869

Adaptation Planning

and Implementation

Coordinating Lead Authors:

Nobuo Mimura (Japan), Roger S. Pulwarty (USA)

Lead Authors:

Do Minh Duc (Vietnam), Ibrahim Elshinnawy (Egypt), Margaret Hiza Redsteer (USA),

He-Qing Huang (China), Johnson Ndi Nkem (Cameroon), Roberto A. Sanchez Rodriguez

(Mexico)

Contributing Authors:

Maarten van Aalst (Netherlands), Joseph Donahue (USA), Fernando Miralles-Wilhelm

(Venezuela), Soﬁe Storbjörk (Sweden), Swenja Surminski (UK)

Review Editors:

Richard Moss (USA), Walter Vergara (Inter-American Development Bank)

Volunteer Chapter Scientists:

Lisa S. Darby (USA), Sadahisa Kato (Japan)

This chapter should be cited as:

Mimura

, N., R.S. Pulwarty, D.M. Duc, I. Elshinnawy, M.H. Redsteer, H.Q. Huang, J.N. Nkem, and R.A. Sanchez

Rodriguez, 2014: Adaptation planning and implementation. 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. 869-898.

870

Executive Summary............................................................................................................................................................ 871

15.1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................ 873

15.2. Status of Adaptation Planning and Implementation .............................................................................................. 873

15.2.1. Adaptation Planning at Different Levels ........................................................................................................................................... 873

15.2.1.1. Common Recognition and International Mechanisms ....................................................................................................... 873

15.2.1.2. National Initiatives ............................................................................................................................................................ 874

15.2.1.3. Subnational and Local Activities ........................................................................................................................................ 875

15.2.2. Adaptation Implementation ............................................................................................................................................................. 877

15.2.3. Financing for Adaptation .................................................................................................................................................................. 878

15.3. Strategies and Approaches ..................................................................................................................................... 881

15.3.1. Diverse Strategies and Mixed-Portfolio Approaches ......................................................................................................................... 881

15.3.2. Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management ..................................................................................................................................... 881

15.3.3. Adaptation and Development ........................................................................................................................................................... 882

15.4. Tools Used for Decision Making, Planning, and Implementation ........................................................................... 883

15.4.1. Decision Support Tools ...................................................................................................................................................................... 883

15.4.2. Tools for Planning ............................................................................................................................................................................. 883

15.4.2.1. Monitoring, Modeling, and Spatially Integrated Tools ....................................................................................................... 883

15.4.2.2. Communication Tools ........................................................................................................................................................ 883

15.4.2.3. Early Warning and Information Systems ............................................................................................................................ 883

15.4.3. Technology Development, Transfer, and Diffusion ............................................................................................................................. 885

15.4.4. Insurance and Social Protection ........................................................................................................................................................ 885

15.5. Governance for Adaptation Planning and Implementation .................................................................................... 886

15.5.1. Institutional Dimensions for Planning and Implementing Adaptation ............................................................................................... 886

15.5.1.1. Importance of Institutional Dimensions ............................................................................................................................. 886

15.5.1.2. Institutional Barriers .......................................................................................................................................................... 886

15.5.1.3. Facilitating More Effective Climate Adaptation Planning and Implementation ................................................................. 888

15.5.2. Increasing Capabilities ...................................................................................................................................................................... 888

15.6. Research Needs for Maximizing Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 889

References ......................................................................................................................................................................... 890

Frequently Asked Questions

15.1: What is the present status of climate change adaptation planning and implementation across the globe? .................................... 876

15.2: What types of approaches are being used in adaptation planning and implementation? ................................................................ 878

Table of Contents

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

871

Executive Summary

Adaptation to climate change is transitioning from a phase of awareness to the construction of actual strategies and plans in

societies (robust evidence, high agreement). The combined efforts of a broad range of international organizations, scientific reports, and

media coverage have raised awareness of the importance of adaptation to climate change, fostering a growing number of adaptation responses

in developed and developing countries. This represents major progress since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). The literature illustrates

eterogeneity in adaptation planning related to the context specific nature of adaptation, but also to the differences in resources, values,

needs, and perceptions among and within societies. However, it is not yet clear how effective these responses currently are and will be in the

future. Few adaptation plans have been monitored and evaluated. There is a tendency in the literature to consider adaptation planning a problem-

free process capable of delivering positive outcomes, underestimating the complexity of adaptation as a social process, creating unrealistic

expectations in societies, and perhaps overestimating the capacity of planning to deliver the intended outcome of adaptation. {15.2.1-2}

The national level plays a key role in adaptation planning and implementation, while adaptation responses have diverse

processes and outcomes at the subnational and local levels (robust evidence, high agreement).

National governments assume a

coordinating role of adaptation actions in subnational and local levels of government, including the provision of information and policy

frameworks, creating legal frameworks, actions to protect vulnerable groups, and, in some cases, providing financial support to other levels of

government. In the increasing number of adaptation responses at the local level in developed and developing countries, local agencies and

planners are often confronted by the complexity of adaptation without adequate access to guiding information or data on local vulnerabilities

and potential impacts. Even when information is available, they are left with a portfolio of options to prepare for future climatic changes and

the potential unanticipated consequences of their decisions. Therefore, linkages with national and subnational levels of government, as well as

the collaboration and participation of a broad range of stakeholders, are important. Steps for mainstreaming adaptation have been identified

but challenges remain in their operationalization within the current structures or operational cultures of national, subnational, and local agencies.

{15.2.1, 15.5.1}

Institutional dimensions in adaptation governance play a key role in promoting the transition from planning to implementation

of adaptation (robust evidence, high agreement). While institutional dimensions may both enable and limit adaptation planning and

implementation, the literature has so far mostly reported on how current institutional arrangements restrict the mainstreaming of climate

adaptation. The most commonly emphasized barriers or enablers of institutional change in planning and implementation identified for both

developing and developed countries are: (1) multilevel institutional coordination between different political and administrative levels in society;

(2) key actors, advocates, and champions initiating, mainstreaming, and sustaining momentum for climate adaptation; (3) horizontal interplay

between sectors, actors, and policies operating at similar administrative levels; (4) political dimensions in planning and implementation; and (5)

coordination between formal governmental, administrative agencies, and private sectors and stakeholders to increase efficiency, representation,

and support for climate adaptation measures. {15.2.2, 15.5.1}

Adaptation planning and implementation are dynamic iterative learning processes recognizing the complementary role of

adaptation strategies, plans, and actions at different levels (national, subnational, and local) (robust evidence, high agreement).

Climate change adaptation (CCA) takes place as a response to multiple stresses, which highlights the need of connecting CCA with development

strategies and plans, and disaster risk management (DRM). The importance of CCA is influenced by how the issue is framed in particular contexts,

and, to the extent that it is viewed as a public safety issue or a development issue, it has greater resonance within national and local policies.

In many cases, the most attractive adaptation actions are those that offer development benefits in the relatively near term, as well as reductions

of vulnerabilities in the longer term. There is a growing recognition in the literature that the linkages between adaptation, development, and

DRM need to be more explicit targeting co-benefits among the societal goals. Considering adaptation planning and implementation learning

processes can help carrying out periodic adjustments to accommodate changes in climate and socioeconomic conditions that can strengthen

the role of planning as a societal tool for CCA and DRM. {15.2.1, 15.3.2-3, 15.5.1}

There is no single approach to adaptation planning because of the complex, diverse, and context-dependent nature of adaptation

to climate change. Although top-down and bottom-up approaches are widely recognized, the actions in practice are combinations

of these approaches (medium evidence, high agreement).

The literature illustrates that the debate of climate change is dominated at

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

872

present by impacts-led approaches that focus on climate risks through the construction of defensive infrastructure rather than on human

vulnerability. It is unclear at this point if these adaptation plans consider impact-led approaches just the start of an adaptation process rather

than its culmination. Knowledge of impacts and vulnerabilities does not necessarily lead to the most cost-effective and efficient adaptation

policy decisions. This is partly due to the uncertainty associated with future climate and socioeconomic conditions but also to the context

speciﬁcity of adaptation. The literature suggests that coupling adaptive improvements in infrastructure with efforts to improve ecosystem

esilience, governance, community welfare, and development improve community resilience. It also suggests combining top-down and bottom-

up approaches strengthens adaptation planning and implementation. {15.2.1, 15.3.1, 15.3.3, 15.5.1.2, Box 15-1}

A variety of tools are being employed in adaptation planning and implementation depending on social and management context

(robust evidence, high agreement).

Uncertainties in climate change, coupled with the complexities of social-ecological systems, emphasize

the need for a variety of tools in adaptation planning and implementation. Information and knowledge on climate change risks from various

stakeholders and organizations are essential resources for making adaptation planning. Multidisciplinary efforts have been engaged to develop,

assess, and communicate climate information and risk assessments across time scales. These efforts employ a mixed portfolio of measures,

from simple agroclimate calendars to computerized decision-support tools. Although a wide range of adaptations are possible with current

technologies and management practices, development and diffusion of technologies can expand the range of adaptation possibilities by

expanding opportunities or reducing costs. Monitoring and early warning systems play an important role in helping to adjust and revise

adaptation implementation, especially on the local scale. Innovative tools have also been developed, such as ecosytem-based adaptation and a

range of insurance tools. {15.4}

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

873

15.1. Introduction

As impacts of climate change have become apparent around the world,

adaptation has attracted increasing attention. The impacts are expected

to be particularly severe in the developing world and among marginalized

communities because of limited adaptive capacity. Adaptation is an

important pillar for the response to climate change, and the IPCC

Assessment Reports highlight the complementary roles of mitigation

and adaptation in climate policy. Particularly, IPCC Fourth Assessment

Report (AR4) (IPCC, 2007) provided an evaluation of adaptation that is

the departure point for the present report. The AR4 emphasized that

adaptation will be necessary to address impacts resulting from climate

change that is already unavoidable due to past emissions. A wide array

of adaptation options were noted, but also that the level of adaptation

was inadequate for a reduction in vulnerability to future climate change.

Moreover, the report showed there are barriers, limits, and costs that

are not fully understood.

Since the publication of IPCC AR4, significant progress has been made on

the adaptation activities both quantitatively and qualitatively. In particular,

there is substantial progress in development of national adaptation

strategies and plans. These include climate change adaptation (CCA)

legislation and formal national strategies. As of 2012, 26 of the

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

countries have developed or are currently developing strategic frameworks

for national adaptation (Mullan et al., 2013). Forty-nine least developed

countries produced and submitted National Adaptation Programmes of

Action (NAPAs) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) as of 2013. At the same time, the academic literature

and reports from multilateral development agencies, international

organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) document

numerous cases of community-based activities for CCA in developing

countries. Through these activities, a range of lessons are being learned,

while barriers and limits are also emerging. The wider social dimensions

of adaptation have also attracted more attention since AR4. As the

diverse, complex, and context-specific nature of adaptation becomes

apparent (differences in resources, values, needs, and perceptions among

and within societies), the related areas expand in the wider social-

ecological system, and the number of stakeholders increases. Based

on this recognition, the importance of mainstreaming adaptation and

the integration of adaptation policies within those of development

increases.

Current research has expanded its focus to reflect these advances

(Biesbroek et al., 2010). Until the mid-1990s, research on climate change

focused almost exclusively on understanding of climate system dynamics

and modeling of future climate. Several programs developed recently

give prominence to studies of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, and

associated adaptation options, measures, and strategies, including local,

regional, and sectoral studies. As adaptation activities progress, many

challenges have emerged, such as how to manage the decision-making

process, how to develop strategies and plans, and how to implement

them. In this regard, the roles within multilevel governance become an

issue, such as horizontal coordination among different agencies and

departments, and vertical coordination of various stakeholders from

regional, national, to local actors. Furthermore, many countries face

challenges in moving from the development of adaptation strategies

and plans to implementation. These provide challenges for the research

community as well.

There are many definitions and characteristics of adaptation strategies

(Carter et al., 1994; Burton et al., 2005). For the purpose of this chapter,

adaptation strategies are defined as a general plan of action for addressing

the impacts of climate change, including climate variability and extremes.

Such strategies include a mix of policies and measures that have the

overarching objective of reducing vulnerability to climate change impacts.

his chapter examines and evaluates the literature on CCA, in order to

assess the progress made toward CCA and explore difficulties encountered

in the implementation of adaptation plans. The IPCC Working Group II

(WGII) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) has four interrelated chapters

about adaptation that discuss complementary aspects of the process

(see Figure 14-1). This chapter focuses on the actions taken from

international to local levels, in various sectors in order to assess (1) the

recent status of CCA planning and implementation across the globe;

(2) the characteristics of adaptation in different settings; (3) the strategies,

approaches, and tools used in the adaptation practices; and (4) the

governance of adaptation including building adaptive capacities. This

chapter also draws attention to factors that motivate and facilitate the

development of adaptation strategies, as well as how scientific and

technical information, support, and collaborative mechanisms are utilized

in the process.

15.2. Status of Adaptation Planning

and Implementation

15.2.1. Adaptation Planning at Different Levels

15.2.1.1. Common Recognition and International Mechanisms

The combined efforts of a broad range of international organizations,

scientific reports, and media coverage have raised awareness of the

importance of adaptation to climate change since the publication of AR4.

Adaptation is transitioning from a phase of awareness and promotion

to the construction and implementation of plans, strategies, legislation,

and projects at national, subnational, and local levels (Biesbroek et al.,

2009; Preston et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010; Berrang-Ford et al.,

2011; Romero-Lankao and Dodman, 2011; Dodman, 2012). The review

of the literature identifies a high heterogeneity of adaptation planning.

There is significant heterogeneity in adaptation planning that is related to

the context-specific nature of adaptation (differences in resources, values,

needs, and perceptions among and within societies). This heterogeneity

also results from different approaches among countries, multilateral

development agencies, and international organizations that promote

and fund adaptation, and from differences in knowledge, information,

and awareness on adaptation alternatives across societies.

Although attention to climate change impacts and disaster risk

management are key elements of adaptation, they appear to have a

more prominent role in the early stages of planning and implementation

(Few et al., 2007a; Hofstede, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010; Garrelts and

Lange, 2011; Harries and Penning-Rowsell, 2011; Rosenzweig et al.,

2011; Rumbach and Kudva, 2011; Etkin et al., 2012; IPCC, 2012). Several

authors express concern that a strong focus on impacts can overshadow

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

874

the analysis of the underlying stressors of hazards, neglecting the drivers

of vulnerability, and thus limiting the effectiveness for interventions

(Sabates-Wheeler et al., 2008; Boyd and Juhola, 2009; Orlove, 2009;

Ribot, 2010; Rumbach and Kudva, 2011). This approach could obscure

opportunities for connecting development pressures, poverty, social

inequality, and climate change, particularly for the reduction of social

vulnerability (Lemos et al., 2007; Hardee and Mutunga, 2010; Sietz et

al., 2011). Furthermore, other scholars suggest that knowledge of

impacts and vulnerabilities does not necessarily lead to the most cost-

ffective and efficient adaptation policy decisions (Hulme et al., 2009;

Barnett and Campbell, 2010).

The importance of climate adaptation is also influenced by how the

issue is framed. For example, to the extent that adaptation is viewed

as a development issue (current development stressors and challenges;

existing policy and existing agendas; and knowledge, risks, and issues

communities already face), it may have greater resonance within local

government (Ewing et al., 2008; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Dovers,

2009; Hodson and Marvin, 2009; Stringer et al., 2009; Measham et al.,

2010; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2012). Multilateral development agencies

encourage efforts in this direction through a number of guidelines,

publication, and development assistance (UNDP, 2004; USAID, 2007;

OECD, 2009; World Bank, 2010; UN-HABITAT, 2011a). Central to these

efforts is the role of planning that connects adaptation to development

needs and challenges (Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Dovers, 2009; Juhola and

Westerhoff, 2011; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2012). A critical issue commonly

emphasized in the literature is the consideration of adaptation planning

as a problem-free process capable of delivering positive outcomes. There

is the risk of underestimating the complexity of adaptation planning as

a social process, and it can lead to creating unrealistic expectations in

societies, and overestimating the capacity of planning to deliver the

intended outcome of preparing societies to adapt to the negative

impacts of climate change. This highlights the importance of monitoring,

evaluating, and reviewing adaptation planning and implementation

(Adger et al., 2009b; Preston et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010; Wolf et

al., 2010).

The fast growth of international mechanisms for supporting adaptation

planning has assisted in the creation of adaptation strategies, plans,

and actions at the national, subnational, and local level. The directives

and initiatives of the European Commission (EC) have fostered the

creation of a large number of national adaptation strategies and plans

in EU member countries since the last IPCC report (Biesbroek et al.,

2009, 2010; Ford et al., 2011). Other relevant regional initiatives are the

South Pacific Regional Environmental Programme (SPREP) supported

by a number of international agencies, and in the Caribbean through the

Caribbean Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (Pulwarty et al., 2010).

The literature reports a growing number of mechanisms developed by

multilateral development organizations, development cooperation

agencies from developed countries, United Nations programs (UNDP,

2004, 2010a; UN-HABITAT, 2010, 2011a), multilateral development

agencies (USAID, 2007; OECD, 2009; World Bank, 2010, 2011a; Abbas

et al., 2012), and NGOs (ICLEI, 2008; IFRC et al., 2009; Pew Centre on

Global Climate Change, 2009; Braman et al., 2010; ActionAid et al.,

2012; Crane, 2013). These organizations focus on their particular

geographic and thematic areas of interest in their support for adaptation

planning. Particularly relevant are the activities of UNFCCC for least

developed countries (LDCs) through the National Adaptation Programmes

of Action (NAPAs) and for LDCs and other developing countries through

the National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

Key funding mechanisms are associated with the Global Environmental

Facility (GEF) adaptation funds (Least Developed Countries Climate

Adaptation Fund and Special Climate Change Fund), support for the

Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), and special purpose

adaptation funds for UN agencies. The Adaptation Fund (AF) set up

nder the Kyoto Protocol has pioneered direct access mechanisms to

developing countries, allowing countries to access essential funds without

having to work through a multilateral development agency.

15.2.1.2. National Initiatives

The movement to introduce adaptation into national policies has

accelerated in both developed and developing countries. These diverse

national adaptation initiatives reflect the characteristics of the domestic

political structures, socioeconomic conditions, values, and perceptions,

as well as development stresses and opportunities. National governments

are assuming a coordinating role in adaptation actions in subnational

and local levels of government. National-level coordination includes the

provision of information about potential risks, in order to strengthen

actions of state and local governments. These activities provide policy

frameworks that guide decisions at subnational levels, to spur and

coordinate the creation of legal frameworks, to direct action in sectors

and resources for national development (agriculture, fisheries, health,

ecosystem protection, among others), to protect vulnerable groups, and

to provide financial support to other levels of government (Hulme et

al., 2009; Biesbrock et al., 2010; Birkmann and Teichman, 2010; Berrang-

Ford et al., 2011; Westerhoff et al., 2011). National governments also

facilitate the coordination of budgets and financing mechanisms (Alam

et al., 2011; Kalame et al., 2011).

In recent years, Europe’s creation of national adaptation strategies and

plans has been particularly dynamic. Twelve European countries have

created National Adaptation Strategies: Austria, Belgium, Denmark,

Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal,

Spain, and UK (only two of them were created before the AR4—Finland

and Spain) (Biesbroek et al., 2010). Moreover, some countries have

programmed the evaluation of their national adaptation strategies

because they recognize the need to learn from the adaptation process

(UK, Germany, Australia, the USA, and Mexico, among others) (Bierbaum

et al., 2013). Most strategies are regarded as the start of a policy process

rather than its culmination, providing the important perspective of

considering iterative evaluation as part of planning and implementation

(Hulme et al., 2009; Biesbroek et al., 2011; Pulwarty et al., 2012).

The LDCs national adaptation responses—implemented through

UNFCCC’s NAPAs—provide data on efforts to link local level adaptation

and development (Agrawal, 2008; Agrawal and Perrin, 2008; Stringer

et al., 2009). More than 50% of the projects under this program are

concentrated in three key sectors for development and livelihoods: food

security, terrestrial ecosystems, and water resources. They attract the

support of a greater range of actors, but some suggest that linkages

between development and adaptation need to be made more explicit

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

875

(Stringer et al., 2009). Sustained monitoring, evaluation, and feedback

that is needed to learn from the NAPAs process would help these countries

transcend from a project-by-project effort to a more complete union of

adaptation and domestic and local development. Assessment on NAPAs

is also given in Section 14.4.4.

15.2.1.3. Subnational and Local Activities

Adaptation planning and implementation initiatives illustrate differences

on the role of subnational governments in the governance structure of

countries, from those with strong concentration of political and

economic power to a very minor role in governance and decision making.

Subnational governments often have a complementary role to national

governments in adaptation planning that is reflective of the governance

structure (Moser, 2005; West and Gawith, 2005; Lemmen et al., 2008;

Karl et al., 2009; Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, 2009). Although

guiding frameworks have not created for subnational governments in

many countries, the states and provinces in some countries have an

active role in CCA (Brekke et al., 2009; Dinse et al., 2009; Staples, 2011;

Barsugli et al., 2012; Bierbaum et al., 2013; Mukheibir et al., 2013).

There is a significant increase in the number of planned adaptation

responses at the local level in rural and urban communities of developed

and developing countries since AR4. Climate adaptation is context

ependent and it is uniquely linked to location, making it predominantly

a local government and community level of action (Corfee-Morlot et

al., 2009; Glaas et al., 2010; Mukheibir et al., 2013). Among these efforts

are adaptation plans that utilize local knowledge. Local knowledge-

based adaptation is focused primarily on the use of traditional knowledge

to increase adaptive capacity at the community level, examples of which

are shown in Table 15-1. In addition to raising adaptive capacity, local

Location Sector Approach and strategy

Adaptive action

implemented

Institutions References

Southern Kimberley,

ustralia

Water supplies

• Deﬁ ne vulnerabilities

•

ncrease adaptive capacity

• Compile observed changes

•

ncrease monitoring

•

anage water resources

• Review TEK

Universities; NGOs;

United

ations University

Green et al. (2010); Prober

t al. (2011); Leonard et al.

