place greater emphasis on short-term outcomes ahead of longer-term threats, or that discount, or fail to consider, the full range of interactions

arising from the planned actions. {14.6.1}

838

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

14.1. Introduction

This chapter establishes a foundation for understanding adaptation by

reviewing core concepts related to adaptation, with a focus on mapping

ut broad categories of needs and options. Here we use adaptation

needs to refer to circumstances requiring information, resources, and

action to ensure safety of populations and security of assets in response

to climate impacts. Adaptation options are the array of strategies and

measures available and appropriate to address needs. Because identifying

needs and selecting and implementing options require the engagement

of individuals, organizations, and governments at all levels, this chapter

also briefly considers the range of actors involved in these processes

and summarizes the risks of maladaptation.

Other chapters in this report, namely Chapter 4 and in particular Section

4.4, and supported by Chapters 3, 5, 6, and 7, deal with the threats of

climate change on ecosystems and other predominately natural systems

and their prospects and options for adaptation. For the sake of space

and clarity this chapter focuses on the socioeconomic systems that

support human livelihoods, although it also touches on the services

provided by ecosystems (including ecosystem-based adaptation).

This chapter also highlights some important tools for implementing

adaptation, namely approaches to assessing needs at national,

subnational, and sectoral levels, and the challenges of applying metrics

to determine adaptation needs and the effectiveness of adaptation

actions. In the course of these discussions, this chapter establishes a

foundation for the three adaptation chapters that follow. The existence

of adaptation options does not necessarily mean that these options can

be implemented when the need arises. Therefore, Chapter 15 examines

adaptation planning and implementation, including the challenges faced

and how these can be addressed. Chapter 16 focuses on adaptation

opportunities and constraints, while Chapter 17 assesses the economics

f adaptation to climate change, including the costs and benefits of

adaptation and of inaction. This chapter also draws on, and seeks not

to repeat, the detailed discussions of human health, well-being, security,

livelihoods, and poverty found in Chapters 11, 12, and 13 that are

so important to the wider discussion of adaptation. These and other

interactions among the adaptation chapters are illustrated in Figure

14-1.

Human and natural systems have a capacity to cope with adverse

circumstances but, with continuing climate change, adaptation will

be needed to maintain this capacity (IPCC, 2012; see also Section 1.4.1

and Box 2.1). The AR5 definition of adaptation (i.e., “The process of

adjustment to actual or expected climate and its effects. In human

systems, adaptation seeks to moderate harm or exploit beneficial

opportunities. In natural systems, human intervention may facilitate

adjustment to expected climate and its effects...”) follows the lead of

the IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and

Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) in introducing

a degree of purposefulness by adding the phrase “which seeks to

moderate” rather than simply “which moderates” as in AR4.

Human

ability to cope with climate impacts can also be increased by actions

that are not anticipatory or purposefully undertaken in response to

observed or anticipated climate change, sometimes called unplanned

actions. For example, diversifying livelihoods in response to immediate

economic factors can increase long-term ability to cope with a changing

climate. Such actions were often referred to as autonomous adaptation.

However, the use of the term in the literature, including the IPCC reports,

has been inconsistent. The term is often used to refer to purposeful

adaptation actions carried out by agents without external inputs such

as policies, information, or resources (see Chapters 17, 22; Skoufias,

2012), and sometimes to refer to purposeful actions that are reactive to

experienced climate impacts, rather than being proactive or anticipatory

of them (see Glossary and WGII AR3 Section 18.2.3).

Sectors

Needs and

options

Regions

Climate-

resilient

pathways

Adaptation in

natural systems

Emerging

risks

Decision

making

Human

well-being

Needs and

options

16 17

11 12

Figure 14-1 | The relationship between the four adaptation chapters (14 to 17) and other closely related chapters. Chapter 14 (Adaptation Needs and Options) draws on and

cross-references many of the issues of human well-being, including health, security, and poverty; the treatment of adaptation of natural ecosystems is dealt with mainly in

Chapter 4 and is not repeated in Chapter 14. Similarly the needs and options synthesized in Chapter 14 are drawn largely from the sectoral (3 to 10) and regional chapters (21 to

30). Chapter 2 provides input to decision-making approaches relevant to Chapter 15 (Adaptation Planning and Implementation). All the adaptation chapters feed into the

synthesis of Chapters 19 (Emerging Risks and Key Vulnerabilities) and 20 (Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development).

839

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

he SREX and AR5 definitions of adaptation also clarify the distinction

between adaptation in human and natural systems. Natural systems

have the potential to adapt through multiple autonomous processes

(e.g., phenology changes, migration, compositional changes, phenotypic

acclimation, and/or genetic changes), and humans may intervene to

promote particular adjustments such as reducing non-climate stresses or

through managed migration (see Section 4.5). But successful adaptation

will depend on our ability to allow and facilitate natural systems to

adjust to a changing climate, thus maintaining the ecosystem services

on which all life depends.

Adaptation is becoming increasingly important in climate negotiations

and implementation, and integral to AR5 are the terms incremental and

transformational adaptation—sometimes referred to as a “paradigm

shift” as in the Green Climate Fund Governing Instrument (Green Climate

Fund, 2013a). Incremental adaptation refers to actions where the central

aim is to maintain the essence and integrity of the existing technological,

institutional, governance, and value systems, such as through adjustments

to cropping systems via new varieties, changing planting times, or using

more efficient irrigation. In contrast, transformational adaptation seeks

to change the fundamental attributes of systems in response to actual

or expected climate and its effects, often at a scale and ambition greater

than incremental activities. It includes changes in activities, such as

changing livelihoods from cropping to livestock or by migrating to take

up a livelihood elsewhere, and also changes in our perceptions and

paradigms about the nature of climate change, adaptation, and their

relationship to other natural and human systems (Sections 3.3, 8.6.2.3,

20.5 and FAQ 8.2; IPCC, 2012; Kates et al., 2012; Park et al., 2012; Green

Climate Fund, 2013b). Transformational change may be driven by the

pursuit of better opportunities or by the realization of the imminent or

inevitable limits within existing paradigms (Dow et al., 2013; Section

16.4.2). Transformative change may threaten the status quo for many

and require leadership and sometimes triggering events to initiate it

(Kates et al., 2012). However, transformational change is not called for

in all responses to climate change (Pelling, 2010) and ill-prepared

transformative change may bring with it social inequities (O’Brien,

2012). The triggers for transformational change and its implementation

are dealt with in more detail in Sections 16.4 and 20.5. Differentiation

between incremental and transformative adaptation, although indistinct,

is important because it affects how we approach adaptation, how we

integrate it into planning and policy, and how we allocate adaptation

funding in both developed and developing countries (IPCC, 2012; see

also Chapter 17).

Another concept is the adaptation deficit, which is the gap between the

current state of a system and a state that would minimize adverse

impacts from existing climate conditions and variability (see Glossary);

that is, it is essentially inadequate adaptation to the current climate

conditions (Burton et al., 2002; Burton, 2004; Burton and May, 2004;

Parry et al., 2009; see also Sections 17.2.2.2, 17.6.1). Some have

suggested that it is often part of a larger “development deficit” (World

Bank, 2010). Delay in action in both mitigation and adaptation will

increase the adaptation deficit in many parts of the world (IPCC, 2012).

n the process of building future adaptive capacity it is important to

reduce the current adaptation deficit along with designing effective risk

management and climate change adaptation measures (Hallegatte,

2011). Failure to close the adaptation deficit, both current and in the

future, will result in residual damages from climate change. There have

been calls for such residual damages to be evaluated and reported

(Parry et al., 2009).

Summary of Key Findings from AR4

In the Working Group II (WGII) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), the

main chapter on adaptation (Chapter 18) refined the basic terminology

of adaptation and concluded that adaptation to climate change was

already taking place, but on a limited basis. Societies have a long record

of adapting to the impacts of weather and climate through a range of

practices that include crop diversification, irrigation, water management,

disaster risk management, and insurance, but climate change, along

with other drivers of change, poses novel risks often outside the range

of experience.

WGII AR4 found that deliberate adaptation measures in response to

anticipated climate change were being implemented by a range of

public and private actors, on a limited basis, in both developed and

developing countries. These measures are undertaken through policies,

investments in infrastructure and technologies, and behavioral change,

and they are seldom undertaken in response to climate change alone.

Many actions that facilitate adaptation to climate change are undertaken

to deal with current extreme events, such as heat waves and cyclones,

and are often embedded within broader sectoral initiatives such as

water resource planning, coastal defense, and disaster management

planning.

WGII AR4 concluded that there are individuals and groups within all

societies that have insufficient capacity to adapt to climate change. The

capacity to adapt is dynamic and influenced by economic and natural

resources, social networks, entitlements, institutions and governance,

human resources, and technology. However, high adaptive capacity does

not necessarily translate into actions that reduce vulnerability. New

planning processes are being implemented to attempt to overcome

these barriers at local, regional, and national levels in both developing

and developed countries. WGII AR4 noted the establishment of the

National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs) and that some

developed countries had established national adaptation policy

frameworks. Other conclusions from the WGII AR4 relating to the

implementation of adaptation policies and measures, barriers to

adaptation, and the economic costs of adaptation are summarized in

Chapters 15, 16, and 17 of this report.

14.2. Adaptation Needs

Adaptation involves reducing risk and vulnerability; seeking opportunities;

and building the capacity of nations, regions, cities, the private sector,

communities, individuals, and natural systems to cope with climate

impacts, as well as mobilizing that capacity by implementing decisions

and actions (Tompkins et al., 2010). Vulnerability is the “propensity or

Purposefulness was introduced in the SREX definition, which introduced the phrase

“in order to moderate”.

840

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

redisposition [of a system] to be adversely affected” (see Glossary)

and, until AR4, was viewed as comprising three elements: exposure,

sensitivity, and adaptive capacity (IPCC, 2007a). However, in IPCC (2012)

and in this report, vulnerability focuses only on sensitivity and capacity,

with exposure more appropriately incorporated into the concept of risk

(see Glossary; IPCC, 2012, Section 2.2).

Adaptation requires adequate information on risks and vulnerabilities

in order to identify needs and appropriate adaptation options to reduce

risks and build capacity. In framing an approach to adaptation, it is

important to engage people with different knowledge, experience, and

backgrounds in tackling and reaching a shared approach to addressing

the challenges (Preston and Stafford Smith, 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010;

Fünfgeld and McEnvoy, 2011; Eakin et al., 2012) Initially, identifying

needs was most often based on impact assessments (or risk-hazard

approaches), but social vulnerability or resilience assessments are

increasingly being used (Fünfgeld and McEnvoy, 2011; Preston et al.,

2011b). The risk-hazard framework, drawn primarily from risk and

disaster management, focuses on the adverse effects that natural

hazards and other climate impacts can have on a given location (Füssel

and Klein, 2006). The emphasis in this approach is on the physical and

biological aspects of impacts and adaptation (Burton et al., 2002). The

social vulnerability framework focuses on the reasons and ways in

which individuals, groups, and communities are vulnerable to climate

impacts. Here, the focus is on how different factors, such as institutions,

shape the socioeconomic conditions that place human populations at

risk (Adger and Kelly, 1999; Preston et al., 2011b). There are overlaps

and complementarities between these frameworks. Approaches to

identifying needs and options are discussed further in the section on

assessments (Section 14.4).

Comprehensive assessments typically provide insight into the risks and

vulnerabilities that will result from climate change in communities,

cities, nations, and ecosystems and, in turn, offer a means to identify

the presence of adaptation needs and options for addressing those

needs. The term adaptation needs is often used but rarely defined in

the adaptation literature. In the wider literature, a need can be seen as a

problem that can be solved (McKillip, 1987) or as a gap between current

outcomes and desired outcomes (Kaufman and English, 1979). Thus, in

this context, adaptation needs are the gap between what might happen

as the climate changes and what we would desire to happen. Also, the

term adaptation needs is used in several ways in the adaptation literature.

A common use is in the sense of the “urgent and immediate needs”

relating to the adverse effects of climate change, as in the rationale for

the NAPAs, although in this case “needs” were usually discussed in terms

of major vulnerabilities and priority adaptation activities (by UNFCCC).

The most effective descriptions of these needs combined discussions of

climate and non-climate drivers of impacts, and the resources, capacity,

information, finance, etc., needed to implement options to moderate

those impacts (e.g., GEF, 2002). Assessments of adaptation needs, both

in developing and developed countries, have often taken a hazard-

based approach with a focus on drivers of impacts and options to

moderate them (Moser, 2009; Finzi Hart et al., 2012). But more recently,

the focus has been on tackling the underlying causes of vulnerability

(

Füssel, 2007). One of the few categorizations of needs is that of Burton

et al. (2006), who recognized information, capacity, financial, institutional,

and technological needs. A similar structure is followed in this chapter.

We first discuss biophysical and environmental needs on which all lives

ultimately depend. Then we discuss social needs and capacities and

how they vary throughout society. Third, we discuss our response to

climate risks and impacts and how they are modified by the multitude

of institutions through which humans work, ranging from international

organizations to community-based efforts. Finally, we touch on resources,

including societal needs for information and knowledge and financial

resources.

Although needs are specific to particular groups and places, they fit into

a set of more general categories as summarized in the sections below.

For instance, vulnerability at the national and subnational levels is

affected by geographic location, biophysical conditions, institutional and

governance arrangements, and resource availability, including access

to technology and economic stability (Brooks et al., 2005). At the macro-

level, two broad classes of determinants of vulnerability are recognized:

biophysical determinants and socioeconomic determinants (Preston et

al., 2011a). However, adaptation needs are highly diverse and context

specific, for instance, varying between islands even within nations such

as the Solomon Islands (Section 29.6.1). Different stakeholder groups

and individuals have differential adaptation needs and vulnerabilities.

Adaptation needs are also dynamic, and future adaptation needs are

highly dependent on the mitigation pathway that is taken. Furthermore,

the constraints and limits to adaptation (see Chapter 16) are likely to

mean that not all needs will be met, thereby emphasizing the need for

monitoring to avoid crossing critical thresholds (Section 19.7.3).

14.2.1. Biophysical and Environmental Needs

Climate change is altering ecological systems, biodiversity, genetic

resources, and the benefits derived with ecosystem services (Convention

on Biological Diversity, 2009; Mooney et al., 2009; Hoegh-Guldberg,

2011). Climate change is inducing shifts in habitats that often cannot

be followed by species (Section 4.3.4.1), leading to changed ecosystems,

to local and global extinctions, and to the permanent loss of unique

combinations of genes. For instance, González et al. (2010) used observed

and modeled changes of global patterns of biome shifts under climate

change to conclude that up to half of the terrestrial ecosystems were

vulnerable as a result of changes from secondary stressors, such as

wildfire and disease, and suggested significant changes to natural resource

management plans. In addition to the responses of ecosystems to climatic

change, a number of studies have identified impacts on ecosystem services,

particularly the effects of climate change on agricultural productivity

(Coles and Scott, 2009), freshwater ecosystems (Ormerod et al., 2010),

and downstream industries and enterprises (Preston and Stafford Smith,

2009). Ecosystem services that are already under threat from the impacts

of climate change include pollination, pest, and disease regulation

(Section 4.3.4.4); climate regulation services; and potable water supply

(Section 4.3.4.5). Further stressors will limit our options to respond to

climate change (Section 14.3.2).

https://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_support/least_developed_countries_portal/napa_project_database/application/pdf/napa_index_by_country.pdf.

841

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

atural systems underpin human livelihoods, health, welfare, food

security, and prosperity. Vital ecosystem services that need to be

maintained include provisioning services such as food, fiber, and potable

water supply; regulating services such as climate regulation, pollination,

disease control, and flood control; and supporting services such as

primary production and nutrient cycling (Section 4.3.4). Much of the

water for human consumption originates on forested lands and the

quality of the water is heavily dependent on the conditions of the

ecosystems through which it flows. Ocean systems also provide climate

regulation services, while coral reefs act as ecological buffers (Section

6.4.1.4). For instance, healthy coastal wetlands and coral reefs can help

to protect against storm surges and rising sea levels (Hoegh-Guldberg,

2011), while the maintenance of wetlands and green spaces can control

runoff and flooding associated with increases in precipitation (Jentsch

and Beierkuhnlein, 2008; Mooney et al., 2009). Meanwhile, fisheries and

aquaculture contribute more than 20% to the dietary animal protein of

nearly 1.5 billion people (Section 5.4.3.3).

Consequently, there is a need to protect these systems and resources

within the changing climate. Goldman et al. (2008) found that research

projects focusing on delivering ecosystem services, rather than on

biodiversity goals, attracted a wider set of funders and better encompassed

the landscapes and the people within them. However, many practices

to intervene to improve and maintain ecosystem services are based on

limited experience and thus still untested assumptions and limited

information (Carpenter et al., 2009). Hence, there is a need to improve

understanding and valuation of ecosystem services provided by different

adaptation options. There is also an urgent need for appropriate ecosystem

monitoring to avoid crossing critical thresholds (see Section 19.7.4).

14.2.2. Social Needs

From a social perspective, vulnerability varies as a consequence of the

capacity of groups and individuals to reduce and manage the impacts

of climate change. Among the key factors determining vulnerability are

gender, age, health, social status, ethnicity, and class (Smit et al., 2001;

Adger et al., 2009a). For instance, the vulnerability to health-related

impacts of climate change varies as a consequence of geographical location

(Section 11.3.1), gender and age (Section 11.3.3), and socioeconomic

status (Section 11.3.4). Poverty and persistent inequality may be the

most salient of the conditions that shape climate-related vulnerability

(Section 13.1.4). Climate change is expected to have a relatively greater

impact on the poor as a consequence of their lack of financial resources,

poor quality of shelter, reliance on local ecosystem services, exposure

to the elements, and limited provision of basic services and their limited

resources to recover from an increasing frequency of losses through

climate events (Tol et al., 2004; Huq et al., 2007; Kovats and Akhtar,

2008; Patz et al., 2008; Revi, 2008; Allison et al., 2009; Shikanga et al.,

2009; Gething et al., 2010; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2010; Rosenzweig

et al., 2010; Skoufias et al., 2012). Owing to limited financial resources

and often compromised health and nutritional status, the poor, along

with the sick and elderly, are at increased risk from trauma, physical

and mental illness, and death from climate impacts such as increased

pollution, higher indoor temperatures, exposure to toxins and pathogens

from floods, and the emergence of new disease vectors (Kasperson and

Kasperson, 2001; Haines et al., 2006; Costello et al., 2009, 2011; O’Neill

nd Ebi, 2009; Tonnang et al., 2010; Ebi, 2011; Harlan and Ruddell, 2011;

Huang et al., 2011; McMichael and Lindgren, 2011; Semenza et al., 2012).

Climate change, climate variability, and extreme events can erode natural,

physical, financial, human, and social and cultural assets (Section

13.2.1.1), and poverty traps arise when climate change, variability, and

extreme events make the poor even poorer (Section 13.2.1.4).

Social needs under climate change include understanding emotional and

psychological needs. In Australia, it has been found that extreme events

such as floods, drought, and bushfire can lead to mental suffering,

including post-traumatic stress disorder, resulting in the need for

psychological support and counseling (The Climate Institute, 2011). For

example, drought can increase suicide rates by 8% (Nicholls et al.,

2006). Social psychological adaptation processes powerfully mediate

public risk perceptions and understanding, psychological and social

impacts, and coping responses, as well as behavioral adaptation (Reser

and Swim, 2011). Yet little collaborative work or research has so far

focused on the nature and dynamics of individual-level coping and

adaptation processes and how they influence responses (Reser et al.,

2012).

These individual factors also are often associated with and compounded

by community-level conditions. Women often have unequal access to

and control over resources, including land titles and water rights (UNDP,

2010; CGIAR, 2012; Verner 2012). Many poor and ethnic minorities live

in substandard housing; lack access to basic services, savings, and

insurance; have compromised health; and are at threat due to excessive

densities, poor access roads, and inadequate access to safe water,

sanitation, and drainage (Huq et al., 2007; Kovats and Akhtar, 2008; Revi,

2008; Shikanga et al., 2009; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2010). In rural

areas, adaptation needs also are linked to the viability of agricultural

activity (Bosello et al., 2009). Climate change will lead to higher prices

and increased volatility in agricultural markets, which might undermine

global food supply security (Section 9.3.3.3). Geographically, highly

vulnerable regions are those exposed to sea level rise and extreme

events, overlaid with high concentrations of multidimensional poverty

(Section 13.2.2.1). There will be disproportionate impacts on developing

countries that are dependent on climate-sensitive activities such as

agriculture (Cline, 2007). However, middle-income populations can also

be adversely impacted by climate change as a stressor adding to other

effects.

The causes and solutions of vulnerability take place at different social,

geographic, temporal, and political scales (Ribot, 2010). Therefore, to

identify critical needs of populations, and the underlying conditions

giving rise to these needs, some social assessments can benefit by

looking across institutional domains and by spanning from the local to

the national. Local assessments provide a means to identify existing

vulnerabilities; the policies, plans, and natural hazards contributing to

these vulnerabilities; as well as identifying adaptation actions. Social

needs include the range of needs for human security (see Section

12.1.2), which include the universal and culturally specific, material, and

non-material elements necessary to people to act on behalf of their

interests. More specifically, at this level, social needs can be evaluated

in terms of availability of natural, physical, human, political, and financial

assets; stability of livelihood; and livelihood strategies (Moser, 2006;

Heltberg et al., 2009). Alternatively, regional and national assessments

842

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

an provide a basis for ascertaining institutional conditions associated

with long-standing inequities and development paths that may need

to be addressed in order to generate robust options.

Although different stakeholder groups have specific needs, an overarching

adaptation need for communities, households, private sector, and

institutions is the need for shared learning on adaptation. Adaptation

has itself been referred to as a social learning process (Sections 15.6,

22.4.5.3). In particular, there is the need for human capacity and social

capital to implement adaptation actions, including education and access

to information (Brooks et al., 2005; Adger, 2006; Smit and Wandel,

2006). Improved information for adaptation can benefit from efforts to

combine indigenous and scientific knowledge (Section 12.3).

14.2.3. Institutional Needs

Institutions, informal and formal, are enduring regularities of human

action in situations structured by rules, norms, and shared strategies,

as well as by the physical world (Crawford and Ostrom, 1995) and as such

they provide the enabling environment for implementing adaptation

actions (Bryan et al., 2009; Chuku, 2009; Aakre and Rübbelke, 2010;

Compston, 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2011). These institutions provide

the guides, incentives, or constraints that shape the distribution of climate

risks, establish incentive structures that can promote adaptation, foster

the development of adaptive capacity, and establish protocols for both

making and acting on decisions (see Section 14.2.3.2; Chuku, 2009;

Agrawal, 2010; Compston, 2010). In many instances, international and

national-level policies and programs can facilitate localized strategies

through the creation of legal frameworks and the allocation of resources

(Adger, 2001; Bulkeley and Betsill, 2005; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011).

Overall, there is a need for effective institutions to identify, develop, and

pursue climate-resilient pathways for sustainable development (Sections

20.2, 20.4.2), including strengthening the ability to develop new options

through social, institutional, and technological innovation (Section 20.4.3).

Chapter 15 further considers the institutional needs to mainstream

adaptation into government planning.

Governments at all levels play important roles in advancing adaptation

and in enhancing the adaptive capacity and resilience of diverse

stakeholder groups. National governments are integral to advancing an

adaptation agenda as they decide many of the funding priorities and

tradeoffs, develop regulations, promote institutional structures, and

provide policy direction to district, state, and local governments. In

developing countries, national governments are usually the contact

point and initial recipient of international adaptation financing. In some

countries, both developed and developing, state governments lead the

national government in promoting and implementing adaptation (Mertz

et al., 2009). The engagement of national government actors can help

mobilize political will, support the creation and maintenance of climate

research institutions, establish horizontal networks that promote

information sharing (Westerhoff et al., 2011), and, in some cases,

facilitate the coordination of budgets and financing mechanisms (Alam

t al., 2011; Kalame et al., 2011). Governments have the potential to

directly reduce the risk and enhance the adaptive capacity of vulnerable

areas and populations by developing and implementing locally appropriate

regulations including those related to zoning, storm water management

and building codes, and attending to the needs of vulnerable populations

through measures such as basic service provision and the promotion of

equitable policies and plans (Adger et al., 2003b; Brooks et al., 2005;

Nelson et al., 2007; Agrawal and Perrin, 2008; Agrawal, 2010).

