1101
20
Climate-Resilient Pathways:
Adaptation, Mitigation, and
Sustainable Development
Coordinating Lead Authors:
Fatima Denton (Gambia), Thomas J. Wilbanks (USA)
Lead Authors:
Achala C. Abeysinghe (Sri Lanka), Ian Burton (Canada), Qingzhu Gao (China), Maria Carmen
Lemos (USA), Toshihiko Masui (Japan), Karen L. O’Brien (Norway), Koko Warner (Germany)
Contributing Authors:
Thea Dickinson (Canada), Kristina Yuzva (Canada)
Review Editors:
Suruchi Bhadwal (India), Walter Leal (Germany), Jean-Pascal van Ypersele (Belgium)
Volunteer Chapter Scientist:
Sherry B. Wright (USA)
This chapter should be cited as:
Denton
, F., T.J. Wilbanks, A.C. Abeysinghe, I. Burton, Q. Gao, M.C. Lemos, T. Masui, K.L. O’Brien, and K. Warner,
2014: Climate-resilient pathways: adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. In: Climate Change
2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working
Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B.,
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. 1101-1131.
20
1102
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................... 1104
20.1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 1106
Box 20-1. Goals for Climate-Resilient Pathways ....................................................................................................................... 1107
20.2. Climate Change as a Threat to Sustainable Development ................................................................................... 1108
20.2.1. Links between Sustainable Development and Climate Change ...................................................................................................... 1108
20.2.1.1. Objectives of Sustainable Development .......................................................................................................................... 1108
20.2.1.2. Risks and Threats Posed by Climate Change, Interacting with Other Factors and Driving Forces ..................................... 1109
Box 20-2. Key Reasons for Concern about Climate Change Effects on Sustainable Development ............................... 1109
20.2.2. Climate-Resilient Pathways ........................................................................................................................................................... 1112
20.2.2.1. Framing Climate-Resilient Pathways ................................................................................................................................ 1112
20.2.2.2. Elements of Climate-Resilient Pathways .......................................................................................................................... 1112
Box 20-3. Selected Elements of Climate-Resilient Pathways ........................................................................................ 1113
20.3. Contributions to Resilience through Climate Change Responses ........................................................................ 1113
20.3.1. Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 1113
Box 20-4. Considering Geoengineering Responses ................................................................................................................... 1114
20.3.2. Adaptation ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 1115
Box 20-5. Case Studies from China ........................................................................................................................................... 1116
20.3.3. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation for Sustainable Risk Management ........................................................... 1117
20.4. Contributions to Resilience through Sustainable Development Strategies and Choices ..................................... 1118
20.4.1. Resolving Trade-offs between Economic and Environmental Goals ................................................................................................ 1118
20.4.2. Ensuring Effective Institutions in Developing, Implementing, and Sustaining Resilient Strategies .................................................. 1119
20.4.3. Enhancing the Range of Choices through Innovation ..................................................................................................................... 1120
20.5. Determinants of Resilience in the Face of Serious Threats .................................................................................. 1121
20.5.1. Relationships between the Magnitude and Rate of Climate Change and Requirements for Transformational Adaptation ............. 1121
20.5.2. Elements of and Potentials for Transformational Change ............................................................................................................... 1121
20.6. Toward Climate-Resilient Pathways ...................................................................................................................... 1122
20.6.1. Alternative Climate-Resilient Pathways .......................................................................................................................................... 1122
20.6.2. Implications for Current Sustainable Development Strategies and Choices .................................................................................... 1123
20.7. Priority Research/Knowledge Gaps ...................................................................................................................... 1124
References ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1125
Table of Contents
1103
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
Frequently Asked Questions
20.1: What is a climate-resilient pathway for development? ................................................................................................................... 1106
20.2: What do you mean by “transformational changes”? ..................................................................................................................... 1107
20.3: Why are climate-resilient pathways needed for sustainable development? .................................................................................... 1110
20.4: Are there things that we can be doing now that will put us on the right track toward climate-resilient pathways? ...................... 1123
1104
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
Executive Summary
Climate change calls for new approaches to sustainable development that take into account complex interactions between climate and social
and ecological systems. Climate-resilient pathways are development trajectories that combine adaptation and mitigation to realize the goal of
sustainable development. They can be seen as iterative, continually evolving processes for managing change within complex systems.
This chapter integrates a variety of complex concepts in assessing climate-resilient pathways. It takes sustainable development as the ultimate
goal, and considers mitigation as a way to keep climate change moderate rather than extreme. Adaptation is considered a response strategy to
anticipate and cope with impacts that cannot be (or are not) avoided under different scenarios of climate change. In most cases, sustainable
development will also involve capacities for implementing and sustaining appropriate risk management. Responses may differ from situation to
situation, calling for a multiscale perspective that takes the socioeconomic, cultural, biophysical, and institutional context into account.
Nonetheless, most situations share at least one fundamental characteristic: threats to sustainable development are greater if climate change is
substantial rather than moderate. Similarly, opportunities for sustainable development are greater if climate change is moderate rather than
substantial.