(2013)

Trinidad, Bolivia and

northern central Bolivia

Ecosystems, agriculture Reduce vulnerability

• Revive “camellones”

(earthen platforms) TEK

• Reduce erosion

• Document local

observations

Oxfam International; NGOs;

Bolivian government; Food

and Agriculture Organization

Oxfam International (2009)

Pinoleville Pomo Nation

(California, USA)

Infrastructure

• Mitigation: solar power

• Increase adaptive capacity

• Co-design infrastructure

• Address insufﬁ cient capital

• Address water shortages

and energy needs

Universities; NGOs; Housing

and Urban Development

Shelby et al. (2012);

Pinoleville Pomo Nation

Housing ﬂ yer (2013);

Redsteer et al. (2013)

Fiji Ecosystems and water supply

• Deﬁ ne vulnerabilities

• Increase adaptive capacity

• Recognize TEK

• Enable adaptive decision

making

• Enhance community

awareness

• Participate in development

Australian Agency for

International Development;

Fiji Department of

Environment; University of

the South Paciﬁ c

Dumaru (2010)

Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi,

Zimbabwe, southern Zambia

Agriculture

• Deﬁ ne vulnerabilities

• Increase technical capacity

• Increase adaptive capacity

• Use drought early warning

• Apply TEK

• Develop novel reporting

• Compile observed changes

• Harvest rainwater

• Change tilling practices

• Use appropriate crop

varieties

University of Capetown;

University of Nairobi;

the United Kingdom’s

Department for International

Development; Canada’s

International Development

Research Centre

Chang’a et al. (2010);

Mugabe et al. (2010);

Kalanda-Joshua et al.

(2011); Majule et al. (2013);

Masindel et al. (2013)

Reservation lands (western

USA)

Health, water supplies,

environment

• Deﬁ ne vulnerabilities and

impacts

• Increase adaptive capacity

• Compile observed changes

• Utilize environmental

legislation

• Review indigenous

knowledge

• Analyze local

meteorological data

• Analyze historical/legal

context

• Increase monitoring

Universities and afﬁ liated

NGOs; tribal ofﬁ ces; federal

agency research

Redsteer et al. (2010); Doyle

et al. (2013); Gautam et al.

(2013)

Table 15-1 | Application of local knowledge in climate change adaptation.

TEK = Traditional ecological knowledge: adaptive ecological knowledge developed through an intimate reciprocal relationship between a group of people and a particular place

over time.

NGO = Nongovernmental organization.

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

876

knowledge often highlights vulnerabilities and impacts that may not

be well known, especially when the areas where local knowledge is still

held are remote and poorly monitored (e.g., Majule et al., 2013).

Indigenous communities are those populations that have cultural and

historical ties to specific homelands. They are generally distinct from

politically dominant populations (Battiste, 2008). Because of these

characteristics, they are particularly vulnerable to climate change impacts.

When assessing indigenous vulnerability and developing CCA strategies

and resilience to climate change, the following issues need to be

examined and addressed: the relationship of indigenous peoples to land,

the degree of migration or displacement of indigenous communities

(Miron, 2008), and their adaptive capacity. Vulnerability and challenges

to adaptation for indigenous people are discussed broadly in Chapters

13, 27, and 28.

Local councils and planners are often confronted by the complexity of

adaptation without adequate access to guiding information or data on

local vulnerabilities and potential impacts. Even when information is

available, they are left with a portfolio of options to prepare for future

climatic changes but without effective guidance on decision making

and the potential for unanticipated consequences arising from those

decisions (Wilson, 2006; Storbjörk, 2007; Patt and Schröter, 2008; Urwin

and Jordan, 2008; Gupta et al., 2010; Mathew et al., 2012; Rodima-

Taylor et al., 2012; Mukheibir et al., 2013).

Local governments play a central role addressing the challenges of

adaptation planning and implementation (Blanco and Alberti, 2009;

Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2009; Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Simon, 2010;

Matthews, 2012). However, scholars stress the important role of

partnerships among public, civic, and private sectors in CCA (Berkhout

et al., 2006; Agrawal, 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Howe, 2011; Tompkins

and Eakin, 2012). Inclusive and participatory approaches in adaptation

planning at the local level are encouraged by international organizations

(UNDP, 2004, 2010a; Moser, 2008; Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Ensor

and Berger, 2009; Geiser and Rist, 2009; World Bank, 2010; Ford et al.,

2011; UN-HABITAT, 2011a).

Urban areas are also the locus of a growing number of planning initiatives

(Revi, 2008; Roberts, 2008; Stren, 2008; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Hamin

and Gurran, 2009; Hardoy and Pandiella, 2009; Lowe et al., 2009;

O’Demsey, 2009; Parzen, 2009; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2009; Tanner et al.,

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 15.1 | What is the present status of climate change adaptation

planning and implementation across the globe?

Climate change adaptation has been receiving increasing attention as a result of recent media coverage and reports.

Since the publication of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), a large assortment of adaptive actions has taken

place in response to observed climate impacts. These actions mostly address sectoral interests, such as agricultural

practices (e.g., altering sowing times, crop cultivars and species, and irrigation and fertilizer control), public health

measures for heat-related risks (e.g., early warning systems and air pollution control), disaster risk reduction (e.g.,

early warning systems), and water resources (e.g., supply and demand management). Some of these are

“autonomous” actions in a speciﬁc sector.

Another area where progress has been made since AR4 is the development of broad national-level plans and

adaptation strategies. These have now been established in developed and developing countries worldwide. Because

adaptation policy requires decision making amid uncertainties about future climate change and its impacts, the

major pillars of adaptation plans are iterative assessment, ﬂexible and adaptive planning, and enhancement of

adaptive capacity. Adaptation plans are being developed and documented at the national, subnational, and

community levels and by the private sector; however, there is still limited evidence of adaptation implementation.

Implementation remains challenging because in the transition from planning to implementation the many interested

parties must overcome resource, institutional, and capacity barriers. The difference in time scales between medium-

and long-term adaptation plans and pressing short-term issues poses a signiﬁcant problem for prioritizing adaptation.

In parallel with national-level planning, community-based adaptation (CBA) has become an increasingly prevalent

practice, particularly in developing counties. It is increasingly apparent that CBA potentially offers ways to address

the vulnerability of local communities by connecting climate change adaptation to non-climate local needs. Cities

and local governments have also begun active engagement in climate change adaptation. Local governments play

an important role in adaptation because they directly communicate with affected communities. For the past several

years, leading practices have begun in New York City, Mexico City, Toronto, Albay Province in the Philippines, and

elsewhere. These achievements were possible because of elected and local leadership; cooperation among national

and local governments, private sectors, and communities; and the participation of boundary organizations, scientists,

and experts.

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

877

2009; Corfee et al., 2010; Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Simon, 2010;

City of New York, 2011; City of Rotterdam, 2011; Romero-Lankao and

Dodman, 2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Carmin et al., 2012; Matthews,

2012). The primary determinant in creating adaptation plans has been

a response to current climate extremes as well as potential future

impacts (Rosenzweig and Solecki, 2010; Rosenzweig et al., 2011;

Carmin et al., 2012). The difference in approaches has implications for

daptation governance, institutional arrangements, resources, and

stakeholders’ involvement in the planning and implementation

processes. Understanding how these approaches work merits further

analysis. Enforcing parallel agendas for DRM and CCA runs the risk of

duplicating efforts and resources, creating competing actions and

potential conflicts with unintended negative consequences, including

maladaptation. Institutional arrangements would need to bridge the

divide between CCA and DRM, particularly in terms of legislation,

operational and management structures, working agendas, and time

horizons (Schipper and Pelling, 2006; Birkmann and Teichman, 2010;

Falaleeva et al., 2011).

15.2.2. Adaptation Implementation

There is a minority of academic literature that provides information on

the implementation of adaptation plans, in contrast with the large

accumulation of literature that discusses concepts, strategies, and plans

of adaptation. Projects and cases of adaptation, including those

implemented, are presented mainly in reports from international

organizations, multilateral development organizations, national and

subnational governments, and NGOs (e.g., UNFCCC, 2011; Mullan,

2013). In addition, the sectoral and regional chapters in this report have

segments that discuss adaptation planning and implementation and

that provide an additional database of sectors and practices. Therefore,

this section assesses the status of adaptation implementation based on

these chapters in addition to other literature.

Adaptation practices reflected in the WGII AR5 include agriculture,

public health for heat-related risks, disaster risk reduction, water resources,

coasts, and urban areas, among others. Options and approaches used

in implementation vary widely, ranging from traditional and existing to

new and innovative measures. For example, farmers have been adapting

to climate change worldwide, and current common practices include

altering sowing times, crop cultivars and species, or irrigation and fertilizer

control (Fujisawa and Koyabashi, 2010; Lasco et al., 2011; Olesen et al.,

2011); reduced tillage practices; and technical measures to more

effectively capture rainwater and reduce soil erosion (Thomas et al.,

2007; Marongwe et al., 2011; see also Sections 7.5.1, 22.4.5.7, 23.4.1,

24.4.4.5, 27.3.4.2). These have proven to be effective in many cases,

while some measures faced other problems; for example, earlier sowing

is often prevented by lack of soil workability and frost-induced soil

crumbling (Oort, 2012). Furthermore, simple options such as changes

in sowing and harvesting dates may become less successful in a more

variable climate (Moriondo et al., 2010; see also Section 23.4.1).

Adaptation in agriculture is also linked with water management.

Adaptation to water scarcity can be improved by taking into account a

set of agronomic practices and irrigation such as deficit irrigation

(Geerts and Raes, 2009; see also Section 27.3.4.2). For public health for

heat-related risks, major approaches are developing early warning

systems and air pollution control. According to Chapter 11 on Human

Health, some studies report that heat wave early warning systems are

effective to reduce heat-related mortality, resulting in fewer deaths

during heat waves after implementation of the system (e.g., Ebi et al.,

2004; Tan et al., 2007; Fouillet et al., 2008). A national assessment

attributed the lower death toll to greater public awareness of the health

risks of heat, improved health care facilities, and the introduction in

2004 of a heat wave early warning system (Fouillet et al., 2008; see also

Section 11.7.3).

Mullan (2013) indicated that implementation of adaptation plans are

still at an early stage despite the rapid development of strategies and

plans that have occurred in OECD countries. In many sectors, adaptation

to both environmental conditions and climate change includes

accumulating traditional experience and knowledge for adaptation.

Furthermore, each country has also developed its own policies and

options to prevent, cope with, mitigate, and utilize various environmental

changes. As the occurring adaptive actions are usually based on such

existing knowledge and options, they are incremental. Research has

shown that local governments that have started implementing

adaptation plans mostly tend to adopt a reactive or event-driven

approach to adaptation relying on technical measures. Often the focus

is on climate variability and current weather extremes rather than long-

term climate change(Næss et al., 2005; Tompkins, 2005; Wall and

Marzall, 2006; Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Storbjörk, 2007; Blanco and

Alberti, 2009; Amundsen et al., 2010; Glaas et al., 2010; Anguelovsky

and Carmin, 2011; Measham et al., 2011; Preston et al., 2011; Dannevig

et al., 2012; Romero-Lankao et al., 2012; Runhaar et al., 2012). Climate

adaptation efforts reported on at present are often piecemeal and

fragmented approaches, dealing with partial solutions and approaches

to climate adaptation, rather than more full-scale implementation

(Granberg and Elander, 2007; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Bulkeley et al.,

2009; Amundsen et al., 2010; Burch, 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Preston

et al., 2011; Dannevig et al., 2012; Mees et al., 2012; Romero-Lankao,

2012; Runhaar et al., 2012). In many cases, these practices have been

embedded in existing policies, and thus not necessarily framed or made

visible as climate adaptation actions (Tompkins et al., 2010; Berrang-

Ford et al., 2011; see Box 25-5). It should be noted that several of these

reports on local climate adaptation actions have been taking place

without explicit regulative demands for climate adaptation.

A particular challenge is implementation of local and short-term

decisions in the context of long-term climate information. Improving

the use of climate risk information across time scales, especially in the

context of early warning systems, has helped bridge these gaps (van

Aalst, 2009; IPCC, 2012; Pulwarty and Verdin, 2013). Independent from

the growing attention for extremes in CCA, there has also been a shift

in disaster risk management policy and practice, aiming to shift the

balance of attention and expenditure from disaster response and

reconstruction to disaster risk reduction and building resilience (not

limited to climate-related extreme events).

There is growing awareness of the need for ecosystem-based, institutional,

and social measures, although engineered and technological adaptation

options are the most common adaptive responses (see Box CC-EA). A

feature captured in WGII AR5 is that integrated approaches have been

pursued in many areas such as integrated water resource management

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

878

and integrated coastal management (see Table 3-3; Sections 8.3.3.4

and 23.7.2 for water; Section 5.5.4 for coasts). These integrated policies

aim at addressing multiple objectives including CCA, development, and

disaster risk reduction. For example, the U.S. Water Utilities Climate

Alliance (WUCA, 2010) provides a comprehensive overview of ways of

delivering water management which incorporates climate change and its

uncertainty. Climate change has been incorporated into water resources

planning in England and Wales (Arnell, 2011; Wade et al., 2013) and in

the Netherlands (de Graaff et al., 2009). Guidance has been also

eveloped on the inclusion of adaptation in water management (UNECE,

2009) and river basin management plans (EC, 2009b; see also Section

23.7.2). Many sectors promote adaptive management in CCA to improve

flexibility in its implementation.

Targets of early adaptation are focused on capacity building within

governments and communities. These important first steps include

increasing awareness of the risk of climate change, access to scientific

information, development of common goals, and creation of operational

institutions, which are important premises for adaptation. Capacity

building itself is often a target of adaptation implementation, particularly

in developing countries (e.g., van Aalst et al., 2008; Simões et al., 2010;

UNFCCC, 2013; see Table 15-1 for capacity building cases). There are

many factors to promote or hinder the implementation of adaptation;

Table 15-2 provides examples where the drivers and motivations for

transition to implementation are highlighted. Section 15.5 provides an

analysis of the role of institutional dimensions for both planning and

implementation of adaptation.

15.2.3. Financing for Adaptation

Adapting to the impacts of climate change requires the mobilization of

a significant amount of funding for adaptation measures in a wide

range of sectors. A number of studies suggest that the annual amount

of adaptation funding needed by developing countries by 2030 is on

the order of several tens of billions of dollars (e.g., UNFCCC, 2007;

Frequently Asked Questions

FAQ 15.2 | What types of approaches are being used

in adaptation planning and implementation?

Adaptations employ a diverse portfolio of planning and practices that combine subsets of:

• Infrastructure and asset development

• Technological process optimization

• Institutional and behavioral change or reinforcement

• Integrated natural resources management (such as for watersheds and coastal zones)

• Financial services, including risk transfer

• Information systems to support early warning and proactive planning.

Although approaches vary according to context and the level of government, there are two general approaches

observed in adaptation planning and implementation to date: top-down and bottom-up. Top-down approaches

are scenario-driven and consist of localizing climate projections, impact and vulnerability assessments, and formulation

of strategies and options. National governments often take this approach. National adaptation strategies are

increasingly integrated with other policies, such as disaster risk management. These tendencies lead to adaptation

mainstreaming, although there are various institutional barriers to this process. As the consideration of the social

dimensions of climate change adaptation has attracted more attention, there has been an increased emphasis on

addressing the needs of the groups most vulnerable to climate change, such as children, the elderly, disabled, and

poor. Bottom-up approaches are needs driven and include approaches such as community-based adaptation (CBA).

CBA is often prominent in developing countries, but communities in developed countries also use this approach.

Where a combination of top-down and bottom-up activities has been undertaken, the links between adaptation

planning and implementation have been strengthened. In either approach, participation by a broad spectrum of

stakeholders and close collaboration between research and management have been emphasized as important

mechanisms to undertake and inform adaptation planning and implementation.

Local governments and actors may face difﬁculties in identifying the most suitable and efﬁcient approaches because

of the diversity of possible approaches, from infrastructure development to “softer” approaches such as integrated

watershed and coastal zone management. National and subnational governments play coordinating roles in

providing support and developing standards and implementation guidance. Therefore, multilevel institutional

coordination between different political and administrative levels is a crucial mechanism for promoting adaptation

planning and implementation.

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

879

Continued next page

Scale What is being implemented and why

Transition from planning to

implementation

Monitoring and evaluation

illage of Kaslo

(

British Columbia)

and surrounding

nincorporated

rural areas

(

Regional District

of Central

Kootenay (RDCK)

lectoral Area D).

Implemented

010 – 2012.

(Kaslo and

Regional District

f Central

Kootenay

artnership,

2010)

he Village of Kaslo and RDCK Electoral Area

developed a Climate Adaptation Action Plan

and identiﬁ ed water supply as a key community

ulnerability related to projected climate change.

Action plan noted that current demand for water

lmost equaled supply and observed the very limited

ata on water supply for creeks that supply water for

the community.

he Village of Kaslo and RDCK Electoral Area D

rought in experts in ﬁ elds related to climate change

impacts and involved extensive public outreach and

ngagement.

Adaptation planning process identiﬁ ed projected

hanges in stream freshet and stream ﬂ ows associated

ith climate change could result in insufﬁ cient water

supply.

ommunity leaders working through the Kaslo and

District Community Forest Society sought funds

o establish stream ﬂ ow monitoring stations and

developed a monitoring framework on key creeks to

track changes in ﬂ ows providing water to communities

ithin Kaslo and RDCK Area.

The Columbia Basin Trust contributed funding to this

ffort as part of follow-up to its support of the initial

climate change planning process.

onitoring and evaluation performed by Columbia

asin Trust’s Communities Adapting to Climate

Change Initiative.

lectoral Area D Advisory Planning Commission

monitors the implementation of action

ecommendations.

ational

Framework on

Local Adaptation

lans for Action

(LAPAs), Nepal.

mplementation

began in 2011.

(

Government of

Nepal, 2011)

epal adopted the LAPA in 2011, becoming the

ﬁ rst country to promote a bottom-up approach

to adaptation planning and implementation. The

ational Adaptation Plan for Action and the National

Climate Change Policy state that at least 80% of the

available budget will go toward directly implementing

daptation actions at the local level. To date, 70 LAPAs

have been prepared (69 at the village administrative

cale and 1 within a municipality) and are under

implementation by vulnerable communities.

olicy makers recognized the need to integrate local

and context speciﬁ c adaptation plans into local to

national adaptation planning as a way to ensure

obust climate change adaptation planning and

implementation.

he Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment

and the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local

Development played a leadership role at the

entral level in coordinating the development and

implementation of LAPAs.

onitoring and evaluation play key roles in supporting

iterative planning.

Financial arrangements play a key role in integrating

ocal adaptation options into development planning

processes.

daptation investments are being costed and

integrated into annual and medium-term budget

rameworks and resource mobilization strategies.

Nepal’s budget for ﬁ scal year 2013 / 14 has included

Climate Change Financing Code, and of the total

budget, 5.36% is directly related to climate change

ﬁ nancing.

Local

government, the

Albay Province,

Philippines.

Implementation

began in 2008.

(Lasco et al.,

2009)

The Albay Declaration on Climate Change Adaptation

speciﬁ ed mainstreaming climate change into local and

national development policies. The Albay Integrated

Agricultural Rehabilitation Program established

farm clusters to assist farmers and ﬁ sher folk in their

agricultural, food, technological, and training needs.

Program planning began in December 2006 after

Typhoon Reming’s devastation. The plan prevents

scarcity of agricultural commodities, accelerates food

production, pump-primes the agricultural industry in

the province, and speeds up rehabilitation of upland

agricultural areas in Albay.

The provincial government of Albay established

the Center for Initiatives and Research on Climate

Adaptation in 2008, a living research and training

institution in collaboration with the Environment

Management Bureau, World Agroforestry Centre,

Bicol University, and the University of the Philippines

Los Baños. Local champions such as the Governor

committed time and resources to put climate change

on the provincial agenda and also on the national

development and policy agenda, addressing the needs

of farmers and ﬁ sher folk.

Main mechanism for institutional and stakeholder

collaboration is through the Inter-Agency Committee

on Climate Change Philippine Senate Resolution

No.191, passed during 14th Congress, 1st regular

session, adopting the Albay Declaration on Climate

Change Adaptation as a framework.

Mainstreaming of global warming concerns gives a

voice to the Albay Declaration in Congress and directly

encourages policymakers to mainstream climate

change in policymaking; and indicators measure a

cleaner environment for the community, improvement

of infrastructure development plans, land

d e v e l o p m e n t / c o n v e r s i o n a c t i v i t i e s , institutionalization

of pre-planning, enhanced implementation, and

enhanced monitoring and evaluation.

Pilot Program

on Climate

Resilience (PPCR),

2009.

(CIF, 2012; PPCR,

2013)

Phase I (planning): supported by multilateral

development bank partners, in 2 years a strategic plan

was developed consistent with national development

objectives.

Phase II (implementation): countries deﬁ ne

“transformational change” in the context of their

national circumstances.

Scaling up potential of successful pilots (e.g., use of

good practices in Bangladesh).

Addressing basic needs (e.g., food security in Niger).

Mobilization of large-scale resources for investments

(e.g., coastal highways in Samoa).

Country leadership capacity dependent on experience

with integrating climate change into planning

activities, institutional and human capacities, and need

to respond to emergencies. Recent climate extreme

related disasters have affected development.

The capacity of countries to take on a leadership role

depended on their prior experience with integrating

climate change considerations into planning activities,

their institutional and human capacities, and their

demands to respond to other emergencies. The

strategic plans drew on National Adaptation Plans

for Action, national climate change strategies (if they

existed), and national development strategies and

plans.

Lead agency roles assigned to planning or ﬁ nance

ministries (e.g., Zambia, Samoa) or environment-

related ministries (e.g., Bangladesh).