Among the important institutions in both developed and developing

countries are those associated with local governments

as they have a

major role in translating goals, policies, actions, and investments between

higher levels of international and national government to the many

institutions associated with local communities, civil society organizations,

and non-government organizations (NGOs). SREX Chapter 5 (IPCC,

2012) extensively assesses the role and importance of the local scale

institutions when adapting to extreme weather and climate events,

highlighting that extreme weather and climate events are acutely

experienced at local levels, and that local knowledge is important for

managing impacts (Cutter et al., 2009). As institutional actors, local

governments and community institutions influence the distribution of

climate risks, mediate between levels of government as well as between

social and political processes, and establish incentive structures that affect

both individual and collective action at all levels (Agrawal and Perrin,

2008). They are in a pivotal position to promote widespread support for

adaptation initiatives, foster intergovernmental coordination, and

facilitate implementation, both directly and through mainstreaming into

ongoing planning and work activities (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011;

Carmin et al., 2012).

There are a number of ongoing political issues that shape the relationships

national and local governments have in managing climate risks (Corfee-

Morlot et al., 2011). Governance failure has a significant influence on

institutional vulnerability (see Section 19.6.1.3.3). For instance, short-

term interests, when dealing with long-term issues, can limit incentives

to make investments. Similarly, the proximity that authorities have to

interest groups can sway their decisions toward other issues, while the

drive to engage the public in planning and other activities can orient

priorities in ways that do not support adaptation (Corfee-Morlot et al.,

2011). Local governments also may lack institutional capacity or have

difficulty gaining coordination among departments as conflicts emerge

to obtain scarce resources (Satterthwaite and Dodman, 2009; Hardoy

and Romero Lankao, 2011). In Bangladesh, the limited access of local

governments to resources has been cited as a barrier to local adaptation

(Christensen et al., 2012).

Tompkins et al. (2010) found from a survey of 300 projects identified as

adaptive at local government level in the UK that more than half were

driven by concerns not directly related to climate change. Nevertheless,

there are a number of indicators that demonstrate whether local

government has institutionalized and mainstreamed adaptation. These

include the presence of an identifiable champion from within government,

climate change being an explicit issue in municipal plans, resources

Here local government is used to refer to second or third tiers or lower of government, below national and state or provincial government levels; it includes county, district,

council, municipal, and similar levels of government.

843

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

edicated to adaptation, and adaptation incorporated into local political

and administrative decision making (Roberts, 2008, 2010).

Overall, it is important to match the appropriate institutional scale with

the scale of implementation. For example, the Murray-Darling Basin in

Australia includes significant water resources across four states requiring

management institutions involving federal, state, and local governments

to manage and allocate water use (Hussey and Dovers, 2006; see also

Box 25-2). While governments have the potential to influence adaptive

capacity, local governments often lack the human and technological

capacity or mandate to develop and enforce regulations. Local

governments, particularly those in developing countries, are faced with

numerous challenges that limit their ability to identify needs and pursue

adaptation options. Often, these governments must attend to backlogs

of basic and critical services such as housing and water supply or focus

their attention on addressing outmoded and outdated infrastructure.

They also may lack institutional capacity or have difficulty gaining

coordination among departments as conflicts emerge to obtain scarce

resources (Hardoy and Romero Lankao, 2011, Villamizar, 2011). Adaptation

will require an approach that devolves relevant decision making to the

levels where the knowledge and capacity for effective adaptations reside

(see Box 25-5). Sowers et al. (2011) maintain that, in the Middle East

and North Africa, the largely centralized systems of planning, taxation,

and revenue distribution lead to a focus on supply-side issues with little

consideration of changing climates and demand management, which

renders their populations vulnerable to climate-induced impacts on

water resources due to weak integration with local constituencies.

There are critical institutional design issues that can be evaluated in

order to understand institutional needs (Agrawal, 2010; Gupta et al.,

2010). The first is the extent to which institutions are flexible to handle

uncertainty. This includes flexibility across and within institutions to

evaluate and reorganize delivery where necessary. The uncertainty

associated with climate change, presence of rapidly changing information

and conditions, and emerging ideas on how best to foster adaptation

requires continual evaluation, learning, and refinement (Agrawal, 2010;

Gupta et al., 2010). Second is the extent to which adaptation is or has

the potential to be integrated into short- and long-term policy making,

planning, and program development (Conway and Schipper, 2011). Third

is the potential for effective coordination, communication, and cooperation

within and across levels of government and sectors (Schipper, 2009;

Agrawal, 2010; Conway and Schipper, 2011). Finally, to promote adaptive

capacity, it is important to identify the extent to which institutions are

robust enough to attend to the needs of diverse stakeholders and foster

their engagement in adaptation decisions and actions (Urwin and Jordan,

2008; Gupta et al., 2010).

14.2.4. Need for Engagement of the Private Sector

The role of the private sector is important in delivering adaptation. Often,

the focus falls on the role of the private financial sector in providing risk

management options including insurance and finance for large projects

(see Sections 15.4.4, 17.5.1). However, the delivery of adaptation actions

ranges more widely and spans different types of private enterprise, from

small farmers, to small to medium enterprises (SMEs), to multinational

companies. KPMG International (2008) used published reports and

nterviews to identify the sectors where businesses considered they face

the greatest climate-related risks. In order of perceived importance, the

core risks were regulatory, physical, reputational, and litigation risks.

The sectors identified as most at risk included an expected cluster

around oil and gas and aviation, and also a group less commonly

perceived to be at risk, including health care, the financial sector,

tourism, and transport.

Khattri et al. (2010) have described three general ways in which the

private sector can become involved in adaptation. The first, internal risk

management, is critical to firms and enterprises protecting their own

interests and ensuring continuity of supply and markets. The second form

of involvement recognizes that business is a stakeholder and therefore

needs to participate in public sector and civil society initiatives, such as

The New York City Panel on Climate Change, which consists of diverse

stakeholders, including representatives from the private sector (Rosenzweig

et al., 2011). Third, climate adaptation also provides a wide range of

new opportunities to the business community. Even in developing

countries, where regulations and markets are often underdeveloped and

business risks are high, Khattri et al., (2010) identified opportunities for

working in the health care, waste and water management, sanitation,

housing, energy, and information sectors through fostering cooperation

across government departments and NGOs and promoting public-private

partnerships.

Despite broad-scale recognition of the need to adapt, such as the World

Economic Forum’s (2012) ranking of the failure to adapt as one of the

highest global risks and on a par with terrorism, and despite some

examples of private sector engagement in adaptation, most assessments

conclude that action in each of the potential arenas has been slow to

emerge and that sharing of knowledge and experience has been limited

(Khattri et al., 2010; Agrawala et al., 2011). KPMG International (2008)

concluded that, while companies are well used to managing business

risk, they have yet to integrate the long-term risks of climate change

into these systems. Nor are they preparing to grasp the competitive

advantages that will accrue to those taking early action. Most of the

businesses interviewed appeared to be unsure of the scale of the threat

and opportunities for their businesses or are awaiting further guidance

and action by governments. They have trouble in accessing and applying

information on the extent of the threats and impacts from climate

change and have yet to engage in the detailed cost-benefit analysis of

adaptive actions or inaction. The European Commission (2009), using

case studies of both the public and private sectors, in eight countries,

came to similar conclusions. A survey by West and Brereton (2013) of

Australian businesses also concluded that most were only vaguely

aware of the breadth of adaptation actions that may be required and

concerned about information sharing and disclosure. The authors

suggest a framework for disclosures of relevant business activities to

both improve practice and cater for the needs of company boards,

investors, and stakeholders. A survey commissioned by the Carbon

Disclosure Project (Gardiner et al., 2007) found that among Standard

and Poor’s (S&P) 500 companies many more (about two-thirds of

respondents) were prepared to report and share information on managing

climate risks and adaptation plans than they were on mitigation.

Also, there are still questions of whether and how adaptation finance

should be made available to the private sector in developing countries

844

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

nd under what circumstances (Persson et al., 2009; IFC, 2010; Agrawala

et al., 2011), although this is being piloted through the Pilot Program

for Climate Resilience (World Bank, 2008; IFC, 2010). Private sector

engagement and investment in adaptation is expected to make a

substantial contribution to reducing climate risk, but the distribution of

its investments will be selective and will be unlikely to match government

and civil priorities (Atteridge, 2011).

14.2.5. Information, Capacity, and Resource Needs

Successful implementation of adaptation actions depends on the

availability of information, access to technology and funding (Yohe

and Tol, 2001; Adger, 2006; Eakin and Lemos, 2006; Smit and Wandel,

2006; World Bank, 2010). In some cases a supposed lack of relevant

and legitimate information has been used as a rationale for inaction

(Moser and Ekstrom, 2011). To address this concern, the Nairobi

Work Program—established at COP-12 in 2006, with a goal of helping

developing countries make better informed decisions based on sound

scientific, technical, and socioeconomic data—has included repeated

calls for better observation systems, information sharing, and modeling

capacity (UNFCCC/SBSTA/2008/3). Developed and developing countries

have acted on this priority by establishing institutions to provide

information services at national, regional, and global scales (CCCCC,

2011; UKCIP, 2011; NCCARF, 2012), and there is an ongoing need to

promote information acquisition and dissemination (OECD, 2009).

For example, information-related adaptation needs in Africa include

additional vulnerability and impact assessments with greater continuity,

country-specific socioeconomic scenarios, and greater knowledge on

costs and benefits of different adaptation measures (Section 22.4.2).

Research and development, knowledge, and technology transfer are

also important for promoting adaptive capacity. However, providing

information does not mean that users will be able to make effective

use of it, and this information will often have to be tailored or translated

to the individual context (Webb and Beh, 2013). Efficacy of scientific

knowledge can be improved by calibration with indigenous knowledge

(Section 20.4.2). There are also opportunities for technology transfer

and innovation to be enhanced through information technologies

(Section 20.4.3).

Financial resources for adaptation have been slower to become available

for adaptation than for mitigation in both developed and developing

countries (see Chapter 17). Adaptation finance made up probably only

a fifth of initial allocations of fast-start funding (Ciplet et al., 2012); and

much of this funding has been directed toward capacity-building,

standalone projects, or pilot programs. This not only has left financial

needs, but has also meant that there is less expertise in adaptation

assessment and implementation, which is further confounded by the

complex relationship between adaptation and more common sustainable

development and/or poverty reduction planning (McGray et al., 2007).

Adaptation cost estimates have been used to estimate the financial

needs for adaptation, and these may well have been underestimated

(see Section 17.4).

Overall, at both international and national levels there is a need to

develop financial instruments that are equitable in both their delivery

of resources and in sharing the burden of supporting the instruments

(

Levina, 2007; World Bank, 2010; see also Chapters 16, 17). In this

regard, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) was established in 2010, based

on the commitment by developed country parties to mobilize jointly

US$100 billion per year by 2020 to address the needs of developing

countries (UNFCCC, 2007). Deliberation over how adaptation finance

needs will be met has become central to the UNFCCC policy agenda

(Section 16.3.4). Also, financial mechanisms for disaster risk management

are also inextricably linked with those for adaptation (Mechler et al.,

2010). Lessons from recent recovery operations have emphasized the

need for disaster preparedness along with longer term goals directed

to building resilience, including maximizing the employment-creation

benefits of adaptation measures (Harsdorff et al., 2011.)

Finances required in the future for climate change are estimated to

approach levels on the order of current development expenditure, and

there is a large gap in funding available for climate change responses

in developing countries (Peskett et al., 2009). Therefore, there is a related

need to design delivery channels so that funding benefits the poor, as

they often are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and

climate-related disasters. As well as channeling adaptation finance to

governments, there is a need for finance to reach the most vulnerable

people and for approaches to enable stakeholder participation (Section

15.2.3). For example, for adaptation financing, working at the

subnational level will be important and mechanisms such as microfinance

may be effective (Agrawala and Carraro, 2010). Another important

concern is that, with new money being made available for climate

change research, policy development, and practice, people may place

too much emphasis on addressing climate change as an isolated priority

to the detriment of other equally pressing social, economic, and

environmental issues (Ziervogel and Taylor, 2008). For example, in small

islands, there are concerns that placing adaptation above the critical

development needs of the present could inadvertently reduce resilience

(see Section 29.6).

14.3. Adaptation Options

Identifying needs stemming from climate risks and vulnerabilities

provides a foundation for selecting adaptation options. Over the years,

a number of categories of options have been identified. These options

include a wide range of actions that, as summarized in Table 14-1, are

organized into three general categories: structural/physical, social, and

institutional.

There are many different ways that the range of adaptation options

available could be categorized (Burton, 1996), thus any categorization

is unlikely to be universally agreed on; but this aims to take into account

the diversity of adaptation options for different sectors and stakeholders.

Some options cut across several categories. National, sectoral, or local

adaptation plans are likely to include a number of measures that are

implemented jointly from across various categories including structural,

institutional, and social options. Furthermore, some adaptation options are

interrelated. For instance, institutions and information are prerequisites

for effective early warning systems.

Adaptation constraints and limits mean not all adaptation needs will

be met, and not all adaptation options will be possible (see Chapter 16,

845

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

particularly Section 16.7.1). Moreover, adaptation options are not

available to meet all adaptation needs. For instance, adaptation options

are poorly developed for the broader set of impacts on ocean systems

(see Section 30.6). There is also often going to be a gap between

adaptation needs and the effectiveness of the options to meet these

needs even when well resourced and well implemented. Some of this

gap may be met by procedures to deal with loss and damage (Section

19.7) and some adaptation deficit will remain with us. Many of the

adaptation options intersect with vulnerability reduction and development

options that build adaptive capacity and address the “adaptation deficit”

which may be seen as part of a wider “development deficit” (McGray et

al., 2007; see also Section 2.4.2).

14.3.1. Structural and Physical Options

This category highlights adaptation options that are discrete, with clear

outputs and outcomes that are well defined in scope, space, and time.

They include structural and engineering options; the application of

discrete technologies; the use of ecosystems and their services to serve

adaptation needs; and the delivery of specific services at the national,

regional, and local levels. This category includes much of the notion of

“concrete activities” that reflect the priority of the Adaptation Fund,

where the focus is on “discrete activities with a collective objective(s)

and concrete outcomes and outputs that are more narrowly defined in

scope, space, and time” (Adaptation Fund Board, 2013).

Category Examples of options*

S t r u c t u r a l /

physical

ngineered

and built

nvironment

ea walls and coastal protection structures (5.5.2 and 24.4.3.5; Figure 5-5); ﬂ ood levees and culverts (26.3.3); water storage and pump storage (Section

23.3.4); sewage works (3.5.2.3); improved drainage (24.4.5.5); beach nourishment (5.4.2.1); ﬂ ood and cyclone shelters (11.7); building codes (Section 8.1.5);

torm and waste water management (8.2.4.1); transport and road infrastructure adaptation (8.3.3.6); ﬂ oating houses (8.3.3.4); adjusting power plants and

electricity grids (10.2.2; Table 10-2)

echnological New crop and animal varieties (7.5.1.1.1, 7.5.1.1.3, 7.5.1.3; Box 9-3; Table 9-7); genetic techniques (27.3.4.2); traditional technologies and methods (7.5.2,

27.3.4.2, 28.2.6.1, and 29.6.2.1); efﬁ cient irrigation (10.3.6 and 22.4.5.7; Box 20-4); water saving technologies (24.4.1.5 and 26.3.3) including rainwater

arvesting (8.3.3.4); conservation agriculture (9.4.3.1 and 22.4.5.7); food storage and preservation facilities (22.4.5.7); hazard mapping and monitoring

echnology (15.3.2.3 and 28.4.1); early warning systems (7.5.1.1, 8.1.4.2, 8.3.3.3, 11.7.3, 15.4.3.2, 18.6.4, 22.2.2.1, 22.3.5.3, and 22.4.5.2); building

insulation (8.3.3.3); mechanical and passive cooling (8.3.3.3); renewable energy technologies (29.7.2); second-generation biofuels (27.3.6.2)

cosystem-

based

ross Chapter Box CC-EA, Ecological restoration (5.5.2, 5.5.7, 9.4.3.3, and 27.3.2.2; Box 15-1) including wetland and ﬂ oodplain conservation and

restoration; increasing biological diversity (26.4.3); afforestation and reforestation (Box 22-2); conservation and replanting mangrove forest (15.3.4 and

9.7.2); bushﬁ re reduction and prescribed ﬁ re (Section 24.4.2.5; Box 26-2); green infrastructure (e.g., shade trees, green roofs) (8.2.4.5, 8.3.3, 11.7.4,

and 23.7.4); controlling overﬁ shing (28.2.5.1 and 30.6.1); ﬁ sheries co-management (9.4.3.4 and 27.3.3.1); assisted migration or managed translocation

(4.4.2.4, 24.4.2.5, 24.4.3.5, and 25.6.2.3); ecological corridors (4.4.2.4); ex situ conservation and seed banks (4.4.2.5); community-based natural resource

anagement (CBNRM) (22.4.5.6); adaptive land use management (Section 23.6.2)

Services Social safety nets and social protection (Box 13-2; 8.3, 17.5.1, and 22.4.5.2); food banks and distribution of food surplus (29.6.2.1); municipal services

ncluding water and sanitation (3.5.2.3 and 8.3.3.4); vaccination programs (11.7.1), essential public health services (11.7.2) including reproductive health

services (11.9.2) and enhanced emergency medical services (8.3.3.8); international trade (9.3, 9.4, and 23.9.2)

Social

ducational Awareness raising and integrating into education (11.7, 15.2, and 22.4.5.5); gender equity in education (Box 9-2); extension services (9.4.4); sharing

local and traditional knowledge (12.3.4 and 28.4.1) including integrating into adaptation planning (29.6.2.1); participatory action research and social

learning (22.4.5.3); community surveys (Section 8.4.2.2); knowledge-sharing and learning platforms (8.3.2.2, 8.4.2.4, 15.2.4.2, and 22.4.5.4); international

onferences and research networks (8.4.2.5); communication through media (22.4.5.5)

Informational Hazard and vulnerability mapping (11.7.2, 8.4.1.5); early warning and response systems (15.4.2.3 and 22.4.5.2) including health early warning systems

(

11.7.3, 23.5.1, 24.4.6.5, and 26.6.3); systematic monitoring and remote sensing (15.4.2.1 and 28.6); climate services (2.3.3) including improved forecasts

(27.3.4.2); downscaling climate scenarios (8.4.1.5); longitudinal data sets (26.6.2); integrating indigenous climate observations (22.4.5.4, 25.8.2.1, and

8.2.6.1); community-based adaptation plans (5.5.1.4 and 24.4.6.5) including community-driven slum upgrading (8.3.2.2) and participatory scenario

development (22.4.4.5)

Behavioral Accommodation (5.5.2); household preparation and evacuation planning (23.7.3); retreat (5.5.2) and migration (29.6.2.4), which has its own implications

for human health (11.7.4) and human security (12.4.2); soil and water conservation (23.6.2 and 27.3.4.2); livelihood diversiﬁ cation (7.5.1.1, 7.5.2, and

22.4.5.2); changing livestock and aquaculture practices (7.5.1.1); crop-switching (22.3.4.1); changing cropping practices, patterns, and planting dates

(7.5.1.1.1, 23.4.1, 26.5.4, and 27.3.4.2; Table 24-2); silvicultural options (25.7.1.2); reliance on social networks (Section 29.6.2.2)

Institutional

Economic Financial incentives including taxes and subsidies (Box 8-4; 8.4.3 and 17.5.6); insurance (8.4.2.3, 13.3.2.2, 15.2.4.6, 17.5.1, 26.7.4.3, and 29.6.2.2; Box 25-7)

including index-based weather insurance schemes (9.4.2 and 22.4.5.2); catastrophe bonds (8.4.2.3 and 10.7.5.1); revolving funds (8.4.3.1); payments for

ecosystem services (9.4.3.3 and 27.6.2; Table 27-7); water tariffs (8.3.3.4.1 and 17.5.3); savings groups (8.4.2.3 and 11.7.4; Box 9-4); microﬁ nance (Box 8-3;

22.4.5.2); disaster contingency funds (22.4.5.2 and 26.7.4.3); cash transfers (Box 13-2)

Laws and

regulations

Land zoning laws (22.4.4.2 and 23.7.4); building standards (8.3.2.2, 10.7.5, and 22.4.5.7); easements (27.3.3.2); water regulations and agreements (26.3.4

and 27.3.1.2); laws to support disaster risk reduction (8.3.2.2); laws to encourage insurance purchasing (10.7.6.2); deﬁ ning property rights and land tenure

security (22.4.6 and 24.4.6.5); protected areas (4.4.2.2); marine protected areas (Box CC-CR Chapter 6; 23.6.5 and 27.3.3.2); ﬁ shing quotas (23.9.2); patent

pools and technology transfer (15.4.3 and 17.5.5)

Government

policies and

programs

National and regional adaptation plans (15.2 and 22.4.4.2; Box 23-3) including mainstreaming climate change; sub-national and local adaptation plans

(15.2.1.3 and 22.4.4.4; Box 23-3); urban upgrading programs (8.3.2.2); municipal water management programs (8.3.3.4; Box 25-2); disaster planning and

preparedness (11.7); city-level plans (8.3.3.3 and 27.3.5.2; Boxes 26-3 and 27-1), district-level plans (26.3.3), sector plans (26.5.4), which may include

integrated water resource management (3.6.1 and 23.7.2), landscape and watershed management (4.4.2.3), integrated coastal zone management (2.4.3,

5.5.4.1, and 23.7.1), adaptive management (2.2.1.3 and 5.5.1.4; Box 5-2), ecosystem-based management (6.4.2.1), sustainable forest management (2.3.4),

ﬁ sheries management (7.5.1.1.3 and 30.6.2.1), and community-based adaptation (5.5.4.1, 8.4, 15.2.2, 21.3.2, 22.4.4.5, 24.5.2, 29.6.2.2, and 29.6.2.3; Tables

5-4 and 8-4; FAQ 15.1)

Table 14-1 | Categories and examples of adaptation options.

Notes: These adaptation options should be considered overlapping rather than discrete, and are often pursued simultaneously as part of adaptation plans. Examples given can be

relevant to more than one category.

A number of these would fall under the term “green infrastructure” in some European Commission documents (European Commission, 2009).

*WGII AR5 sections containing representative sample of adaptation options.

846

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

14.3.1.1. Engineering and Built Environment

Engineering, and the multidisciplinary teams engineers work with

(architects, planners, legal experts, etc.), is often at the forefront of

delivering adaptation technologies and strategies (Dawson, 2007). Most

engineering options are expert driven, capital-intensive, large-scale, and

highly complex (McEvoy et al., 2006; Morecroft and Cowan, 2010;

Sovacool, 2011). While many of the engineering options—including

management of storm and waste water flow (both inland and coastal),

flood levees, seawalls, upgrading existing infrastructures to improve

wind and flooding resilience, beach nourishment, and retrofitting

buildings (Blanco et al., 2009; Koetse and Rietveld, 2012; Ranger and

Garbett-Shiels, 2012)—are extensions and improvements of existing

practices, plans, and structures; some newer projects are now integrating

changed climate risk into the initial design. For example, during the

engineering design of the Qinghai-Tibet Railway, various measures were

proposed to ensure the stability of the railway embankment in

permafrost regions (Wu et al., 2008). Section 5.5.4.1 describes how new

coastal protection structures in Japan are being upgraded to take into

account future sea level rise.

Engineered adaptation options typically have two general limitations.