Although findings from this chapter are based on a high level of consensus in source materials and in the expert communities, the amount of
supporting evidence is relatively limited because so many aspects of sustainable development and climate change mitigation and adaptation
have yet to be experienced and studied empirically. The task of this chapter is to suggest options to be considered for decision making, both
now and in the future, as elements of the evolving processes for a variety of locations and scales. This chapter’s findings are as follows.
Climate change poses a moderate threat to current sustainable development and a severe threat to future sustainable development
(high confidence; medium evidence, high agreement).
Some climate-related impacts on development are already being observed (e.g.,
changes in agriculture, increases in coastal vulnerability). Added to other stresses such as poverty, inequality, or diseases, the effects of climate
change will make sustainable development objectives such as food and livelihood security, poverty reduction, health, and access to clean water
more difficult to achieve for many locations, systems, and affected populations. {20.2.1}
Climate-resilient pathways include strategies, choices, and actions that reduce climate change and its impacts. They also include
actions to ensure that effective risk management and adaptation can be implemented and sustained (high confidence; medium
evidence, high agreement).
Adaptation and mitigation have the potential to both contribute to and impede sustainable development, and
sustainable development strategies and choices have the potential to both contribute to and impede climate change responses. Adaptation and
mitigation are needed, working together to reduce risks of disruptions from climate change. These actions, however, may introduce trade-offs
between adaptation and mitigation, and between economic goals and environmental goals. In some cases, for example, adaptation may
increase greenhouse gas emissions (e.g., increased fossil-based air conditioning in response to higher temperatures) and in some cases
mitigation may impede adaptation (e.g., reduced energy availability in countries with growing populations). In many cases, strategies for
climate change responses and strategies for sustainable development are highly interactive. {20.3-4}
The integration of adaptation and mitigation responses can in some cases generate mutual benefits, as well as introduce
co-benefits with development policies (high confidence; medium evidence, medium agreement).
In many cases, reducing the risk of
climate change can enhance capacities for management of other risks. Opportunities to take advantage of positive synergies may decrease
with time, particularly if the limits to climate change adaptation are exceeded. {20.2.1, 20.3.2-3, 20.5.1}
Prospects for climate-resilient pathways are related fundamentally to what the world accomplishes with climate change mitigation,
but both mitigation and adaptation are essential for climate change risk management at all scales (high confidence; medium
evidence, high agreement).
As the magnitude of climate change increases and the consequences become increasingly significant to many
areas, systems, and populations, the challenges to sustainable development increase. Beyond some magnitudes and rates of climate change,
the impacts on most systems would be great enough that sustainable development may no longer be possible for many systems and locations.
At the local scale, governments, businesses, communities, and individuals in many developing regions have limited capacities to mitigate climate
1105
20
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
change because they contribute very little to global emissions. They may also have relatively limited capacities to adapt for reasons of income,
education, health, security, political power, or access to technology. At all scales, however, mitigation and adaptation actions are fundamental
for effective implementation of climate risk management and reduction. {20.2.2, 20.3, 20.6.1}
To promote sustainable development within the context of climate change, climate-resilient pathways may involve significant
transformations (high confidence; medium evidence, high agreement). Transformations in economic, social, technological, and political
decisions and actions can enable climate-resilient pathways. Although transformations may be reactive, forced, or induced by random factors,
they may also be deliberately created through social and political processes. Whether in relation to mitigation, adaptation, or sustainable
development, it is possible to identify enabling conditions that support transformations. Nonetheless there are legitimate concerns about the
equity and ethical dimensions of transformation. {20.5}
Strategies and actions can be pursued now that will move toward climate-resilient pathways while at the same time helping to
improve livelihoods, social and economic well-being, and responsible environmental management (high confidence; medium
evidence, high agreement).
Transformations to sustainability benefit from iterative learning, deliberative processes, and innovation. {20.4}
Delayed action in the present may reduce options for climate-resilient pathways in the future (high confidence; medium
evidence, high agreement). In some parts of the world, current failures to address effects of emerging climate stressors are already eroding
the basis for sustainable development and offsetting previous gains. Opportunities to design and implement solutions that promote climate-
resilient pathways exist now, and they can capture development co-benefits of improving livelihoods and social and economic well-being.
Current actions will emphasize climate risk management strategies informed by growing evidence, knowledge, and experience. {20.6.2}
More research about the relationship between mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development is needed, as well as
research on the relationship between incremental changes and more significant transformations for sustainable development
(high confidence; robust evidence, high agreement).
Priorities for research include improving understandings of benefits, costs, synergies,
trade-offs, and limitations of major mitigation and adaptation options, along with implications for equitable development to facilitate decision
making about climate-resilient pathways (high confidence; robust evidence, high agreement).
1106
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
20.1. Introduction
Following summaries of what we know about climate change impacts,
vulnerabilities, and prospects for adaptation (Chapter 18) and reasons
f
or concern (Chapter 19), this chapter summarizes what is currently
known about options regarding what to do in responding to these risks
and concerns.