Disaster risk management units included.

Coordinate the work of donors and /or leverage non-

PPCR resources. For example, Cambodia and Zambia

have leveraged co-ﬁ nancing from the International

Fund for Agricultural Development and the Nordic

Development Fund, respectively.

The framework includes ﬁ ve core indicators designed

to measure outcomes at the country level, aggregated

from individual PPCR components. These are (1)

number of people supported by the PPCR to manage

the effects of climate change; (2) degree of integration

of climate change in national, including sector,

planning; (3) extent to which vulnerable households,

communities, businesses, and public sector services

use improved PPCR-supported tools, instruments,

strategies, and activities to respond to climate

vulnerability and climate change; (4) evidence of

strengthened government capacity and coordination

mechanisms to mainstream climate resilience; and

(5) quality of and extent to which climate-responsive

instruments / investment models are developed and

tested. All of the core indicators address gender issues

either directly or indirectly.

Table 15-2 | Transition from planning to implementation.

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

880

World Bank, 2010; Smith et al., 2013). However, the annual costs could

potentially range into the hundreds of billions of dollars (Parry et al.,

2009). The differences between these estimates highlight the high degree

of uncertainty in how they are derived. Key factors that contribute to this

uncertainty include differences in the sets of sectors that are included in

the analyses and the analytical methodologies used; uncertainties related

to future climate changes and how best to adapt to them; and the lack

of an agreed on operational definition of adaptation (e.g., Fankhauser

and Burton, 2011; Christiansen et al., 2012; Naidoo et al., 2012; Smith

et al., 2013).

Adaptation financing broadly refers to resources that are deployed to

support climate-resilient development (World Bank Group, 2011). Funding

for adaptation can be mobilized through a range of international and

domestic, public and private financing mechanisms, and can take various

forms (e.g., loans and grants). Public financing sources are typically used

to support projects in the infrastructure sectors, where returns on

investments (ROIs) are usually less attractive to private investors.

Sources of public financing for adaptation include contributions from

national budgets, multilateral and bilateral development funds, and

UNFCCC operational funds—the Adaptation Fund, the Least Developed

Countries Fund, and the Special Climate Change Fund (Christiansen et al.,

2012; Haites and Mwape, 2013; Romani and Stern, 2013). A potentially

key source of future public financing for adaptation is the Green Climate

Fund that was officially designated at the 17th Conference of the Parties

to the UNFCCC in Durban, but is not yet operational.

Examples of ongoing work targeting challenges in priority adaptation

themes in several countries are provided by the Climate Change and

Water Resources program at the Inter-American Development Bank. The

lessons learned from emerging adaptation experiences are, first, that

infrastructure investments (e.g., dams, levees, canals) remain critical for

climate adaptation and reducing vulnerability to climate and weather-

related events; and, second, that infrastructure investments need to be

complemented by previously neglected investments in soft infrastructure

(e.g., watershed management, land use planning and information, and

stakeholder engagement). Efforts are also being supported by other

regional development banks; for example, the Climate Adaptation for

Rural Livelihoods and Agriculture (CARLA) project is supported by the

African Development Bank Group).

Adaptation measures that offer reasonably predictable ROIs that are

comparable to the returns on investments for non-adaptation measures

with similar risk profiles have more opportunities to receive private

financing (Christiansen et al., 2012). The fisheries and agriculture sectors,

where operations are often locally owned, are examples of sectors that

typically draw relatively high proportions of private financing in developing

countries (often from domestic sources). Sources of private financing for

adaptation traditionally include a range of financial institutions, such as

international banks, multinational corporations, private equity and pension

funds, insurance companies, and sovereign wealth funds. Charitable

foundations and social investors are also sources of private financing

for adaptation; compared to the financial institutions, these sources are

often more motivated to provide financing for measures that generate

lower ROIs (Christiansen et al., 2012).

Private financing for adaptation is primarily of two types: debt and

equity. Debt-based financing typically consists of loans (e.g., bank loans)

or bonds that must be paid back over time with interest. Equity-based

financing generally involves a transfer of ownership rights through

stocks or other assets. Export credits and foreign direct investment are

two additional potential forms of private financing for adaptation. Export

credits include guarantees, insurance, and other support that can help

make developing country exports more competitive on the global market.

Foreign direct investment is seen as having only limited potential for

adaptation financing because it is highly concentrated in a few sectors

and in a limited number of countries (Christiansen et al., 2012).

In both the public and private arenas, financing for adaptation is

currently substantially less than financing for mitigation. According to

an assessment of the total amount of climate finance available in

2009/2010 by Buchner et al. (2011), financing for mitigation outpaced

financing for adaptation by a ratio of more than 20:1; whereas US$93

billion was provided for mitigation measures, only US$4.4 billion was

directed to adaptation measures. Buchner et al. (2011) also noted that

the vast majority (approximately 90%) of adaptation financing during

Scale What is being implemented and why

Transition from planning to

implementation

Monitoring and evaluation

United Kingdom

ational

Adaptation

rogramme.

Implemented in

012.

(

UK HM

Government,

013)

Pursuant to the Climate Change Act 2008, the

limate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) 2012 for

the UK brought together the best available evidence,

sing a consistent framework to identify the risks

and opportunities related to climate change. The

ssessment distilled approximately 700 potential risks

own to more than 100 for detailed review. Recent

extreme weather in Britain, such as the ﬂ ooding in the

inter of 2012 and the drought of early 2012, brought

nto sharp relief the importance of anticipating and

managing weather extremes. Costs of rebuilding and

mpacts on essential public services highlighted the

need for implementing preparedness and adaptation.

The Climate Ready Support Service provides direct

upport and online information to help organizations

assess their sensitivity to a changing climate and

ake steps to manage their climate risks. Through

the Service the Environment Agency is working with

artners in priority sectors to provide tailored tools,

uidance, and training to enable them to understand

and respond to the challenges of a changing climate.

stablished partnerships are with the Met Ofﬁ ce, the

ocal Government Association, Climate UK, and the

Climate Change Partnerships.

he government is also supporting the building of

networks of organizations that may share common

isks, e.g., the Infrastructure Operators Adaptation

Forum.

Progress indicators provide iterative measures of

rogress to develop the next CCRA:

• Process-based markers, such as whether planned

olicies have been implemented;

•

uantitative data, such as statistics on trends in

actors that inﬂ uence risks from ﬂ ooding and water

scarcity.

hese provide a strong foundation for assessing

overall adaptation in relevant areas.

iscussions about the most appropriate framework

are continuing.

he Adaptation Sub-Committee of the Committee

on Climate Change under the Climate Change

ct assesses progress toward implementation of

objectives, proposals, and policies highlighted in this

report and the Register of Actions, with assessments

ublished in 2015 and every 2 years hence.

Table 15-2 (continued)

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

881

that period came from public sources, primarily bilateral institutions.

Private adaptation financing remains limited owing to market, institutional,

and policy barriers that depress ROIs on these activities (World Bank

Group, 2011). However, public-private partnerships that use public

financing to leverage private investment are currently used to fund

projects in several climate-sensitive sectors, such as infrastructure in the

energy, transport, and water and sewage sectors (World Bank, 2011b;

orld Bank Group, 2011). These partnerships are not necessarily focused

on climate adaptation, but can serve as models for future adaptation

projects.

15.3. Strategies and Approaches

15.3.1. Diverse Strategies and Mixed-Portfolio Approaches

Strategies and approaches in adaptation planning and implementation

vary according to context and level of government. National plans assume

a coordinating role in adaptation actions for subnational and local levels

of government, providing policy frameworks that guide decisions at the

subnational level, spurring and coordinating the creation of legal

frameworks, and directing action in key sectors for national development

(Biesbroek et al., 2010; Bierbaum et al., 2013; see also Section 15.2.1).

Subnational governments often have a complementary role to national

governments by reflecting the governance structure in each country

(West and Gawith, 2005; Lemmen et al., 2008; Karl et al., 2009; Pew

Centre on Global Climate Change, 2009). States and provinces in a

number of countries have begun to have an active role in CCA (Dinse

et al., 2009; Staples, 2011; Barsugli et al., 2012; Bierbaum et al., 2013;

Mukheibir et al., 2013).

In contrast, local level strategies are more diverse because climate

change impacts occur locally and adaptation is context dependent. The

scale of community engagement and the approaches used may provide

key elements for the success of adaptation programs (Patt and Schröter,

2008; Ensor and Berger, 2009; Ford et al., 2011; Pelling, 2011; Picketts

et al., 2012). Methodological guidelines for community adaptation plans

and actions fostered by international organizations emphasize strategies

focused on the use of local and traditional knowledge to increase

adaptive capacity at the community level (IFRC et al., 2009; IISD, 2012;

Crane, 2013). Moreover, community adaptation planning has been

strengthened through the use of geographic information systems (GIS),

modeling, climate change scenarios, ecosystem services, and other

scientific research methods applied to foster the ability of the community

to design adaptation (Shaw et al., 2009; Bardsley and Sweeney, 2010;

IAPAD, 2010). Multilateral development agencies recognize the importance

of inclusive approaches for adaptation planning and implementation,

but they tend to focus on strengthening the role of local governments

(USAID, 2007; OECD, 2009; Bizikova, 2010b; UNDP, 2010b; UN-HABITAT,

2011b; World Bank, 2011a; Abbas et al., 2012).

The diversity of approaches for local adaptation fosters opportunities for

creating and strengthening adaptation planning and its implementation.

But local governments and actors can face difficulties in making sense

of such a diversity of approaches and identifying the most suitable and

efficient approaches to follow, as mentioned in Section 15.2.1. Lessons

learned from the DRM experiences illustrate that a lack of coordination

occurs among the strategies taken to reduce the risk of disaster at the

local level (ISDR et al., 2010; ISDR, 2011). Local CCA strategies can face

similar problems. To be effective, local governments and actors critically

identify, select, and combine the strengths of diverse approaches. The

coordinating role of national and subnational governments can provide

support in this direction. However, multilevel institutional coordination

between different political and administrative levels in society can be

an institutional barrier to planning and implementation in developed

and developing countries (Few et al., 2007b; Urwin and Jordan, 2008;

orfee-Morlot et al., 2009; Keskitalo, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Measham

et al., 2011; Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Sietz et al., 2011; Rodima-Taylor

et al., 2012; Nilsson et al., 2012; Glaas and Juhola, 2013). There appear

to be few national guidelines to assist local governments in selecting

relevant approaches (Storbjörk, 2007; Glaas et al., 2010; Mozumder et

al., 2011; Adhikari and Taylor, 2012; Carmin et al., 2012; Hedensted Lund

et al., 2012; Peach Brown et al., 2013). Similar barriers have been

reported in DRM (ISDR et al., 2010; ISDR, 2011). A combination of top-

down and bottom-up activities may strengthen local adaptation planning

and implementation (Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2009;

Preston et al., 2013). Connecting adaptation planning strategies and

local development needs and plans (USAID, 2007; OECD, 2009; Bizikova

et al., 2010b; UNDP, 2010a; UN-HABITAT, 2011b; World Bank, 2011a;

Abbas et al., 2012) and the use of low-regret strategies can also support

local adaptation strategies and their implementation (Hallegatte, 2009;

UNDP, 2010a).

15.3.2. Adaptation and Disaster Risk Management

The UN Hyogo Convention (2005–2015) has fostered the creation of a

significant number of disaster risk management (DRM) plans and actions

at the national and local level in developed and developing countries

(ISDR, 2011). The IPCC Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme

Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)

(IPCC, 2012) highlighted the complementary aspects and differences

between DRM and CCA. Measures that provide benefits under current

climate and a range of future climate change scenarios, called low-

regrets measures, have been identified as starting points for addressing

projected trends in exposure, vulnerability, and climate extremes in

national and regional adaptation plans (see Section 8.3.2.2). These

measures have the potential to offer benefits now and lay the foundation

for addressing projected changes. Furthermore, the evaluation of DRM

implementation helps to strengthen CCA because climate change impacts

and DRM are key elements of adaptation and have a prominent role in

these early stages of CCA (Few et al., 2007b; Hofstede, 2008; Mitchell

et al., 2010; Garrelts and Lange, 2011; Harries and Penning-Rowsell,

2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Rumbach and Kudva, 2011; Etkin et al.,

2012; IPCC, 2012).

DRM includes managing hazards from extreme weather events and

helps communities to deal with the uncertainty of climate change

(Mitchell et al., 2010). On the other hand, disaster risk management

strategies often fail to account for the differing spectrum of threats, and

time and spatial scales needed to address the root causes of climate

change vulnerability and open opportunities for CCA (Etkin et al., 2012).

Proponents of merging DRM with CCA stress the mutual benefits of this

approach. They also note that, currently, CCA and disaster risk reduction

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

882

are within separate agencies, although they share similar objectives and

challenges that can duplicate efforts if there is not an effort towards

better coordination and integration (USAID, 2007; IFRC et al., 2009;

Bizikova et al., 2010a; UNDP, 2010b; UN-HABITAT, 2011b; Abbas et al.,

2012; EIRD, 2012; Turnbull and Turvill, 2012).

Current institutional structure and operation cultures are not congruent

with the need for multidimensional approaches for DRM at the national

and local level in a number of countries (ISDR et al., 2010; ISDR, 2011).

his chapter identified similar institutional barriers in adaptation planning

and implementation discussed in Section 15.5.1.2 (Few et al., 2007b;

Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009; Keskitalo, 2009;

Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Measham et al., 2011; Robinson and Berkes, 2011;

Sietz et al., 2011; Nilsson et al., 2012; Rodima-Taylor et al., 2012; Glaas

and Juhola, 2013). Addressing these institutional barriers in DRM and

CCA jointly can help create more efficient and effective strategies and

actions to adapt to short-, middle-, and long-term climate impacts.

Planning has been highlighted as key tool for DRM and adaptation but

it requires also transformations in its operational structure and practices

to fulfill this role (Wilson, 2006; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Roberts, 2010;

Preston et al., 2011; Carmin et al., 2012; Mathew et al., 2012; Rodima-

Taylor et al., 2012; Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2012).

DRM experiences reveal the importance of linking development and

disaster risk prevention and reduction. Strengthening the integration of

CCA with development has been also suggested (Lemos et al., 2007;

Ewing et al., 2008; Hodson and Marvin, 2009; Hardee and Mutunga, 2010;

Sietz et al., 2011). Connecting DRM and CCA to existing development

pressures, agendas, policies, governance structures, and communitywelfare

can help reduce the risk of unintended consequences of adaptation.

DRM would also facilitate the support and acceptance of adaptation

by decision makers and stakeholders at the subnational and national

level (Dovers, 2009; Sovacool et al., 2012). Integrating DRM and CCA

with development strategies, policies, plans, actions, and pressures

can help address social vulnerability to climate change while providing

opportunities for adaptation.

National and local efforts in disaster risk reduction recognize the

importance of considering DRM a continuous learning process.

Adaptation to climate change can also be viewed as a continuous

learning process (not a single outcome), requiring regular monitoring

and evaluation, as climatic and socioeconomic conditions change, and

knowledge of the impacts increases (Adger and Barnett, 2009; Hinkel et

al., 2009; Hulme et al., 2009; Preston et al., 2009; Arnell, 2010; Hofmann

et al., 2011). Considering DRM and CCA learning processes assists in

creating integrated approaches for national and local development

strategies and plans. The process can also attend to intersecting social

processes and help alleviate differing vulnerabilities that result from

inequalities in socioeconomic status, income, and exposure to climate risks.

Lessons from DRM highlight the importance of participatory approaches

and the use of local knowledge in the design and implementation of

disaster risk prevention and reduction and CCA (Few et al., 2007b; van

Aalst et al., 2008; ISDR et al., 2010; UNDP, 2010b; EIRD, 2012). By the

same token, local knowledge-based adaptation is primarily focused on

the use of traditional knowledge to increase adaptive capacity at the

community level (see Table 15-1 for examples). Local knowledge often

highlights vulnerabilities and impacts that may not be well known

owing to the close interactions between climatic and non-climatic

stressors associated with structural inequalities to vulnerability in societies

(exposure, sensitivity, and adaptive capacity) (Majule et al., 2013).

Combining top-down and bottom-up approaches and using low-regret

strategies and actions in DRM and in adaptation planning and

implementation increase climate resilience, improve livelihoods, reduce

development pressures, and strengthen economic and social well-being

(Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Hallegatte, 2009; Bizikova et al., 2010b;

NDP, 2010b). It can also help alleviate the concerns of limiting the

effectiveness of policy interventions, as mentioned in Section 15.2.1.

15.3.3. Adaptation and Development

Discussions of the relationships between sustainable development and

climate change have increased over the past decades (Cohen et al.,

1998; Yohe et al., 2007; Bizikova et al., 2010a). As impacts of climate

change hinder the achievement of development goals at all scales,

O’Brien et al. (2012) emphasize that disaster risk management is

increasingly considered as one of the frontlines of adaptation, and a

promising arena for mainstreaming or integrating climate change

adaptation into sustainable development planning. In many cases, the

most attractive adaptation actions are also those that offer development

benefits in the near term, as well as reductions of vulnerabilities in the

longer term (Agrawala, 2005; Klein et al., 2007; McGray et al., 2007;

Hallegatte, 2008; NRC, 2010). In developing countries, adaptation has

been embedded in the development context in NAPAs and national

adaptation strategies.

Attention to the social dimensions of adaptation, including rates of

change in social conditions, in part of the literature coincides with the

interest of international organization and scholars in the relationship

between adaptation planning and implementation and development

(UNDP, 2004; Lemos et al., 2007; Dovers, 2009; OECD, 2009; Stringer et al.,

2009; Bizikova et al., 2010b; UN-HABITAT, 2011b). The literature supports

the standing contention that adaptation takes place as a response not

just to climate change but also to multiple stresses (Adger et al., 2005;

Thomas and Twyman, 2005). Linking existing policy, agendas, knowledge,

risks, and issues communities already face with adaptation planning

can help reduce the unintended consequences of adaptation (Dovers,

2009). The importance of climate change adaptation is also influenced

by how the issue is framed. For example, to the extent that it is viewed

as a public safety issue or a development issue, it may have greater

resonance within local government (Measham et al., 2010). Other authors

consider integrating local knowledge and experience, including

households, into multidimensional and multiscale approaches to guide

the construction of adaptation responses to climate change, and integrate

them with development strategies (Ewing et al., 2008; Moser and

Satterthwaite, 2008; Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Hodson and Marvin, 2009).

Other literatures emphasize the role of planning as a switchboard for

adaptation and development (Füssel, 2007; Hallegatte, 2009; Preston

et al., 2011). This might require systemic changes to enable planning

approaches capable of managing complexity and uncertainty, and

multidimensional and multilevel coordination (Pahl-Wostl, 2009;

Tompkins et al., 2010; Huntjens et al., 2011, 2012).

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

883

15.4. Tools Used for Decision Making,

Planning, and Implementation

15.4.1. Decision Support Tools

A feature of adaptation planning is decision making under uncertainty.

There is a large body of literature that examines how to integrate uncertain

information into decision-making processes and use this information

to evaluate the significance of uncertainties for decision outcomes.

Treatment of uncertainty is dealt with in Section 2.3.1. Adaptation

decision making is informed by various tools present in both top-down

and bottom-up forms. Top-down tools often include downscaled simulated

climate scenarios for regional level projections, accompanied by expert

opinions. These are applied using multi-criteria optimization methods,

evaluation of feasibility that may include cost effectiveness such as cost-

benefit analyses, and assessment of potential impact severity (Carter

et al., 1994; IPCC-TGICA, 2007; Adger et al., 2009a,b; see also Sections

5.5.3, 9.4.2). In the bottom-up approach, those affected or at risk

examine their own impacts and vulnerabilities and incorporate adaptive

options for the appropriate sector or community. Stakeholders may

organize social and institutional activities in the light of actions and

interactions among those engaged in the process. Advances in stakeholder

participatory methods have significantly enhanced the development of

this type of decision-making tool in recent years (Epstein and Axtell, 1996;

Wolfram, 2002; Kaner et al., 2007; see also Section 2.4.4).

No single tool suits all circumstances of adaptation decision making,

although information development tools such as Community-based Risk

Screening Tool-Adaptation and Livelihoods (CRiSTAL) can manage diverse

vulnerabilities and risks (IISD, 2012). By outlining the problems and the

available inputs to the adaptation decision process, this tool may

provide a suitable option (Gimblett, 2002). IPCC (2012) notes there are

distinct differences in problem orientation and solution space depending

on whether an adaptation plan commences with climate modeling

outputs versus that of a risk- and vulnerability-based framework.

15.4.2. Tools for Planning

Uncertainties in climate change, coupled with the complexities of social-

ecological systems, require a dynamic approach to adaptation planning

and implementation. Knowledge about climate change risks from various

stakeholders and organizations is an essential resource for adaptation

planning. Multidisciplinary efforts, some of which are discussed below,

have engaged in development, assessment, and communication of

climate information and risks across different time scales.

15.4.2.1. Monitoring, Modeling, and Spatially Integrated Tools

Integration of monitoring and/or modeling systems with the techniques

of GIS can strengthen adaptation planning and implementation. The

complex, multiscale, interdisciplinary nature of climate change impacts

on socio-ecological systems has made the computer-based modeling

approach a tool for understanding the evolving processes and future

conditions (Alter, 2004; Pyke et al., 2007). These include remote-sensing

and global positioning systems and discussion support or a dynamic

dialog between researchers and practitioners. As a result, much more

powerful, process-visual, and spatially implicit decision-support systems

have been developed. One example is the development of the Invasive

Species Forecasting System (ISFS) (Stohlgren et al., 2005) that combines

USGS science and NASA Earth observations with software engineering

to provide regional-scale patterns of invasive species and vulnerable

habitats. Similarly, in the Yellow River, the second largest drainage basin

of China, low-flow seasons caused the lower channel to dry up and

forced governments to develop a basin-scale decision-support system

(

Li and Li, 2009). The European Spatial Planning Adapting to Climate

Events Project (ESPACE) asserts that urban planning contributes to

adaptive efforts by utilizing tools for adaptation through both

conventional and green infrastructure and design (porous surfacing,

green roofs, etc.) (ESPACE, 2008).