First, they often must cope with uncertainties associated with projecting

climate impacts arising from assumptions about future weather,

population growth, and human behavior (Dawson, 2007; Furlow et al.,

2011). Second, the longevity and cost of engineered infrastructure affect

the feasibility at the outset (Koetse and Rietveld, 2012). They also are

subject to consequences that were not anticipated. For example, after

coastal eastern England was devastated by the North Sea storm surge

in 1953, hard-engineered sea walls were put in place to protect the

coast from erosion and inundation. However, the engineered alterations

resulted in a new array of coastal instabilities, including disturbances

in sediment supply and damages to coastal ecosystems (Adger et al.,

2009b; Turner et al., 2010). As a result, many have promoted a “phased

capacity expansion” strategy, which allows engineered projects to

undertake design modification as conditions or knowledge change and

facilitate incremental project construction to ease the burden of upfront

financing (Colombo and Byer, 2012). An example is the Thames Estuary

2100 Plan (see Box 5-1) and, in the Netherlands, the Delta Works

(Arnold et al., 2011).

14.3.1.2. Technological Options

Recent advances in technology and information are being combined

with engineering structural adaptation measures in various applications.

In the food and agriculture sector, a suite of adaptation options have

been developed and applied to reduce the adverse impacts of climate

change on production (FAO, 2007; Stokes and Howden, 2010; see also

Chapters 7, 9). Technologies range from more efficient irrigation and

fertilization methods, plant breeding for greater drought tolerance, and

adjusting planting based on projected yields (Semenov, 2006, 2008;

Bannayan and Hoogenboom, 2008) to transfers of traditional technologies

such as floating gardens (Irfanullah et al., 2011a,b). Technology options

for climate change adaptation include both “hard” and “soft”

technologies, and not only new technologies but also indigenous and

locally made appropriate technology (Glatzel et al., 2012). For example,

raditional construction methods have been identified across the Pacific

as a means of adapting to tropical cyclones and floods, including

building low aerodynamic houses and the use of traditional roofing

material such as sago palm leaves to reduce the hazard of iron roofing

being blown away in high winds (see Section 29.6.2.1). Centralized

high-technology systems can increase efficiency under normal conditions,

but also risk cascading malfunctions in emergencies (Section 15.4.3).

With the rapid diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies

(ICT) such as mobile phones and the Internet, the unprecedented speed

at which information is produced and shared is posing a new set of

possibilities for communication. ICT provides opportunities for top-down

dissemination of relevant information such as weather forecasts, hazard

warnings, market information, information sharing, and advisory services.

It can also generate essential information through bottom-up processes

such as “crowd sourcing” of useful information such as local flood levels,

disease outbreaks, and the management of disaster responses. MacLean

(2008) identifies three kinds of effects of the rapid advances in ICT on

adaptation and development in general: direct use for monitoring and

measuring climate change as described earlier, as a medium for raising

awareness, and as an enabler for a “networked governance” based on

networked open organizations. Pant and Heeks (2011) emphasize the

difficulty in foreseeing additional applications arising from planned ICT

applications exploiting local creativity and entrepreneurship, but warn

that ICT itself is not a panacea and that the most effective applications

are embedded in other societal behaviors.

There are repeated calls for technology transfer to and sharing between

developing countries in adaptation to match the programs associated

with mitigation (UNFCCC, 2006). Unlike mitigation, where low-carbon

technologies are often new and protected by patents held in developed

countries, in adaptation the technologies are often familiar and applied

elsewhere. For example, agricultural practices that are well known in a

region some distance away may now be applicable but unfamiliar

within a region of interest (Irfanullah et al., 2011a). Thus, technology

transfer in adaptation may be easier than for mitigation. For example,

to address water scarcity issues in many places, water storage, use, and

water efficiency technologies will all need to be more widely available.

See also Section 15.3.4 on technology transfer and diffusion.

14.3.1.3. Ecosystem-Based Adaptation

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EBA)—which is the use of biodiversity

and ecosystem services as part of an overall adaptation strategy to help

people to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change (Convention

on Biological Diversity, 2009)—is becoming an integral approach to

adaptation (see Box CC-EA). Often, when faced with climate-related

threats, first consideration is given to engineered and technological

approaches to adaptation. However, working with nature’s capacity and

pursing ecological options, such as coastal and wetland maintenance

and restoration, to absorb or control the impact of climate change in

urban and rural areas can be efficient and effective means of adapting

(Huntjens et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2012). The use of mangroves and

salt marshes as a buffer against damage to coastal communities and

infrastructure has been well researched and found to be effective both

physically and financially in appropriate locations (Day et al., 2007;

847

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

orris, 2007). They can also provide biodiversity co-benefits, support

fish nurseries, and have carbon sequestration value (Adger et al., 2005;

Reid and Huq, 2005; Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009). Other

EBA activities include integrative adaptive forest management (Bolte

et al., 2009; Guariguata, 2009; Reyer et al., 2009), and the use of agro-

ecosystems in farming systems (Tengö and Belfrage, 2004), ecotourism

activities (Adler et al., 2013), land and water protection and management,

and direct species management (Mawdsley et al., 2009). An analysis of

the 44 submitted NAPAs showed that the value of ecosystem services

was acknowledged in 50% of the national proposals and, in 22% of

the proposals, included the use of ecosystem services mostly in support

of other adaptation activities including infrastructure, soil conservation,

and water regulation (Pramova et al., 2012).

Green infrastructure (including the use of green roofs, porous pavements,

and urban parks) can improve storm water management and reduce

flood risk in cities, and can moderate the heat-island effect, as well as

having co-benefits for mitigation (Section 8.3.3.7). For example, New

York City has a well-established program to enhance its water supply

through watershed protection that is cost-effective compared to

constructing a filtration plant (Section 8.3.3.7). However, there are

trade-offs relating to land use and the availability of space for people

and social, economic, and environmental activities. For example,

providing an effective wetland buffer for coastal protection may require

emphasis on silt accumulation possibly at the expense of wildlife values

and recreation (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009; Dudley et al.,

2010). Similarly Goldstein et al. (2012) found that in land use decision

making in Hawaii trade-offs existed between carbon storage and water

quality, and between environmental improvement and financial returns.

A further consideration is that ecosystem-based approaches are often

more difficult to implement and assess as they usually require cooperation

across institutions, sectors, and communities, and their benefits are also

spread across a similarly wide set of stakeholders (Jones et al., 2012).

One of the major barriers to EBA is the lack of comparable standards and

methodologies applied to engineering approaches, thus demonstrating the

need for more dialog between engineering and ecological communities.

14.3.1.4. Service Options

Service provision consists of a diverse range of specific and measurable

activities. For instance, one measure to support the most vulnerable

populations is social safety nets. Efforts to address child malnutrition,

which often result from loss of livelihood due to extreme weather events,

particularly floods and droughts (Hoddinott et al., 2008; Alderman et

al., 2009), offer an example of how safety nets can serve as a climate

adaptation measure. While some studies have shown that food programs

can be counterproductive to promoting livelihoods over the longer term

or may not prevent malnutrition in non-emergency situations (e.g.,

Bhutta et al., 2008), programs designed to provide support via food

programs, micro-finance, or insurance at times of extreme events can

provide an important bridge for vulnerable populations (Hoeppe and

Gurenko, 2006; Hochrainer et al., 2007; Alderman et al., 2009; Meze-

Hausken et al., 2009).

Public health services also are important for tackling projected increases

of disease incidences spurred on by climate change (Ebi and Burton, 2008;

arg et al., 2009; Edwards et al., 2011; Huang et al., 2011). For example,

in countries where malaria is endemic, frequent adaptation options for

addressing possible outbreaks include increasing use of mosquito nets,

insecticides sprays, and controlling mosquito breeding by reclaiming

land and filling drains (Garg et al., 2009). Governments at all levels are

often also responsible for maintaining adequate access to services that

are projected to be further stressed due to climate change (Laukkonen

et al., 2009). Frequently cited options in this domain include, among

others, clearing drainage systems to prevent floods, diversifying water

supply services to account for changing water supplies (Kiparsky et al.,

2012), and maintaining open public spaces dedicated for disaster recovery

and other emergency purposes (Hamin and Gurran, 2009).

At the local level, infrastructure associated with the provision of basic

services, such as water, sanitation, solid waste disposal, power, storm

water and roadway management, and public transportation are integral

to increasing adaptive capacity (Paavola, 2008; Bambrick et al., 2011;

Barron et al., 2012; see also Section 8.2.4.1). Transport links enable

households to take part in trade, for example, to access agricultural

markets (Section 9.3.3.3.2) although supply chains can be vulnerable

to climate disruption. Housing services are particularly critical because

new patterns in temperature and precipitation will alter the habitability

and stability of residences while increased frequency and intensity of

natural disasters will place settlements and homes on both stable and

unstable land at greater risk (Satterthwaite and Dodman, 2009; see also

Section 8.3.3.3). Although one option is to relocate people inhabiting

vulnerable areas, some argue that in situ upgrading may be more cost-

effective, especially for addressing informal settlements in developing

countries (Revi, 2008).

14.3.2. Social Options

There are various adaptation options that target the specific vulnerability

of disadvantaged groups, including targeting vulnerability reduction

and social inequities. Community-based adaptation (CBA) refers to the

generation and implementation of locally driven adaptation strategies,

operating on a learning-by-doing, bottom-up, empowerment paradigm

that cuts across sectors and technological, social, and institutional

processes. Social protection schemes (see also Section 14.3.1 on services)

include public and private initiatives that transfer income or assets to

the poor, protect against livelihood risks, and raise the social status and

rights of those who are marginalized (see Box 13-2). An example of a

social protection scheme aimed at moving beyond repeated relief

interventions is Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) (Section

22.4.5.2).

The complexity of climate adaptation means that adaptation options

are heavily influenced by forms of learning and knowledge sharing

(Collins and Ison, 2009). Many scholars have noted that education is a

key indicator for how people select adaptation options (Chinowsky et

al., 2011; Sovacool et al., 2012), while a lack of education is a constraint

that contributes to vulnerability (Paavola, 2008). For example, in a study

of how farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia select adaptation options,

the researchers found a positive relationship between the education level

of the household head and the adoption of improved technologies and

adaptation to climate change (Deressa et al., 2009a,b). In Bangladesh,

848

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

ducation about disaster responses was greatly assisted by rising literacy

rates, especially among women (Section 11.7).

Awareness raising, extension, outreach, community meetings, and other

educational programs are important for disseminating knowledge about

adaptation options (Aakre and Rübbelke, 2010; Birkmann and Teichman,

2010) as well as for helping to build social capital that is critical for

social resilience (Adger, 2003; Krasny et al., 2010; Wolf et al., 2010). In

this regard, education can be seen as a public good that promotes

dialog and networks (Boyd and Osbahr, 2010), and therefore allows the

development of resilience at both the level of the individual learner and

at the level of socio-ecological systems (Krasny et al., 2010). Research

partnerships and networks can facilitate knowledge-sharing and

awareness raising at all levels from small groups of individuals to large

institutions (Section 8.4.2.5). Communication and dialog on adaptation

can be a two-way flow of information. Adaptation has itself been

described as a social learning process (Section 15.3.1.2), and a number

of initiatives in Africa emphasized the importance of iterative and

experiential learning for flexible adaptation planning (Suarez et al.,

2009; see also Section 22.4.5.3). In Maryland a half-day role-playing

process has been designed to both help local people, working with key

local and state experts and planners, to plan and prepare for sea level

rise and other coastal impacts. It allows them to experience first hand

the diversity of stakeholders, the conflicting decisions to be made, and

the need to communicate throughout their community to adapt to new

risks (Anon, 2009). A similar role-playing game has been developed for

the Chesapeake Bay of the eastern United States (Learmonth et al.,

2011).

Informational strategies are integral to adaptation. Early warning

systems are critical to ensuring awareness of natural hazards and to

promoting timely response, including evacuation. A number of approaches

are being employed around the world, including tone alert radio,

emergency alert system, presentations, and briefings (Van Aalst et al.,

2008; Ferrara de Giner et al., 2012). Heat wave and health warning

systems (HHWS) can be designed to prevent negative health impacts,

by predicting possible health outcomes, identifying triggers, and

communicating prevention responses (Section 11.7.3).

Climate services initially emerged as an expansion of the tasks provided

by weather services, and can act as “knowledge brokers” that establish

a dialog between science and the public, to facilitate decision support

(Section 2.4.1.2). Linking indigenous and conventional climate

observations can add value, for example, in western Kenya, where

scientists have worked with local rainmakers to develop consensus

forecasts (Section 22.4.5.4). Awareness raising through scenario

development, computer modeling, and role playing is effective in

preparing both responsible authorities and the public. As previously

noted, ICT is facilitating rapid dissemination of information. However,

low-tech measures such as brochures, public service announcements,

and direct contact with local residents also are important to fostering

awareness and response especially where access to ICT is limited or

expensive (National Research Council, 2011).

Behavioral measures are among the suite of options that are integral

to advancing climate adaptation. Government incentives can spark

behavioral change. For example, to slow runoff into storm sewers and

educe flooding, a number of cities in the USA run “Disconnect your

Downspout” programs to urge homeowners to redirect water from their

roof into a storage tank or small wetlands. These programs will provide

information to households and some offer rebates on supplies. Many

poor and vulnerable communities have taken steps to adapt to changes

in climate, particularly those in flood-prone areas. For instance, some

local communities in Manila are increasing the number of floors in homes

and building makeshift bridges (Porio, 2011). Behavioral adaptation can

include livelihood diversification, which has long been used by African

households to cope with climate shocks and spread risk (Section 22.4.5.2).

Labor migration can be an important strategy for reducing vulnerability

to different sources of stress as it helps households diversify their

livelihoods (Banerjee et al., 2013). However, migration and relocation

do have implications for family relations, health, and human security

(see Sections 11.7.4, 12.4.2).

14.3.3. Institutional Options

Numerous institutional measures can be used to foster adaptation.

These range from economic instruments such as taxes, subsidies, and

insurance arrangements to social policies and regulations (de Bruin et

al., 2009; Hallegatte, 2009; Heltberg et al., 2009). For instance, in the

USA, post-disaster funds for loss reduction are added to funds provided

for disaster recovery and can be used to buy out properties that have

experienced repetitive flood losses and to relocate residents to safer

locations, to elevate structures, and to assist communities with purchasing

property and altering land-use patterns in flood-prone areas, as well as

undertaking other activities designed to lessen the impacts of future

disasters not only on habitation but also on more effective food

production and other livelihoods (FEMA, 2010). Uptake of climate risk

insurance is hindered by expensive premiums. The Caribbean Catastrophe

Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) pools together country-level risks into a

more diversified portfolio to offer lower premiums for immediate post-

disaster responses (Section 29.6.2.2).

Laws, regulations, and planning measures such as protected areas,

building codes, and re-zoning are institutional measures that can improve

the safety of hazard-prone communities by designating land use to support

resilience (Biderman et al., 2008; Bartlett et al., 2009). For example,

marine protected areas (MPAs) have the potential to increase ecosystem

resilience and increase recovery of coral reefs after mass coral bleaching

(see Chapter 6, Box CC-CR). While zoning can be used to procure sites

for low-income populations (Biderman et al., 2008; Bartlett et al., 2009;

Satterthwaite and Dodman, 2009), if it increases property and housing

values it also has the potential to exclude the poor from these areas.

Legal rights can also determine adaptive capacity as well as access to

resources. Land tenure security in Africa is widely accepted as being

critical for enabling people to make longer-term decisions, such as

changing farming practices (Section 22.4.6).

A number of funding and financial issues are linked to institutions. At

the international level, agreements and donors have a critical role to

play in promoting and supporting the allocation and flow of financial

resources (OECD, 2011). For instance, the Adaptation Fund, which is set

up under the Kyoto Protocol and funded through a levy on most Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM) projects, is of particular importance to

849

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

eveloping countries as it is pioneering the direct access mechanism

which allows countries to access funds without having to work through

a multilateral development agency. The direct access mechanism

highlights the role of institutions in building and maintaining capacity,

not just in the technical aspects of adaptation assessment and project

design, but also in financial management and due diligence (Brown et

al., 2011).

Effective governance is important for efficient operations of institutions.

In general, governance rests on the promotion of democratic and

participatory principles as well as on ensuring access to information,

knowledge, and networks. Institutional strengthening and capacity

building has been highlighted as a priority need in developing countries

(Kumamoto and Mills, 2012). In assessment of river basin planning in

Brazil, Engle and Lemos (2010) found that improving governance

mechanisms appears to enhance adaptive capacity. Similarly water-

trading schemes facilitated by new government measures reduced the

impact of a major drought on the economy in Australia (Mallawaarachchi

and Foster, 2009). The effectiveness of such approaches depends on

both government will and capacity building among those affected.

In terms of national or local adaptation planning and policy making,

Chapter 15 emphasizes that it can be challenging for governments to

move beyond adaptation planning to implementation (Section 15.2.2).

In an evaluation of one of the earliest national adaptation strategies

for Finland, it was found that few measures had been implemented

except in the water sector (see Box 23-2). Adaptation planning can

occur at a number of spatial scales including at the national, regional,

city, district, or local community level. Action plans can include a range

of adaptation options including structural, social, and regulatory

measures. For example, the city of Quito has proposed developing dams,

encouraging a culture of rational water use, reducing water losses, and

developing mechanisms to reduce water conflicts (Section 8.3.3.4).

Table 25-5 lists various urban climate change adaptation options and

their barriers to adoption. See also Section 15.3 on local adaptation

plans.

Institutional adaptation options include the use of various decision-

making and adaptation planning tools (Chapter 15) including iterative

risk management (Chapter 2). There are various decision-making

paradigms that can guide adaptation actions. For example, prominent

institutional frameworks used for management of coastal areas include

Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) and Adaptive Management

(see Section 5.5.1.4). At the local scale, community-based adaptation

refers to the generation and implementation of locally driven adaptation

strategies through a learning-by-doing, bottom-up approach (Section

5.5.1.4). Community-based approaches to adaptation can also be

mainstreamed into local or regional plans. Refer to Table 5-4 for a

description of community-based adaptation options for coastal areas.

14.3.4. Selecting Adaptation Options

Selecting specific adaptation options can be challenging partly due to

the rate, uncertainty, and cumulative impacts of climate change. How

adaptation is framed will have an impact on how adaptation options

are selected (Fünfgeld and McEvoy, 2011). Policy and market conditions

ay be a stronger driver of behavior than the observed climate itself

(Berkhout et al., 2006). Also, rarely will adaptation options be designed

to address climate risks or opportunities alone (IPCC, 2007b); instead

actions will often be undertaken with other goals (such as profit or

poverty reduction) in mind, while also achieving climate-related co-

benefits. Gains in reduced vulnerability, enhanced resilience, or greater

welfare will often be co-benefits generated as a result of changes and

innovations driven by other factors (Khan et al., 2013). Rather than

focusing on adaptation options addressing specific dimensions of climate

change, more attention is being paid to mainstreaming climate change

into wider government policy and private sector activities (see Sections

15.2.1, 15.5.1; Sietz et al., 2011a).

Selection and prioritization of adaptation options is important because

not all adaptation options will be possible owing to constraints such as

insufficient local resources, capacities, and authority (see Section 16.7).

Furthermore, some adaptation options can be maladaptive if they foreclose

other options (see Section 14.7). The viability of adaptation options is

dependent on the time scale and climate scenario, emphasizing that

selecting adaptation options is an iterative process.

A variety of systematic techniques have been developed for selecting

options (e.g., see Section 15.4; De Bruin et al., 2009; Füssel, 2009; Ogden

and Innes, 2009). Quantification and other systematic approaches to

selecting options have many virtues. However, they also have limitations.

For instance, most of these methodologies do not account for a range

of critical factors such as leadership, institutions, resources, and barriers

(Smith et al., 2009). For example, cost-benefit analysis of adaptation

options requires valuation of non-market costs and benefits, which

can be impractical (Section 17.3.2). Strategies dominating the early

adaptation literature emphasized maintaining the current system and

minimizing costs while achieving some form of benefit. For instance,

no-regrets measures both reduce climate risk and provide other social,

economic, or environmental benefits (Hallegatte, 2009). Risk management

approaches often lead to no-regrets, low-regrets, or win-win options,

while multi-criteria analysis (MCA) allows assessment of options against

different criteria, as was used in the preparation of NAPAs (UNFCCC,

2011).

As ideas about adaptation have evolved, there has been a shift in

ambition from traditional approaches that emphasize maintaining the

status quo to more dynamic and integrative strategies (see also Sections

2.4.3, 14.1, 16.4.2, 20.5). Adaptive management places an emphasis on

taking action and then using the lessons learned to inform future actions

in order to make better informed, and often incremental, decisions in

the face of uncertainty (Sections 2.2.1.3, 14.4). Lempert and Schlesinger

(2000) have proposed that adaptation options should be robust

against a wide range of plausible climate and societal change futures.

Emerging trends in adaptation place an emphasis on the need for more

transformational changes, which has a distinct logic that differs from

traditional strategies (see Section 14.1).

As research and experience in the practice of adaptation grows, an ever

increasing number of considerations have been advanced as being

important in guiding the selection and sequencing of adaptation options.

It is unlikely that every adaptation program can ever fully meet each of

these considerations, especially as they are increasingly integrated with

850

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

wider social or development goals, but Table 14-2 seeks to outline the

most common considerations and point to sources in this volume and

the literature for a discussion of some of the core issues.

14.4. Adaptation Assessments

14.4.1. Purpose of Assessments

Identifying adaptation needs requires an assessment of the factors that

determine the nature of, and vulnerability to, climate risks (climate change

assessments, climate impacts and risk assessments, and vulnerability

assessments) and an assessment of adaptation options to reduce risks

(adaptation assessment). The various types of climate change assessments

differ in that they pursue different goals, are underpinned by different

theoretical frameworks, and rely on different forms of data and ultimately

may lead to different adaptation responses (Fünfgeld and McEvoy, 2011).

Assessments help decision makers understand the impacts, vulnerability,

and adaptation options in a region, country, community, or sector. They

are often characterized into “top-down” and “bottom-up” assessments.

Top-down assessments are used to measure the potential impacts of

climate change using a scenario and modeling driven approach. Bottom-

up assessments begin at the local scale, address socioeconomic responses

to climate, and tend to be location specific (Dessai and Hulme, 2004).

They are often used to determine the vulnerability of different groups

to current and/or future climate change and their adaptation options,

using stakeholder intervention and analyzing socioeconomic conditions

and livelihoods (UNFCCC, 2010). There are also policy-based assessments,

which assess current policy and plans for their effectiveness under climate

change within a risk-management framework (UNDP, 2004, 2005). The

evolution of assessments has led to a more thorough assessment of

society’s ability to respond to risks through various adaptations, which

can help guide allocation of adaptation resources (Füssel and Klein,

2006). In practice assessments have become increasingly complex, often

combining elements of top-down and bottom-up approaches (e.g.,

Dessai et al., 2005). Decision makers use both in the policy process

(Kates and Wilbanks, 2003; McKenzie Hedger et al., 2006).

14.4.2. Trends in Assessments

A variety of frameworks have been developed for the assessment of

climate impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation (Fünfgeld and McEvoy,

2011). “Impacts-based” approaches focus primarily on the biophysical

climate change impacts to which people and systems need to adapt.

“Vulnerability-based” approaches focus on the risks themselves by

concentrating on the propensity to be harmed, then seeking to maximize

potential benefits and minimize or reverse potential losses (Adger, 2006;

IPCC, 2007b). “Adaptation-based” approaches examine the adaptive

capacity and adaptation measures required to improve the resilience

or robustness of a system exposed to climate change (Smit and Wandel,

2006). In practice these approaches are interrelated, especially with

regard to adaptive capacity (O’Brien et al., 2007). An evolution in the

conceptualization of risk and vulnerability in the past decade has led

to more holistic and integrated approaches to assessment, aiming

toward a more systemic understanding of the complexity of human-

environment interactions (Preston et al., 2011b).