15.4.2.2. Communication Tools

There are a wide range of communication tools that can play an important

role in adaptation implementation. These tools include brochures,

bulletins, posters, magazines, policy briefs, videos, TV and radio

broadcasts, Internet, and many more that are being employed to carry out

participatory dialogs. These provide avenues for communication among

information developers (e.g., scientists, trainers, project implementers,

government agencies, etc.) and community members, groups at risk,

etc., who also influence the nature of information disseminated. At the

local level, interactive strategies include theater, role-playing, music,

learning-by-doing, and hands-on exercises. There are also group

discussions of community members to debate climate risks and possible

solutions to cope with impacts that positively affect behavior and

practices. Reports, concept notes, brochures, magazines, presentations,

and workshops provide more effective tools to communicate with policy

makers at local and national levels. At the country/regional level, broad

dissemination channels such as TV, radio and internet broadcast, blogs,

and high-level summits have been effective in creating widespread

awareness, as demonstrated in the Advancing Capacity for Climate

Change Adaptation (ACCCA) project (http://www.acccaproject.org/

accca/), UK Climate Impacts Program (UKCIP; Pringle, 2011), and the

SREX report (IPCC, 2012).

To assist the syntheses, a variety of rule- or matrix-based methods have

been applied for screening adaptation options such as relative cost

effectiveness of alternative adaptation measures (Benioff and Warren,

1996), and for adaptive opportunities for coastal zone management

(Uljee et al., 1999). Greater emphasis on user interaction, sensitivity

analysis, and capabilities currently provides more effective visualization

and customized reports (Sarewitz et al., 2000; Sarewitz, 2004). Multi-

criterion and multi-actor participatory approaches allow users to

consider alternative adaptation strategies and evaluate trade-offs,

typically in the development of tools for environmental assessment and

management (Julius and Scheraga, 2000).

15.4.2.3. Early Warning and Information Systems

Monitoring and early warning systems (EWS) have long played important

roles in helping in adjustment and adaptation especially on the local

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

884

scale. The disaster research community has shown that successful

warnings of impending events are those that are complemented by

information on the risks actually posed by the hazards and by potential

strategies and pathways to mitigate damage within a particular context

(Drabek, 1999; UNISDR, 2006). The use of climate data analyses and

projections in early warning and information systems is an important

and established mechanism to inform disaster risk mitigation (Pulwarty

and Verdin, 2013) or climate-related health risks (see Section 11.7.3). It

helps to ensure the link between generation and application of climate

knowledge for management of climate-related risks and CCA. In this

Box 15-1 | Examples of Tools and Measures

Conventional and Green Infrastructure

• Large investment has been made on engineered structure to protect coastal areas against climate-related events. In New York

ity, infrastructure adaptation strategies to climate change include both hard and soft measures. Hard structures in the New

York City region include seawalls, groins, jetties, breakwaters, bulkheads, and piers, but these have not yet been strengthened and

elevated over time in response to projected rates of sea level rise (Gornitz, 2001). Storm-surge barriers have been recommended

to protect against high water (Aerts et al., 2009; Zimmerman and Faris, 2010). Such barriers are also used in the Thames in

London (UK Environment Agency, 2012; see Box 5-1) and Rotterdam (Aerts et al., 2009). Soft measures involve wetland and

dune restoration, beach nourishment, enhancement, and expanding the Staten Island Bluebelt—a stormwater management

system to other areas (NYCDEP, 2008).

• In the Netherlands, during the second half of the 20th century, large structures had been built to protect the coastal area (Kabat

et al., 2009). To keep the country ﬂood-proof over the 21st century, an estimated total cost of implementing a new ambitious

plan is €2.5 to 3.1 billion a year to 2050, representing 0.5% of the current Dutch annual gross domestic product (GDP) (Stive et

al., 2011). The new plan is a paradigm shift that addresses coastal protection “working with nature” and providing “room for

river” instead of only “ﬁghting” the forces of nature with engineered structures.

• Development of engineered structures can lead to more greenhouse gas emissions and potential negative impacts on ecosystems

(see Section 5.5.6). On the contrary, green infrastructure (porous surfacing, green roofs, etc.) have been used in parts of Europe

(ESPACE, 2008), Portland, Philadelphia, New York (Foster et al., 2011), London (GLA, 2011), and Quy Nhon in Vietnam (Brown et

al., 2012) (see Section 8.3.3.7).

Use of Information and Communication Technologies

• Information and communication technologies (ICTs) can help strengthen the physical preparedness of livelihood systems for

climate change-related events. These can contribute to design of defenses and determination of their optimal location, and

make the livelihood system more robust. GIS technology was applied to foster the ability of the community to deal with climate

change hazards and trends in the Philippines (IAPAD, 2010) and form modeling processes of climate change adaptation that

supported regional stakeholders to develop better protection of key spaces in the landscape (Bardsley and Sweeney, 2010).

Visualization of sea level rise and climate change damage in Delta in British Columbia, Canada, increased awareness of long-

term risks and response challenges to local community, government, and the public (Shaw et al., 2009).

• By sharing observations and reﬂections through ICT tools, users foster new ways of assimilating or translating information,

which can be shared through wider networks, and then inﬂuence action, enabling new experiments/practices to take place. This

generation of new and broader learning cycles will in turn strengthen systematic resilience (Ospina and Heeks, 2010). Karanasios

(2011) outlines the range of new and emergent ICTs (e.g., wireless broadband, sensor networks, GIS and Web-based tools)

being applied to climate change issues, and investigates their use in developing countries.

Other Tools

• Other tools are being used such as insurance (see Section 8.4.2; Table 10-8), linking CCA to ICZM (Section 5.5.3) or DRR (Section

8.3.2.2), reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (Section 13.3.1.2), using climate change scenarios

(Box 14-1), ecosystem-based adaptation (Box CC-EA, Box 8-2, Section 22.4.5.6, Figure 22-6), and land use (Box 25-10).

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

885

regard, interest in climate services is growing in many countries (see

Section 2.4.1).

EWS includes a diversity of approaches. These range from technological

advances in systems, satellite information, and climate modeling (UNISDR,

2006; Smith et al., 2009; Bierbaum et al., 2013) to local level early warning

based on traditional knowledge needed to develop and inform strategic

esponse options in adaptation planning and implementation. Local

knowledge can be complemented with scientific climatic data, research,

and planning tools (GIS, modeling, etc.) to strengthen community-based

monitoring and vulnerability assessment in disaster risk management

and adaptation to climate change (Green and Raygorodetsky, 2010;

Kalanda-Joshua et al., 2011; Newsham and Thomas, 2011; Nakashima

et al., 2012).

Current science and technology do not resolve the uncertainties in

modeling the response of ecosystems to climate change and management

interventions at levels needed for probabilistic early warning. Yet the

need for precise climate information is often overstated (Smith et al.,

2009). The long-standing experience with climate extremes and

variability offers many usable lessons in spite of these uncertainties. The

impacts of climate change will be most strongly felt by populations

vulnerable to changes in the distribution and magnitude of extreme

weather and climate events, as these affect crops, disease outbreaks,

and soil and water quality. The diverse types of EWS in developed and

developing countries are valuable tools that could help societies

develop strategies to cope and adapt to climate-related risks.

15.4.3. Technology Development, Transfer, and Diffusion

Development and diffusion of technologies and management practices

will continue to be critical to many adaptation efforts. While a wide

range of adaptations are possible with current technologies and

management practices, technologies expand the range of adaptation

possibilities by expanding opportunities or reducing costs (Smith et al.,

2009). Technologies related to information collection and diffusion are

particularly important for adaptation planning, including technologies

for data collection and information dissemination during extreme events

and emergencies. Despite remaining uncertainties, technologies to project

climate changes, and identify potential impacts and vulnerabilities, are

frequently seen as precursors to successful adaptation planning.

Developing countries require enhanced access to improved climate

models, but also adaptation planning tools that focus on robustness in

the face of uncertainty (Dessai et al., 2009).

Technology choices can both reduce and exacerbate risk, and their use

in adaptation planning and implementation requires considering their

potential effects (Jonkman et al., 2010). For example, technologies can

strengthen physical infrastructure, such as bridges and buildings, so that

they can withstand more extreme hazards. However, relatively centralized

high-technology systems increase efficiency under normal conditions

but risk cascading malfunctions in the event of emergencies. In some

circumstances, technologies to reduce short-term risk and vulnerability

contribute to increased future vulnerability to larger extreme events

(Etkin, 1999; Moser, 2010). This was seen in the impacts of Hurricane

Katrina on New Orleans, where a flood defense system enabling

construction in a floodplain was subject to catastrophic failure in the

face of a particularly large extreme event (Freudenburg et al., 2008;

Link, 2010).

International efforts for technology transfer have been concentrated in

the UNFCCC framework’s five themes: technology needs and needs

assessments, technology information, enabling environments, capacity

building, and mechanisms for technology transfer. A key project is

developing a technology transfer clearinghouse called TT:CLEAR, and

stablishing a Technology Center and Network (UNFCCC, 2012).

However, successful technology transfer requires not only exchange of

technological solutions, but also strengthening policy and regulatory

environments, and capacities to absorb, employ, and improve appropriate

technologies. In both developed and developing countries, multilateral

institutions can support collaboration that engages private interests in

regulatory planning and possibly activities, particularly if ongoing funding

is expected (Tessa and Kurukulasuriya, 2010).

15.4.4. Insurance and Social Protection

Insurance is widely seen as a cost-effective tool for adaptation planning

and implementation for increasing financial resilience, especially when

compared to ex post disaster aid (Warner et al., 2009; Linnerooth-Bayer

et al., 2011). It is in this context that insurance has received the attention

of those planning and managing climate adaptation: IPCC’s SREX report

(IPCC, 2012) recognizes that risk sharing and transfer mechanisms at

local, national, regional, and global scales can increase resilience to

climate extremes, while for slow-onset impacts it is usually considered

unsuitable (Collier et al., 2009). The main question is if and how insurance

products, particularly natural disaster and agricultural cover, can be

designed so that they trigger adaptive behavior. The insurance price

signal is widely considered as the first step in taking risk reduction

measures (Fankhauser et al., 1999), but it does not imply that action

will be taken. In fact those at risk, such as local farmers, may not have

the capacity to act because they lack tools, methods, or financial means.

The role of insurance is also discussed in Section 10.7 in this report.

Many scholars agree on the theoretical potential for insurance to facilitate

climate risk reduction through a wide scale of activities, ranging from

awareness raising and sharing of modeling and risk mapping data and

tools, to providing economic incentives for risk reduction and mandating

adaptation as a condition for granting insurance (Crichton, 2008; Suarez

and Linnerooth-Bayer, 2011; Surminski and Oramas-Dorta, 2011; Paudel,

2012). Evidence of how this is successfully achieved is limited to private

insurance and reinsurance companies, scientists, and governments

aiming at adaptation, most notably through sector initiatives such as

ClimateWise and UNEPFI’s Insurance Working Group (Mills, 2004).

Existing insurance schemes for flooding in the USA (Michel-Kerjan and

Kunreuther, 2011) and the UK (Ball et al., 2013) show the challenges of

fostering risk reduction through insurance. Those two schemes are on

opposite ends of a broad scale—the U.S. National Flood Insurance

Program being a public sector scheme, while the UK’s flood insurance

is provided by a private insurance market. Both systems struggle with

the implementation of risk-based pricing as the guiding principle of

insurance. Picard (2008) highlights the trade-off between effectiveness

of risk based pricing and equity—as those most vulnerable struggle to

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

886

pay for risk-based premiums. Public-private partnerships may be able

to assist through premium subsidies, or broader collaboration on risk

management, as seen in the case of the UK’s flood insurance.

The use of insurance to manage extreme weather events varies across

the world, with penetration of insurance coverage determined mainly

by income levels (Ranger and Surminski, 2012), with insurance in most

low- and middle-income countries still in its infancy (Churchill, 2007;

Warner et al., 2009). Demand-side limitations include access to and

ffordability of coverage, desirability of products, and financial literacy

(Linnerooth-Bayer et al., 2011).

Over the last decade, risk transfer schemes have been developed in low-

income countries, often run as pilot projects between the private sector

and public authorities. Analysis of the existing disaster risk transfer

activities in low- and middle-income countries indicates that the potential

for utilizing risk transfer for risk reduction is far from exhausted, with

only very few schemes showing an operational link between risk transfer

and risk reduction (Surminski and Orama-Dorta, 2011; IPCC, 2012, p.

355). Some innovative efforts are currently being tested to address these

challenges—such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) insurance

scheme in Peru, an index-based forecast insurance that pays out on the

basis of a seasonal forecast, giving policyholders the opportunity to use

the pay-out for preventive measures, such as the purchase of drainage

cleaning machinery or to improve transport infrastructure or adjust cash

flows in anticipation of possible income reduction (GIZ, 2012). A

regional insurance system is also an innovative tool for sharing disaster

risks among participating countries. For example, the Caribbean

Catastrophic Risk Insurance Facility (CCRIF) was established as a risk

pooling facility, attended by 16 countries, to limit the financial impact

of catastrophic hurricanes and earthquakes to Caribbean governments

by quickly providing short-term liquidity. Another approach is the

agricultural insurance scheme in Sudan, where farmers are required to

adopt more resilient farming practices to gain access to the risk transfer

scheme and the Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for Adaptation (HARITA)

scheme in Ethiopia (Oxfam, 2009).

There are various adaptation options that target the specific vulnerability

of disadvantaged groups as social options of CCA. Social protection

programs include public and private initiatives that transfer income or

assets to poor people, protect against livelihood risks, and raise the social

status and rights of the marginalized (see Glossary). The roles of social

protection in CCA are discussed in Section 14.3.2 and Box 13-2.

15.5. Governance for Adaptation

Planning and Implementation

15.5.1. Institutional Dimensions for

Planning and Implementing Adaptation

15.5.1.1. Importance of Institutional Dimensions

Since the AR4 findings on substantial barriers to mainstreaming adaptation

and suggested research challenges in further understanding adaptation

processes of mainstreaming adaptation (Adger et al., 2007), the academic

literature identifying drivers and barriers to climate adaptation planning

and implementation has increased. A recent review has shown that

more than 200 context-dependent barriers have been identified in 81

peer-review papers, mostly but not exclusively based on small-N inductive

case studies (Biesbroek et al., 2013). The message from the literature is

clear: adaptive capacity signals potential but does not guarantee

adaptive action (O’Brien et al., 2006; Adger and Barnett, 2009; Burch,

2010; Tompkins et al., 2010). While there is growing recognition that

adaptation planning is essential (Ayers and Huq, 2009; Wilbanks and

Kates, 2010; Ford et al., 2011), research reporting on planning and

mplementation has increased appreciation of the magnitude of the

institutional dimension for limiting or enabling the mainstreaming of

climate adaptation (Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Berkhout, 2012; Biesbroek

et al., 2013). Several studies, in different settings, for example, river

basin management in Brazil (Engle and Lemos, 2010), municipalities in

Canada (Burch, 2010) and Australia (Measham et al., 2011), villages in

Western Nepal (Jones and Boyd, 2011), and pastoralist groups in Kenya

(Eriksen and Lind, 2009; Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Adhikari and Taylor,

2012), illustrate such difficulties. Adaptation studies, targeting specifically

how institutional dimensions limit or enable the mainstreaming of climate

change considerations in policy making, planning, and decision making

at different levels and in different sectors, have grown in number

(Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Koch et al., 2007; Roberts, 2008; Bulkeley et

al., 2009; Engle and Lemos, 2010; Glaas et al., 2010; van den Brink et

al., 2011; Storbjörk and Hedrén, 2011; Huntjens et al., 2012; Termeer et

al., 2012; Glaas and Juhola, 2013).

Institutions are composed of tangible formal procedures, laws and

regulations and tacit informal values, norms, traditions, codes, and

conducts that shape expectations and guide actions among actors and

organizations, serving as manifestations of institutions (Ostrom, 1990;

Dovers and Hezri, 2010). Adaptation planning and implementation

follows formal institutions associated with regulations, policies, and

standards created and enforced by government actors but also requires

the participation of informal institutions through interactions among

stakeholders according to cultural, social, and political conditions in

societies (Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008; Carmin et al., 2012). Chapter

14 describes the importance of these institutional frameworks for adaptive

capacity. Chapter 16 presents a framework for adaptation, opportunities,

and limits, where governance and institutional arrangements are

included. This section assesses the literature on how institutional

dimensions limit or enable adaptation planning and implementation

and what lessons can be learned from these experiences.

15.5.1.2. Institutional Barriers

While the literature clearly states that institutional dimensions may both

enable and limit adaptation planning and implementation, the literature

referred to in Section 15.5.1.1 has so far mostly reported on how current

institutional arrangements restrict the mainstreaming of climate

adaptation. Biesbroek et al. (2013) have stated that although studies

in developed countries are more common and comparative approaches

of institutional dimensions, exploring differences and similarities in

different countries, are rare, institutional dimensions are highlighted for

both developing and developed countries. Low-income developing

countries report on weak institutional environments and middle- and

high-income countries emphasize institutional barriers that prevent the

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

887

mobilization of adaptive capacity. Barriers in general are seen as

dynamic and context dependent across sectoral, spatial, and temporal

scales, meaning that how a particular institutional barrier operates to

either strengthen or limit adaptation planning and implementation can

vary both between and within countries, depending on case study

locations. Also, the importance and severity of each barrier to the

proposed change supposedly changes over time and interacts with

ther constraints (Burch, 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Biesbroek et

al., 2013). Barriers are also shown to differ in different stages of planning

and implementation, for example, initial problem framing and agenda

setting, planning and strategy-making, implementation, monitoring,

and evaluating, which studies have increasingly made clear (Moser and

Ekstrom, 2010; Dannevig et al., 2012; Mees et al., 2012). The following

paragraphs illustrate five of the most commonly emphasized barriers

or enablers of institutional change.

First, the importance of multilevel institutional coordination between

different political and administrative levels in society is increasingly

cited in both developing and developed countries as challenging (Few

et al., 2007a; Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2009;

Keskitalo, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Measham et al., 2011; Robinson and

Berkes, 2011; Sietz et al., 2011; Nilsson et al., 2012; Rodima-Taylor et

al., 2012; Glaas and Juhola, 2013). Several studies report on unclear

roles and responsibilities between levels and actors inhibiting climate

adaptation. They show that there are few national requirements or

guidelines to help local governments approach climate adaptation,

stressing the importance of developing regulations, policies, and codes

to support the institutionalization of local climate actions (Næss et al.,

2005; Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Storbjörk, 2007; Glaas et al., 2010;

Mozumder et al., 2011; Adhikari and Taylor, 2012; Carmin et al., 2012;

Hedensted Lund et al., 2012; Peach Brown et al., 2013). Vammen

Larsen et al. (2012) stress that climate change does not possess clear

institutional characteristics as a municipal professional area. Rather, it

is viewed as a void with no clear rules and norms according to which

politics are to be conducted and policy measures agreed on. This has

meant that climate adaptation remains ad hoc and based on processes

of “muddling through” in a sense that increases risks of failure (Preston

et al., 2011).

Further, the literature shows that the lack of clear national agendas and

incentives may burden local governments differently, based on their

different capacities (Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Juhola and Westerhoff,

2011; Dannevig et al., 2012). Authors have also cautioned against a too

heavy emphasis on national guidance, suggesting that centralized

approaches may in some cases constrain local initiatives and create

unfortunate dependencies. Instead a combination of top-down and

bottom-up activities is proposed where national actors set a proactive

agenda for climate adaptation and support implementation that occurs

at subnational levels (Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2009;

Preston et al., 2013). Connected to this question of guidance and

support is also a large strand of research showing that simply producing

more and better knowledge is not sufficient. This illustrates the role of

knowledge-brokers, policy entrepreneurs, and bridging organizations to

communicate and mediate the co-production of knowledge between

science and practice and make climate knowledge consistent and credible

at the appropriate decision-making scale (Tribbia and Moser, 2008;

Amundsen et al., 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Mozumder et al., 2011).

Second, the literature show that key actors, advocates, and champions

are decisive for initiating, mainstreaming, and sustaining momentum for

climate adaptation planning and implementation in different national

settings (Bulkeley et al., 2009; Burch, 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010;

Tompkins et al., 2010; Garrelts and Lange, 2011; Runhaar et al., 2012;

Romero-Lankao, 2012). Key actors can be particularly important in the

absence of strong national level policies and strategies (Anguelovski and

Carmin, 2011; Dannevig et al., 2012). Champions further involve actors

in different roles, from junior staff to senior executives and elected

epresentatives (Measham et al., 2011). The literature on leadership

has distinguished between different types of leadership, where

visionary leadership means showing direction and motivating others;

entrepreneurial leadership means ability to get things done; and, finally,

collaborative leadership means bridging gaps, spanning boundaries,

and building coalitions (Gupta et al., 2010; van den Brink et al., 2011).

Although there is wide agreement that leaders are key for driving

change, a dependency on personal commitments and dedication of key

individuals may render adaptation planning and implementation fragile

if it takes place at the price of organizational learning (Næss et al., 2005;

Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Storbjörk, 2010).

Third, the horizontal interplay between actors and policies operating at

similar administrative levels is seen as key in institutionalizing climate

adaptation. Several international studies have shown that local

governments and administrations consist of different professional silos

with their own internal norms, values, and priorities and that the

institutional rigidity of existing administrative and political sectors creates

unfortunate compartmentalization where climate adaptation is seen as

the isolated task of a singular sector that may hinder mainstreaming

and horizontal coordination across sectors and departments (Mickwitz

et al., 2009; Burch, 2010; Roberts, 2010; Storbjörk, 2010; Runhaar et al.,

2012; Vammen Larsen et al., 2012; van den Berg and Coenen, 2012;

Wilby and Keenan, 2012). Preston et al. (2011) have determined that

adaptation plans from Australia, the UK, and the USA largely frame

adaptation in a narrow sense overlooking the capacity and institutional

challenges involved in the process of mainstreaming in other sectors.