The “standard approach” to assessment has been the climate scenario-

driven impacts-based approach, which developed from the seven-step

assessment framework of the IPCC (Carter et al., 1994; Parry and Carter,

1998): (1) define the problem (including study area and sectors to be

examined), (2) select method of problem assessment, (3) test methods/

conduct sensitivity analyses, (4) select and apply climate change

scenarios, (5) assess biophysical and socioeconomic impacts, (6) assess

autonomous adjustments, and (7) evaluate adaptation strategies. This

approach dominated the assessment sections of the first three IPCC

reports, and aims to evaluate the impacts of climate change under a

given scenario and to assess the need for adaptation and/or mitigation

Consideration Source (section) within this volume and selected references

Effective in reducing vulnerability and increasing resilience 9.3.5, 11.3; UNFCCC (2007); Brooks et al. (2011)

fﬁ cient (increase beneﬁ ts and reduce costs) 17.2, 17.4; Stern (2006); IFC (2010)

Equitable, especially to vulnerable groups Chapter 12; 13.2.1; Huq and Khan (2006)

ainstreamed / integrated with broader social goals, programs, and activities 15.1, 15.5; Agrawala (2005); Dowlatabadi (2007); Swart and Raes (2007); Agrawala and van Aalst

(2008); Ayers and Dodman (2010)

takeholder participation, engagement, and support 12.3.1, 13.3, 15.1, 15.2; Swart and Raes (2007)

onsistent with social norms and traditions 12.3.1, 13.1.2; Moser (2006); O’Brien et al. (2007); Alexander et al. (2011)

Legitimacy and social acceptability 20.3.2; UNFCCC (2007); Brooks et al. (2011)

ustainable (environmental and institutional sustainability) 13.1, 15.3; Brooks et al. (2007); Brown et al. (2011)

Flexible and responsive to feedback and learning 2.3.2, 2.3.3, 16.3, 20.2.3.2; Suarezet al. (2009); Agrawal(2010)

esigned for an appropriate scope and time frame 15.2.3.2, 16.1; Preston and Stafford-Smith (2009); Stafford-Smith et al. (2010); Brown et al. (2012)

Likely to avoid maladaptive traps 14.6; Grothmann and Patt (2005); Repetto (2008)

Robust against a wide range of climate and social scenarios 2.1.1, 17.2.5, 17.3.2; Lempert and Schlesinger (2000); Carmin and Dodman (2013)

esources available (including information, ﬁ nance, leadership, management capacity) 14.2.4; UNFCCC (2007); Martenset al. (2009); Brooks et al. (2011); Webb and Beh (2013)

Need for transformative changes considered 14.1; Wilbanks and Kates (2010); Park et al. (2012)

oherence and synergy with other objectives, such as mitigation 14.6; Klein et al. (2007); UNFCCC (2007); Barnett and O’Neill (2010)

Table 14-2 | Considerations when selecting adaptation options.

851

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

o reduce any resulting vulnerability to climate risks (IPCC, 2007a). These

frameworks are described as “first generation” or “type 1” assessment

studies (Burton et al., 2002). The standard impact approach is often

described as top-down because it combines scenarios downscaled from

global climate models to the local scale with a sequence of analytical

steps that begin with the climate system and move through biophysical

impacts toward socioeconomic assessment (IPCC, 2007b). The process

of downscaling of global climate models leads to issues of uncertainty

and limited statistical confidence (Fünfgeld and McEvoy, 2011).

A new generation of scenario-based impact assessments has also

emerged linking biophysical, economic, and social analysis tools. Refer

to Section 2.3.2 for examples of large-scale and regional-scale scenario-

based vulnerability assessments that have taken place linking biophysical

and socioeconomic futures. In Europe, a study by Ciscar et al. (2011)

estimated economic welfare losses over four sectors of 0.2 to 1% by the

2080s (Section 2.3.2.1). In Australia, socioeconomic considerations are

beginning to be used to inform assessments of adaptive capacity and

vulnerability (Section 25.3.2). A risk-based framework, based on the risk

management approach, can also be used for assessing adaptation

opportunities, constraints, and limits (Section 16.2). Economic assessments

are also used to estimate the impacts of climate change, including

distributional impacts and adaptation costs and benefits (Chapter 17).

The “second generation” vulnerability and adaptation assessments

(Burton et al., 2002) pay greater attention to information around

vulnerability to inform decisions on adaptation. They are characterized

by the intensive involvement of stakeholders and the participation of

vulnerable groups in decision making around adaptation options (Füssel

and Klein, 2006; LDC Expert Group, 2012). Local projects often use

participatory vulnerability assessment (PVA) methods. In Bangladesh,

ommunity-based adaptation has combined consensus-building and

participatory rural appraisal (PRA) to assess needs of the communities

and propose adaptation actions (Section 15.2.1). In activities by CARE,

vulnerability assessments were undertaken with men and women’s

groups separately to ensure activities were gender sensitive (see Section

7.5.2). Participatory vulnerability assessments offer an opportunity to

avoid maladaptation by involving stakeholders, for example, in a

vulnerability assessment of tourism in the Mamanuca Islands in Fiji,

where stakeholders were explicitly integrated into each step of the

process (Section 29.8).

Adaptation assessments continue to evolve, but most syntheses now

include “top-down” and “bottom-up” approaches, and include the

assessment of both biophysical climate change risks and the factors

that make people vulnerable to those risks. There is a shift toward

integrating community-based planning into national adaptation plans.

The Government of Nepal proposes “LAPA assessments” (Local Adaptation

Plans of Action) that seek to integrate top-down and bottom-up models

(Government of Nepal, 2011). There is also increasing attention to

institutional capacity assessments and policy environments as key factors

that can both drive vulnerability and also determine the type and success

of different adaptation options. The generic elements of adaptation and

vulnerability assessment are reflected in the the UK Climate Impacts

Program (UKCIP) guidelines presented in Figure 14-2.

14.4.3. Issues and Tensions in the Use of Assessments

Adaptation and risk assessments give rise to various tensions, three of

which are discussed here. The first is the adaptation paradox, which

recognizes that climate change is a global problem while vulnerability

1. Identify problem and objectives

3. Assess risk

5. Appraise options 4. Identify options

7. Implement decision

8. Monitor

Receptors, exposure units, and risk assessment endpoints

R t it d i k t d i t

2. Establish decision-making criteria

6. Make decision

Problem

deﬁned

correctly?

Criteria

met?

Figure 14-2 | A generic framework for vulnerability and adaptation assessments (UKCIP, 2011).

852

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

s locally experienced (Ayers, 2011). Top-down assessments of climate

scenarios are deemed necessary in order to understand the climate

change scenarios that render climate risk. However, the factors that

make people vulnerable to climate risks are often locally generated, so

require locally driven bottom-up analysis, while factors at the national

and regional levels also determine vulnerabilities. Bottom-up analysis

tends to prioritize groups based on factors related to poverty and

development that drive vulnerability. Top-down assessments tend to

prioritize those most exposed to climate risks. Analysis in Nepal that

assessed both under-development and climate change impacts showed

that, at the household scale, there was a strong correlation between

local measures of poverty and vulnerability to climate change (Ghimire

et al., 2010). However, when indicators were aggregated at district scale,

the correlation was weaker—even when the vulnerability index used

included poverty as a proxy for adaptive capacity alongside climate

hazard risk and exposure (Ghimire et al., 2010).

There are also tensions around ownership and participation. Assessments

managed under global climate change governance structure of the UN

Framework Convention on Climate Change are developed under an

“impacts-based” paradigm (Burton et al., 2002). This impacts-based

approach requires external scientific and technological expertise for

defining climate change problems, and formulating technological

adaptation solutions, based on specific knowledge of future climate

conditions. Such assessments are necessarily “top-down” because this

expertise exists at the global and national level. At the local level, the

capacity to adapt is based on the underlying securities that determine

vulnerability to these impacts in the first place (Adger et al., 2003a).

Accessing this information requires “bottom-up” and participatory

assessments that engage local vulnerable people. These vulnerable

groups and institutions often do not have access to the climate impacts

science necessary to fully apply top-down impacts-based assessments.

Some places also do not have accurate historical weather data, making

it difficult to validate climate trends and models and hence develop

evidence-based scenarios of what will happen with any degree of

accuracy (Conway, 2009).

The numerous assessments that have been carried out have led to

increased awareness among decision makers and stakeholders of climate

risks and adaptation needs and options. But this awareness is often not

translated into the implementation of even simple adaptation measures

within ongoing activities or within risk management planning. There is

a bottleneck in adaptation assessments, which may need to be overcome

by linking more directly to particular decisions and tailoring the

information to local contexts to facilitate the decision-making process

(Preston and Stafford Smith, 2009; Brown et al., 2011). Specific techniques

such as decision scaling, which seeks to understand which climate

conditions would result in hazardous conditions of concern for particular

stakeholder groups, are a step in this direction (Brown et al., 2012;

Moody and Brown, 2012). Decision support must recognize that human

psychological dimensions play a crucial role in the way people perceive

risks and make decisions (Section 2.2.1.2). Impacts and adaptation

options will also have to be successfully communicated to the local

scale. One example of this is local-scale visualization of impacts and

adaptation measures, as has taken place in British Columbia, Canada

(see Section 2.2.1.3). Use of ICT tools can foster new ways to assimilate

or translate information (see Box 15-1). Vulnerability mapping, including

he use of geographic information systems (GIS), can help stakeholders

to visualize the impacts of climate change on the landscape, while

integration with participatory processes can facilitate learning and

deliberation (Preston et al., 2011a).

14.4.4. National Assessments

Under the UNFCCC, all parties are encouraged (Annex 1 countries are

required) to report on activities in relation to “vulnerability assessment,

climate change impacts and adaptation measures” (FCCC/CP/1999/7).

Parties are encouraged to use the IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations (Carter et al., 1994) and the

UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impacts Assessment

and Adaptation Strategies, which focuses on the impacts of sea level rise

and uses the seven-step assessment framework (described previously).

Annex 1 countries are due to submit their sixth Communications by

2014 and most non-Annex I countries are due to have submitted at

least one Communication; some are on their fifth. As such, National

Communications have formed the first avenue for assessing and

reporting on climate risk and vulnerability assessments at the national

level. Most initial National Communications to the UNFCCC produced

by developing countries were first-generation vulnerability assessments,

which did not seek to assess the feasibility of implementing adaptations

(Füssel and Klein, 2006). Undertaking such assessment is resource

intensive, underscoring the need for further resources, training, and

expertise.

There is a range of emerging national experiences on adaptation and

vulnerability assessments. For coastal areas under sea level rise, a

summary of the results from coastal vulnerability assessments is shown

in Table 5-5. Such assessments show that vulnerability is highly dependent

on the greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation scenario. In Kenya, a study by

the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) estimated the economics of

climate change under a range of scenarios (see Figure 22-6) and

estimated that, by 2050, more than 300,000 people could be flooded

per year under a high-emissions scenario. In 2012, the UK’s first Climate

Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) was undertaken based on a similar

framework to that shown in Figure 14-2, to assess risks in and across

eleven sectors to inform priorities for action and appropriate adaptation

measures (DEFRA, 2012).

National Adaptation Programmes of Action are designed as a vehicle for

Least Developed Countries (LDCs) to communicate their most “urgent

and immediate adaptation needs” to the UNFCCC for funding from the

Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF). “Urgent and immediate needs”

are defined as those for which further delay in implementation would

increase vulnerability or increase adaptation costs at a later stage (LDC

Expert Group, 2009). The approaches adopted for vulnerability assessment

under NAPAs vary. Although the guidelines call for more participatory and

“bottom-up” mechanisms to be adopted, time and funding limitations

have meant that often the NAPA process remains largely top-down,

focused on impacts and consulting the communities only to verify this

information (Huq and Khan, 2006; Ayers, 2011). Moreover, available

financial resources were too limited to fully assess and address the

needs of all sectors and all vulnerable regions of the country (LDC Expert

Group, 2012; see also Section 15.2.1.2).

853

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

Under the Cancun Adaptation Framework (CAF), a process was

established to enable LDC parties to formulate and implement National

Adaptation Plans (NAPs). NAPs are intended to build on NAPAs but

shift the focus toward identifying medium- and long-term adaptation

needs and developing and implementing strategies and programs to

address those needs. NAPs are intended to facilitate the integration of

climate change adaptation into relevant national and subnational

development and sectoral planning (LDC Expert Group, 2012). Other

developing country parties are also invited to employ the modalities

formulated to support the national adaptation plans in the elaboration

of their planning efforts. Early guidelines (LDC Expert Group, 2009)

propose a country-specific approach tailored to national circumstances,

mixing top-down policy-first assessments with bottom-up approaches.

Recent guidelines propose that this should be non-prescriptive and

should facilitate country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory action,

taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities, and ecosystems

(LDC Expert Group, 2012). Refer also to Sections 2.4.3 and 15.2.1.2 for

further details of national and subnational adaptation planning including

NAPAs and NAPs.

14.5. Measuring Adaptation

Adaptation has tended to lag behind mitigation efforts both in research

and in the climate negotiations. In part this is because adaptation and

development specialists, governments, NGOs, and international agencies

have found it difficult to clearly define and identify precisely what

constitutes adaptation, how to track its implementation and effectiveness,

and how to distinguish it from effective development (Burton et al.,

2002; Arnell, 2009; Doria et al., 2009). A contributing reason is that

adaptation has no common reference metrics in the same way that

tonnes of GHGs or radiative forcing values are for mitigation. This

section seeks to explore the feasibility of finding metrics for measuring

adaptation effectiveness.

The search for metrics

for adaptation will remain contentious, with

many alternative uses competing for attention. This is inevitable as there

are multiple purposes and viewpoints in approaching the measurement

of adaptation (Hulme, 2009). Brooks et al. (2011) asked “what constitutes

successful adaptation” and suggested that the criteria by which success

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 14.1 | Why do the precise deﬁnitions about adaptation activities matter?

Humans have always adapted to changing conditions: personal, social, economic, and climatic. The rapid rate of

climate change now means that many groups, ranging from communities to parliaments, now have to factor climate

change into their deliberations and decision making more than ever before. Having a term and working deﬁnition

is always useful in discussing how to tackle a challenge as it helps deﬁne scope. Is adaptation all about minimizing

damage or are there opportunities as well? Can adaptation proceed only through deliberately planned actions

focused speciﬁcally on adaptation to climate change? How much must be known about future climates to make

decisions about adaptation? How does the adaptation of humans systems differ from adaptation in natural systems?

Can adaptation to climate change be distinguished from normal development and planning processes? Need it be?

Are we adequately adapted to current climates, or do we have an “adaptation deﬁcit”? The phrase “maladaptation”

immediately turns thoughts to how could plans go wrong and possibly cause greater suffering. A deﬁnition does

not answer all these questions but it provides a framework for discussing them.

There is also a political reason for needing a precise deﬁnition of adaptation. Developed countries have agreed to

bear the adaptation costs of developing countries to human-induced climate change and that these funds should

represent “new and additional resources,”

and the Cancun Agreement and subsequent discussions suggest that

for adaptation these funds could amount to tens of billions US$ per year.

In most cases adaptation is best carried

out when integrated with wider planning goals such as improved water allocation, more reliable transport systems,

and so forth. How much of the cost of upgrading a coastal road that is already subject to frequent damage from

bad weather should be attributed to normal development and how much to adaptation to climate change? A

precise answer may never be possible but the closer we agree as to what constitutes adaptation, the easier it will

be to come to workable agreements.

Bali Action Plan, 2007; FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1.

Cancun Agreements 2010, FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, paras 98 & 102.

There is no consistent use of the terms metric, measure, and indicator in the literature. Here we try to stay as close as possible to the dictionary meanings (although they overlap).

A measure is the amount or degree of something, that is, a description of its (presumably current) state. A metric is often a group of values (measures) that taken together give

a broader indication of the state or the degree of progress to some desired state. An indicator is a sign, or estimate of the state of something and often of the future state of

something. Most often in seeking to understand the state of vulnerability or adaptation, etc., we need a metric (i.e., a group of measures) and we use the term in that way. In

describing the components of a metric we will give preference to the term indicator over measure.

854

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

ight be assessed include feasibility, efficacy/effectiveness, efficiency,

acceptability/legitimacy, and equity (derived from Yohe and Tol, 2001;

Adger et al., 2005; Stern, 2006), to which they added sustainability

(Fankhauser and Burton, 2011). Effective integration and coherence

with wider national policies and development goals is another often

sought criterion (World Bank, 2010). Also institutions, communities, and

individuals value things differently and many of those values cannot be

captured in a comparable way within metrics (Adger and Barnett, 2009).

At least three uses of metrics for adaptation are relevant, each requiring

different characteristics of the indicators used. The first use seeks metrics

to help determine the need or determinates of that need for adaptation.

These metrics usually focus on measuring vulnerability, but that term

is not well defined. For example, Hinkel (2011) identifies six uses that

vulnerability indicators are sometimes expected to serve and concludes

that they can truly serve only their core purpose, that is, to identify

vulnerable people, communities, and regions. Further, even with metrics

focusing on vulnerability the goal often is not to produce a score or rating

to identify vulnerable groups but to elucidate information on the nature

of vulnerability and to better identify adaptation options (Smit and

Wandel, 2006; Sietz et al., 2011b). The second use of metrics relates to

measuring and tracking the process of implementing adaptive actions,

such as spending on coastal protection, the number of early warning

plans implemented as part of a program, or the number of agricultural

specialists with appropriate training in climate risks. Here the selection of

appropriate metrics is usually less contentious but there is disagreement

as to how much they capture adaptation rather than normal development.

The third use of metrics relates to measuring the effectiveness of

adaptation such as in monitoring and evaluation. This set is essential

to help measure progress and provide feedback on the effectiveness of

actions, but is among the most difficult to identify as adaption outcomes

take time to become identifiable and are often subject to evolving

conditions and objectives.

14.5.1. What Is to Be Measured?

The measurement of vulnerability is central to many adaptation metrics

and initially it was approached from an impacts point of view. Here

vulnerability is usually defined as a function of (1) exposure to specific

hazards or stressors, (2) sensitivity to their impacts, and (3) the target

population’s capacity to adapt (IPCC, 2001, Chapter 17). This approach

continues to be used as the basis of many assessments and adaptation

prioritization efforts. Recently the emphasis has moved from better

defining exposure and potential impacts to a better understanding of

the factors that affect societies’ sensitivity to those impacts and their

capacity to adapt. This reflects the increasing recognition of the

importance of considering social vulnerability alongside biophysical

vulnerability. Various terms have been used to describe these different

emphases including biophysical versus social vulnerability, outcome

versus contextual vulnerability (Section 14.2.1.1; Eakin and Luers, 2006;

Füssel and Klein, 2006; Eriksen and Kelly, 2007; Füssel, 2010), and

scientific framing versus a human-security framing of vulnerability

(O’Brien, 2007). O’Brien et al. (2007) argue that scientific and human-

security frameworks affect the way we approach adaptation, with the

scientific framework leading to building local and sectoral capacity to

make changes rather than address the fundamental causes of vulnerability,

r climate change itself, within their broader geopolitical and economic

contexts.

Other questions also arise even within a given conceptual framework

for considering vulnerability. A system of measurement is usually

developed to allow comparisons between different places, social groups,

or sectors of activity, although experience repeatedly cautions us to be

careful in doing so (Schröter et al., 2005). The challenge is as much of

integration across widely differing research domains and traditions (Polksy

et al., 2007). Also, a system’s vulnerability is not static but can respond

rapidly to changes in economic, social, political, and institutional

conditions over time (Smit and Pilifosova, 2003; Smit and Wandel, 2006).

Much of the effort in relation to estimating social vulnerability is

reviewed in Cutter et al. (2009).

It has also been suggested that a framework based on the concept of

resilience is more appropriate than a vulnerability framework in many

contexts (see IPCC, 2012, Chapter 2 and Section 8.3.3 for more details).

For example, in a development context resilience “evokes positive and

broad development goals (e.g., education, livelihood improvements,

food security), includes multiple scales (temporal and spatial) and

objectives, better captures the complex interactions between human

societies and their environments, and emphasizes learning and feedbacks”

(Berkes, 2007; Moss et al., 2012, p. 6). A resilience approach also leads

to more focus on interactions between social and biophysical systems

(Nelson et al., 2007). However, others feel that resilience promotes too

great a focus on the return of the overall system to pre-impact conditions

and not enough on the human agents and their need to adapt to changing

conditions (Nelson et al., 2007; IPCC, 2012, Section 8.3.3). The concept

of resilience has been difficult to apply in practice and is particularly

resistant to attempts to establish commonly accepted sets of indicators.

Some (e.g., Klein et al., 2003) have suggested that resilience has become

an umbrella concept that has not been able to support effectively

planning or management.

Recently Brooks et al. (2011) have outlined a framework tracking

adaptation that combines the establishment of upstream metrics to assess

how well risks are being managed by institutions, and downstream

metrics to track whether the interventions are reducing the vulnerability

of affected groups. The upstream metrics would focus on assessments

of institutional capacity, managerial performance, and integration of

climate risk management into planning processes and tracking and

feedback processes. The downstream metrics would focus on indicators

to track development performance and changes in vulnerability.

Attribution of these changes to particular interventions would be

desirable but not essential to track progress.

But understanding vulnerability does not necessarily translate to effective

adaptation. Smit et al. (2001), Osman-Elasha et al. (2009), and others

have suggested that the focus should be on increasing adaptive capacity

within the context of the full range of biophysical and socioeconomic

stressors. However, as the scope of the metrics is widened to include

aspects of development and sustainability they often become less suitable

for other purposes such as helping to identify “the full and additional

costs of adaptation” (McGray et al., 2007). In deriving indices of

vulnerability there are again several broadly different approaches. One

is to deductively identify indicators that theoretically should be strongly

855

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

related to vulnerability (e.g., Dolan and Walker, 2003; Polsky et al.,

2007), while the other is inductive and uses observed data to seek

correlations between indicators and observed consequences of

vulnerability, such as the number of people killed or affected by climate-

related events in recent history. There is some commonality in identifying

the desirable criteria for selecting indicators, and though no list can ever

be complete, Table 14-3, based initially on Perch-Nielsen (2010), seeks

to bring together some of the most common criteria.

14.5.2. Established Metrics

Numerous metrics continue to be prepared for a variety of purposes

and at scales ranging from estimating the vulnerability of individuals

and communities to comparing countries. Several reviews, including

Moss (2001, 2012), Srinivasan and Prabhakar (2009), and Prabhakar

and Srinivasan (2011), discuss both the design and effectiveness of

many of the existing proposals for adaptation metrics.

14.5.2.1. Vulnerability Metrics

Eriksen and Kelly (2007) found strong divergence among five metrics

(or indices) for comparing national vulnerability published over the

period 1995–2003: the Dimensions of Vulnerability of Downing et al.

(1995); the Index of Human Insecurity (IHI) of Lonergan et al. (1999); the

Vulnerability-Resilience Indicators of Moss et al. (2001); the Environmental

Sustainability Index of the World Economic Forum (2002); and the

Country-Level Risk Measures of Brooks and Adger (2003). Between them,

29 indicators were used, with only five indicators appearing in more

than one study. They were able to compare the 20 countries ranked as

most vulnerable from three of the studies and found little overlap, with

only five countries ranked in the top 20 in more than one study.

However, it must be noted that the metrics were developed at different

times and for different purposes. They concluded that the indices

focused on measuring a snapshot of aggregate conditions rather than

on delivering guidance on societal processes that can be targeted to

reduce vulnerability.

There are a series of disaster-related indices designed to assess relative

risks across countries and regions, and to provide benchmarks on which

to assess progress. Among them are the Disaster Risk Index (UNDP,

2004); Hotspots Index (Dilley et al., 2005); the Americas Index (Cardona,

2005); and an index for South Asia (Moench et al., 2009). Again, there

has been little effort to further analyze, validate, or compare these

metrics.

14.5.2.2. Metrics for Resource Allocation

Vulnerability indices have usually been selected to better understand

the drivers of vulnerability or to compare countries, regions, communities,

and so forth in terms of the risks they face from climate change and

their capacity to deal with them. This is not necessarily the same as

designing an allocation index or rule to be used to allocate limited

resources equitably and efficiently among entities (countries, regions

or other administrative groups, or different proponents of adaptation).

For allocation, vulnerability and coping/adaptive capacity might be

Criterion Explanation

Validity

Not ambiguous Agreement on the direction of inﬂ uence between the indicator and what is sought to be measured (target measure)

ell founded Based on a tested theoretical framework

Well deﬁ ned So that unwitting errors are minimized (e.g., measuring a family or a household)

urpose known This helps ﬁ x problems in data collection; misunderstandings between different collecting agencies, etc.

Accurate Measuring what it should, and responds quickly

recise Statistical variation between measurements is low

Quality checked Ideally subject to independent checking; is there a cross checking mechanism?

ransparent Information source and control of information ﬂ ow is known

Honest There should be no rationale or opportunity for individuals to manipulate or distort the data (e.g., manipulating rain-gauges used for weather index insurance)

Value

Comprehensible Relatively easy for user to understand

elevant Applicable to a wide range of circumstances (geographic, social, economic)t

Responsive Can measure usefully small changes in the target measure

ctionable The quality /quantity of what is being measured can be affected by human appropriate actionst

High information content Usually quantitative is more useful than qualitative, than binary data; and real measurements more useful than modeled estimates or expert judgment

Disaggregatable Can the indicator be collected for speciﬁ c groups (e.g. children, women, and men)

Participatory Can local people be involved in the data collecting; does the data help inform and possibly empower them

Data

vailable Data is publicly and easily available; affordable

Homogenous Data collection is consistent across location and time, including matching season or time-of-day if necessary

eriodic Data is collected at a frequency that is suitable for tracking changes

Long time course Data has been consistently collected for some years

Spatial coverage Spatial coverage must be sufﬁ cient to provide a fair representation of the measure (e.g. density of rain gauges)

Table 14-3 | Criteria for the selection of indicators (based on multiple sources).

856

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

xpected to remain a core consideration, but so also should the relative

costs of implementation in relation to the potential benefits and the

ability of the recipients to absorb the funding and implement policies

and projects to actually achieve the projected benefits (UNFCCC, 2007;

Parry et al., 2009; Wheeler, 2011).

One of the longest running and prominent uses of metrics in funding is

the World Bank’s process of allocating IDA concessional funds to

developing countries, which faces many issues analogous to the same

process for adaptation. The World Bank uses the Country Policy and

Institutional Assessment (CPIA) based on 16 criteria, many qualitative,

to estimate the extent to which a country’s policy and institutional

framework supports sustainable growth and poverty reduction, and

consequently the effective use of development assistance. These criteria

are the main components used to calculate a Country Performance Rating,

which in turn is a major component, along with population and recent

performance measures, in calculating allocations to the poorest developing

countries with long-term, no interest (IDA) loans. The CPIA and the ultimate

IDA allocation formulae are controversial, much debated (Alexander,

2010), and often fine-tuned (IEG, 2009) but still commonly used as a

reference point for this type of procedure (GTZ, 2008).

An explicit example of the use, and non-use, of adaptation metrics was

in establishment of the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). The

governing body, made up of contributors, recipients, and other stakeholders,

set up an independent expert group to make recommendations as to

which countries might be included as pilots within the approximately

US$1 billion program (Climate Investment Funds, 2009). The expert

group refrained from using a simple index, but instead country selection

was done across nine regions and each based on a suite of indicators

appropriate for the region using expert judgment. It is interesting to note

that on moving to the next step of deciding on allocation of financial

resources to the selected pilot countries the governing body of the PPCR

chose not to use an approach based on indicators, but to provide guidance

to the countries of the possible range of funding and to base allocations

on the quality of the proposals brought forward (Climate Investment Funds,

2009). Similarly, none of the other governing bodies of international

adaptation funding mechanisms (e.g., the Global Environment Facility,

the Adaptation Fund) has chosen to use a defined set of metrics within

their decision making.

Wheeler (2011) has developed an index of vulnerability based on

weather-related disasters, sea level rise, and agricultural productivity.

The index can be adjusted according to user preferences to develop

allocation formulas based only on biophysical vulnerability, further

adjusted for economic development and governance, and finally for

project costs and probability of success. Klein and Möhner (2011) have

discussed the options for the Green Climate Fund based on experience

to date and conclude that science cannot be relied on for a single

objective ranking of vulnerability.

14.5.2.3. Metrics for Monitoring and Evaluation

The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report provided little discussion of the role

of evaluation and monitoring of adaptation responses as a component

of building adaptive capacity (Adger et al., 2007). Preston et al. (2011a)

dentify three specific roles of evaluation: (1) ensuring reduction in

societal and ecological vulnerability, (2) facilitating learning and

adaptive management, and (3) providing accountability for adaptation

investments (see also GIZ, 2011). A central challenge in developing

robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks for adaptation is the

existence of multiple, valid points of view that can be used to evaluate

adaptation actions and their continuing effectiveness (Gagnon-Lebrun

and Agrawala, 2006; Perkins et al., 2007; Füssel, 2008; Smith et al., 2009;

Ford et al., 2011; Preston et al., 2011b). This challenges the selection of

appropriate metrics for the monitoring and evaluation of adaptation

and its contribution to vulnerability reduction (Burton and May, 2004;

Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala, 2007; McKenzie Hedger et al., 2008; Ford

et al., 2011).

One of the central unresolved tensions in progressing evaluation is the

relative merit of comparatively easy and objective targeting of the

completion of the processes and outputs needed to implement an

adaptation program versus the outcomes, such as changes in livelihoods

or reduction in risks. Assessment of outcomes is less objective, subject

to whether appropriate circumstances occur (e.g., that floods occur so

that risk reduction can be demonstrated) and usually take much longer

to establish. Preston et al. (2011b) suggest the evaluation of adaptation

processes may be a more robust approach to evaluation, owing to the

difficulties in attributing future outcomes to adaptation strategies and

the long-time lags that may be needed to assess the performance of a

particular strategy (Berkhout, 2005; Dovers and Hezri, 2010; Ford et al.,

2011). The OECD analyzed the monitoring and evaluation processes across

106 adaptation projects across six development agencies and found

that Results Based Management and Logical Framework approaches

dominated, as they do in normal development projects (Lamhauge et

al., 2011). They also drew attention to the need for appropriate baselines

and complementary sets of indicators that track not just process and

implementation, but also the extent to which targeted changes are

occurring. Monitoring programs themselves will need careful design to

ensure that they remain in place over the long time frames needed

for the outcomes to be identified; that they contain incentives for

beneficiaries to comply with conditions; and that compliance itself does

not impose undue burdens.

A number of national and international organizations have guides to

monitoring and evaluating adaptation activities (McKenzie Hedger et

al., 2008; UNDP, 2008; WRI, 2009; World Bank, 2010; GIZ, 2011). These

guides tend to focus on the wider framework of identifying and

managing adaptation-related activities and within that the criteria for

the selection of metrics for monitoring and evaluating those activities.

These issues are dealt with in Chapters 15 and 16.

14.5.3. Validation of Metrics

The practice of developing and applying metrics in adaptation has been

subject to much scrutiny. Eakin and Luers (2006) express serious concerns

about national-scale vulnerability assessments ranging from the quality

of the available data, the selection and creation of indicators, the

assumptions used in weighting of variables, and the mathematics of

aggregation. Nevertheless metrics will continue to be used and the

challenge is to identify and maintain basic standards of best practice.

857

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

ne of the most comprehensive attempts to validate a system for

measuring important components of adaptation is that of Brooks et al.

(2005). They used the probability of national climate-related mortality

from the CRED database of climate-related disasters

as a proxy for risk

and selected a set of 46 social, governance, economic, and biophysical

measures as indicators of social vulnerability. They found that 11 were

effective indicators of mortality rates and these were confirmed as useful

by a small focus group of seven adaptation experts. These experts also

ranked the variables in terms of their perception of their usefulness

leading to a total of 12 different rankings to which was added an equal

ranked set to give 13 measures of vulnerability. Countries were then

scored against these 13 rankings, and the number of times a country

appeared in the top quintile of countries in a particular ranking was

used as an indicator of its overall vulnerability.

Progress continues to be made in the methodologies of deriving

vulnerability metrics. For example, Rygel et al. (2006) have demonstrated

the value of using a Pareto method for combining scores from a

collection of indices without having to apply either implicit or explicit

weightings. Alcamo et al. (2008) sought to increase the consistency of

incorporating expert opinion on different disciplinary approaches

(sociology, environmental psychology, economics, and political science) to

the estimate of vulnerability, in this case of drought events, in three regions.

Based on inference models about what contributes to vulnerability to

drought and using fuzzy set theory (Eierdanz et al., 2008) to compute

susceptibilities, they were able to show that high combined susceptibilities

were associated with water stress crises.

Perch-Nielsen (2010) developed an index to estimate the vulnerability of

beach tourism using a systematic approach by establishing a framework

to identify the types of indicators needed and a systematic approach to

identify indicators that covered the range of countries and time scales.

The derivation of the index from the separate indicators was also

subjected to robustness (sensitivity) testing to determine the most

appropriate methods of scaling and combining the measures.

14.5.4. Assessment of Existing and Proposed Metrics

for Adaptation

Srinivasan and Prabhakar (2009) conducted a wide-ranging stakeholder

survey to assess the attitudes to, and requirements for, indicators of

adaptation. Stakeholders agreed that no single metric can capture the

multiple dimensions of adaptation and that refinements of methodologies

(e.g., rationale for index selection, aggregation methods, and data

checking) are badly needed. Preston et al. (2009) have suggested that,

rather than seeking particular metrics, researchers should focus on

developing rigorous processes for selecting metrics that can be applied

in a range of contexts. But metrics for adaptation remain a necessity.

Their derivation challenges the adaptation community to clarify its goals,

conceptual models, definitions, and applications. But both theory and

practice have shown indices alone are not sufficient to guide decisions

on which adaptation actions to take, on how to modify sustainable

evelopment activities, or on resource allocation. Downing (2003) noted

that the climate change community was far from adopting common

standards, paradigms, or analytic language. This still appears to be true,

making the search for commonly accepted metrics, even within well-

specified contexts, a challenging task.

14.6. Addressing Maladaptation

The adaptation literature is replete with advice to avoid maladaptation,

but it is less clear precisely what is included as “maladaptation.” In a

general sense maladaptation refers to actions, or inaction that may lead

to increased risk of adverse climate-related outcomes, increased

vulnerability to climate change, or diminished welfare, now or in the

future (see Glossary). For example, the construction of well-engineered

climate-resilient roads designed to withstand current and future climate

extremes may foster new settlement into areas highly exposed to the

impacts of future climates; or increased water harvesting upstream to

cope with erratic rainfall may harm and reduce the opportunities for

communities downstream to manage their own risks. Actions that are

potentially maladaptive need not be inadvertent (as in the IPCC AR3

and AR4 definition), nor be “taken ostensibly to avoid or reduce

vulnerability to climate change” (Barnett and O’Neill, 2010) as the

actions may be assessed as appropriate in the context of the full range

of climate and non-climate considerations and pressures that apply to

the decision. There should be clarity as to what is maladaptive action,

or lack of action, lest the avoidance of potential maladaptation becomes

a barrier to effective implementation of adaptation. In the road example

above, the immediate and multiple benefits to the community of a reliable

road system (including as evacuation route in floods, etc.) might be

judged as outweighing the longer term risk of inappropriate settlement

patterns (Lamhauge et al., 2011). This may be seen as an example of

an “unavoidable” ex post maladaptation (see Section 16.3.6.1) as it is

an appropriate decision based on the information and circumstances

at the time. The true maladaptation in this case would be the failure to

implement appropriate incentives or regulations to avoid vulnerable

settlements in the highly exposed areas.

The wide range of actions and circumstances that have been described

as maladaptive demonstrates the complexity of the concept and

terminology. Thomsen et al. (2012) describe actions that are not

respectful of the intrinsic integrity and internal self-regulation of social-

ecological systems as manipulative and likely to prove maladaptive.

Their example is the management of Noosa Beach in northern Australia,

where the coastline is characterized by cycles of erosion and depletion

of beach sands. Rather than enhance the self-regulatory processes and

adapting by managed retreat and expansion according to the cycle,

management has sought to maintain a static beach profile through hard

constructions and beach nourishment. Niemeyer et al. (2005) also

describe the state of individual beliefs about climate change that might

change from adaptive to inaction and possibly maladaptive behaviors

as the perceived magnitude of climate change increases, while Eriksen

et al. (2011) and Brown (2011) discuss avoiding outcomes that are

CRED, the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters, has maintained a database of disasters, including those that are climate related. Rationale, methodologies, and

data are available at http://www.cred.be/.

858

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

ssentially maladaptive as they run counter to sustainable development

goals.

14.6.1. Causes of Maladaptation

Maladaptation arises in many forms but several broad causes can be

identified. Actions that may benefit a particular group, or sector, at a

particular time may prove to be maladaptive to those same groups or

sectors in future climates or to other groups or sectors in existing

climates. For example, some development policies and measures that

deliver short-term benefits or economic gains but lead to greater

vulnerability in the medium to long term, such as in cases where the

construction of “hard” infrastructure reduces the flexibility and the

range of future adaptation options (Adger et al., 2003b; Eriksen and

Kelly, 2007; OECD, 2009), or the failure to encompass the full range of

risks in the design of new structures, such as the effects of increasing

storm surge in the design of a coastal defense system (UNFCCC, 2007).

Adaptation efforts aimed at armoring the coastline may result in coastal

erosion elsewhere while building levees along a flood-prone area provides

protection to coastal population and infrastructure but might encourage

unwanted development within that area, often accentuated by an

exaggerated sense of safety (Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Repetto, 2008;

National Research Council, 2011) and the levees may increase damage

when they fail, as in Bangladesh in 1999 and New Orleans in 2003 (Huq

and Khan, 2006; Masozera et al., 2007; Pouliotte et al., 2009). Similarly,

agricultural policies that promote the growing of high-yielding crop

varieties through subsidies with the objective of boosting production

and increasing revenues may achieve these objectives in the short term,

but will also reduce agro-biodiversity and increase exposure and

vulnerability of mono-crops to climate change and finally undermine

the adaptive capacity of farmers in the long term (World Bank, 2010).

Another cause of maladaptation is the failure to account for multiple

interactions and feedbacks between systems and sectors leading to

inadequate or inaccurate information for developing adaptive responses

nd strategies that are maladaptive (Scheraga et al., 2003; Satterthwaite

et al., 2009; Pittock, 2011). An assessment of the downstream impacts

of upstream rainwater harvesting in a semiarid basin in southern India

showed that, once the full range of externalities were accounted for,

the net benefits were insufficient to pay back investment costs (Bouma

et al., 2011). Similarly, the conversion of coastal mangroves into shrimp

farms may lead to increased economic productivity and improved

livelihoods, but could also lead to increased vulnerability to flooding

and storm surges (Klein, 2010). Maladaptation may also occur if the

true potential of an option or a technology is unduly over-emphasized,

making it over-rated. Floating gardening has been suggested as an

example in this connection (Irfanullah, 2009, 2013). Further examples

of the range of maladaptive actions across a range of sectors and

regions in this report are outlined in Table 14-4.

14.6.2. Screening for Maladaptation

Five dimensions of maladaptation were identified by Barnett and O’Neill

(2010), including actions that, relative to alternatives: (1) increase

emissions of GHGs, (2) disproportionately burden the most vulnerable,

(3) have high opportunity costs, (4) reduce incentives and capacity to

adapt, and (5) set paths that limit future choices. These dimensions are

useful pointers to the potential for maladaptation but their application

depends on subjective assessments. The first suggests that any action

that increases GHG emissions is maladaptive, whereas a judgment on

the relative benefits and dis-benefits will need to be made in such cases;

the second turns on the interpretation of “disproportionately;” and the

third on “high” and on how opportunity costs are compared with current

benefits. The dimensions were used by Barnett and O’Neill (2010) to

describe maladaptive potential of the Wonthaggi desalinization plant

to improve water supply to Melbourne, Australia. The plant was included

as part of a wider water management plan for Melbourne that includes

both demand- and supply-side management and incentives (Heffernan,

2012; Porter, 2013). Barnett and O’Neill (2010) argue that the plant

(1) will increase GHG emissions (even if the planned wind power

Broad type of maladaptive action Examples in AR5

Failure to anticipate future climates. Large engineering projects that are inadequate for future climates. Intensive use of non-renewable

resources (e.g., groundwater) to solve immediate adaptation problem

22.3, 22.4.8.5

Engineered defenses that preclude alternative approaches such as EBA Box CC-EA; 15.2.2

Adaptation actions not taking wider impacts into account 22.4.5.8, 25.4.2, and 26.9.4

Awaiting more information, or not doing so, and eventually acting either too early or too late. Awaiting better “projections” rather than

using scenario planning and adaptive management approaches

7.5.1.2.2, 8.5.2, and 16.5.2

Forgoing longer term beneﬁ ts in favor of immediate adaptive actions; depletion of natural capital leading to greater vulnerability 13.2.1.3; 22.4.5.8; 25.9.1

Locking into a path dependence, making path correction difﬁ cult and often too late 16.3.2; FAQ 25.1

Unavoidable ex post maladaptation, e.g., expanding irrigation that eventually will have to be replaced in the distant future 17.5; see also 5 and 6 above

Moral hazard, i.e., encouraging inappropriate risk taking based, e.g., on insurance, social security net, or aid backup 17.5 and 29.8

Adopting actions that ignore local relationships, traditions, traditional knowledge, or property rights, leading to eventual failure 12.3, 12.5.2; 26.9.4

Adopting actions that favor directly or indirectly one group over others leading to breakdown and possibly conﬂ ict 13.1.1 and 13.1.4

Retaining traditional responses that are no longer appropriate 21.3.2 and 22.4.5.8

Migration may be adaptive or maladaptive or both depending on context and the individuals involved 26.2.1, 26.8.3, 29.3.3, 29.6.2.4

Table 14-4 | A selection of examples of actual or potential maladaptive actions from this report.

Note: These examples of maladaptation represent a set of cases found in the report that might help the readers to understand the rich range of circumstances in which

maladaptive actions might arise. They do not represent a formal categorization of type of maladaptation.

859

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

nergy source is completed); (2) may lead to higher water costs that

will disproportionally affect the poorer households; (3) may divert

money and attention from more cost-effective recycling and rainwater

harvesting; (4) may reduce incentives to adapt through water conservation

approaches; and (5) as a large sunk cost has locked out other options.

The plant also affected significant cultural sites of the Bunurong

Aboriginal community (Lee and Chung, 2007).

14.6.3. Experiences with Maladaptation

Maladaptation is a cause of increasing concern to adaptation planners,

where intervention in one sector could increase vulnerability of another

sector or increase the vulnerability of a group to future climate change.

An example is the situation experienced by subsistence and smallholder

agriculturalists in Palca, Bolivia, who in the face of stressors relating to

land access, small holdings, and so forth moved away from their long

established practices of diversification of crop varieties and planting

locations to more intensive farming practices and cash cropping. They

are now seeing evidence of climate change, and the new practices make

them more vulnerable to these changes, leading to a risk of insufficient

adaptation and maladaptation (McDowell and Hess, 2012). But there

can also be tensions between development goals and climate change

goals, where people may be aware of a climate related risk but are

willing to take that risk (or they may have limited choice) given their

current circumstances (IPCC, 2012, Section 4.2.2).

Some studies warn against the simplistic use of maladaptation to

communicate the state of high exposure to risks resulting from certain

type of livelihoods. For example, the periodic movement of the nomadic

pastoralists following the grass and water is a traditional and effective

way of dealing with climate variability (Agrawal and Perrin, 2008), but

is increasingly being described by some as maladaptive. More focused

studies such as Young et al. (2009) put the breakdown of traditional

pastoralism in the Sudan into the wider social and political context that

led to restrictions on movement, asset stripping, and escalating violence

and was undermined by policies not conducive to mobility.

14.7. Research and Data Gaps

A long list of research questions could be identified and prioritized to

address gaps and assist the practice of adaptation, and many of these

are found in the subsequent adaptation chapters. In this chapter research

priorities would range from metrics for adaptation to the psychology of

communication about livelihood and life-threatening events. But, the

preparation of this report has shown that the practice of adaptation

has outstripped the rate at which relevant peer-reviewed research can

be produced and disseminated.

Many dedicated researches have become engaged in smaller, often

community-based or urban activities where results can be gathered in

relatively short time frames and direct interactions between the

researchers and the implementers are common. Here research and

action can, and are, serving each other and these interactions can be

encouraged with support for further cross-community, cross-cultural,

and cross-sectoral comparisons.

ffective and timely interaction is more difficult at larger scales. National

or multinational programs are often longer and complex and it is

difficult to identify the “adaptation” effort within a wider set of policy

objectives. Research inputs into decision making too often centers only

on better projections of future conditions or post hoc assessments of

completed projects. The task is made more difficult by relatively short-

term research grants, often starting late in the process, or after the

process is finished, and by the often rapid turnover of planning and

implementation staff, making a close working relationship difficult. But

there are models that work. Models based on established and ongoing

research teams with a close link to policy such as the EC programs and

its formation of targeted research teams across the European Union,

CSIR in South Africa, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation (CSIRO) and the National Climate Change Research Facility

(NCCARF) in Australia, the Corps of Engineers and the Regional Integrated

Sciences and Assessments (RISAs) in the USA, and UKCIP and its

successors in the UK do appear to be more effective in maintaining a

dialog with those “on the ground,” and this shows in the number of

well designed, insightful, and reviewed documents arising from these

collaborations.

Unfortunately this model has not been replicated at scale in most

developing countries. One might ask why is there only one reference in

this volume to any lesson learned from the PPCR – a billion dollar

program set up to better understand the challenges of integrating, or

mainstreaming, adaptation into development planning with on the

ground implementation of many larger than normal adaptation activities?

The planning for the PPCR started only in 2008, but the planning process

itself is of research relevance, and over the past 2 to 3 years 18 countries

have been working through how to bring adaptation into their national

planning programs; it is surely a core research interest and opportunity

and one whose lifespan already exceeds that of many research projects.

Similarly the Adaptation Fund is mentioned only descriptively in these

chapters. So where were the groups of independent researchers observing

from their point of view, comparing and contrasting countries, and

simply conducting the process of independent and collaborative

research? The benefit would flow not just from the research itself but

also from the interactions with those charged with implementing

adaptation and from the challenge to interpret that research so that its

implications are relevant to the users, be they government officials or

smallholder farmers.

There are models in developing countries. The Consultative Group on

International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) network is already making

contributions, albeit in the broad domain of agriculture which may be

another model. The Coordinated Regional Climate Downscaling

Experiment (CORDEX) project will make high-quality high-resolution

climate projections available to all countries. The NEPAD Framework for

African Agricultural Productivity is another, and there are numerous

smaller and effective research efforts too numerous to list here, but few

can claim even regional coverage. The Cancun Agreement has already

raised the prospect of establishing in a developing country “an

international centre to enhance adaptation research and coordination.”

This may provide the vehicle to tackle some of the problems described

above. The UN Agencies, the MDBs, and many bilateral agencies, which

are heavy users and sometimes producers of “research,” could be major

beneficiaries and supporters.

860

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

wo points in a review of a decade of experience in the RISA process in

the USA stand out. One was an insistence that research team members

should primarily be residents in their region of study, and to paraphrase

another insight, “knowing what one ought to do is not the same as

knowing how to do it” (Pulwarty et al., 2009). In arguing for the

establishment of the skills to establish an Australian film industry,

Phillip Adams advised the Prime Minister,

“It’s time to see our own

landscapes, hear our own voices and dream our own dreams.” Those

words could just as well apply to tackling adaptation.

References

Aakre, S. and D.T.G. Rübbelke, 2010: Objectives of public economic policy and

the adaptation to climate change. Journal of Environmental Planning and

Management, 53, 767-791.

Adaptation Fund Board, 2013: Operational Policies and Guidelines for Parties to

Access Resources from the Adaptation Fund. The Adaptation Fund, Washington,

DC, USA, 52 pp.

Adger, W.N., 2001: Scales of governance and environmental justice for adaptation

and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International Development, 13(7),

921-931.