Institutional rigidity also takes the form of path dependency where past

policies, decisions, habits, and traditions constrain the extent to which

systems can learn or adapt to climate change (Garrelts and Lange, 2011;

Berkhout, 2012; Runhaar et al., 2012; Preston et al., 2013). Some authors

have identified such cultures of reactive management or structural

engineered approaches to climate adaptation negatively influencing

institutional change (Næss et al., 2005; Harries and Penning-Rowsell,

2011; Measham et al., 2011). Several writers have emphasized the need

to facilitate improved cross-sectoral interaction, exchange, and

organizational learning to drive institutional change (Berkhout et al.,

2006; Crabbé and Robin, 2006; Pelling et al., 2008; Hinkel et al., 2009;

Burch, 2010). How cross-sectoral coordination is achieved in practice

remains one of the major challenges in transitioning from planning to

implementation.

Fourth, the need to acknowledge political dimensions in planning and

implementation is highlighted in several studies, both in developing and

developed countries. Studies indicate that politicians have not recognized

climate adaptation as being politically urgent enough to elevate on the

policy agenda. Subsequently they identify a tendency to prioritize other

political concerns, often more short-term tangible issues (O’Brien et al.,

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

888

2006; Storbjörk, 2007; Glaas et al., 2010; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011;

Measham et al., 2011; Runhaar et al., 2012; Preston et al., 2013). This

has implications for the availability of resources and financial means in

the form of staff and time (Tribbia and Moser, 2008). Other studies

document competing values, conflicting objectives, tensions, and trade-

offs between different policy agendas and priorities in planning and

implementing climate adaptation (Næss et al., 2005; Berkhout et al.,

2006; Adger et al., 2009a; O’Brien and Wolf, 2010; Measham et al.,

2011; Storbjörk and Hedrén, 2011). In a developing country context, a

tudy in the drylands of Kenya calls for increased consideration of

political dimensions of local adaptation by showing how power relations

at multiple geographic scales and interaction of informal institutions,

for example, clans and spiritual leaders and government institutions,

shape the local negotiation of conflicting interests (Eriksen and Lind,

2009).

Fifth, improved coordination between formal governmental and

administrative agencies and private stakeholders is highlighted in the

literature. Private sector involvement is often seen as a way to increase

the efficiency of climate adaptation (Engle and Lemos, 2010; Mees et

al., 2012; Tompkins and Eakin, 2012). As part of highlighting private

sector involvement, studies from developing and developed countries

emphasize the need for stakeholder participation, representation,

accountability, and equality to influence the sharing and shaping of

knowledge in adaptation decision making and achieve change on the

ground (Gupta et al., 2010; Harries and Penning-Rowsell, 2011;

Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Adhikari and Taylor, 2012; Huntjens et al.,

2012; McNeeley, 2012; Tompkins and Eakin, 2012). Participatory

approaches potentially allow maintaining regard for the highly localized

and contextual nature of climate adaptation, balance standardization

and context in adaptation planning and implementation, and bolster

support for and facilitate implementation (Preston et al., 2011; Mees et

al., 2012). Elaborate forms of participatory designs for facilitating a co-

production of knowledge, interactive learning, and stakeholder

exchange, mediated by boundary organizations and knowledge brokers,

are being undertaken but more are needed (Pahl-Wostl, 2009; Pulwarty

et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010; Jonsson et al., 2012). At the same

time authors clarify that stakeholders can hold private, sectarian interest

and represent local elites, meaning that which voices actually get

represented is an important issue (Romero-Lankao, 2012). Studies in

western Nepal have documented obstacles to political inclusion due to

social status and caste-based political discrimination where societal

elites suppress marginal voices (Jones and Boyd, 2011). Other studies

have documented how existing centralized top-down institutions have

been complemented and sometimes challenged by public-private

partnerships at critical stages in implementation (Juhola and Westerhoff,

2011; Rodima-Taylor et al., 2012).

15.5.1.3. Facilitating More Effective Climate Adaptation

Planning and Implementation

Although Section 15.2 shows that international studies clearly report a

large number of ongoing responses to support climate adaptation, which

are most commonly incremental responses within existing institutional

arrangements (with some rare examples of institutional transformations),

there is a large body of evidence of the mainstreaming of climate

adaptation resulting in limited implementation. Subsequently most

studies on climate adaptation planning and implementation have

focused on identifying barriers and challenges. Biesbroek et al. (2013)

have suggested moving forward in our current context-specific and

fragmented understanding of barriers, including institutional dimensions,

and embrace comparative approaches, synthesizing knowledge and

analyzing barriers more systematically. Recent discussions suggest

focusing more attention on how to transform barriers to enablers of action

and institutional change (Burch et al., 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010;

ark et al., 2012; Biesbroek et al., 2013). Dovers and Hezri (2010) have

claimed that there is a predominant focus in adaptation research on

what should happen rather than how that might be achieved, the latter

targeting strengths and weaknesses with different forms of institutional

structures, procedures, and ways of organizing climate adaptation that

supports change. Others have suggested that monitoring and evaluating

the effectiveness of strategies adopted and interventions undertaken

needs further attention (Mullan et al., 2013). Further, it is suggested

that propositions for change tend to be driven by theory rather than

empirically substantiated and tested and that the adaptation literature

would benefit by embracing lessons and experiences of mechanisms

for enabling institutional change gained in other policy sectors and past

policy interventions (Dovers and Hezri, 2010; Biesbroek et al., 2013).

15.5.2. Increasing Capabilities

Governance of adaptation creates the space and conditions for achieving

specific goals or collective outputs by aligning principles and norms for

regulations, decision-making procedures, and organizations in providing

an overarching system to address a challenge comprehensively (Biermann

et al., 2009; Young, 2010; DeWulf et al., 2011). However, the embryonic

stage of adaptation planning and implementation faces challenges to

develop governance approaches (Glaas et al., 2010; Gupta et al., 2010;

Tompkins et al., 2010; Carmin et al., 2012; Huntjens et al., 2012; Rodima-

Taylor et al., 2012; Mukheibir et al., 2013). The previous section on the

institutional dimensions of adaptation in this chapter stressed the

obstacles in current structures of national, subnational, and local

governments to address complex and multidimensional problems

(Wilson, 2006; Koch et al., 2007; Roberts, 2008; Bulkeley et al., 2009;

Inderberg and Eikeland, 2009; Engle and Lemos, 2010; Glaas et al.,

2010; Sietz et al., 2011; Storbjörk and Hedrén, 2011; van den Brink et

al., 2011; Huntjens et al., 2012; Rodima-Taylor et al., 2012; Termeer et

al., 2012; Vammen Larsen et al., 2012; Glaas and Juhola, 2013). Similar

fragmented approaches for adaptation planning and implementation

also hinder a dynamic and diverse participation of other stakeholders

in these processes (Folke et al., 2005; Raschky, 2008; Urwin and Jordan,

2008; Coles and Scott, 2009; Dessai et al., 2009; Handmer, 2009;

Scheffer, 2009; Nath and Behera, 2010; Reid et al., 2010; Sissoko et al.,

2011). In addition, there have been very few documented changes in

forecasts, plans, design criteria, investment decisions, budgets, or

staffing patterns in response to climate risks (Repetto, 2008; Tompkins

et al., 2010; Berrang-Ford et al., 2011).

Expanding and improving capabilities of stakeholders strengthen

operational approaches for adaptation to climate change at different

levels. The literature recognizes four areas where improved capabilities

can facilitate this creation of governance approaches for adaptation

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

889

planning and implementation: creating learning processes incorporating

various knowledge systems and experiences to facilitate developing a

common understanding and policies critical for cross-institutional

coordination and multi-stakeholder actions (Engle and Lemos, 2010;

Huntjens et al., 2012); enhancing monitoring and evaluation of

adaptation planning and implementation currently limiting opportunities

for learning and improvement of current and future adaptation initiatives

(

Manuel-Navarrete et al., 2009; Preston et al., 2011; Nilsson et al., 2012);

improving cross-level coordination within government structures at the

national, subnational, and local levels (Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Bulkeley

et al., 2009; Amundsen et al., 2010; Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Preston

et al., 2013); and enhancing the participation of stakeholders from

the assessment of vulnerability to the design and implementation of

operational approaches of adaptation (Moser and Satterthwaite, 2008;

Anguelovski and Carmin, 2011; Carmin et al., 2012; Dannevig et al.,

2012).

These interacting aspects strengthen incorporating climate change risks

to systems and sectors, and the corresponding response planning and

implementation actions occurring at different spatial and temporal

scales. They help improve mechanisms to foster and strengthen

coordination in the scale of governance together with a clear division

of tasks and responsibilities of actors, especially under conflicting

time scales of interventions (Koch et al., 2007; Amundsen et al., 2010;

Biesbroek et al., 2010, 2011). They can also support addressing

jurisdictional scales and mandates across sectors, and local, national,

and subnational policies, constricting the potential benefits of close

dependencies between institutions, institutional systems, and

organizational units in planning and implementation of adaptation

(Dovers and Hezri, 2010).

Creating capabilities through coordination is reported to expand the

adaptive capacity of local actors and enhance opportunities for policy

formulations of larger governance networks and learning opportunities

for policy formulations (Keskitalo and Kulyasova, 2009; Owen, 2010).

Capturing various perspectives of multiple stakeholders and actors

holding different views, power, and influence is pivotal in mutually

achieving short-term and long-term adaptation needs to climate change

(O’Brien et al., 2008; Shaw et al., 2009; Bardsley and Sweeney, 2010;

IAPAD, 2010; Corfee-Morlot et al., 2011). Capabilities to enhance and

complement the value of local knowledge through scientific knowledge

can become a useful source of community-based adaptation planning

and implementation (McLeman et al., 2008; Green and Raygorodetsky,

2010; Berrang-Ford et al., 2011; Birkmann, 2011; Ford et al., 2011;

Newsham and Thomas, 2011; Nakashima et al., 2012).

Increasing capabilities for adaptation planning and implementation can

also benefit from approaches with greater emphasis on nature-based

protection strategies or buffers. Related climate change adaptation

efforts also improve ecosystem resilience by implementing sustainable

forestry management, expanding floodplain setbacks, implementing

coastal afforestation and coral reef propagation, restoring degraded lands,

maintaining healthy vegetation on slopes, incentivizing development

away from coastal areas and bluffs, and removing barriers to the

migration of plants and animals, all of which are necessary for the

resilience of communities facing climate change impacts (Tobey et al.,

2010; Sovacool et al., 2012).

15.6. Research Needs for

Maximizing Opportunities

The following interrelated research needs extracted from the chapter

can create and maximize opportunities for adaptation planning and

implementation.

The emphasis on impacts and defensive infrastructure has been

documented in a number of early adaptation plans (Few et al., 2007a;

Hofstede, 2008; Mitchell et al., 2010; Garrelts and Lange, 2011; Harries

and Penning-Rowsell, 2011; Rosenzweig et al., 2011; Rumbach and

Kudva, 2011; Etkin et al., 2012; IPCC, 2012). Research on the design

and implementation of these plans and the lessons that can be

extracted from them can help address concerns in the literature that an

impact approach can overshadow the analysis of underlying stressors

of hazards, the drivers of vulnerability, and opportunities for connecting

development pressures and climate change (Lemos et al., 2007; Sabates-

Wheeler et al., 2008; Boyd and Juhola, 2009; Hulme et al., 2009; Orlove,

2009; Hardee and Mutunga, 2010; Ribot, 2010; Rumbach and Kudva,

2011; Sietz et al., 2011). These lessons can help balance the design of

adaptation planning including projects for defensive infrastructures

needed through flexibility and safety margins and at the same time

incorporating other actions seeking to reduce social vulnerability and

enhancing adaptation. Relevant in these efforts is building a better

understanding of how early adaptation plans can transcend from

defensive but fragmented approaches to multidimensional policy

process recognizing adaptation planning and its implementation as

learning processes (Hulme et al., 2009; Biesbroek et al., 2011).

Research on operational strategies and approaches for adaptation can

help maximize available resources for adaptation to climate change.

Current contributions in the literature help build a better understanding

on diverse dimensions of this complex process, but these contributions

have provided little attention to the discussion and suggestion of

guidelines to build operational approaches. Some authors stress that

few studies show how adaptation to climate change is actually being

delivered (Arnell, 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; National Research

Council, 2011). Key elements in these research efforts are: expanding

knowledge of the connections between adaptation and development

in different contexts and at different governance levels (Boyd and

Juhola, 2009; Dovers, 2009; Hulme et al., 2009); the role of multiple

stresses (not just climate) in adaptation planning and its implementation

(IPCC, 2007; Tompkins et al., 2010); and the role of low-regret strategies

strengthening operational approaches for adaptation (Hallegatte, 2009;

UNDP, 2010a).

Section 15.5.1 highlights how limitations of current institutional

arrangements restrict the mainstreaming of climate adaptation (Roberts,

2008; Burch, 2010; Dovers and Hezri, 2010; Engle and Lemos, 2010;

Glaas et al., 2010; Moser and Ekstrom, 2010; Jones and Boyd, 2011;

Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Storbjörk and Hedrén, 2011; Dannevig et

al., 2012; Huntjens et al., 2012; McNeeley, 2012; Vammen Larsen et al.,

2012; Biesbroek et al., 2013; Glaas and Juhola, 2013). Expanding

research on institutional arrangements in at least three key areas can

help improve the implementation of adaptation plans in both developed

and developing countries: (1) on approaches to improve multilevel

institutional coordination between different political and administrative

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

890

levels in society, with a particular emphasis on balancing a combination

of top-down and bottom-up activities (Urwin and Jordan, 2008; Bulkeley

et al., 2009; Amundsen et al., 2010; Robinson and Berkes, 2011; Preston

et al., 2013); (2) on approaches to overcome the institutional rigidity

limiting the horizontal interplay within local governments, where

climate adaptation is seen as the isolated task of a singular sector,

which hinders the mainstreaming and horizontal coordination across

professional sectors and departments and constrains the extent to

which systems can learn or adapt to climate change (Bulkeley et al.,

009; Burch, 2010; Dovers and Hezri, 2010; Glaas et al., 2010; Storbjörk,

2010; Juhola and Westerhoff, 2011; Hedensted Lund et al., 2012;

Runhaar et al., 2012; Uittenbroek et al., 2012; van den Berg and Coenen,

2012; Wilby and Keenan, 2012); and (3) on approaches improving

coordination between formal governmental and administrative agencies

and social and private stakeholders in order to create participatory

approaches maintaining regard for the highly localized and contextual

nature of climate adaptation, and facilitating a collaboration for

production of knowledge and interactive learning (Pahl-Wostl, 2009;

Engle and Lemos, 2010; Tompkins et al., 2010; Preston et al., 2011;

Jonsson et al., 2012; Mees et al., 2012).

The literature illustrates a trend to consider planning a problem-free

process capable of delivering positive outcomes for adaptation to climate

change. Expanding research seeking to build a better understanding of

the limitations and strengths of planning can help avoid underestimating

the complexity of adaptation as a social process, and creating unrealistic

expectations in societies about the capacity of planning to deliver the

intended outcome of adaptation (Repetto, 2008; Biesbroek et al., 2009;

Blanco and Alberti, 2009; Dovers, 2009; Berrang-Ford et al., 2011; Juhola

and Westerhoff, 2011; Mozumder et al., 2011; Preston et al., 2011;

Sanchez-Rodriguez, 2012).

Research efforts considering adaptation planning and implementation

as learning processes can help in carrying out periodical adjustments

to accommodate changes in climate, socioeconomic conditions, and

emergent risks in order to strengthen the role of planning as a societal

tool for adaptation (Holden, 2008; Frommer, 2009; Hinkel et al., 2009;

Glaas et al., 2010; Hofmann et al., 2011). The literature recognizes

monitoring and evaluation as important learning tools in adaptation

planning but it also acknowledges both as an under-researched topic

(Adger et al., 2009b; Preston et al., 2009; Tompkins et al., 2010; Wolf et

al., 2010).

Expanding the research on the metrics to characterize the success of

the goals of adaptation, the trade-offs involved, and recognizing the

importance of context can help avoid generalized assessments about

the contribution of adaptation to managing the risks posed by climate

change, and to identify what builds adaptive capacity and what functions

as limits and barriers to adaptation (Arnell, 2010; Barnett and Campbell,

2010; Engle, 2011).

Adaptation planning and implementation can benefit from holistic

approaches afforded by linking adaptation to development; by coupling

adaptive improvements in infrastructure with ecosystem services,

governance, and community welfare; by improving community resilience

through enhancing local ownership; and by creating organizations able to

respond to climate change issues through increased adaptive capacity.

References

Abbas, K.J., T.W. Miner, and Z. Stanton-Geddes (eds.), 2012: Building Urban Resilience:

Principles, Tools and Practice. The International Bank for Reconstruction and

Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 180 pp.

ActionAid, CARE, and WWF, 2012: Tackling the Limits to Adaptation: An International

Framework to Address ‘Loss and Damage’ from Climate Change Impacts.

ActionAid International, Johannesburg, South Africa, CARE International,

Geneva, Switzerland, and WWF, Gland, Switzerland, 31 pp.

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., 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.M.Q. 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, pp. 717-743.

Adger, W.N., S. Dessai, M. Goulden, M. Hulme, I. Lorenzoni, D.R. 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., S. Dessai, 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, 532 pp.

Adhikari, B. and K. Taylor, 2012: Vulnerability and adaptation to climate change: a

review of local actions and national policy response. Climate and Development,

4(1), 54-65.

Aerts, J., D.C. Major, M. Bowman, P. Dircke, and M.A. Marfai, 2009: Connecting Delta

Cities: Coastal Cities, Flood Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate

Change. VU University Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 48 pp.

Agrawal, A., 2008: The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptation to Climate Change.

Paper prepared for the Social Dimensions of Climate Change, Social

Development Department, The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 65 pp.

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.)]. The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp.

173-198.

Agrawal, A. and N. Perrin, 2008: Climate Adaptation, Local Institutions, and Rural

Development. IFRI Working Paper No. W081-6, International Forestry Resources

and Institutions Program (IFRI), School of Natural Resources and Environment,

University of Michigan, MI, USA, 17 pp.

Agrawala, S. (ed.), 2005: Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change and

Development. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), Paris, France, 153 pp.

Alam, M., C. Siwar, B. Talib, M. Mokhtar, and M. Toriman, 2011: Climate change

adaptation policy in Malaysia: issues for agricultural sector. African Journal of

Agricultural Research, 7(9), 1368-1373.

Alter, S., 2004: A work system view of DSS in its fourth decade. Decision Support

Systems, 38, 319-327.

Amundsen, H., F. Berglund, and H. Westskog, 2010: Overcoming barriers to climate

change adaptation: a question of multilevel governance? Environment and

Planning C: Governance and Policy, 28(2), 276-289.

Anguelovski, I. and J. Carmin, 2011: Something borrowed, everything new: innovation

and institutionalization in urban climate governance. Current Opinion in

Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 169-175.

Arnell, N., 2010: Adapting to climate change: an evolving research agenda. Climatic

Change, 100, 107-111.

Arnell, N.W., 2011: Incorporating climate change into water resources planning in

England and Wales. Journal of the American Water Resources Association,

47(3), 541-549.

Ayers, J. and S. Huq, 2009: Supporting adaptation to climate change: what role for

official development assistance? Development Policy Review, 27(6), 675-692.

Ball, T., A. Werritty, and A. Geddes, 2013: Insurance and sustainability in flood-risk

management: the UK in a transitional state. Area, 45(3), 266-272.

Bardsley, D.K. and S. M. Sweeney, 2010: Guiding climate change adaptation within

vulnerable natural resource management systems. Environmental Management,

45, 1127-1141.

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

891

Barnett, J. and J. Campbell, 2010: Climate Change and Small Island States: Power,

Knowledge and the South Pacific. Earthscan, London, UK and Washington, DC,

USA, 218 pp.

Barsugli, J., J. Vogel, L. Kaatz, J. Smith, M. Waage, and C. Anderson, 2012: Two faces

of uncertainty: climate science and water utility planning methods. Journal of

Water Resources Planning and Management, 138(5), 389-395.

Battiste, M., 2008: Research ethics for protecting indigenous knowledge and

heritage: institutional and researcher responsibilities. In: Handbook of Critical

and Indigenous Methodologies [Denzin, N.K., Y.S. Lincoln, and L.T. Smith (eds.)].

SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, pp. 497-510.

Benioff, R. and J. Warren, 1996: Steps in Preparing Climate Change Action Plans: A

Handbook. U.S. Country Studies Program, Washington, DC, USA, 317 pp.

Berkhout, F., 2012: Adaptation to climate change by organizations. WIREs Climate

Change, 3(1), 91-106.

Berkhout, F., J. Hertin, and D.M. Gann, 2006: Learning to adapt: organisational

adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78, 135-156.

Berrang-Ford, L., J. Ford, and J. Patterson, 2011: Are we adapting to climate change?

Global Environmental Change, 21(1), 25-33.

Biermann, F., P. Pattberg, H. van Asselt, and F. Zelli, 2009: The fragmentation of global

governance architecture: a framework analysis. Global Environmental Politics,

9(4), 14-40.

Bierbaum, R., J. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter, S. Chapin III, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo, S.

McNeeley, M. Stults, E. Wasley, and L. Verduzco, 2013: A comprehensive review

of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than

needed. Journal of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,

18(3), 361-406.

Biesbroek, G.R., R.J. Swart, G.M. Wim, and W. van der Knaap, 2009: The mitigation-

adaptation dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat International

33(3), 230-237.

Biesbroek, G.R., R.J. Swart, T.R. Carter, C. Cowan, T. Henrichs, H. Mela, M.D. Morecroft,

and D. Rey, 2010: Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national

strategies. Global Environmental Change, 20(3), 440-450.