Adger, W.N., 2003: Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change.

Economic Geography, 79, 387-404.

Adger, W.N., 2006: Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16, 268-281.

Adger, W.N. and J. Barnett, 2009: Four reasons for concern about adaptation to

climate change. Environment and Planning A, 41(12), 2800-2805.

Adger, W.N. and P.M. Kelly, 1999: Social vulnerability to climate change and the

architecture of entitlements. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change, 4, 253-266.

Adger, W.N., N. Brooks, G. Bentham, M. Agnew, and S. Eriksen, 2003a: New Indicators

of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity. Technical Report No. 7, Tyndall Centre

for Climate Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East

Anglia, Norwich, UK, 128 pp.

Adger, W.N., S. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway, and M. Hulme, 2003b: Adaptation to

climate change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies, 3(3),

179-195.

Adger, W.N., N.W. Arnell, and E.L. Tompkins, 2005: Successful adaptation to climate

change across scales. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 77-86.

Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B.

Smit, and K. Takahashi, 2007: Assessment of adaptation practices, options,

constraints and capacity. In: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and

Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani,

J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds)]. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 717-743.

Adger, W.N., S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D. Nelson, L.-O. Naess, J.

Wolf, and A. Wreford, 2009a: Are there social limits to adaptation to climate

change? Climatic Change, 93(3-4), 335-354.

Adger, W.N., I. Lorenzoni, and K. O’Brien (eds.), 2009b: Adapting to Climate Change:

Thresholds, Values, Governance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

and New York, NY, USA, 514 pp.

Adler, C.E., D. McEvoy, P. Chhetri, and E. Kruk, 2013: The role of tourism in a changing

climate for conservation and development. A problem-oriented study in the

Kailash Sacred Landscape, Nepal. Policy Sciences, 46, 160-178.

Agrawal, A., 2010: Local institutions and adaptation to climate change. In: Social

Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World

[Mearns, R. and A. Norton (eds.)]. World Bank Publications, Washington, DC,

USA, pp. 173-197.

Agrawal, A. and N. Perrin, 2008: Climate Adaptation, Local Institutions, and Rural

Livelihood. IFRI Working Paper W08I-6, International Forestry Resources and

Institutions Program (IFRI), School of Natural Resources and Environment,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 17 pp.

Agrawala, S., 2005: Putting climate change in the development mainstream:

introduction and framework. In: Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate

Change and Development [Agrawala, S. (ed.)]. Organization for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris, France, pp. 23-43.

Agrawala, S. and M. Carraro, 2010: Assessing the Role of Microfinance in Fostering

Adaptation to Climate Change. ENV/WKP(2010)1, OECD Environment Working

Paper No. 15, Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 37 pp.

Agrawala, S. and M. van Aalst, 2008: Adapting development cooperation to adapt

to climate change. Climate Policy, 8(2), 183-193.

Agrawala, S., M. Carraro, N. Kingsmill, E. Lanzi, M. Mullan, and G. Prudent-Richard,

2011: Private Sector Engagement in Adaptation to Climate Change: Approaches

to Managing Climate Risks. OECD Environment Working Paper No. 39,

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD

Publishing, Paris, France, 55 pp.

Alam, K., M. Shamsuddoha, T. Tanner, M. Sultana, M.J. Huq, and S.S. Kabir, 2011: The

political economy of climate resilient development planning in Bangladesh. IDS

Bulletin, 42(3), 52-61.

Alderman, H., H. Hoogeveen, and M. Rossi, 2009: Preschool nutrition and subsequent

schooling attainment: longitudinal evidence from Tanzania. Economic

Development and Cultural Change, 57, 239-260.

Alcamo, J., L. Acosta-Michlik, A. Carius, D. Krömker, F. Eierdanz, R. Klein, D., Kromker, and

D. Tänzler, 2008: A new approach to quantifying and comparing vulnerability

to drought. Regional Environmental Change, 8, 137-149.

Alexander, C., N. Bynum, E. Johnson, U. King, T. Mustonen, P. Neofotis, N. Oettle, C.

Rosenzweig, C. Sakakibara, V. Shadrin, M. Vicarelli, J. Waterhouse, and B. Weeks,

2011: Linking indigenous and scientific knowledge of climate change.

BioScience, 61(6), 477-484.

Alexander, N., 2010: The Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) and

Allocation of IDA Resources: Suggestions for Improvements to Benefit African

Countries. Economic Governance Program, Heinrich Bell Foundation, Washington,

DC, USA, 43 pp.

Allison, E.H., A.L. Perry, M.-C. Badjeck, W.N. Adger, K. Brown, D. Conway, A.S. Halls,

G.M. Pilling, J.D. Reynolds, N.L. Andrew, and N.K. Dulvy, 2009: Vulnerability of

national economies to the impacts of climate change on fisheries. Fish and

Fisheries, 10, 173-196.

Anguelovski, I. and J. Carmin, 2011: Climate action planning in Quito, Ecuador. In:

Climate Change and Cities: First Assessment Report of the Urban Climate

Change Research Network [Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S.

Mehotra (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,

USA, 262 pp.

Anon, 2009: Building Coast Smart Communities: HowWill MarylandAdapt to

ClimateChange? Consensus Building Institute and MIT-USGS Science Impact

Collaborative, Cambridge, MA, USA and the Maryland Department of Natural

Resources, Annapolis, MD, USA, 21 pp.

Arnell, N.W., 2009: Adapting to climate change: an evolving research programme.

Climatic Change, 100(1), 107-111.

Arnold, G., H. Bos, R. Doef, R. Goud, N. Kielen, and F. van Lujin, 2011: Water

Management in the Netherlands. This report is a joint publication of the Ministry

of Infrastructure and Environment, Directorate-General Water and Rijkswaterstaat,

Centre for Water Management, The Hague, Netherlands, 80 pp.

Atteridge, A., 2011: Will Private Finance Support Climate Change Adaptation in

Developing Countries? Historical Investment Patterns as a Window on Future

Private Climate Finance. SEI Working Paper No. 2011-5, Stockholm Environment

Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden, 35 pp.

Ayers, J., 2011: Resolving the adaptation paradox: exploring the potential for

deliberative adaptation policy-making in Bangladesh. Global Environmental

Politics, 11(1), 62-88.

Ayers, J. and D. Dodman, 2010: Climate change adaptation and development I: the

state of the debate. Progress in Development Studies, 10(2), 161-168.

Bambrick, H.J., A.G. Capon, G.B. Barnett, R.M. Beaty, and A.J. Burton, 2011: Climate

change and health in the urban environment: adaptation opportunities in

Australian cities. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23(2), 67-79.

Banerjee, S., J.-Y. Gerlitz, and D. Kniveton, 2013: A methodology for assessing

patterns of labour migration in mountain communities exposed to water hazards.

In: Disentangling Migration and Climate Change: Methodologies, Political

http://www.abc.net.au/dimensions/dimensions_in_time/Transcripts/s796788.htm, accessed 3rd Oct 2013.

861

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

Discourses and Human Rights [Faist, T. and J. Schade (eds.)]. Springer

International, Heidelberg, Germany and New York, NY, USA, pp. 81-100.

Bannayan, M. and G. Hoogenboom, 2008: Weather analogue: a tool for real-time

prediction of weather data realizations based on a modified k-nearest neighbor

approach. Environmental Modeling and Software, 23(6), 703-713.

Barnett, J. and S. O’Neill, 2010: Maladaptation. Global Environmental Change, 20(2),

211-213.

Barron, S., G. Canete, J. Carmichael, D. Flanders, E. Pond, S. Sheppard, and K. Tatebe,

2012: A climate change adaptation planning process for low-lying, communities

vulnerable to sea level rise. Sustainability, 4(12), 2176-2208.

Bartlett, S., D. Dodman, J. Hardoy, D. Satterthwaite, and C. Tacoli, 2009: Social Aspects

of Climate Change in Urban Areas in Low- and Middle-Income Nations. Paper

presented at the World Bank Fifth Urban Research Symposium, “Cities and Climate

Change: Responding to an Urgent Agenda,” 28-30 June 2009, Marseilles,

France, Research Cluster 5, 44 pp.

Berkes, F., 2007: Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from

resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41(2), 283-295.

Berkhout, F., 2005: Rationales for adaptation in EU climate change policies. Climate

Policy, 5(3), 377-391.

Berkhout, F., J. Hertin, and D.M. Gann, 2006: Learning to adaptation: organizational

adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78(1), 135-156.

Bhutta, Z.A., T. Ahmed, R.E. Black, S. Cousens, K. Dewey, E. Giugliani, B.A. Haider, B.

Kirkwood, S.S. Morris, H.P.S. Sachdev, and M. Shekar, 2008: What works?

Interventions for maternal and child undernutrition and survival. Lancet,

371(9610), 417-440.

Biderman, C., M. Smolka, and A. Sant’Anna, 2008: Urban Housing Informality: Does

Building and Land Use Regulation Matter? Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Land

Lines, July 2008, Cambridge, MA, USA, 6 pp.

Birkmann, J. and K. von Teichman, 2010: Integrating disaster risk reduction and

climate change adaptation: key challenges – scales, knowledge, and norms.

Sustainability Science, 5(2), 171-184.

Blanco, H., M. Alberti, A. Forsyth, K.J. Krizek, D.A. Rodríguez, E. Talen, and C. Ellis,

2009: Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: emerging research agendas in

planning. Progress in Planning, 71(4), 153-205.

Bolte, A., C. Ammer, M. Löf, P. Madsen, G. Nabuurs, P. Schall, P. Spathelf, and J. Rock,

2009: Adaptive forest management in central Europe: climate change impacts,

strategies and integrative concept. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research,

24(6), 473-482.

Bosello, F., C. Carraro, and E. De Cian, 2009: An Analysis of Adaptation as a Response

to Climate Change. Report prepared for the Copenhagen Consensus 2009,

Copenhagen Consensus Center, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg,

Denmark, 76 pp.

Bouma, J.A., W. Trent, and M. Laurens, 2011: The downstream externalities of

harvesting rainwater in semi-arid watersheds: an Indian case study. Agricultural

Water Management, 98(7), 1162-1170.

Boyd, E. and H. Osbahr, 2010: Responses to climate change: exploring organisational

learning across internationally networked organisations for development.

Environmental Education Research, 16(5-6), 629-643.

Brooks, N. and W.N. Adger, 2003: Country Level Risk Measures of Climate-related

Natural Disasters and Implications for Adaptation to Climate Change. Tyndall

Centre for Climate Research Working Paper No. 26, University of East Anglia,

Norwich, UK, 25 pp.

Brooks, N., W.N. Adger, and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The determinants of vulnerability and

adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation.

Global Environmental Change Part A, 15(2), 151-163.

Brooks, N., S. Anderson, J. Ayers, I. Burton, and I. Tellam, 2011:Tracking Adaptation

and Measuring Development.IIED Working Paper No. 1, Climate Change Group,

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK,

35 pp.

Brown, A., M. Gawith, K. Lonsdale, and P. Pringle, 2011: Managing Adaptation:

Linking Theory and Practice. UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), School

of Geography and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment

(OUCE), Oxford, UK, 47 pp.

Brown, C., Y. Ghile, M. Laverty, and K. Li, 2012: Decision scaling: linking bottom-up

vulnerability analysis with climate projections in the water sector. Water

Resources Research, 48(9), W09537, doi:10.1029/2011WR011212.

Brown, K., 2011: Sustainable adaptation: an oxymoron? Climate and Development,

3(1), 21-31.

Bryan, E., T.T. Deressa, G.A. Gbetibouo, and C. Ringler, 2009: Adaptation to climate

change in Ethiopia and South Africa: options and constraints. Environmental

Science and Policy, 12(4), 413-426.

Bulkeley, H. and M. Betsill, 2005: Rethinking sustainable cities: multilevel governance

and the ‘urban’ politics of climate change. Environmental Politics 14, 42-63.

Burton, I., 1996: The growth of adaptation capacity: practice and policy. In: Adapting

to Climate Change: An International Perspective [Smith, J., N. Bhatti, G.

Menzhulin, R. Benioff, M.I. Budyko, M. Campos, B. Jallow, and F. Rijsberman

(eds.)]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 55-67.

Burton, I., 2004: Climate Change and the Adaptation Deficit. Occasional Paper 1,

The Adaptation and Impacts Research Group (AIRG), Meteorological Service

of Canada, Environment Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada, 6 pp.

Burton, I. and E. May, 2004: The adaptation deficit in water resources management.

IDS Bulletin, 35(3), 31-37.

Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova, and E.L. Schipper, 2002: From impacts assessment

to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy, 2(2),

145-159.

Burton, I., E. Diringer, and J. Smith, 2006: Adaptation to Climate Change: International

Policy Options. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA, USA,

28 pp.

Cardona, O.D., 2005. Indicators of Disaster Risk and Risk Management: Program for

Latin America and the Caribbean Summary Report. Environment Division,

Sustainable Development Department, Inter-American Development Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, 43 pp.

Carmin, J. and D. Dodman, 2013: Engaging science and managing scientific uncertainty

in urban climate adaptation planning. In: Successful Adaptation to Climate

Change: Linking Science and Policy in a Rapidly Changing World [Moser, S.C.

and M.T. Boykoff (eds.)]. Routledge, Abingdon UK and New York, NY, USA, pp.

220-234.

Carmin, J., I. Anguelovski, and D. Roberts, 2012: Urban climate adaptation in the

global south: planning in an emerging policy domain. Journal of Planning

Education and Research, 32(1), 18-32.

Carpenter, S.R., H.A. Mooney, J. Agard, D. Capistrano, R.S. DeFries, S. Diaz, T. Dietz,

A.K. Duraiappah, A. Oteng-Yeboah, H.M. Pereira, C. Perrings, W.V. Reid, J.

Sarukhan, R.J. Scholes, and A. Whyte, 2009: Science for managing ecosystem

services: beyond the millennium ecosystem assessment. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(5), 1305-1312.

Carter, T.R., M.L. Parry, H. Harawasa, and S. Nishioka, 1994: IPCC Technical Guidelines

for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. CGER-I015-’94, Climate

Change Impacts and Adaptations, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)/United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), Published by the Department of Geography, University

College London, London, UK and the Center for Global Environmental Research,

National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan, 59 pp.

CCCCC, 2011: Developing an Implementation Plan for the CARICOM “Regional

Framework for Achieving Development Resilient to Climate Change”. Feedback

report from in-country dialogues, produced by Climate Risk Management, Ltd.,

(Acclimatise), for the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC),

Acclimatise, Newark, UK, 138 pp.

CGIAR, 2012: Gender and Climate Change Research in Agriculture and Food Security

for Development. Training Guide, The CGIAR Program on Climate Change,

Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), Food and Agriculture Organization of

the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy, 127 pp.

Chinowsky, P., C. Hayles, A. Schweikert, N. Strzepek, K. Strzepek, and C.A. Schlosser,

2011: Climate change: comparative impact on developing and developed

countries. Engineering Project Organization Journal, 1(1), 67-80.

Christensen, K., S. Raihan, R. Ahsan, A.M.N. Uddin, C.S. Ahmed, and H. Wright, 2012:

Ensuring Access for the Climate Vulnerable in Bangladesh: Financing Local

Adaptation. ActionAid Bangladesh (AAB), Action Research for Community

Adaptation in Bangladesh (ARCAB), Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies

(BCAS), and International Centre for Climate Change and Development

(ICCCAD), AAB, Dhaka, Bangladesh, 126 pp.

Chuku, C.A., 2009: Pursuing an integrated development and climate policy framework

in Africa: options for mainstreaming. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for

Global Change, 15(1), 41-52.

Ciplet, D., S. Fields, K. Madden, M. Khan, and J.T. Roberts, 2012: The Eight Unmet

Promises of Fast Start Climate Finance. IIED Briefing, International Institute for

Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK, 8 pp.

862

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

Ciscar, J.-C., A. Iglesias, L. Feyen, L. Szabó, D. Van Regemorter, B. Amelung, R. Nicholls,

P. Watkiss, O.B. Christensen, and R. Dankers, 2011: Physical and economic

consequences of climate change in Europe. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2678-2683.

Climate Investment Funds, 2009: The Selection of Countries to Participate in the

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR). Report of the Expert Group

(established by the Pilot Programme on Climate Resilience Subcommittee,

PPCR-SC), to the PPCR Subcommittee, Climate Investment Funds, The World

Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 61 pp.

Cline, W.R., 2007: Global Warming and Agriculture: Impact Estimates by Country.

The Center for Global Development (CGD) and the Peterson Institute for

International Economics, Washington, DC, USA, 186 pp.

Coles, A.R. and C.A. Scott, 2009: Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change and

variability in semi-arid rural southeastern Arizona, USA. Natural Resources

Forum, 33(4), 297-309.

Collins, K. and R. Ison, 2009: Jumping off Arnstein’s ladder: social learning as a new

policy paradigm for climate change adaptation. Environmental Policy and

Governance, 19(6), 358-373.

Colombo, A.F. and P.H. Byer, 2012: Adaptation, flexibility and project decision-making

with climate change uncertainties. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,

30(4), 229-241.

Compston, H., 2010: The politics of climate policy: strategic options for national

governments. Political Quarterly, 81(1), 107-115.

Conway, D. and L. Schipper, 2011: Adaptation to climate change in Africa: challenges

and opportunities identified from Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change,

21(1), 227-237.

Conway, G., 2009: The Science of Climate Change in Africa: Impacts and Adaptation.

Grantham Institute for Climate Change Discussion Paper No. 1, Imperial

College, London, UK, 24 pp.

Convention on Biological Diversity, 2009: Connecting Biodiversity and Climate

Change Mitigation and Adaptation: Report of the Second Ad Hoc Technical

Expert Group on Biodiversity and Climate Change. CBD Technical Series No. 41,

Secretariat of the CBD, Montreal, QC, Canada, 126 pp.

Corfee-Morlot, J., I. Cochran, S. Hallegatte, and P.-J. Teasdale, 2011: Multilevel risk

governance and urban adaptation policy. Climatic Change, 104(1), 169-197.

Costello, A., M. Abbas, A. Allen, S. Ball, S. Bell, R. Bellamy, S. Frield, N. Groce, A. Johnson,

M. Kett, M. Lee, C. Levy, M. Maslin, D. McCoy, B. McGuire, H. Montgomery, D.

Napier, C. Pagel, J. Patel, J.A. Puppim de Oliveira, N. Redclift, H. Rees, D. Rogger,

J. Scott, J. Stephenson, J. Twigg, J. Wolff, and C. Patterson, 2009: Managing the

health effects of climate change. Lancet, 373, 1693-1733.

Costello, A., M. Maslin, H. Montgomery, A.M. Johnson, and P. Ekins, 2011: Global

health and climate change: moving from denial and catastrophic fatalism to

positive action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1942),

1866-1882.

Crawford, S.E.S. and E. Ostrom, 1995: A grammar of institutions. American Political

Science Review, 89, 582-600.

Cutter, S.L., C.T. Emrich, J.J. Web, and D. Morath, 2009: Social Vulnerability to Climate

Variability Hazards: A Review of the Literature. Final Report to Oxfam America,

Hazards Vulnerability Research Institute, University South Carolina, Columbia,

SC, USA, 44 pp.

Dawson, R., 2007: Re-engineering cities: a framework for adaptation to global

change. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 365(1861), 3085-3098.

Day, J.W., D.F. Boesch, E.J. Clairain, G.P. Kemp, S.B. Laska, W.J. Mitsch, K. Orth, H.

Mashriqui, D.J. Reed, L. Shabman, C.A. Simenstad, B.J. Streever, R.R. Twilley,

C.C. Watson, J.T. Wells, and D.F. Whigham, 2007: Restoration of the Mississippi

Delta: lessons from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Science, 315(5819), 1679-1684.

De Bruin, K., R.B. Dellink, A. Ruijs, L. Boldwidt, A. van Buuren, J. Graveland, R.S. de

Groot, P.J. Kuikman, S. Reinhard, R.P. Roetter, V.C. Tassone, A. Verhagen, and

E.C. van Ierland, 2009: Adapting to climate change in the Netherlands: an

inventory of climate adaptation options and ranking of alternatives. Climatic

Change, 95(1-2), 23-45.

DEFRA, 2012: UK Climate Change Risk Assessment: Government Report. Presented to

Parliament pursuant to Section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008, Department

for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), The Stationery Office (TSO),

Norwich, UK, 43 pp.

Deressa, T., R. Hassan, and C. Ringler, 2009b: Assessing Household Vulnerability to

Climate Change: The Case of Farmers in the Nile Basin of Ethiopia. IFPRI

Discussion Paper 00935, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI),

Washington, DC, USA, 18 pp.

Deressa, T.T., R.M. Hassan, C. Ringler, T. Alemu, and M. Yesuf, 2009a: Determinants

of farmers’ choice of adaptation methods to climate change in the Nile Basin

of Ethiopia. Global Environmental Change, 19(2), 248-255.

Dessai, S. and M. Hulme, 2004: Does climate adaptation policy need probabilities?

Climate Policy, 4(2), 107-128.

Dessai, S., X. Lu, and J.S. Risbey, 2005: On the role of climate scenarios for adaptation

planning. Global Environmental Change, 15(2), 87-97.

Dilley, M., R.S. Chen, U. Deichmann, A.L. Lerner-Lam, and M. Arnold, with J. Agwe, P.

Buys, O. Kjekstad, B. Lyon, and G. Yetman, 2005: Natural Disaster Hotspots: A

Global Risk Analysis. Disaster Risk Management Series No. 5, The International

Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank and Columbia

University, World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 132 pp.

Dolan, A.H. and I.J. Walker, 2003: Understanding vulnerability of coastal communities

to climate change related risks. Journal of Coastal Research, 39(SI), 1317-1324.

Doria, M.D., E. Boyd, E.L. Tompkins, and W.N. Adger, 2009: Using expert elicitation

to define successful adaptation to climate change. Environmental Science and

Policy, 12(7), 810-819.

Dovers, S.R. and A.A. Hezri, 2010: Institutions and policy processes: the means to

the ends of adaptation. Climate Change, 1(2), 212-231.

Dow, K., F. Berkhout, B.L. Preston, R.J.T. Klein, G. Midgley, and M.R. Shaw, 2013:

Limits to adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 305-307.

Dowlatabadi, H., 2007: On integration of policies for climate change global change.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12, 651-663.

Downing, T., 2003: Toward a vulnerability/adaptation science: lessons from famine

early warning and food security. In: Climate Change Adaptive Capacity and

Development [Smith, J., R. Klein, and S. Huq (eds.)]. Imperial College Press,

London, UK, pp. 77-100.

Downing, T.E., M.J. Watts, and H.G. Bohle, 1995: Climate change and food insecurity:

towards a sociology and geography of vulnerability. In: Climate Change and

World Food Security [Downing, T.E. (ed.)]. Springer, Berlin, Germany, pp. 183-206.

Dudley, N., S. Stolton, A. Belokurov, L. Krueger, N. Lopoukhine, K. MacKinnon, T. Sandwith,

and N. Sekhran (eds.), 2010: Natural Solutions: Protected Areas Helping People

Cope with Climate Change. The International Union for Conservation of Nature-

World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN-WCPA), the Nature Conservancy

(TNC), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Wildlife Con-

servation Society (WCS), The World Bank, and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF),

IUCN-WCPA and WWF International, Gland, Switzerland, TNC, Arlington, VA,

USA, UNDP, New York, NY, USA, WCS, Bronx, NY, USA, and The World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, 126 pp.

Eakin, H. and M.C. Lemos, 2006: Adaptation and the state: Latin America and the

challenge of capacity-building under globalization. Global Environmental

Change, 16(1), 7-18.

Eakin, H. and A. Luers, 2006: Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental

systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 365-394.

Eakin, H., E.L. Tompkins, D.R. Nelson, and J.M. Anderies, 2012: Hidden costs and

disparate uncertainties: trade-offs in approaches to climate policy. In: Adapting

to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance [Adger, W.N., I. Lorenzoni,

and K.L. O’Brien (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New

York, NY, USA, pp. 212-226.

Ebi, K., 2011: Climate change and health risks: assessing and responding to them

through “adaptive management”. Health Affairs, 30(5), 924-930.

Ebi, K.L. and I. Burton, 2008: Identifying practical adaptation options: an approach

to address climate change-related health risks. Environmental Science and

Policy, 11(4), 359-369.

ECA, 2009: Shaping Climate-Resilient Development: A Framework for Decision-

Making. A Report of the Economics of Climate Adaptation (ECA) Working

Group, a partnership of the Climate Works Foundation, Global Environment

Facility, European Commission, McKinsey and Company, The Rockefeller

Foundation, Standard Chartered Bank, and Swiss Re, 159 pp.

Edwards, F., J. Dixon, S. Friel, G. Hall, K. Larsen, S. Lockie, B. Wood, M. Lawrence, I.

Hanigan, A. Hogan, and L. Hattersley, 2011: Climate change adaptation at the

intersection of food and health. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health, 23(2),

91-104.

Eierdanz, F., J. Alcamo, L. Acosta-Milchlik, D. Krömker, and D. Tänzler, 2008: Using

fuzzy set theory to address the uncertainty of susceptibility of drought. Regional

Environmental Change, 8(4), 197-205.

Engle, N.L. and M.C. Lemos, 2010: Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity

to climate change of river basins in Brazil. Global Environmental Change, 20(1),

4-13.

863

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

Eriksen, S.H. and P.M. Kelly, 2007: Developing credible vulnerability indicators for

climate adaptation policy assessment. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

for Global Change, 12, 495-524.

Eriksen, S., P. Aldunce, C.S. Bahinipati, R. D’Almeida Martins, J.I. Molefe, C.

Nhemachena, K. O’Brien , F. Olorunfemi, J. Park, L. Sygna, and K. Ulsrud, 2011:

When not every response to climate change is a good one: identifying principles

for sustainable adaptation. Climate and Development, 3(1), 7-20.

European Commission, 2009: Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a European

Framework for Action. White Paper, Brussels 1.4.2009 COM(2009) 147 final,

Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 16 pp.

Fankhauser, S. and I. Burton, 2011: Spending adaptation money wisely. Climate

Policy, 11(3), 1037-1049.

FAO, 2007: Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries:

Perspective, Framework and Priorities. Interdepartmental Working Group on

Climate Change, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

(FAO), Rome, Italy, 24 pp.

FEMA, 2010: Hazard Mitigation Assistance Unified Guidance. Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), Department of Homeland Security, FEMA,

Washington, DC, USA, 168 pp.

Ferrara de Giner, G., M.T. Martelo, R. Lairet, A. Villamizar, and J.C. Sánchez, 2012: A

proposal for community adaptive capacity on adaptation to climate change:

San Pedro community, Caracas, Venezuela. In: E-Annals from ABES-AIDIS. XXXIII

Congreso Interamericano de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental (Associação

Brasileira de Engenharia Sanitária e Ambiental), Theme VIII-024, pp. 1-7.

Finzi Hart, J.A., P.M. Grifman, S.C. Moser, A. Abeles, M.R. Myers, S.C. Schlosser, and J.A.

Ekstrom, 2012: Rising to the Challenge: Results of the 2011 Coastal California

Adaptation Needs Assessment. Technical Report: USCSG-TR-01-2012, University

of Southern California (USC) Sea Grant, USC, Los Angeles, CA, 76 pp.

Ford, J.D., L. Berrang-Ford, and J. Paterson, 2011: A systematic review of observed

climate change adaptation in developed nations. Climatic Change, 106(2), 327-

336.

Fünfgeld, H. and D. McEvoy, 2011: Framing Climate Change Adaptation in Policy

and Practice. VCCCAR Working Paper 1, VCCCAR Project: Framing Adaptation

in the Victorian Context, Victorian Centre for Climate Change Adaptation

Research (VCCCAR), Melbourne, Australia, 65 pp.

Furlow, J., J.B. Smith, G. Anderson, W. Breed, and J. Padgham, 2011: Building resilience

to climate change through development assistance: USAID’s Climate Adaptation

Program. Climatic Change, 108(3), 411-421.

Füssel, H.-M., 2007: Vulnerability: a generally applicable conceptual framework for

climate change research. Global Environmental Change, 17(2), 155-167.

Füssel, H.-M., 2009: An updated assessment of the risks from climate change based

on research published since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Climatic

Change, 97(3-4), 469-482.

Füssel, H.-M., 2010: How inequitable is the global distribution of responsibility,

capability, and vulnerability to climate change: a comprehensive indicator-

based assessment. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 597-611.

Füssel, H.-M. and R.J.T. Klein, 2006: Climate change vulnerability assessments: an

evolution of conceptual thinking. Climatic Change, 75(3), 301-329.

Gagnon-Lebrun, F. and S. Agrawala, 2006: Progress on Adaptation to Climate Change

in Developed Countries: An Analysis of Broad Trends. Organisation for Economic

Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 61 pp.

Gardiner, D., M. Anderson, R. Schlesinger, J. Fox Gorte, and D. Zeller, 2007: Climate

Risk Disclosure by the S&P 500. David Gardiner & Associates report for Ceres

and Calvert analyzing the S&P 500 CDP4 responses to the Carbon Disclosure

Project information request regarding the risks and opportunities of climate

change, Ceres, Boston, MA, USA, 72 pp., www.calvert.com/documents/ceres_

calvert_sandp_500.pdf.

Garg, A., R.C. Dhiman, S. Bhattacharya, and P.R. Shukla, 2009: Development, malaria

and adaptation to climate change: a case study from India. Environmental

Management, 43(5), 779-789.

GEF, 2002: Note on GEF Support for National Adaptation Plans of Action (NAPA).

GEF/C.19/Inf.7, May 8, 2002, Global Environment Facility (GEF), GEF Secretariat,

Washington, DC, USA, 28 pp.

Gething, P.W., D.L. Smith, A.P. Patil, A.J. Tatem, R.W. Snow, and S.I. Hay, 2010: Climate

change and the global malaria recession. Nature, 465(7296), 342-345.

Ghimire, Y.N., G.P. Shivakoti, and S.R. Perret, 2010: Household-level vulnerability to

drought in hill agriculture of Nepal: implications for adaptation planning.

International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 17(3),

225-230.

GIZ, 2011: Making Adaptation Count: Concepts and Options for Monitoring and

Evaluation of Climate Change Adaptation. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale

Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, on behalf of Bundesministerium für

wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), and The World

Resources Institute (WRI), GIZ, Eschborn, Germany, 92 pp.

Glatzel, K., H. Wright, and Z. Makuch, 2012: Technology innovation and the law - the

example of climate adaptation technologies. In: Environmental and Energy Law

[Makuch, K.E. and R. Pereira (eds.)]. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, UK, pp. 92-116.

Goldman, R.L., H. Tallis, P. Kareiva, and G.C. Daily, 2008: Field evidence that ecosystem

service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proceedings of the

National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(27), 9445-

9448.

Goldstein, J.H., G. Caldarone, T.K. Duarte, D. Ennaanay, N. Hannahs, G. Mendoza, S.

Polasky, S. Wolny, and G.C. Daily, 2012: Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs

into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of

the United States of America, 109(19), 7565-7570.

Gonzalez, P., R.P. Neilson, J.M. Lenihan, and R.J. Drapek, 2010: Global patterns in

the vulnerability of ecosystems to vegetation shifts due to climate change.

Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(6), 755-768.

Government of Nepal, 2011: National Framework on Local Adaptation Plan for

Action (LAPA), Kathmandu, Nepal, 56 pp.

Green Climate Fund, 2013a: Governing Instrument for the Green Climate Fund,

Green Climate Fund, Interim Secretariat of the Green Climate Fund, Bonn,

Germany, 16 pp., gcfund.net/fileadmin/00_customer/documents/pdf/GCF-

governing_instrument-120521-block-LY.pdf.

Green Climate Fund, 2013b: Business Model Framework: Objectives, Results and

Performance Indicators. GCF/B.04/03, Green Climate Fund, Meeting of the

Board, 26-28 June 2013, Songdo, Republic of Korea, 27 pp., www.gcfund.net/

fileadmin/00_customer/documents/pdf/B-04_03_BMF_Objectives_Results_

PerformanceIndicators_10Jun13.pdf.

Grothmann, T. and A. Patt, 2005: Adaptive capacity and human cognition: the process

of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environmental Change,

15(3), 199-213.

GTZ, 2008: Adaptation and Refinement of the World Bank’s “Country Policy and

Institutional Assessment” (CPIA). Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische

Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH, on behalf of Bundesministerium für

wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (BMZ), and the Global Public

Policy Institute (GPPi), GTZ, Eschborn, Germany, 90 pp.

Guariguata, M., 2009: El manejo forestal en el contexto de la adaptación al cambio

climático. Revista de Estudios Sociales, 32, 98-112.

Gupta, J., C. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meijerink, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, S.

Nooteboom, and E. Bergsma, 2010: The adaptive capacity wheel: a method to

assess the inherent characteristics of institutions to enable the adaptive

capacity of society. Environmental Science and Policy, 13(6), 459-471.

Haines, A., R.S. Kovats, D. Campbell-Lendrum, and C. Corvalan, 2006: Climate change

and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation. Lancet, 367(9528),

2101-2109.

Hallegatte, S., 2009: Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global

Environmental Change, 19(2), 240-247.

Hallegatte, S., 2011: How economic growth and rational decisions can make disaster

losses grow faster than wealth. Policy Research Working Paper 5617, Office of

the Chief Economist, Sustainable Development Network, The International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, 21 pp.

Hamin, E.M. and N. Gurran, 2009: Urban form and climate change: balancing

adaptation and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International,

33(3), 238-245.

Hardoy, J. and P. Romero Lankao, 2011: Latin American cities and climate change:

challenges and options to mitigation and adaptation responses. Current Opinion

in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 158-163.

Harlan, S.L. and D.M. Ruddel, 2011: Climate change and health in cities: impacts of

heat and air pollution and potential co-benefits from mitigation and adaptation.

Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 126-134.

Harsdorff, M., M. Lieuw-Kie-Song, and M. Tsukamoto, 2011: Towards an ILO

Approach to Climate Change Adaptation. ILO Employment Working Paper No.

104, International Labour Organization (ILO), Geneva, Switzerland, 85 pp.

Heffernan, O., 2012: No going back. Nature, 491, 659-661.

Heltberg, R., P.B. Siegel, and S.L. Jorgensen, 2009: Addressing human vulnerability

to climate change: toward a “no-regrets” approach. Global Environmental

Change, 19(1), 89-99.

864

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

Hinkel, J., 2011: Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity: towards a

clarification of the science-policy interface. Global Environmental Change,

21(1), 198-208.

Hochrainer, S., R. Mechler, and G. Pflug, 2007: Climate change and weather insurance

in Malawi: assessing the impact. In: Feasibility of Risk Financing Schemes for

Climate Adaptation: The Case of Malawi [Suarez, P., J. Linnerooth-Bayer, and

R. Mechler (eds.)]. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Report to the World Bank Development Economics Research Group, IIASA,

Laxenburg, Austria, pp. 53-86.

Hoddinott, J., J.A. Maluccio, J.R. Behrman, R. Flores, and R. Martorell, 2008: Effect of

a nutrition intervention during early childhood on economic productivity in

Guatemalan adults. Lancet, 371(9610), 411-416.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., 2011: Coral reef ecosystems and anthropogenic climate

change. Regional Environmental Change, 11(Suppl. 1), 215-227.

Hoeppe, P. and E.N. Gurenko, 2006: Scientific and economic rationales for innovative

climate insurance solutions. Climate Policy, 6(6), 607-620.

Huang, C., P. Vaneckova, X. Wang, G. Fitzgerald, Y. Gro, and S. Tong, 2011: Constraints

and barriers to public health adaptation to climate change: a review of the

literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 40(2), 183-190.

Hulme, M., 2009: Why We Disagree about Climate Change: Understanding Controversy,

Inaction and Opportunity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New

York, NY, USA, 392 pp.

Huntjens, P., C. Pahl-Wostl, and J. Grin, 2010: Climate change adaptation in European

river basins. Regional Environmental Change, 10(4), 263-284.

Huq, S. and M.R. Khan, 2006: Equity in National Adaptation Programs of Action

(NAPAs): the case of Bangladesh.In: Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change

[Adger, W.N., J. Paavola, S. Huq, and M.J. Mace (eds.)]. MIT Press, Cambridge,

MA, USA, pp. 131-153.

Huq, S., S. Kovats, H. Reid, and D. Satterthwaite, 2007: Editorial: reducing risks to cities

from disasters and climate change. Environment and Urbanization, 19(1), 3-15.

Hussey, K. and S. Dovers, 2006: Trajectories in Australian water policy. Journal of

Contemporary Water Research and Education, 135(1), 36-60.

IEG, 2009: The World Bank’s Country Policy and Institutional Assessment: An

Evaluation. Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), The World Bank Group,

Washington, DC, USA, 142 pp.

IFC, 2010: Climate Risk and Financial Institutions: Challenges and Opportunities.

International Finance Corporation (IFC), Washington, DC, USA, 120 pp.

IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution

of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken,

and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New

York, NY, USA, 1032 pp.

IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working

Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K. and A. Reisinger

(eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

IPCC, 2007b: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution

of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der

Linden, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

and New York, NY, USA, 976 pp.

IPCC, 2012: Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate

Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker,

D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K.

Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

UK and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

Irfanullah, H.M., 2009: Floating gardening in Bangladesh: already affected by climate

variability? In: Biodiversity Conservation and Response to Climate Variability

at Community Level [Irfanulla, H.M., R. Amin, and A. Nishat (eds.)]. International

Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP), and United Nations University (UNU), IUCN, Dhaka,

Bangladesh, pp. 7-14.

Irfanullah, H.M., 2013. Floating gardening: a local lad becoming a climate celebrity?

Clean Slate, 88, 26-27.

Irfanullah, H.M., A. Adrika, A. Ghani, Z.A. Khan, and M.A. Rashid, 2011a: Introduction

of floating gardening in the north-eastern wetlands of Bangladesh for nutritional

security and sustainable livelihoods. Renewable Agriculture and Flood Systems,

23(2), 89-96.

Irfranullah, H.M., M.A.K. Azad, A.K.M. Kamruzzaman, and M.A. Wahed, 2011b:

Floating gardening in Bangladesh: a means to rebuild lives after devastating

flood. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 10(1), 31-38.

Jentsch, A. and C. Beierkuhnlein, 2008: Research frontiers in climate change: effects

of extreme meteorological events on ecosystems. Comptes Rendus Geoscience,

340(9-10), 621-628.

Jones, H.P., D.G. Hole, and E.S. Zavaleta, 2012: Harnessing nature to help people

adapt to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 2, 504-509.

Kalame, F.B., D. Kudejira, and J. Nkem, 2011: Assessing the process and options for

implementing National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPA): a case study

from Burkina Faso. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,

16(5), 535-553.

Kasperson, J.X. and R.E. Kasperson, 2001: Global Environmental Risk. United

National University Press, Tokyo, Japan and New York, NY, USA, 574 pp.

Kates, R.W. and T.J. Wilbanks, 2003: Making the global local: responding to climate

change concerns from the ground. Environment, 45(3), 12-23.

Kates, R.W., W.R. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation when

incremental adaptation climate change insufficient. Proceedings National

Academy Sciences of the United States of America, 109(19), 7156-7161.

Kaufman, R. and F.W. English, 1979: Needs Assessment: Concept and Application.

Educational Technology Publications, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 355 pp.

Khan, M.M.R., S.H. Miah, and H.M. Irfanullah, 2013: Small-scale silage-making

technology for the extreme poor on floodplains. International Journal of

Environmental Studies, 70(2), 192-202.

Khattri, A., D. Parameshwar, and S. Pellech, 2010: Opportunities for Private Sector

Engagement in Urban Climate Change Resilience Building. Report by Intellectual

Capital Advisory Services Pvt. Ltd. (Intellecap) with the support of the Asian

Cities Climate Change Resilience Network (ACCCRN) and the Rockefeller

Foundation, Intellecap, Hyderabad, India and the Rockefeller Foundation,

Bangkok, Thailand, 90 pp.

Kiparsky, M., A. Milman, and S. Vicuña, 2012: Climate and water: knowledge of

impacts to action on adaptation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources,

37(1), 163-194.

Klein, R.J.T., 2010: Mainstreaming climate adaptation in development: a policy

dilemma. In: Climate Governance and Development [Ansohn, A. and B. Pleskovic

(eds.)]. Berlin Workshop Series 2010, The International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 35-52.

Klein, R.J.T. and A. Möhner, 2011: The political dimension of vulnerability: implications

for the Green Climate Fund. IDS Bulletin, 42(3), 15-22.

Klein, R.J.T., R.J. Nicholls, and F. Thomalla, 2003: Resilience to natural hazards: how

useful is this concept? Global Environmental Change Part B: Environmental

Hazards, 5(1-2), 35-45.

Klein, R.J.T., S. Huq, F. Denton, T.E. Downing, R.G. Richels, J.B. Robinson, and F.L. Toth,

2007: Inter-relationships between adaptation and mitigation. In: Climate

Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contributions of Working

Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikot, P.J. van der Linden, and

C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York,

NY, USA, pp. 745-777.

Koetse, M.J. and P. Rietveld, 2012: Adaptation to climate change in the transport

sector. Transport Reviews, 32(3), 267-286.

Kovats, S. and R. Akhtar, 2008: Climate, climate change and human health in Asian

cities. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 165-175.

KPMG International, 2008: Climate Changes Your Business: KPMG’s Review of the

Business Risks and Economic Impacts at Sector Level. KPMG International,

Amstelveen, Netherlands, 76 pp.

Krasny, M.E., C. Lundholm, and R. Plummer, 2010: Resilience in social-ecological

systems: the roles of learning and education. Environmental Education

Research, 16(5-6), 463-474.

Kumamoto, M. and A. Mills, 2012: What African countries perceive to be adaptation

priorities: results from 20 countries in the Africa Adaptation Programme.

Climate and Development, 4(4), 265-274.

Lamhauge, N., E. Lanzi, and S. Agrawala, 2011: Monitoring and Evaluation for

Adaptation: Lessons from Development Co-operation Agencies. OECD

Environment Working Paper No. 38, Organization for Economic Co-operation

and Development (OECD) Publishing, Paris, France, 49 pp.

Laukkonen, J., P.K. Blanco, J. Lenhart, M. Keiner, B. Cavric, and C. Kinuthia-Njenga,

2009: Combining climate change adaptation and mitigation measures at the

local level. Habitat International, 33(3), 287-292.

865

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

LDC Expert Group, 2009: The Least Developed Countries National Adaptation

Programmes of Action: Overview of Preparation, Design of Implementation

Strategies and Submission of Revised Project Lists and Profiles. United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UNFCCC Secretariat,

Bonn, Germany, 32 pp.

LDC Expert Group, 2012: National Adaptation Plans: Technical Guidelines for the

National Adaptation Plan Process. LDC Expert Group, United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany,

148 pp.

Learmonth, G., D.E. Smith, W.H. Sherman, M.A. White, and J. Plank, 2011: A practical

approach to the complex problem of environmental sustainability: the UVa Bay

Game.The Innovation Journal, 16(1), 2-8.

Lee, K.S. and E.S. Chung, 2007: Hydrological effects of climate change, groundwater

withdrawal, and land use in a small Korean watershed. Hydrological Processes,

21(22), 3046-3056.

Lempert, R.J. and M.E. Schlesinger, 2000: Robust strategies for abating climate

change. Climatic Change, 45(3-4), 387-401.

Levina, E., 2007: Adaptation to Climate Change: International Agreements for Local

Needs. COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2007)6, Organization for Economic Co-Operation

and Development (OECD) and the International Energy Agency (IEA), OECD

and IEA, Paris, France, 60 pp.

Lonergan, S., K. Gustavson, and M. Harrower, 1999: Mapping human insecurity. In:

Environmental Change, Adaptation, and Security [Lonergen, S.C. (ed.)].

NATO/Kluwer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 397-413.

MacLean, D., 2008: ICTs, Adaptation to Climate Change, and Sustainable Development

at the Edges. IISD Commentary, International Institute for Sustainable

Development (IISD), Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 5 pp.

Mallawaarachchi, T. and A. Foster, 2009: Dealing with Irrigation Drought: The Role

of Water Trading in Adapting to Water Shortages in 2007-08 in the Southern

Murray-Darling Basin. ABARE Research Report 09.6 to the Department of the

Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts, Australian Bureau of Agriculture

and Resource Economics (ABARE), Canberra, Australia, 32 pp.

Martens, P., D. McEvoy, and C. Chang, 2009: The climate change challenge: linking

vulnerability, adaptation, and mitigation. Current Opinion in Environmental

Sustainability. 1(1), 14-18.

Masozera, M., M. Bailey, and C. Kerchner, 2007: Distribution of impacts of natural

disasters across income groups: a case study of New Orleans. Ecological

Economics 63(2-3), 299-306

Mawdsley, J.R., R. O’Malley, and D.S. Ojima, 2009: A review of climate-change

adaptation strategies for wildlife management and biodiversity conservation.

Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1080-1089.

McDowell, J.Z. and J.J. Hess, 2012: Accessing adaptation: multiple stressors on

livelihoods in the Bolivian Highlands under a changing climate. Global

Environmental Change, 22(2), 342-352.

McEvoy, D., S. Lindley, and J. Handley, 2006: Adaptation and mitigation in urban

areas: synergies and conflicts. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers:

Municipal Engineer, 159(4), 185-191.

McGray, H., R. Bradley, A. Hammill, E.L. Schipper, and J. Parry, 2007: Weathering the

Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and Development. World Resources

Institute, Washington, DC, USA, 57 pp.

McKenzie Hedger, M., R. Connell, and P. Bramwell, 2006: Bridging the gap:

empowering adaptation decision-making through the UK Climate Impacts

Programme. Climate Policy, 6, 201-215.

McKenzie Hedger, M., T. Mitchell, J. Leavy, M. Greenly, A. Downie, and L. Horrocks,

2008: Desk Review: Evaluation of Adaptation to Climate Change from a

Development Perspective. Report commissioned by the GEF Evaluation Office

(EO) and financed by DFID, as part of the GEF Evaluation Office International

Conference on Evaluating Climate Change and Development (Alexandria, May

10th to 13th, 2008), Institute of Development Studies (IDS), London, UK, 60 pp.

McKillip, J., 1987: Need Analysis: Tools for the Human Services and Education. Sage

Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 143 pp.

McMichael, A.J. and E. Lindgren, 2011: Climate change: present and future risks to

health, and necessary responses. Journal of Internal Medicine, 270(5), 401-

413.

Mechler, R., S. Hochrainer, G. Pflug, A. Lotsch, and K. Williges, 2010: Assessing the

Financial Vulnerability to Climate-Related Natural Hazards. World Bank Policy

Research Paper No. 5232, Background Paper to the 2010 World Development

Report, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World

Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 30 pp.

Mertz, O., K. Halsnaes, J.E. Olsen, and K. Rasmussen, 2009: Adaptation to climate

change in developing countries. Environmental Management, 43(5), 743-752.

Meze-Hausken, E., A. Patt, and S. Fritz, 2009: Reducing climate risk for micro-

insurance providers in Africa: a case study of Ethiopia. Global Environmental

Change, 19(1), 66-73.

Moench, M., E. Fajber, A. Dixit, E. Caspari, and A. Pokhrel, 2009: Catalyzing Climate

and Disaster Resilience. Processes for Identifying Tangible and Economically

Robust Strategies. Final Report of the Risk to Resilience Study, Institute for Social

and Environmental Transition (ISET), ISET-Nepal, Kathmandu, Nepal, 324 pp.

Moody, P. and C. Brown, 2012: Modeling stakeholder-defined climate risk on the

Upper Great Lakes. Water Resources Research, 48(10), doi:10.1029/

2012WR012497.