Biesbroek, R., J. Klostermann, C. Termeer, and P. Kabat, 2011: Barriers to climate

change adaptation in the Netherlands. Climate Law, 2(2), 181-199.

Biesbroek, G.R., J.E.M. Klostermann, C.J.A.M. Termeer, and P. Kabat, 2013: On the

nature of barriers to climate change adaptation. Regional Environmental Change,

13, 1119-1129.

Birkmann, J., 2011: First- and second-order adaptation to natural hazards and extreme

events in the context of climate change. Natural Hazards, 58(2), 811-840.

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.

Bizikova, L., S. Burch, S. Cohen, and J. Robinson, 2010a: Linking sustainable development

with climate change adaptation and mitigation. In: Climate Change, Ethics and

Human Security [O’Brien, K., A. St. Clair, and B. Kristoffersen (eds.)]. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 157-179.

Bizikova, L., S. Boardley, and S. Mead, 2010b: Participatory Scenario Development

Approaches for Identifying Pro-Poor Adaptation Options. Discussion Paper No.

18, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World

Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 67 pp.

Blanco, H. and M. Alberti, 2009: Chapter 2: Building capacity to adapt to climate

change through planning. In: Hot, congested, crowded and diverse: emerging

research agendas in planning. Progress in Planning, 71(4), 158-169.

Boyd, E. and S. Juhola, 2009: Stepping up to the climate change: opportunities in

re-conceptualising development futures. Journal of International Development

21(6), 792-804.

Braman, L., P. Suarez, and M. van Aalst, 2010: Climate change adaptation: integrating

climate science into humanitarian work. International Review of the Red Cross,

92(879), 693-712.

Brekke, L.D., J.E. Kiang, J.R. Olsen, R.S. Pulwarty, D.A. Raff, D.P. Turnipseed, R.S. Webb,

and K.D. White, 2009: Climate Change and Water Resources Management: A

Federal Perspective. USGS Circular 1331, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S.

Geological Survey (USGS), Reston, VA, USA, 65 pp.

Brown, A., A. Dayal, and C.R. del Rio, 2012: From practice to theory: emerging lessons

from Asia for building urban climate change resilience. Environment and

Urbanization, 24(2), 531-556.

Buchner, B., A. Falconer, M. Herve-Mignucci, C. Trabacchi, and M. Brinkman, 2011:

The Landscape of Climate Finance. Report by Climate Policy Initiative (CPI),

Venice, Italy, 101 pp.

Bulkeley, H., H. Schroeder, K. Janda, J. Zhao, A. Armstrong, S.Y. Chu, and S. Ghosh,

2009: Cities and Climate Change: The Role of Institutions, Governance and

Urban Planning. Report prepared for the World Bank Fifth Urban Research

Symposium 2009: “Cities and Climate Change: Responding to an Urgent

Agenda,” Marseille, France, Palais du Pharo, June 28-30, 2009, 92 pp.,

siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/336387-

1256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/Bulkeley.pdf.

Burch, S., 2010: Transforming barriers into enablers of action on climate change:

insights from three municipal case studies in British Columbia, Canada. Global

Environmental Change, 20, 287-297.

Burton, I., E. Malone, S. Huq, B. Lim, and E. Spanger-Siegfried, 2005:Adaptation Policy

Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies, Policies and Measures.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK, 258 pp.

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.

Carter, T.R., M.L. Parry, H. Harasawa, and S. Nishioka (eds.), 1994: IPCC Technical

Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations. CGER-I015-

’94, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (ICCC), World Meteorological Organization (WMO)/United Nations

Environment Programme (UNEP), Published by the Department of Geography,

University College London, London, UK and the Centre for Global Environment

Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan, 59 pp.

Chang’a, L.B., P.Z. Yanda, and J. Ngana, 2010: Indigenous knowledge in seasonal

rainfall prediction in Tanzania: a case of the South-western Highland of Tanzania.

Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 3(4), 66-72.

Christiansen, L., A. Ray, J. Smith, and E. Haites, 2012: Accessing International Funding

for Climate Change Adaptation: A Guidebook for Developing Countries. TNA

Guidebook Series, The Technology Needs Assessment (TNA) Project implemented

by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the UNEP Risø

Centre (URC) on Energy, Climate and Sustainable Development and funded by

the Global Environment Facility (GEF), UNEP RISØ Centre, Roskilde, Denmark,

65 pp., www.seachangecop.org/sites/default/files/documents/2012%2008%

20UNEP%20TNA%20Guidebook_AdaptationFinancing.pdf.

Churchill, C., 2007: Insuring the low-income market: challenges and solutions for

commercial insurers. The Geneva Papers, 32(3), 401-412.

CIF, 2012: Creating the Climate for Change. CIF Annual Report 2012, Climate

Investment Funds (CIF), The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 71 pp.,

www.climateinvestmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/

2012_Annual_Report.pdf.

City of New York, 2011: PlaNYC. Update, 2011, The City of New York, Mayor Michael

R. Bloomberg, New York, NY, USA, 199 pp., www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/

html/theplan/the-plan.shtml.

City of Rotterdam, 2011: The Rotterdam Programme on Sustainability and Climate

Change 2010-2014: Investing in Sustainable Growth. 2011 Rotterdam

Sustainability Monitor, Rotterdam Climate Initiative (RCI), an initiative of the

City of Rotterdam, the Port of Rotterdam, the DCMR Environmental Protection

Agency Rijnmond and Port and industries’ association Deltalinqs of the

Rotterdam port and industrial sector, Rotterdam Office for Sustainability and

Climate Changes, City of Rotterdam, Netherlands, 59 pp.

Cohen, S., D. Demeritt, J. Robinson, and D. Rothman, 1998: Climate change and

sustainable development: towards dialogue. Global Environmental Change,

8(4), 341-371.

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.

Collier, B., J.R. Skees, and B.J. Barnett, 2009: Weather index insurance and climate

change: opportunities and challenges in lower income countries. The Geneva

Papers, 34, 401-424.

Corfee-Morlot, J., L. Kamal-Chaoui, M. Donovan, I. Cochran, A. Robert, and P.J. Teasdale,

2009: Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance. OECD Environmental

Working Papers No. 14, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

(OECD), OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 123 pp.

Corfee-Morlot, J., I. Cochran, S. Hallegatte, and P.J. Teasdale, 2011. Multilevel risk

governance and urban adaptation policy. Climatic Change, 104, 169-197.

Corfee, J., J. Parzen, M. Wagstaff, and R. Lewis, 2010: Preparing for climate change:

the Chicago Climate Action Plan’s adaptation strategy. Journal of Great Lakes

Research, 36(2), 115-117.

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

892

Crabbé, P. and M. Robin, 2006: Institutional adaptation of water resource infrastructure

to climate change in Eastern Ontario. Climatic Change, 78, 103-133.

Crane, T., 2013: The Role of Local Institutions in Adaptive Processes to Climate

Variability: The Cases of Southern Ethiopia and Southern Mali. Oxfam Research

Report, January 2013, Oxfam America, Boston, MA, USA, 34 pp.

Crichton, D., 2008: Role of insurance in reducing flood risk. The Geneva Papers, 33,

117-132.

Dannevig, H., T. Rauken, and G. Hovelsrud, 2012: Implementing adaptation to climate

change at the local level. Local Environment, 17(6-7), 597-611.

De Graaff, M.-A., C. Van Kessel, and J. Six, 2009: Rhizodeposition-induced

decomposition increases N availability to wild and cultivated wheat genotypes

under elevated CO

. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 41(6), 1094-1103.

Dessai, S., M. Hulme, R. Lempert, and R. Pielke Jr., 2009: Climate prediction: a limit

to adaptation? In: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance

[Adger, W.N.,I. Lorenzoni, andK. O’Brien (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 64-78.

DeWulf, A., M. Mancero, G. Cárdenas, and D. Sucozhaňay, 2011: Fragmentation and

connection of frames in collaborative water governance: a case study of river

catchment management in Southern Ecuador. International Review of

Administrative Sciences, 77(1), 50-75.

Dinse, K., J. Read, and D. Scavia, 2009: Preparing for Climate Change in the Great

Lakes Region. MICHU 09-103, Michigan Sea Grant, University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, MI, USA, 30 pp.

Dodman, D., 2012: Developing Local Climate Change Plans: A Guide for Cities in

Developing Countries. Cities and Climate Change Initiative, United Nations

Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) and International Institute for

Environment and Development (IIED), UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, Kenya, 132 pp.

Dovers, S., 2009: Normalizing adaptation. Editorial. Global Environmental Change,

19, 4-6.

Dovers, S.R. and R. Hezri, 2010: Institutions and policy processes: the means to the

ends of adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climatic Change, 1(2), 212-

231.

Doyle, J.T., M.H. Redsteer, and M.J. Eggers, 2013: Exploring effects of climate change

on Northern Plains American Indian health: Climatic Change, 120(3), 643-655.

Drabek, T., 1999: Understanding disaster warning responses. The Social Science

Journal, 36(3), 515-523.

Dumaru, P., 2010: Community-based adaptation: enhancing community adaptive

capacity in Drudrua Island, Fiji. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,

1(5), 751-763.

Ebi, K.L., K.A. Exuzides, E. Lau, M. Kelsh, and A. Barnston, 2004: Weather changes

associated with hospitalizations for cardiovascular diseases and stroke in

California, 1983-1998. International Journal of Biometeorology, 49(1), 48-58.

EC, 2009: Guidance Document No. 24: River Basin Management in a Changing Climate.

Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive

(2000/60/EC), Technical Report-2009-040, European Communities (EC), EC

Publications Office, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, 134 pp.

EIRD, 2012: Cómo desarrollar ciudades más resilientes. Un manual para líderes de

los gobiernos locales. Una contribución a la campana 2010-2015. Desarrollo

de ciudades resilientes -

Mi ciudad está preparada! Estrategia Internacional

de Naciones Unidas para la Reducción de Desastres, Ginebra, Suiza, 98 pp.

Engle, N.L., 2011: Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental

Change, 21(2), 647-656.

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.

Ensor, J., and R. Berger, 2009: Community-based adaptation and culture in theory

and practice. 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. 227-239.

Epstein, J.M. and R. Axtell, 1996: Growing Artificial Societies – Social Science from

the Bottom Up. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 224 pp.

Eriksen, S. and J. Lind, 2009: Adaptation as a political process: adjusting to drought

and conflict in Kenya’s drylands. Environmental Management, 43(5), 817-835.

ESPACE, 2008: Climate Change Impacts and Spatial Planning Decision Support

Guidance. European Spatial Planning: Adapting to Climate Events (ESPACE)

Project, Prepared by Halcrow, London, UK with the Environment Agency, The

ESPACE Project, Environment Department, Winchester, Hampshire, UK, 30 pp.,

www.espace-project.org/publications/Extension%20Outputs/EA/Espace%

20Final_Guidance_Finalv5.pdf.

Etkin, D., 1999: Risk transference and related trends: driving forces towards more

mega-disasters. Global Environmental Change B: Environmental Hazards, 1(2),

69-75.

Etkin, D., J. Medalye, and K. Higuchi, 2012: Climate warming and natural disaster

management: an exploration of the issues. Climatic Change, 112(3-4), 585-599.

Ewing, R., K. Bartholomew, S. Winkelman, J. Walters, and G. Anderson, 2008: Urban

development and climate change. Journal of Urbanism: International Research

on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1(3), 201-216.

Falaleeva, M., C. O’Mahony, S. Gray, M. Desmond, J. Gault, and V. Cummins, 2011:

Towards climate change adaptation and coastal governance in Ireland: Integrated

architecture for effective management? Marine Policy, 35(6), 784-793.

Fankhauser, S. and I. Burton, 2011: Spending adaptation money wisely. Climate

Policy, 11(3), 1037-1049.

Fankhauser, S., J.B. Smith, and R.S.J Tol, 1999: Weathering climate change: some

simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecological Economics, 30(1), 67-78.

Few, R., K. Brown, and E .Tompkins, 2007a: Climate change and coastal management

decisions: insights from Christchurch Bay, UK. Coastal Management, 35(2-3),

255-270.

Few, R., K. Brown, and E.L Tompkins, 2007b: Public participation and climate change

adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46-59.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg, 2005: Adaptive governance of social-

ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30, 441-473.

Ford, J.D., L. Berrang-Ford, and J. Paterson, 2011: A systematic review of observed

climate change adaptation in developed nations. Climatic Change, 106, 327-

336.

Foster, J., S. Winkelman, and A. Lowe, 2011: Lessons Learned on Local Climate

Adaptation from the Urban Leaders Adaptation Initiative. Center for Clean Air

Policy (CCAP), Washington, DC, USA, 23 pp.

Fouillet, A., G. Rey, V. Wagner, K. Laaidi, P. Empereur-Bissonnet, A. Le Tertre, P.

Frayssinet, P. Bessemoulin, F. Laurent, P. De Crouy-Chanel, E. Jougla, and D.

Hemon, 2008: Has the impact of heat waves on mortality changed in France

since the European heat wave of summer 2003? A study of the 2006 heat wave.

International Journal of Epidemiology, 37(2), 309-317.

Freudenburg, W.R., R. Gramling., S. Laska, and K.T. Erikson, 2008: Organizing hazards,

engineering disasters? Improving the recognition of political-economic factors

in the creation of disasters. Social Forces, 87(2), 1015-1038.

Frommer, B., 2009: Climate change and the resilient society: utopia or realistic option

for German regions? Natural Hazards, 58(1), 85-101.

Fujisawa, M. and K. Kobayashi, 2010: Apple (Malus pumila var. domestica) phenology

is advancing due to rising air temperature in northern Japan. Global Change

Biology, 16(10), 2651-2660.

Füssel, H.-M., 2007: Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment

approaches, and key lessons. Sustainability Science, 2(2), 265-275.

Garrelts, H. and H. Lange, 2011: Path dependencies and path change in complex

fields of action: climate adaptation policies in Germany in the realm of flood

risk management. AMBIO, 40(2), 200-209.

Gautam, M.R., K. Chief, and W.J. Smith, 2013: Climate change in arid lands and

Native American socioeconomic vulnerability: the case of the Pyramid Lake

Paiute Tribe. Climatic Change, 120, 585-599.

Geerts, S. and D. Raes, 2009: Deficit irrigation as an on-farm strategy to maximize

crop water productivity in dry areas. Agricultural Water Management, 96(9),

1275-1284.

Geiser, U. and S. Rist (eds.), 2009: Decentralisation Meets Local Complexity: Local

Struggles, State Decentralisation and Access to Natural Resources in South Asia

and Latin America. Perspectives of the Swiss National Centre of Competence

in Research North-South (NCCR North-South), University of Bern, Vol. 4, NCCR

North-South, Bern, Switzerland, 273 pp.

Gimblett, H.R. (ed.), 2002: Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Agent-

Based Modeling Techniques: For Simulating Social and Ecological Processes.

Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 327 pp.

GIZ, 2012: Insurance for Climate Change Adaptation Project. A Project of the

International Climate Initiative (ICI) of the German Federal Ministry for the

Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU), Deutsche

Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, on behalf of BMU,

GIZ, Bonn, Germany, 8 pp., seguros.riesgoycambioclimatico.org/publicaciones/

2012/ACC_ingles_internet.pdf.

GLA, 2011: Managing Risks and Increasing Resilience: The Mayor’s Climate Change

Adaptation Strategy. Greater London Authority (GLA), London, UK, 124 pp.,

www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Adaptation-oct11.pdf.

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

893

Glaas, E. and S. Juhola, 2013: New levels of climate adaptation policy: analyzing the

institutional interplay in the Baltic Sea Region. Sustainability, 5, 256-275.

Glaas, E., A. Jonsson, M. Hjerpe, and Y. Andersson-Sköld, 2010: Managing climate

change vulnerabilities: formal institutions and knowledge use as determinants

of adaptive capacity at the local level in Sweden. Local Environment: The

International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 15(6), 525-539.

Gornitz,V., 2001: Sea-level rise and coasts. In: Climate Change and a Global City:

The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Metro East

Coast [Rosenzweig, C. and W.E. Solecki (eds.) ]. Report for the US Global

Change Research Program, Columbia Earth Institute, New York, NY, USA, pp.

21-46.

Government of Nepal, 2011: National Framework on Local Adaptation Plans for

Action. Government of Nepal, Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment,

Department of Environment, Climate Change Management Division, Kathmandu,

Nepal, 56 pp.

Granberg, M. and I. Elander, 2007: Local governance and climate change. Local

Environment, 12, 537-548.

Green, D. and G. Raygorodetsky, 2010: Indigenous knowledge of a changing climate.

Climatic Change, 100, 239-242.

Green, D., J. Billy, and A. Tapim, 2010: Indigenous Australians’ knowledge of weather

and climate: Climatic Change, 100, 337-354.

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 & Policy, 13(6), 459-471.

Haites, E. and C. Mwape, 2013: Sources of Long-Term Climate Change Finance. LDC

Paper Series, Written by Oxford Climate Policy, as a partner institution of the

European Capacity Building Initiative (ECBI), Oxford Climate Policy, Oxford, UK,

14 pp., ldcclimate.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/long-term-sources.pdf.

Hallegatte, S., 2008: An adaptive regional input-output model and its application

to the assessment of the economic cost of Katrina. Risk Analysis, 28(3), 779-

799.

Hallegatte, S., 2009: Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global

Environment Change, 19(2), 240-247.

Hamin, E. and N. Gurran, 2009: Urban form and climate change: balancing adaptation

and mitigation in the U.S. and Australia. Habitat International, 33, 238-245.

Handmer, J., 2009: Adaptive capacity: what does it mean in the context of natural

hazards. In: The Earthscan Reader in Adaptation to Climate Change [Schipper,

E.L.F. and I. Burton (eds.)]. Earthscan, London, UK, pp. 213-227.

Hardee, K. and C. Mutunga, 2010: Strengthening the link between climate change

adaptation and national development plans: lessons from the case of population

in National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs). Mitigation and

Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15, 113-126.

Hardoy, J. and G. Pandiella, 2009: Urban poverty and vulnerability to climate change

in Latin America. Environment and Urbanization, 21(1), 203-224.

Harries, T. and E. Penning-Rowsell, 2011: Victim pressure, institutional inertia, and

climate change adaptation: the case of flood risk. Global Environmental

Change, 21, 188-197.

Hedensted Lund, D., K. Sehested, T. Hellesen, and V. Nelleman, 2012: Climate change

adaptation in Denmark: enhancement through collaboration and meta-

governance. Local Environment, 17(6), 613-628.

Hinkel, J., S. Bisaro, T. Downing, M.E. Hofmann, K. Lonsdale, D. Mcevoy, and D. Tabara,

2009: Learning to adapt. Narratives of decision makers adapting to climate

change. In: Making Climate Change Work for Us: European Perspectives on

Adaptation and Mitigation Strategies [Hulme, M. and H. Neufeldt (eds.)].

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp.113-

134.

Hodson, M. and S. Marvin, 2009: Urban ecological security: a new urban paradigm?

International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(1), 193-215.

Hofmann, M., J. Hinkel, and M. Wrobel, 2011: Classifying knowledge on climate

change impacts, adaptation and vulnerability in Europe for informing adaptation

research and decision-making: a conceptual meta-analysis. Global Environmental

Change, 21(3), 1106-1116.

Hofstede, J., 2008: Climate change and coastal adaptation strategies: the Scheswig-

Holstein perspective. Baltica, 21(1-2), 71-78.

Holden, M., 2008: Social learning in planning: Seattle’s sustainable development

codebooks. Progress in Planning, 69, 1-40.

Howe, P., 2011: Hurricane preparedness as anticipatory adaptation: a case study of

community businesses. Global Environmental Change, 2, 711-720.

Hulme, M., H. Neufeldt, H. Colyer, and A. Ritchie (eds.), 2009: Adaptation and

Mitigation Strategies: Supporting European Climate Policy. The Final Report

from the ADAM Project, Revised June 2009, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change

Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 47 pp.

Huntjens, P., C. Pahl-Wostl, Z. Flachner, S. Neto, R. Koskova, M. Schlueter, I. NabideKiti,

and C. Dickens, 2011: Adaptive water management and policy learning in a

changing climate. A formal comparative analysis of eight water regimes in Europe,

Asia, and Africa. Environmental Policy Governance, 21(3), 145-163.

Huntjens, P., L. Lebel, C. Pahl-Wostl, J. Camkin, R. Schulze, and N. Kranz, 2012:

Institutional design propositions for the governance of adaptation to climate

change in the water sector. Global Environmental Change, 22, 67-81.

IAPAD, 2010: Participatory 3 Dimensional Modelling – Integrated Approaches to

Participatory Development. Integrated Approaches to Participatory

Development (IAPAD), www.iapad.org/participatory_p3dm.htm.

ICLEI, 2008: Cities for Climate Protection Australia Adaptation Initiative – Local

Government Climate Change Adaptation Toolkit. ICLEI – Local Governments

for Sustainability (ICLEI), Regional Secretariat, ICLEI Oceania, Melbourne, VC,

Australia, 61 pp.

IFRC, Red Cross / Red Crescent Climate Centre, and ProVention Consortium, 2009:

Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for Local Impact: Key Messages for

UNFCCC Negotiators. Technical Paper for the IASC Task Force on Climate

Change, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies

(IFRC), Red Cross / Red Crescent Climate Centre and ProVention Consortium

in collaboration with Ken Westgate, 11 pp., unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/

smsn/igo/054.pdf.

IISD, 2012: CRiSTAL User’s Manual Version 5: Community-based Risk Screening Tool

– Adaptation and Livelihoods. The International Institute for Sustainable

Development (IISD), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN),

Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation, and Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI),

IISD, Winnipeg, MB, Canada, 55 pp.

Inderberg, T.H. and P.O. Eikeland, 2009: Limits to adaptation: analysing institutional

constraints. In: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance

[Adger, N.W., I. Lorenzoni, and K. O’Brien (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 443-447.

IPCC, 2007: 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, 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 [C.B., Field, 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.

IPCC-TGICA, 2007: General Guidelines on the Use of Scenario Data for Climate

Impact and Adaptation Assessment. Version 2, Prepared by T.R. Carter on behalf

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Task Group on Data and

Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Assessment (TGICA), 66 pp.

ISDR, 2005: Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of

Nations and Communities to Disasters. World Conference on Disaster Reduction,

18-22 January 2005, Kobe, Hyogo, Japan, The United Nations Secretariat of the

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland,

22 pp., http://www.unisdr.org/files/1037_hyogoframeworkforactionenglish.pdf.

ISDR, 2011: Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of

Nations and Communities to Disasters – Mid-Term Review 2010-2011. The

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), The United Nations

Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR),

Geneva, Switzerland, 107 pp.

ISDR, ITC, and UNDP, 2010: Local Governments and Disaster Risk Reduction: Good

Practices and Lessons Learned. Contribution to the “Making Cities Resilient”

Campaign, The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR), International

Training Centre (ITC), and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),

the United Nations Secretariat of International Strategy for Disaster Reduction

(UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, 69 pp.

Jones, L. and E. Boyd, 2011: Exploring social barriers to adaptation: insights from

Western Nepal. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1262-1274.

Jonkman, S.N., A. Lentz, and J.K. Vrijling, 2010: A general approach for the estimation

of loss of life due to natural and technological disasters. Reliability Engineering

and System Safety, 95, 1123-1133.

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

894

Jonsson, E.C., M. Hjerpe, Y. Andersson-Sköld, E. Glaas, K. André, and L. Simonsson,

2012: Cities’ capacity to manage climate vulnerability: experiences from

participatory vulnerability assessments in the lower Göta Älv Catchment,

Sweden. Local Environment, 17(6), 735-750.

Juhola, S. and L. Westerhoff, 2011: Challenges of adaptation to climate change across

multiple scales: a case study of network governance in two European countries.

Environmental Science & Policy, 14(3), 239-247.

Julius, S.H. and J.D. Scheraga, 2000: The TEAM model for evaluating alternative

adaptation strategies. In: Research and Practice in Multiple Criteria Decision

Making [Haimes, Y.Y. and R.E. Steuer (eds.)]. Springer-Verlag, New York, NY,

USA, pp. 319-30.

Kabat, P., L.O. Fresco, M.J.C. Stive, C.P. Veerman, J.S.L.J. van Alphen, B.W.A.H. Parmet,

W. Hazeleger, and C.A. Katsman, 2009: Dutch coast in transition. Nature

Geoscience, 2, 450-452.

Kalame, F., 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.

Kalanda-Joshua, M., C. Ngongondo, L. Chipeta, and F. Mpembeka, 2011: Integrating

Indigenous knowledge with conventional science: enhancing localized climate

and weather forecasts in Nessa, Mulanje, Malawi. Physics and Chemistry of

the Earth, Parts A/B/C, 36(14-15), 996-1003.

Kaner, S., L. Lind, C.Toldi, S. Fisk, and D. Berger, 2007: Facilitator’s Guide to Participatory

Decision-Making.2

edn., Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, USA, 368 pp.

Karanasios, S., 2011: New & Emergent ICTs and Climate Change in Developing

Countries. Centre for Development Informatics, Institute for Development Policy

and Management, SED, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 39 pp.

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson, 2009: Global Climate Change Impacts in

the United States. U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), Cambridge

University Press, New York, NY, USA, 188 pp.

Kaslo and Regional District of Central Kootenay Partnership, 2010: Kaslo / Area D

Climate Change Adaptation Project. Kaslo/RDCK Area D Partnership, Climate

Change Adaptation & You, jointly funded by Columbia Basin Trust (CBT),

Regional District of Central Kootenay (RDCK) and the Village of Kaslo, CBT,

Nakusp, BC, Canada, 12 pp., www.cbt.org/uploads/pdf/RDCK_Area_D_Kaslo_

Phase_2_CACCI_Final_report.pdf.

Keskitalo, E.C.H., 2009: Governance in vulnerability assessments: the role of

globalizing decision-making networks in determining local vulnerability and

adaptive capacity. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,

14, 185-201.

Keskitalo, E.C.H. and A.A. Kulyasova, 2009: The role of governance in community

adaptation to climate change. Polar Research, 28, 60-70.

Klein, R.J.T., S.E.H. Eriksen, L.O. Næss, A. Hammill, T.M. Tanner, C. Robledo, and K.L.

O’Brien, 2007: Portfolio screening to support the mainstreaming of adaptation

to climate change into development assistance. Climatic Change, 84(1), 23-44

Koch, I.C., C. Vogel, and Z. Patel, 2007: Institutional dynamics and climate change

adaptation in South Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global

Change, 12(8), 1323-1339.

Lasco, R., F. Pulhin, P. Jaranilla-Sanchez, R. Delfino, R. Gerpacio, and K. Garcia, 2009:

Mainstreaming adaptation in developing countries: the case of the Philippines.

Climate and Development, 1, 130-146.

Lasco, R.D., C.M.D. Habito, R.J.P. Delfino, F.B. Pulhin, and R.N. Conception, 2011:

Climate Change Adaptation for Smallholder Farmers in Southeast Asia. World

Agroforestry Centre, Laguna, Philippines, 65 pp.

Lemmen, D.S., F.J. Warren, J. Lacroix, and E. Bush (eds.), 2008: From Impacts to

Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Government of Canada,

Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division, Earth Sciences Sector, Natural

Resources Canada, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 448 pp.

Lemos, M.C., E. Boyd, E. Tompkins, H. Osbahr, and D. Liverman, 2007: Developing

adaptation and adapting development. Ecology and Society, 12(2), 26,

www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art26/.

Leonard, S., M. Parsons, K. Olawsky, and F. Kofod, 2013: The role of culture and

traditional knowledge in climate change adaptation: insights from east

Kimberley, Australia. Global Environmental Change, 23(3), 623-632.

Li, Y. and M. Li, 2009: A study on the construction of water resources regulation

decision support system of the Yellow River. Areal Research and Development,

28(5), 140-144. (in Chinese)

Link, L.E., 2010: The anatomy of a disaster, an overview of Hurricane Katrina and

New Orleans. Ocean Engineering, 37, 4-12.

Linnerooth-Bayer, J., R. Mechler, and S. Hochrainer, 2011: Insurance against losses

from natural disasters in developing countries. Evidence, gaps and the way

forward. Journal of Integrated Disaster Risk Management, 1(1), 1-23.

Lowe, A., J. Foster, and S. Winkelman, 2009: Ask the Climate Question: Adapting to

Climate Change Impacts in Urban Regions. Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP),

Washington, DC, USA, 44 pp.

Majule, A.E., T. Stathers, R. Lamboll, E.T. Liwenga, C. Ngongondo, M. Klanda-Joshua,

E. Swai, and F. Chipungu, 2013: Enhancing capacities of individuals, institutions

and organizations to adapt to climate change in agricultural sector using

innovative approaches in Tanzania and Malawi. World Journal of Agricultural

Sciences, 1(6), 220-231.

Manuel-Navarrete, D., M. Pelling, and M. Redclift, 2009: Coping, Governance, and

Development: The Climate Change Adaptation Triad. Environment, Politics and

Development Working Paper Series, WP No.18, Department of Geography,

King’s College London, London, UK, 17 pp.

Marongwe, L.S., K. Kwazira, M. Jenrich, C. Thierfelder, A. Kassam, and T. Friedrich,

2011: An African success: the case of conservation agriculture in Zimbabwe.

International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 9(1), 153-161.

Masindel, M., A. Bagula, and N. Muthama, 2013: Implementation roadmap for

downscaling drought forecasts in Mbeere using ITIKI. In: Proceedings of the 2013

ITU Kaleidoscope Academic Conference: “Building Sustainable Communities,”

Kyoto, Japan, 22-24 April 2013. IEEE Catalogue Number: CFP1138E-ART,

International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 63-70.

Mathew, S., S. Trück, and A. Henderson-Sellers, 2012: Kochi, India case study of

climate adaptation to floods: ranking local government investment options.

Global Environmental Change, 22, 308-319.

Matthews, T., 2012: Responding to climate change as a transformative stressor

through metro-regional planning. Local Environment, 17(10), 1089-1103.

McGray, H., A. Hammill, R. Bradley, E.L. Schipper, and J.-E. Parry, 2007: Weathering

the Storm: Options for Framing Adaptation and Development. World Resources

Institute (WRI), Washington, DC, USA, 57 pp.

McLeman, R., D. Mayo, E. Strebeck, and B. Smit, 2008: Drought adaptation in rural

eastern Oklahoma in the 1930s: lessons for climate change adaptation

research. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 13(4), 379-

400.

McNeeley, S.M., 2012: Examining barriers and opportunities for sustainable

adaptation to climate change in Interior Alaska. Climatic Change, 111, 835-

857.

Measham, T., B. Preston, C. Brook, T. Smith, C. Morrisonn, G. Withycombe, and R.

Gorddard, 2010: Adapting to Climate Change through Local Municipal Planning:

Barriers and Opportunities. CSIRO Socio-Economics and the Environment in

Discussion, CSIRO Working Paper Series 2010-05, The Commonwealth Scientific

and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Canberra, Australia, 25 pp.

Measham, T.G., B.L. Preston, T.F. Smith, C. Brooke, R. Gorddard, G. Withycombe, and

C. Morrison, 2011: Adapting to climate change through local municipal

planning: barriers and challenges. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for

Global Change, 16(8), 889-909.

Mees, H., P. Driessen, and H. Runhaar, 2012: Exploring the scope of public and private

responsibilities for climate adaptation. Journal of Environmental Policy and

Planning, 14(3), 305-330.

Michel-Kerjan, E. and H. Kunreuther, 2011: Redesigning flood insurance. Science,

333, 408-409.

Mickwitz, P., F. Aix, S. Beck, D. Carss, N. Ferrand, C. Görg, A. Jensen, P. Kivimaa, C.

Kuhlicke, W. Kuindersma, M. Máñez, M. Melanen, S. Monni, A.B. Pedersen, H.

Reinert, and S. van Bommel, 2009: Climate Policy Integration, Coherence and

Governance. PEER Report 2, Partnership for European Environmental Research

(PEER), Helsinki, Finland, 92 pp.

Mills, E., 2004: Insurance as an Adaptation Strategy for Extreme Weather Events in

Developing Countries and Economies in Transition. Prepared for the Agency for

International Development Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade

Office of Environment and Science Policy Climate Change Team, University of

California, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA, USA, 128 pp.

Miron, L., 2008: Transnational, national, and indigenous racial subjects. In: Handbook

of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies [Denzin, N.K., Y.S. Lincoln, and L.T.

Smith (eds.)]. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, pp. 547-562.

Mitchell, T., M. van Aalst, and P.S. Villanueva, 2010: Assessing Progress on Integrating

Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation in Development

Processes. Strengthening Climate Resilience Discussion Paper 2, Institute of

Development Studies (IDS) at the University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, 28 pp.

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

895

Moriondo, M., M. Bindi, Z.W. Kundzewicz, M. Szwed, A. Chorynski, P. Matczak, M.

Radziejewski, D. McEvoy, and A. Wreford, 2010: Impact and adaptation

opportunities for European agriculture in response to climate change and

variability. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 15(7),

657-679.

Moser, C., 2008: Assets and livelihoods: a framework for asset-based social policy.

In: Assets, Livelihoods, and Social Policy [Moser, C. and A. Dani (eds.)]. World

Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 44-84.

Moser, C. and D. Satterthwaite, 2008: Towards Pro-Poor Adaptation to Climate Change

in the Urban Centers of Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Climate Change

and Cities Discussion Paper 3, Human Settlements Programme, International

Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, UK, 45 pp.

Moser, S.C., 2005: Impacts assessments and policy responses to sea-level rise in

three U.S. states: an exploration of human dimension uncertainties. Global

Environmental Change, 15, 353-369.

Moser, S.C., 2010: Now more than ever: the need for more societally relevant research

on vulnerability and adaptation to climate change. Applied Geography, 30(4),

464-474.

Moser, S.C. and J.A. Ekstrom, 2010: A framework to diagnose barriers to climate

change adaptation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the

United States of America, 107, 22026-22031.

Mozumder, P., E. Flugman, and T. Randhir, 2011: Adaptation behavior in the face of

climate change: survey responses from experts and decision makers serving

the Florida Keys. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54, 37-44.

Mugabe, F.T., A. Munodawafa, J. Dimes, D.H. Nanja, P. Carberry, M. Mwale, C.

Mubaya, V. Makuvaro, I. Chagonda, P. Masere, E. Mutswangwa, and C. Murewi,

2010: Building Adaptive Capacity to Cope with Increasing Vulnerability Due to

Climate Change. Final Technical Report, Climate Change and Adaptation in

Africa (CCAA), IDRC Project Number: 104144, International Development

Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, ON, Canada 175 pp.

Mukheibir, P., N. Kuruppu, A. Gero, and J. Herriman, 2013: Cross-Scale Barriers to

Climate Change Adaptation in Local Government, Australia. National Climate

Change Adaptation Research Facility (NCCARF), Griffith University, Gold Coast

Campus, Southport, Australia, 95 pp.

Mullan, M., N. Kingsmill, A.M. Kramer, and S. Agrawala, 2013: National Adaptation

Planning: Lessons from OECD Countries. OECD Environment Working Papers,

No. 54, ENV/WKP(2013)1, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 74 pp.

Naidoo, T., K. Vaz, and L. Byaba, 2012: CTI PFAN Background Paper on Adaptation.

Climate Technology Initiative (CTI) Private Financing Advisory Network (PFAN),

CTI Programme Secretariat, International Center for Environmental Technology

Transfer (ICETT), Yokkaichi, Japan, 51 pp., www.cti-pfan.net/upload/event/file/

CTIPFANAdaptationPaper_Final_270212.pdf.

Nakashima, D.J., K. Galloway McLean, H.D. Thulstrup, A. Ramos Castillo, and J.T.

Rubis, 2012: Weathering Uncertainty: Traditional Knowledge for Climate

Change Assessment and Adaptation. United Nations Educational, Scientific and

Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Paris, France and the United Nations University

(UNU), Darwin, Australia, pp. 38-51.

Næss, L.O., G. Bang, S. Eriksen, and J. Vevatne, 2005: Institutional adaptation to

climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. Global

Environmental Change, 15(2), 125-138.

Nath, P.K. and B. Behera, 2011: A critical review of impact and adaptation to climate

change in developed and developing economies, Environmental Development

and Sustainability, 13, 141-162.

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, 272 pp.

NYCDEP, 2008: Assessment and Action Plan – A Report Based on the Ongoing Work

of the DEP Climate Change Task Force. Report 1, The New York City Department

of Environmental Protection Climate Change Program (NYCDEP), the New York

City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with contributions by

Columbia University Center for Climate Systems Research, the NASA Goddard

Institute for Space Studies, HydroQual Environmental Engineers & Scientists,

P.C., the New York City Office of Environmental Coordination, the Mayor’s Office

of Long-Term Planning and sustainability, and the New York City Law

Department, DEP, New York, NY, USA, 100 pp., www.nyc.gov/html/dep/pdf/

climate/climate_complete.pdf.

Newsham, N.J. and D.S.G. Thomas, 2011: Knowing, farming and climate change

adaptation in North-Central Namibia. Global Environmental Change, 21, 761-770.

Nilsson, A.E., Å.G. Swartling, and K. Eckerberg, 2012: Knowledge for local climate change

adaptation in Sweden: challenges in multilevel governance. Local Environment:

The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 17(6-7), 751-767.

National Research Council (NRC), 2010: Adapting to the Impacts of Climate

Change. America’s Climate Choices: Panel on Adapting to Impacts of Climate

Change, National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington,

DC, USA, 272 pp.

O’Brien, G., P. O’ Keefe, H. Meena, J. Rose, and L. Wilson, 2008: Climate adaptation

from a poverty perspective. Climate Policy, 8(2), 194-201.

O’Brien, K. and J.A. Wolf, 2010: A values-based approach to vulnerability and

adaptation to climate change. WIREs Climate Change, 1(2), 232-242.

O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L. Sygna, and L.O. Næss, 2006: Questioning complacency: climate

change impacts, vulnerability, and adaptation in Norway. Ambio, 35, 50-56.

O’Brien, K., M. Pelling, A. Patwardhan, S. Hallegatte, A. Maskrey, T. Oki, U. Oswald-

Spring, T. Wilbanks, and P.Z. Yanda, 2012: Toward a sustainable and resilient

future. In: 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, pp. 437-486.

O’Demsey, T., 2009: Fair training: a new direction in humanitarian assistance.

Progress in Development Studies, 9(1), 81-86.

OECD, 2009: Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Development Co-operation,

Policy Guidance, OECD Publishing, Paris, France, 193 pp.

Olesen, J., M. Tranka, K. Kersebaum, A. Skjelvag, B. Seguin, P. Peltonen-Sainio, F. Rossi, J.

Kozyra, and F. Micale, 2011: Impacts and adaptation of European crop production

systems to climate change. European Journal of Agronomy, 34, 96-112.

Oort, P., 2012: Why farmers’ sowing dates hardly change when temperature rises.

European Journal of Agronomy, 40, 102-111.

Orlove, B., 2009: The past, the present and some possible futures of adaptation. In:

Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance [Adger, W.N., I.

Lorenzoni, and K. O’Brien (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

and New York, NY, USA, pp. 131-162.

Ospina, A.V. and R. Heeks, 2010: Linking ICTs and Climate Change Adaptation: A

Conceptual Framework for e-Resilience and e-Adaptation. Centre for

Development Informatics, Institute for Development Policy and Mangement,

SED, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK, 39 pp.

Ostrom, E., 1990: Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective

Action. The Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, UK, 280 pp.

Owen, S., 2010: Learning across levels of governance: expert advice and the adoption

of carbon dioxide emissions reduction targets in the UK. Global Environmental

Change, 20(3), 394-401.

Oxfam, 2009: Horn of Africa Risk Transfer for Adaptation (HARITA). Project Brief,

August, 2009, Oxfam America, Boston, MA, USA, 7 pp., iri.columbia.edu/~deo/

HARITAUpdateAugust112009short.pdf.

Oxfam International, 2009: Bolivia: Climate Change, Poverty and Adaptation. Oxfam

International, La Paz, Bolivia, 67 pp.

Pahl-Wostl, C.,2009: A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and

multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global

Environmental Change, 19(3), 354-365.

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, 115-126.

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 the

Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Imperial College London, London, UK,

111 pp.

Parzen, J., 2009: Lessons Learned: Creating the Chicago Climate Action Plan.

Commissioned by the City of Chicago, Department of Environment, Chicago,

IL, USA, 37 pp., www.chicagoclimateaction.org/filebin/pdf/LessonsLearned.pdf.

Patt, A.G. and D. Schröter, 2008: Perceptions of climate risk in Mozambique: implications

for the success of adaptation strategies, Global Environmental Change, 18(3),

458-467.

Paudel, Y., 2012: A comparative study of public-private catastrophe insurance

systems: lessons from current practices. The Geneva Papers, 37, 257-285.

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

896

Peach Brown, H.C., B. Smit, O.A. Somorin, D.J. Sonwa, and F. Ngana, 2013:

Institutional perceptions, adaptive capacity and climate change responses in a

post-conflict country: a case study from Central African Republic. Climate and

Development, 5(3), 206-216.

Pelling, M., 2011: Adaptation to Climate Change: from Resilience to Transformation.

Routledge Press, London and New York, 203 pp.

Pelling, M., C. High, J. Dearing, and D. Smith, 2008: Shadow spaces for social learning:

a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within

organisations. Environment and Planning A, 40, 867-884.

Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, 2009: Adaptation Planning – What U.S.

States and Localities Are Doing. Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate

Change by T. Cruce, November 2007 (Updated August 2009), Arlington, VA,

USA, 25 pp., www.pewclimate.org/working-papers/adaptation.

Picard, P., 2008: Natural disaster insurance and the equity-efficiency trade-off. Journal

of Risk and Insurance, 75, 17-38.

Picketts, I., A. Werner, T. Murdock, J. Curry, S. Dery, and D. Dyer, 2012: Planning for

climate change adaptation: lessons learned from a community-based

workshop. Environmental Science and Policy, 17, 82-93.

Pinoleville Pomo Nation, 2013: Sustainable Housing Program Information Sheet,

Pinoleville Pomo Nation Housing Authority, Ukiah, CA, USA, 2 pp.,

www.sustainablenativecommunities.org/fieldnews/wp-content/uploads/

2013/07/130611_07_CS-HUD-Pinoleville-Pomo-Nation-Homes.pdf.

PPCR, 2013: PPCR Pilot Country Updates October 2012 – April 2013. The Pilot

Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR), a targeted program of the Strategic

Climate Fund (SCF), within the framework of the Climate Investment Funds

(CIF), The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 67 pp., https://www.climate

investmentfunds.org/cif/sites/climateinvestmentfunds.org/files/PPCR_SC.13_

Inf.2_Updates_from_PPCR_Pilot_Countries.pdf.

Preston, B.L., R. Westaway, S. Dessai, and T.F. Smith, 2009: Are We Adapting to

Climate Change? Research and Method for Evaluating Progress. Presentation

at the 89th American Meteorological Society Annual Meeting – Fourth

Symposium on Policy and Socio-Economic Research, 10-16 January 2009,

Phoenix, AZ, USA, 1.1, 15 pp., ams.confex.com/ams/89annual/techprogram/

programexpanded_524.htm.

Preston, B.L., R.M. Westaway, and E.J. Yuen, 2011: Climate adaptation planning in

practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations.

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 16, 407-438.

Preston, B.L., K. Dow, and F. Berkhout, 2013: The climate adaptation frontier.

Sustainability, 5, 1011-1035.

Pringle, P., 2011: AdaptME: Adaptation Monitoring and Evaluation. United Kingdom

Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), School of Geography and the Environment,

Oxford University Centre for the Environment (OUCE), University of Oxford,

Oxford, UK, 37 pp.