Mooney, H., A. Larigauderie, M. Cesario, T. Elmquist, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, S. Lavorel,

G. Mace, M. Palmer, R. Scholes, and T. Yahara, 2009: Biodiversity, climate change,

and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 46-

54.

Morecroft, M.D. and C. E. Cowan, 2010: Responding to climate change: an essential

component of sustainable development in the 21st century. Local Economy,

25(3), 170-175.

Morris, J., 2007: Ecological engineering in intertidial saltmarshes. Hydrobiologia,

192, 161-168.

Moser, S.C., 2006: Asset-Based Approaches to Poverty Reduction in a Globalized

Context: An Introduction to Asset Accumulation Policy and Summary of

Workshop Findings. Global Economy and Development Working Paper,

Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, USA, 39 pp.

Moser, S.C., 2009: Governance and the art of overcoming barriers to adaptation.

Magazine of the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global

Environmental Change, 3, 31-36.

Moser, S.C. and J.A. Ekstrom, 2011: Taking ownership of climate change: participatory

adaptation planning in two local case studies from California. Journal of

Environmental Studies and Sciences, 1(1), 63-74.

Moser, S.C. and D. Satterthwaite, 2010: Toward pro-poor adaptation to climate

change in the urban centers of low- and middle-income countries. In: Social

Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability in a Warming World

[Mearns, R. and A. Norton (eds.)]. The International Bank for Reconstruction

and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 231-258.

Moss, R.H., A.L. Brenkert, and E.L. Malone, 2001: Vulnerability to Climate Change: A

Quantitative Approach. Technical Report PNNL-SA-33642, Prepared by the

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for the Department of Energy, Office of

Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge, TN, USA and U.S. Department

of Commerce, Springfield, VA, USA, 70 pp.

Moss, R.H., E.L. Malone, N.L. Engle, A. de Bremond, and A. Delgado, 2012: Ready or

Not: Towards a Resilience Framework for Making Climate-Change Adaptation

Decisions. Report prepared for the World Bank by the Joint Global Change

Research Institute.

National Research Council, 2011: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change.

America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate

Change, National Research Council, The National Academies Press, Washington,

DC, USA, 292 pp.

NCCARF, 2012: Climate Change Adaptation Research in Australia: An Overview of

Research Funded by the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.

National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), Griffith

University Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 27 pp.

Nelson, D.R., W.N. Adger, and K. Brown, 2007: Adaptation to environmental change:

contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and

Resources, 32, 395-419.

Nicholls, N., C.D. Butler, and I. Hanigan, 2006: Inter-annual rainfall variations and

suicide in New South Wales, Australia, 1964-2001. International Journal of

Biometeorology, 50(3), 139-143.

Niemeyer, S., J. Petts, and K. Hobson, 2005: Rapid climate change and society:

assessing responses and thresholds. Risk Analysis, 25(6), 1443-1456.

O’Brien, K.L., 2012: Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate

transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667-676.

O’Brien, K.L., S. Eriksen, L.P. Nygaard, and A. Schjolden, 2007: Why different

interpretations of vulnerability matter in climate change discourses. Climate

Policy, 7(1), 73-88.

O’Neill, M.S. and K.L. Ebi, 2009: Temperature extremes and health: impacts of climate

variability and change in the United States. Journal of Occupational and

Environmental Medicine, 51(1), 13-25.

866

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

OECD, 2009: Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation:

Policy Guidance. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 193 pp.

OECD, 2011: Financing Climate Change Action and Boosting Technology Change:

Key Messages and Recommendations from Current OECD Work. Organisation

for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris,

France, 15 pp.

Ogden, A.E. and J. L. Innes, 2009: Adapting to climate change in the southwest Yukon:

locally identified research and monitoring needs to support decision making

on sustainable forest management. Arctic, 62(2), 159-174.

Ormerod, S.J., M. Dobson, A.G. Hildrew, and C.R. Townsend, 2010: Multiple stressors

in freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater Biology, 55(Suppl. 1), 1-4.

Osman-Elasha, B., N. Goutbi, E. Spanger-Siegfried, B. Dougherty, A. Hanafi, S.

Zakieldeen, E-A. Sanjak, H.A. Atti, and H.M. Elhassan, 2009: Community

development and coping with drought in rural Sudan. In: Climate Change and

Adaptation [Leary, N., J. Adejuwon, V. Barros, I. Burton, J. Kulkarni, and R. Lasco

(eds.)]. Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 90-108.

Paavola, J., 2008: Livelihoods, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change in

Morogoro, Tanzania. Environmental Science and Policy, 11(7), 642-654.

Pant, L.P. and R. Heeks, 2011: ICT-Enabled Development of Capacity for Climate Change

Adaptation Centre for Development Informatics Institute for Development

Policy and Management. Centre for Development Informatics, Institute for

Development Policy and Management, SED, University of Manchester,

Manchester, UK, 26 pp.

Park, S.E., N.A. Marshall, E. Jakku, A.M. Dowd, S.M. Howden, E. Mendham, and A.

Fleming, 2012: Informing adaptation responses to climate change through

theories of transformation. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 115-

126.

Parry, M. and T. Carter, 1998: Climate Impact and Adaptation Assessment: A Guide

to the IPCC Approach. Earthscan, London, UK, 166 pp.

Parry, M., N. Arnell, P. Berry, D. Dodman, S. Fankhauser, C. Hope, S. Kovats, R. Nicholls,

D. Satterthwaite, R. Tiffin, and T. Wheeler, 2009: Assessing the Costs of Adaptation

to Climate Change: A Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates.

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) and Grantham

Institute for Climate Change, London, UK, 113 pp.

Patz, J.A., S.H. Olson, C.K. Uejio, and H.K. Gibbs, 2008: Disease emergence from global

climate and land use change. Medical Clinics of North America, 92(6), 1473-

1491.

Pelling, M., 2010: Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation.

Routledge, Abingdon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 224 pp.

Perch-Nielsen, S., 2010: The vulnerability of beach tourism to climate change - an

index approach. Climatic Change, 100(3-4), 579-606.

Perkins, W., D., Ojima, and R., Corell, 2007: A survey of climate change adaptation

planning. The Heinz Center, Washington, DC, USA, 52 pp.

Persson, A., R.J.T Klein, C.K. Siebert, A. Atteridge, B. Mueller, J. Hoffmaister, M. Lazarus,

and T. Takama, 2009: Adaptation Finance under a Copenhagen Agreed

Outcome. Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), Stockholm, Sweden, 187 pp.

Peskett, L., N. Grist, M. Hedger, T. Lennartz-Walker, and I. Scholz, 2009: Climate

Change Challenges for EU Development Co-operation: Emerging Issues.

European Development Co-operation to 2020 Working Paper No. 3, European

Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), Bonn,

Germany, 23 pp.

Pittock, J., 2011: National climate change policies and sustainable water management:

conflicts and synergies. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 25, www.ecologyand

society.org/vol16/iss2/art25/.

Polsky, C., R. Neff, and B. Yarnal, 2007: Building comparable global change vulnerability

assessments: the vulnerability scoping diagram. Global Environmental Change,

17(3-4), 472-485.

Porio, E., 2011: Vulnerability, adaptation, and resilience to floods and climate change-

related risks among marginal, riverine communities in Metro Manila. Asian

Journal of Social Science, 39(4), 425-445.

Porter, M.G., 2013: A Tale of Two Cities: Desalination and Drought in Perth and

Melbourne. A report prepared for NCEDA under: ‘Desalination for Australian

Economic Development,’ National Centre of Excellence in Desalination Australia

(NCEDA), Alfred Deakin Research Institute, Deakin University, Melbourne,

Australia, 43 pp.

Pouliotte, J., B. Smit, and L. Westerhoff, 2009: Adaptation and development: livelihoods

and climate change in Subarnabad, Bangladesh. Climate and Development,

1(1), 31-46.

Prabhakar, S.V.R.K. and A. Srinivasan, 2011: Metrics for mainstreaming adaptation

in agriculture sector. Climate Change and Food Security in South Asia, 8, 551-567.

Pramova E., B. Locatelli, M. Brockhaus, and S. Fohlmeister, 2012: Ecosystem services

in the National Adaptation Programmes of Action. Climate Policy, 12(4), 393-409.

Preston, B. and M. Stafford-Smith, 2009: Framing Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity

Assessment: Discussion Paper. CSIRO Climate Adaptation National Research

Flagship Working Paper No. 2, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,

Aspendale, Victoria, Australia, 52 pp.

Preston, B.L., R.M. Westaway, S. Dessai, and T. Smith, 2009: Are We Adapting to

Climate Change? Research and Methods for Evaluating Progress. In: 89

American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting: Fourth Symposium on Policy

and Socio-Economic Research, Phoenix, AZ, 15 pp.

Preston, B.L., R.M. Westaway, and E.J. Yuen, 2011a: Climate adaptation planning in

practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16(4), 407-438.

Preston, B.L., E.J. Yuan, and R.M. Westaway, 2011b: Putting vulnerability to climate

change on the map: a review of approaches, benefits and risks. Sustainability

Science, 6, 177-202.

Pulwarty, R.S., C. Simpson, and C.R. Nierenberg, 2009: The Regional Integrated

Sciences and Assessments (RISA) Program: Crafting effective assessments for

the long haul. In: Integrated Regional Assessment of Global Climate Change

[Knight, C.G. and J. Jäger (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK,

pp. 367-393.

Ranger, N. and S.-L. Garbett-Shiels, 2012: Accounting for a changing and uncertain

climate in planning and policymaking today: lessons for developing countries.

Climate and Development, 4(4), 288-300.

Reid, H. and S. Huq, 2005: Climate change- biodiversity and livelihood impacts. In:

Tropical Forests and Adaptation to Climate Change: In Search of Synergies

[Robledo, C., M. Kanninen, and L. Pedroni (eds.)]. Center for International

Forestry Research, Bogor Barat, Indonesia, pp. 57-70.

Repetto, R., 2008: The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth. Yale School of

Forestry and Environmental Studies Working Paper 13, Yale School of Forestry

and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, USA, 21 pp.

Reser, J.P. and J.K. Swim, 2011: Adapting to and coping with the threat and impacts

of climate change. American Psychologist, 66(4), 277-289.

Reser, J.P., G. Bradley, and M. Ellul, 2012: Coping with climate change: bringing

psychological adaptation in from the cold. In: Handbook of the Psychology of

Coping: New Research [Molinelli B. and V. Grimaldo (eds.)]. Nova Science

Publishers, Hauppauge, NY, USA, pp. 1-34.

Revi, A., 2008: Climate change risk: an adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian

cities. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 207-229.

Reyer, C., M. Guericke, and P.L. Ibisch, 2009: Climate change mitigation via afforestation,

reforestation and deforestation avoidance: and what about adaptation to

environmental change? New Forests, 38(1), 15-34.

Ribot, J., 2010: Vulnerability does not fall from the sky: toward multiscale, pro-poor

climate policy. In: Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity and Vulnerability

in a Warming World [Mearns, R. and A. Norton (eds.)]. The International Bank

for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA,

pp. 47-74.

Roberts, D., 2008: Thinking globally, acting locally – institutionalizing climate change

at the local government level in Durban, South Africa. Environment and

Urbanization, 20(2), 521-537.

Roberts, D., 2010: Prioritizing climate change adaptation and local level resilience

in Durban, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 22(2), 397-413.

Rosenzweig, C., W. Solecki, S.A. Hammer, and S. Mehrotra, 2010: Cities lead the way

in climate-change action. Nature, 467, 909-911.

Rosenzweig, C., W.D. Solecki, R. Blake, M. Bowman, C. Faris, V. Gornitz, R. Horton, K.

Jacob, A. LeBlanc, R. Leichenko, M. Linkin, D. Major, M. O’Grady, L. Patrick, E.

Sussman, G. Yohe, and R. Zimmerman, 2011: Developing coastal adaptation to

climate change in the New York City infrastructure-shed: process, approach,

tools, and strategies. Climatic Change, 106(1), 93-127.

Rygel, L., D. O’Sullivan, and B. Yarnal, 2006: A method for constructing a social

vulnerability index: an application to hurricane storm surges in a developed

country. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, 741-764.

Satterthwaite, D. and D. Dodman, 2009: The costs of adapting infrastructure to

climate change. In: Assessing the Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change: A

Review of the UNFCCC and Other Recent Estimates [Parry, M., N. Arnell, P. Berry,

D. Dodman, S. Fankhauser, C. Hope, S. Kovats, R. Nicholls, D. Satterthwaite, R.

Tiffin, and T. Wheeler (eds.)]. International Institute for Environment and

867

Adaptation Needs and Options Chapter 14

Development (IIED) and the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, IIED,

London, UK, pp. 73-89.

Satterthwaite, D., S. Huq, H. Reid, M. Pelling, and P. Romero Lankao, 2009: Adapting

to climate change in urban areas: the possibilities and constraints in low- and

middle-income nations. In: Adapting Cities to Climate Change [Bicknell, J., D.

Dodman, and D. Satterthwaite (eds.)]. Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 3-47.

Scheraga, J.D., K.L. Ebi, J. Furlow, and A.R. Moreno, 2003: From science to policy:

developing responses to climate change. In:Climate Change and Human

Health: Risks and Responses [McMichael, A.J., D. Lendrum, C.F. Corvalan, K.L.

Ebi, A. Githeko, and J.D. Scheraga (eds.)]. World Health Organization (WHO),

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), United Nations Environment

Programme (UNDP), World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland, pp.

237-266.

Schipper, L., 2009: Meeting the crossroads? Exploring the linkages between climate

change adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Climate and Development, 1(1),

16-30.

Schröter, D., C. Polsky, and A. Patt, 2005: Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of

global change: an eight step approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies

for Global Change, 10(4), 573-595.

Semenov, M.A., 2006: Using weather generators in crop modeling. Acta Horticulturae,

707, 93-100.

Semenov, M.A., 2008: Simulation of extreme weather events by a stochastic weather

generator. Climate Research, 35(3), 203-212.

Semenza, J.C., S. Herbst, A. Rechenburg, J.E. Suk, C. Hoser, C. Schreiber, and T.

Kistemann, 2012: Climate change impact assessment of food- and waterborne

diseases. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology, 42(8),

857-890.

Shikanga, O-T., D. Mutonga, M. Abade, S. Amwayi, M. Ope, H. Limo, E.D. Mintz, R.E.

Quick, R.F. Breiman, and D.R. Feikin, 2009: High mortality in cholera outbreak

in western Kenya after post-election violence in 2008. The American Journal

of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 81(6), 1085-1090.

Sietz, D., M. Boschutz, and R.J.T. Klein, 2011a: Mainstreaming climate adaptation

into development assistance: rationale, institutional barriers and opportunities

in Mozambique. Environmental Science and Policy, 14(4), 493-502.

Sietz, D., M.K.B. Lüdeke, and C. Walther, 2011b: Categorisation of typical vulnerability

patterns in global drylands. Global Environmental Change, 21(2), 431-440.

Skoufias, E. (ed.), 2012: The Poverty and Welfare Impacts of Climate Change:

Quantifying the Effects, Identifying the Adaptation Strategies. World Bank

Publications, Washington, DC, USA, 184 pp.

Smit, B. and O. Pilifosova, 2003: From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability

reduction. In: Climate Change, Adaptive Capacity and Development [Smith, J.B.,

R.J.T. Klein, and S. Huq (eds.)]. Imperial College Press, London, UK, pp. 9-28.

Smit, B. and J. Wandel, 2006: Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global

Environmental Change, 16(3), 282-292.

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein, and G. Yohe, 2001:

Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and

equity. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability.

Contribution of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [McCarthy, J.J., O.F. Canziani, N.A.

Leary, D.J. Dokken, and K.S. White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 877-912.

Smith, J.B., J.M. Vogel, and J.E. Cromwell III, 2009: An architecture for government

action on adaptation to climate change. Climatic Change, 95 (1-2), 53-61.

Sovacool, B.K., 2011: Hard and soft paths for climate change adaptation. Climate

Policy, 11(4), 1177-1183.

Sovacool, B.K., A.L. D’Agostino, H. Meenawat, and A. Rawlani, 2012: Expert views

of climate change adaptation in least developed Asia. Journal of Environmental

Management, 97, 78-88.

Sowers, J., A. Vengosh, and E. Weinthal, 2011: Climate change, water resources, and

the politics of adaptation in the Middle East and North Africa. Climatic Change,

104(3-4), 599-627.

Srinivasan, A. and S.V.R.K. Prabhakar, 2009: Measures of Adaptation to Climatic

Change and Variability (Adaptation Metrics). Final Report to the World Bank,

Contract No. 7145543, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES)

Research Report, IGES, Hayama, Japan and The World Bank, Washington, DC,

USA, 108 pp., http://pub.iges.or.jp/modules/envirolib/view.php?docid=2940.

Stafford Smith, M., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey, and C. Hamilton, 2010: Rethinking

adaptation for a 4°C world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,

369(1934), 196-216.

Stern, N., 2006: The Economics of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, 712 pp.

Stokes, C. and M. Howden, 2010: Adapting Agriculture to Climate Change: Preparing

Australian Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for the Future. CSIRO Publishing,

Canberra, Australia, 296 pp.

Suarez, P., F. Ching, G. Ziervogel, I. Lemaire, D. Turnquest, J. Mendler de Suarez, and

B. Wisner, 2009: Video-mediated approaches for community-level climate

adaptation. IDS Bulletin, 39(4), 96-104.

Swart, R. and F. Raes, 2007: Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work

mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy, 7, 288-

303.

Tengö, M. and K. Belfrage, 2004: Local management practices for dealing with

change and uncertainty: a cross-scale comparison of cases in Sweden and

Tanzania. Ecology and Society, 9(3), 4, www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss3/

art4/.

The Climate Institute, 2011: A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with

Inaction on Climate Change. The Climate Institute, Melbourne and Sydney,

Australia, 28 pp.

Thomsen, D.C., T.F. Smith, and N. Keys, 2012: Adaptation or manipulation? Unpacking

climate change response strategies. Ecology and Society, 17(3), 20,

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss3/art20/.

Tol, R.S.J., T.E. Downing, O.J. Kuik, and J.B. Smith, 2004: Distributional aspects of

climate change impacts. Global Environmental Change, 14(3), 259-272.

Tonnang, H.E.Z., R.Y.M. Kangalawe, and P.Z. Yanda, 2010: Predicting and mapping

malaria under climate change scenarios: the potential redistribution of malaria

vectors in Africa. Malaria Journal, 9, 111-120.

Tompkins, E.L., W.N. Adger, E. Boyd, S. Nicholson-Cole, K. Weatherhead, and N.

Arnell, 2010: Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of

transition to a well-adapting society. Global Environmental Change, 20(4),

627-635.

Turner, W.R., B.A. Bradley, L.D. Estes, D.G. Hole, M. Oppenheimer, and D.S. Wilcove,

2010: Climate change: helping nature survive the human response. Conservation

Letters, 3(5), 304-312.

UKCIP, 2011: Making Progress: UKCIP & Adaptation in the UK. UK Climate Impacts

Programme (UKCIP), School of Geography and the Environment, at the

University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, 99 pp.

UNDP, 2004: Reducing Disaster Risk: A Challenge for Development. United Nation

Development Programme (UNDP), Bureau for Crisis Prevention and Recovery,

New York, NY, USA, 146 pp.

UNDP, 2005: Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing

Strategies, Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY,

USA, 258 pp.

UNDP, 2008: Human Development Report 2007/8. Fighting Climate Change: Human

Solidarity in a Divided World. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),

Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK and New York,

NY, USA, 384 pp.

UNDP, 2010: Gender, Climate Change and Community-Based Adaptation. A

Guidebook for Designing and Implementing Gender-Sensitive Community-

Based Adaptation Programmes and Projects, United Nations Development

Programme (UNDP), New York, NY, USA, 69 pp.

UNFCCC, 2006: Technologies for Adaptation to Climate Change. The United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UNFCCC Secretariat,

Bonn, Germany, 38 pp.

UNFCCC, 2007: Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate Change. The

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UNFCCC

Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 272 pp.

UNFCCC, 2010: Synthesis Report on Efforts Undertaken to Assess the Costs and

Benefit of Adaptation Options, and Views on Lessons Learned, Good Practices,

Gaps and Needs. UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 13 pp.

UNFCCC, 2011: Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Options: An Overview

of Approaches. The Nairobi Work Programme and United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn,

Germany, 48 pp.

Urwin, K. and A. Jordan, 2008: Does public policy support or undermine climate

change adaptation? Exploring policy interplay across different scales of

governance. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 180-191.

Van Aalst, M.K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton, 2008: Community level adaptation to

climate change: the potential role of participatory risk assessment. Global

Environmental Change, 18(1), 165-179.

868

Chapter 14 Adaptation Needs and Options

Verner, D., 2012: Gender-responsive climate change adaptation: ensuring effectiveness

and sustainability. In: Adaptation to a Changing Climate in the Arab Countries:

A Case for Adaptation Governance and Leadership in Building Climate

Resilience [Verner, D. (ed.)]. The International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 277-308.

Villamizar, A., 2011: Adaptación al Cambio Climático ypolíticas públicas: una deuda

de alto riesgo para América Latina?Mundo Nuevo,1(6), 301-338.

Webb, R. and J. Beh, 2013:Leading Adaptation Practices and Support Strategies

forAustralia: An International and Australian Review of Products and Tools.

Synthesis and Integrative Research: Final Report, NationalClimate Change

Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF) and Australian National University,

NCCARF, Griffith University Gold Coast Campus, Southport, Australia, 105 pp.

West, J.M. and D. Brereton, 2013: Climate Change Adaptation in Industry and

Business. Synthesis and Integrative Research Final Report, National Climate

Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), Griffith University Gold Coast

Campus, Southport, Australia, 144 pp.

Westerhoff, L., E.C.H. Keskitalo, and S. Juhola, 2011: Capacities across scales: local

to national adaptation policy in four European countries. Climate Policy, 11(4),

1071-1085.

Wheeler, D., 2011: Quantifying Vulnerability to Climate Change: Implications for

Adaptation Assistance. CGD Working Paper 240, Center for Global Development

(CGD), Washington, DC, USA, 49 pp.

Wolf, J., W.N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni, V. Abrahamson, and R. Raine, 2010: Social capital,

individual responses to heat waves and climate change adaptation: an empirical

study of two UK cities. Global Environmental Change, 20(1), 44-52.

World Bank, 2008: The Pilot Program for Climate Resilience under the Strategic

Climate Fund. CTF-SCF/7 November 10, 2008, The World Bank, Washington,

DC, USA, 7 pp.

World Bank, 2010: World Development Report 2010: Development in a Changing

Climate – Concept Note. The International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 43 pp.

World Economic Forum, 2002: 2002 Environmental Sustainability Index. An Initiative

of the Global Leaders for Tomorrow Environment Task Force, World Economic

Forum (WEF), Annual Meeting 2002, in collaboration with Yale Center for

Environmental Law and Policy (YCELP), Yale University and Center for

International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University,

YCELP, New Haven, CT, USA, 297 pp.

World Economic Forum, 2012: Global Risks 2012.7

edn., An initiative of the Risk

Response Network, World Economic Forum (WEF), Geneva, Switzerland, 62 pp.

WRI, 2009: Bellagio Framework for Adaptation Assessment and Prioritization. WRI

Working Paper, World Resources Institute (WRI), Washington, DC, USA, 6 pp.

Wu, Q., G. Cheng, W. Ma, and Y. Liu, 2008: Railway construction techniques adapting

to climate warming in permafrost regions. Advances in Climate Change

Research, 4, 60-66.

Yohe, G. and R.S.J. Tol, 2001: Indicators for social and economic coping capacity –

moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental

Change, 12(1), 25-40.

Young, H., A.M. Osman, A.M. Abusin, M. Asher, and O. Egemi, 2009: Livelihoods,

Power and Choice: The Vulnerability of the Northern Rizaygat, Darfur, Sudan.

Feinstein International Center, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA, 115 pp.

Ziervogel, G. and A. Taylor, 2008: Feeling stressed: integrating climate adaptation

with other priorities in South Africa. Environment, 50(2), 32-41.