Prober, S., M. O’Connor, and F. Walsh, 2011: Australian aboriginal peoples’ seasonal

knowledge; a potential basis for shared understanding in environmental

management. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 12, www.ecologyandsociety.org/

vol16/iss2/art12/.

Pulwarty, R., C. Simpson, and C. Nierenberg, 2009: Regional Integrated Sciences and

Assessments (RISAs): crafting assessments for the long haul. In: Integrated

Regional Assessments of Global Climate Change [Knight, G. and J. Jager, (eds.)].

Cambridge Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 367-394.

Pulwarty, R., L. Nurse, and N. Trotz, 2010: Caribbean Islands in a changing climate.

Environment, November-December, 2010, 52, 16-27, www.environment

magazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/November-December%202010/

caribbean-islands-full.html.

Pulwarty, R., G. Eilerts, and J. Verdin, 2012: Food security in a changing climate.

Solutions: For a Sustainable & Desirable Future, 3(1) 31-34.

Pulwarty, R. and J. Verdin, 2013: Crafting early warning systems. In: Measuring

Vulnerability to Natural Hazards: Towards Disaster Resilient Societies [Birkmann

(ed.)]. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, Japan, pp. 124-147.

Pyke, C.R., B.G. Bierwagen, J. Furlow, J. Gamble, T. Johnson, S. Julius, and J. West,

2007: A decision inventory approach for improving decision support for climate

change impact assessment and adaption. Environmental Science & Policy, 10,

610-621.

Ranger, N.and S. Surminski, 2013: A preliminary assessment of the impact of climate

change on non-life insurance demand in the BRICS economies. International

Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 3, 14-30.

Raschky, P., 2008: Institutions and the losses from natural disasters. Natural Hazards

and Earth System Sciences, 8, 627-634.

Rawlani, A. and B. Sovacool, 2011: Building responsiveness to climate change

through community based adaptation in Bangladesh. Mitigation and Adaptation

Strategies for Global Change, 16(8), 845-863.

Redsteer, M.H., K.B. Kelley, H. Francis, and D. Block, 2010: Disaster risk assessment

case study: recent drought on the Navajo Nation, Southwestern United States.

Background Paper for Chapter 3 of the Global Assessment Report on Diaster

Risk Reduction 2011, The International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (ISDR)

and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), The United Nations Secretariat of the

International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland,

19 pp. www.preventionweb.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/what/drought.html.

Redsteer, M.H., K. Bemis, K. Chief, M. Gautam, B.R. Middleton, and R. Tsosie, 2013:

Chapter 17: Unique challenges facing southwestern tribes: impacts, adaptation

and mitigation. In: Assessment of Climate Change in the Southwest United

States: A Report Prepared for the National Climate Assessment [Garfin, G., A.

Jardine, R. Merideth, M. Black, and S. LeRoy (eds.)]. A report by the Southwest

Climate Alliance, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 385-404.

Reid, H., D. Dodman, R. Janssen, and S. Huq, 2010: Building capacity to cope with

climate change in the least developed countries. In: Changing Climates, Earth

Systems and Society [Dodson, J. (ed.)]. Springer, New York, NY, USA, pp. 217-

230.

Repetto, R., 2008: The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth. Working Paper No.

13, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT, USA,

21 pp.

Revi, A., 2008: Climate change risks: an adaptation and mitigation agenda for Indian

cities. Environment and Urbanization, 20(1), 207-229.

Ribot, J.C., 2010: Vulnerability does not fall from the sky: toward multi-scale

pro-poor climate policy. In: Social Dimensions of Climate Change: Equity

and Vulnerability in a Warming World [R. Mearns and A. Norton (eds.)]. The

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, pp. 47-74.

Ribot, J., 2011: Vulnerability before adaptation: towards transformative climate

action. Global Environmental Change, 21, 1160-1162.

Roberts, D., 2008: Think 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, 397-413.

Robinson, L.W. and F. Berkes, 2011: Multi-level participation for building adaptive

capacity: formal agency-community interactions in northern Kenya. Global

Environmental Change, 21, 1185-1194.

Rodima-Taylor, D., M.F. Olwig, and N. Chhetri, 2012: Adaptation as innovation,

innovation as adaptation: an institutional approach to climate change, Applied

Geography, 33, 107-111.

Romani, M. and N. Stern, 2013: Chapter 7: Sources of finance for climate action:

principles and options for implementation mechanisms in this decade. In:

International Climate Finance [E. Haites (ed.)]. Routledge, New York, NY, USA,

pp. 117-134.

Romero-Lankao, P., 2012: Governing carbon and climate in the cities: an overview

of policy and planning challenges and options. European Planning Studies, 20,

7-26.

Romero-Lankao, P. and D. Dodman, 2011: Cities in transition: transforming urban

centers from hotbeds of GHG emissions and vulnerability to seedbeds of

sustainability and resilience: introduction and editorial overview. Current

Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 3(3), 113-120.

Rosenzweig, C. and W. Solecki, (eds.), 2010: Climate change adaptation in New York

City: building a risk management response: New York City Panel on Climate

Change 2010 report. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1196,

1-354.

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.

Rumbach, A.J. and N. Kudva, 2011: Putting people at the center of climate change

adaptation plans: a vulnerability approach. Risks, Hazards & Crisis in Public

Policy, 2(4), 1-23.

Runhaar, H., H. Mees, A. Wardekker, J. van der Sluis, and P. Driessen, 2012: Adaptation

to climate change-related risks in Dutch urban areas: stimuli and barriers.

Regional Environmental Change, 12(4), 777-790.

Adaptation Planning and Implementation Chapter 15

897

Sabates-Wheeler, R., T. Mitchell, and F. Ellis, 2008: Avoiding repetition: time for

community based adaptation to engage with the livelihoods literature? IDS

Bulletin, 39, 53-59.

Sanchez-Rodriguez, R., 2009: Learning to adapt to climate change in urban areas. A

review of recent contributions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability,

1, 201-206.

Sanchez-Rodriguez, R., 2012: Understanding and improving urban responses to

climate change. Reflections for an operational approach to adaptation in low

and middle-income countries. In: Cities and Climate Change. Responding to an

Urgent Agenda [D. Hoornweg, M. Freire, M. J. Lee, P. Bhada-Tata, B. Yuen, (eds.)].

The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 452-469.

Sarewitz, D., 2004: How science makes environmental controversies worse.

Environmental Science & Policy, 7, 385-403.

Sarewitz, D., R. Pielke Jr., and R. Byerly Jr., 2000: Prediction: Science, Decision Making,

and the Future of Nature. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 405 pp.

Scheffer, M., 2009: Critical Transitions in Nature and Society. Princeton University

Press, Princeton, NJ, USA, 400 pp.

Schipper, L. and M. Pelling, 2006: Disaster risk, climate change and international

development: scope for, and challenges to integration. Disasters, 30(1), 19-38.

Shaw, A., S. Sheppard, S. Burch, D. Flanders, A. Wiek, J. Carmichael, J. Robinson, and

S. Cohen, 2009: Making local futures tangible – synthesizing, downscaling, and

visualizing climate change scenarios for participatory capacity building. Global

Environmental Change, 19(4), 447-463.

Shelby, R., D. Edmunds, A. James, J.A. Perez, Y. Shultz, and T. Angogino, 2012:

Partnering with the Pinoleville Pomo Nation: co-design methodology case study

for creating sustainable, culturally-inspired renewable energy systems and

infrastructure. Sustainability, 4, 794-818.

Sietz, D., M. Boschütza, and J.T.R. Klein, 2011: Mainstreaming climate adaptation

into development assistance: rationale, institutional barriers and opportunities

in Mozambique. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(4), 493-502.

Simões, A.F., D.C. Kligerman, E.L. La Rovere, M.R. Maroun, M. Barata, and M.

Obermaier, 2010: Enhancing adaptive capacity to climate change: the case of

smallholder farmers in the Brazilian semi-arid region. Environmental Science

& Policy, 13(8), 801-808.

Simon, D., 2010: The challenges of global environmental change for urban Africa.

Urban Forum, 21(3), 235-248.

Sissoko, K., H. van Keulen, J. Verhagen, V. Tekken, and A. Battaglini, 2011: Agriculture,

livelihoods and climate change in the West African Sahel. Regional

Environmental Change, 11(Suppl. 1), S119-S125.

Smith, J.B., J.M. Vogel, and J.E. Cromwell, 2009: An architecture for government action

on adaptation to climate change. An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 95,

53-61.

Smith, J.B., T. Dickinson, J. Donahue, I. Burton, E. Haites, R. Klein, and A. Patwardhan,

2013: Development and climate change adaptation funding: coordination and

integration. In: International Climate Finance [Haites, E. (ed.)]. Routledge, New

York, NY, USA, pp. 54-71.

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.

Staples, K., 2011: Developing Adaptation to Climate Change in the East of England.

Research Report – July 2011, produced by Sustainability East for East of England

Local Government Association (EELGA), Sustainability East, Cambridge, UK,

93 pp.

Stohlgren, T., J. Schnase, J. Morisette, N. Most, E. Sheffner, C. Hutchinson, S. Drake,

W. Van Leeuwen, and V. Kaupp, 2005: Invasive Species Forecasting System: A

Decision Support Tool for the U.S. Geological Survey – FY 2005 Benchmarking

Report. Vol. 1.6, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Applied

Sciences Directorate at the John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC), Hancock County,

MS, USA, 32 pp.

Storbjörk, S., 2007: Governing climate adaptation in the local arena: challenges of

risk management and planning in Sweden. Local Environment, 12(5), 457-469.

Storbjörk, S., 2010: It takes more to get a ship to change course. Barriers for

organisational learning and local climate adaptation in Sweden. Journal of

Environmental Policy and Planning, 12(3), 235-254.

Storbjörk, S. and J. Hedrén, 2011: Institutional capacity-building for targeting sea

level rise in the climate adaptation of Swedish coastal zone management.

Lessons from Coastby. Ocean and Coastal Management, 54(3), 265-273.

Stren, R., 2008: International assistance for cities in low and middle-income countries.

Environment and Urbanization, 20(2), 377-393.

Stringer, L., J. Dyer, M. Reed, A. Dougill, C. Twyman, and D. Mkwambisi, 2009:

Adaptation to climate change, drought and desertification: local insights to

enhance policy in southern Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 748-

765.

Stive, M.J.C., L.O. Fresco, P. Kabat, B.W.A.H. Parmet, and C.P. Veerman, 2011: How

the Dutch plan to stay dry over the next century. Proceedings of Institution of

Civil Engineers, 164, 114-121.

Suarez, P. and J. Linnerooth-Bayer, 2011: Insurance-Related Instruments for Disaster

Risk Reduction. Background Paper prepared for Chapter 5 of the Global

Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction 2011, The International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction (ISDR) and International Institute for Applied Systems

Analysis (IIASA), The United Nations Secretariat of the International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, 55 pp., www.prevention

web.net/english/hyogo/gar/2011/en/bgdocs/Suarez_&_Linnerooth-

Bayer_2011.pdf.

Surminski, S. and D. Oramas-Dorta, 2011: Building Effective and Sustainable Risk

Transfer Initiatives in Low- and Middle-Income Economies: What Can We Learn

from Existing Insurance Schemes? Policy Paper, Centre for Climate Change

Economics and Policy (CCCEP) and the Grantham Research Institute on Climate

Change and the Environment, London, UK, 28 pp.

Tan, J., Y. Zheng, G. Song, L.S. Kalkstein, A.J. Kalkstein, and X. Tang, 2007: Heat wave

impacts on mortality in Shanghai, 1998 and 2003. International Journal of

Biometeorology, 51(3), 193-200.

Tanner, T., T. Mitchell, E. Polack, and B. Guenther, 2009: Urban Governance for

Adaptation: Assessing Climate Change Resilience in Ten Asian Cities. IDS

Working Paper No. 315, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK, 47 pp.

Termeer, C., R. Biesbroek, and M. van den Brink, 2012: Institutions for adapting to

climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies in Europe. European

Political Science, 11(1), 41-53.

Tessa, B. and P. Kurukulasuriya, 2010: Technologies for climate change adaptation:

emerging lessons from developing countries supported by UNDP. Journal of

International Affairs, 64(1), 17-31.

Thomas, D.S.G. and C. Twyman, 2005: Equity and justice in climate change adaptation

amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environmental Change,

15, 115-124.

Thomas, D.S.G., C. Twyman, H. Osbahr, and B. Hewitson, 2007: Adaptation to climate

change and variability: farmer responses to intra-seasonal precipitation trends

in South Africa. Climate Change, 83(3), 301-322.

Tobey, J., P. Rubinoff, D. Robadue Jr., G. Riccia, R. Volk, J. Furlow, and G. Anderson,

2010: Practicing coastal adaptation to climate change: lessons from integrated

coastal management. Coastal Management, 38(3), 317-335.

Tompkins, E. and H. Eakin, 2012: Managing private and public adaptation to climate

change. Global Environmental Change, 22, 3-11.

Tompkins, E.L., W.N. Adger, E. Boyd, S. Nicholson-Cole, K. Weatherhead, and A. Arnell,

2010: Observed adaptation to climate change: UK evidence of transition to a

well-adapting society. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 627-635.

Tribbia, J. and S. Moser, 2008: More than information: what coastal managers need

to plan for climate change. Environmental Science & Policy, 11(4), 315-328.

Turnbull, M. and E. Turvill, 2012: Análisis de la Capacidad de Participación y de la

Vulnerabilidad. Guía Para Profesionales. Un recurso de Oxfam para la reducción

de riesgos y la adaptación al cambio climático, Oxfam, Oxford, UK, 49 pp.

Uittenbroek, C.J., L.B. Janssen-Jansen, and H.A.C. Runhaar, 2012: Mainstreaming

climate adaptation in urban planning: overcoming barriers, seizing opportunities

and evaluating the results in two Dutch case studies. Regional Environmental

Change, 13(2), 399-411.

UK Environment Agency, 2012: Managing Flood Risk through London and the

Thames Estuary: TE2100 Plan. London: Environment Agency, 226 pp.

UK HM Government, 2013: The National Adaptation Programme: Making the

Country Resilient to a Changing Climate. The Stationery Office (TSO), London,

UK, 182 pp.

Uljee, I., G. Engelen, and R. White, 1999: Integral Assessment Module for Coastal

Zone Management. RamCo. 2.0 User Guide, Research Institute for Knowledge

Systems (RIKS) Geo, Maastricht, Netherlands, 72 pp.

UNDP, 2004: Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies,

Policies, and Measures. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP),

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 258 pp.

UNDP, 2010a: Designing Climate Change Adaptation Initiatives: A UNDP Toolkit for

Practitioners. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Bureau of

Development Policies, Environment and Energy Group, New York, NY, USA, 58 pp.

Chapter 15 Adaptation Planning and Implementation

898

UNDP, 2010b: Mapping Climate Change Vulnerability and Impact Scenarios: A

Guidebook for Sub-National Planners. United Nations Development Programme

(UNDP) Bureau of Development Policies, Environment and Energy Group, New

York, NY. USA, 83 pp.

UNECE, 2009: Guidance on Water and Adaptation to Climate Change. United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), Convention on the Protection and

Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, UNECE, Geneva,

Switzerland, 127 pp.

UNFCCC, 2007: Investment and Financial Flows to Address Climate Change. United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat,

Bonn, Germany, 272 pp. unfccc.int/files/cooperation_and_support/financial_

mechanism/application/pdf/background_paper.pdf.

UNFCCC, 2011: Report on the Workshop to Identify Challenges and Gaps in the

Implementation of Risk Management Approaches to the Adverse Effects of

Climate Change. FCCC/SBI/2011/INF.11, Subsidiary Body for Implementation,

Thirty-fifth session, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

(UNFCCC) Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 17 pp.

UNFCCC, 2012: Technology Transfer Information Clearinghouse. United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat, Bonn,

Germany, unfccc.int/ttclear/pages/home.html.

UNFCCC, 2013: Synthesis Report on the Implementation of the Framework for

Capacity-Building in Developing Countries. Subsidiary Body for Implementation,

Thirty-eighth session, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 13 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2010: Climate Change Strategy 2010-2013. United Nations Human

Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Nairobi, Kenya, 12 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2011a: Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements

2011. United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Nairobi,

Kenya, 279 pp.

UN-HABITAT, 2011b: Planning for Climate Change: A Strategic Values-Based Approach

for Urban Planners. Version 1: For Field Testing and Piloting in Training, United

Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Urban Environmental

Planning Branch, UN-HABITAT, Nairobi, Kenya, 197 pp.

UNISDR, 2006: Global Survey of Early Warning Systems. United Nations Inter-Agency

Secretariat of the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR),

Geneva, Switzerland and ISDR Platform for the Promotion of Early Warning

(PPEW), Bonn, Germany, 46 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.

USAID, 2007: Adapting to Climate Variability and Change: A Guidance Manual for

Development Planning. United States International Development Agency

(USAID), Washington, DC, USA, 24 pp.

Vammen Larsen, S., L. Kørnøv, and A. Wejs, 2012: Mind the gap in SEA: an institutional

perspective on why assessment of synergies amongst climate change mitigation,

adaptation and other policy areas are missing. Environmental Impact

Assessment Review, 33, 32-40.

Van Aalst, M.K., 2009: Chapter 3: Bridging timescales. In: World Disasters Report

2009 – Focus on Early Warning, Early Action [Knight, L. (ed.)]. International

Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Geneva, Switzerland,

pp. 68-93.

Van Aalst, M.K., T. Cannon, and I. Burton, 2008: Community level adaptation to climate

change: the potential role of participatory community risk assessment. Global

Environmental Change, 18(1), 165-179.

Van den Berg, M. and F. Coenen, 2012: Integrating climate change adaptation into

Dutch local policies and the role of contextual factors. Local Environment,

17(4), 441-460.

Van den Brink, M., C. Termeer, and S. Meijerink, 2011: Are Dutch water safety

institutions prepared for climate change? Journal of Water and Climate Change,

2(4), 272-287.

Wade, S.D., J. Rance, and N. Reynard, 2013: The UK Climate Change Risk Assessment

2012: assessing the impacts on water resources to inform policy makers. Water

Resources Management, 27(4), 1085-1109.

Wall, E. and K. Marzall, 2006: Adaptive capacity for climate change in Canadian rural

communities. Local Environment, 11, 373-397.

Warner, K., N. Ranger, S. Surminski, M. Arnold, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, E. Michel-Kerjan,

P. Kovacs, and C. Herweijer, 2009: Adaptation to Climate Change: Linking

Disaster Risk Reduction and Insurance. United Nations International Strategy

for Disaster Reduction (UNISDR), Geneva, Switzerland, 18 pp.

West, C.C. and M.J. Gawith (eds.), 2005: Measuring Progress: Preparing for Climate

Change Through the UK Climate Impacts Programme. UKCIP Technical Report,

United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP), School of Geography

and the Environment, Oxford University Centre for the Environment (OUCE),

Oxford, UK, 71 pp.

Westerhoff, L., C. Keskitalo, and S. Juhola, 2011: Capacities across scales: local to

national adaptation policy in four European countries. Environmental Science

and Policy, 14(3), 239-247.

Wilbanks, T.J. and R.W. Kates, 2010: Beyond adapting to climate change: embedding

adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Annals of the

Association of American Geographers, 100(4), 719-728.

Wilby, R.L. and R. Keenan, 2012: Adapting to flood risk under climate change.

Progress in Physical Geography, 36, 348-378.

Wilson, E., 2006: Adapting to climate change at the local level: the spatial response.

Local Environment, 11(6), 609-625.

Wolf, J., N. Adger, I. Lorenzoni, L. 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, 44-52.

Wolfram, S., 2002: A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media, Inc., Champaign, IL, USA,

1197 pp.

World Bank, 2009: Adapting to Climate Change in Europe and Central Asia. The

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, 116 pp.

World Bank, 2010: World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate

Change. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The

World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, 417 pp.

World Bank, 2011a: Guide to Climate Change Adaptation in Cities. Urban Development

and Local Government Unit, Sustainable Development Network, The

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank,

Washington, DC, USA, 100 pp.

World Bank, 2011b: Private Activity in Infrastructure Remained at Peak Levels and

Highly Selective in 2010. PPI Data Update Note 55, Private Participation in

Infrastructure (PPI) Database, The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 4

pp., ppi.worldbank.org/features/September-2011/2010-Global-update-note-

final-08-31-2011.pdf.

World Bank Group, 2011: Mobilizing Climate Finance. Paper prepared at the request

of the G20 Finance Ministers, Preparation coordinated by the World Bank

Group, in close partnership with the IMF, the OECD and the Regional Development

Banks (RDBs), The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 56 pp., www.imf.org/

external/np/g20/pdf/110411c.pdf.

WUCA, 2010: Decision Support Planning Methods: Incorporating Climate Change

Uncertainties into Water Planning. Water Utility Climate Alliance (WUCA), San

Francisco, CA, USA, 102 pp.

Yang, X., E. Lin, S. Ma, H. Ju, L. Guo, W. Xiong, Y. Li, and Y. Xu, 2007: Adaptation of

agriculture to warming in Northeast China. Climatic Change, 84, 45-58.

Yohe, G.W., R.D. Lasco, Q.K. Ahmad, N.W. Arnell, S.J. Cohen, C. Hope, A.C. Janetos,

and R.T. Perez, 2007: Perspectives on climate change and sustainability. 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

Linde, and C.E. Hanson (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and

New York, NY, USA, pp. 811-841.

Young, O.R., 2010: Institutional dynamics: resilience, vulnerability and adaptation in

environmental and resource regimes. Global Environmental Change, 20(3),

378-385.

Zimmerman, R. and C. Faris, 2010: Infrastructure impacts and adaptation challenges.

In: Climate change adaptation in New York City: building a risk management

response: New York City Panel on Climate Change 2010 report [Rosenzweig C.

and W. Solecki (eds.)]. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1196, 63-85.