In terms of “what to do” to address climate change and threats to
development now and in the future, the chapter identifies and discusses
climate-resilient pathways. Climate-resilient pathways are defined in
this chapter as development trajectories that combine adaptation and
mitigation with effective institutions to realize the goal of sustainable
development. They are seen as iterative, continually evolving processes
for managing change within complex socio-ecological systems; taking
necessary steps to reduce vulnerabilities to climate change impacts in
the context of development needs and resources, building capacity to
increase the options available for vulnerability reduction and coping
with unexpected threats; monitoring the effectiveness of vulnerability
reduction efforts; and revising risk reduction responses on the basis of
continuous learning. As such, climate-resilient pathways include two
main categories of responses:
• Actions to reduce human-induced climate change and its impacts,
including both mitigation and adaptation toward achieving
sustainable development
• Actions to ensure that effective institutions, strategies, and choices
for risk management will be identified, implemented, and sustained
as an integrated part of achieving sustainable development.
In many cases, each of the two categories of responses has the potential
to benefit the other as well, offering potentials for win-win kinds of
integration, although mechanisms and institutions are needed to address
cases where the two elements have negative effects on each other and
to ensure that positive synergies are realized. Because climate change
challenges are significant for many areas, systems, and populations,
climate-resilient pathways will generally require transformations—
beyond incremental approaches—in order to ensure sustainable
development (see Sections 20.2.3.1, 20.6.2; for related language
employed by the UNFCCC, see Box 20-1).
Incremental responses to climate change address immediate and
anticipated threats based on current practices, management approaches,
or technical strategies. These may involve developing energy-efficient
vehicles to mitigate climate change, or building higher dykes to adapt
to sea level rise. Incremental responses are often referred to as business-
as-usual approaches, as they do not challenge or disrupt existing systems
(Kates et al., 2012). Transformative responses, in contrast, involve
innovations that contribute to systemic changes by challenging some
of the assumptions that underlie business-as-usual approaches (O’Brien,
2012). Transformational adaptations, for example, change the nature,
composition, and/or location of threatened systems (Smit and Wandel,
2006; Stringer et al., 2009; National Research Council, 2010a; Pelling,
2010; IPCC, 2012). Importantly, transformations of the systems, structures,
relations, and behaviors that contribute to climate change and social
vulnerability may also be necessary to reduce risks to sustainable
development, as discussed in Section 20.5.2 (see also WGIII AR5 Chapter
6 on Assessing Transformation Pathways).
Conceptual understandings of sustainable development have developed
considerably, particularly over the past 2 decades, as the short- and
long-term implications of climate change and extreme events have
become better understood, although empirical evidence of progress
with sustainable development is often elusive. The discussion of
sustainable development in the IPCC process has evolved since the First
Assessment Report (FAR), which focused on the technology and cost-
effectiveness of mitigation activities, and the Second Assessment Report
(SAR), which included issues related to equity and to environmental
and social considerations. The Third Assessment Report (TAR) further
broadened the treatment of sustainable development by addressing
issues related to global sustainability, and the Fourth Assessment (AR4)
included chapters on sustainable development in both Working Group
II and III reports, with a focus on both climate-first and development-
first literatures.
This chapter recognizes climate change as a threat to sustainable
development. The chapter emphasizes that, as a result, transformational
changes are very likely to be required for climate-resilient pathways—
both transformational adaptations and transformations of social
processes that make such transformational adaptations feasible.
The chapter integrates a variety of complex issues in assessing climate-
resilient pathways in a variety of regions at a variety of scales:
sustainable development as the ultimate aim, mitigation as the way to
keep climate change impacts moderate rather than extreme, adaptation
as a response strategy the way to keep climate change impacts moderate
rather than extreme or to cope with impacts that cannot be (or are not)
avoided, and development pathways as contexts that shape choices and
actions. It stresses needs and opportunities to make progress toward
climate-resilient pathways now, rather than postponing responses to
an indefinite future.
The chapter is organized in six parts: climate change as a threat to
sustainable development, by assessing links between sustainable
development and climate change as well as defining climate-resilient
pathways (Section 20.2); contributions to resilience through climate
change responses (Section 20.3); contributions to resilience through
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 20.1 | What is a climate-resilient
pathway for development?
A climate-resilient pathway for development is
a continuing process for managing changes in
the climate and other driving forces affecting
development, combining flexibility, innovativeness,
and participative problem solving with effectiveness
in mitigating and adapting to climate change. If
effects of climate change are relatively severe, this
process is likely to require considerations of
transformational changes in threatened systems if
development is to be sustained without major
disruptions.
1107
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
sustainable development strategies and choices (Section 20.4);
determinants of resilience in the face of serious threats (Section 20.5);
challenges in moving toward climate-resilient pathways (Section 20.6);
and priority gaps in knowledge (Section 20.7).
Several of the terms that are central to this chapter have been defined
earlier in the WGII contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report, including
climate, adaptation, and mitigation. In addition, by “resilient” we mean
a system’s ability to anticipate, reduce, accommodate, and recover from
disruptions in a timely, efficient, and fair manner (IPCC, 2012). For
literatures on “sustainable development,” see Section 20.2. A summary
definition is development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs (see Glossary). It achieves continuing improvements in human
well-being and ensures a sustainable relationship with a physical
environment that is already under stress, reconciling trade-offs among
economic, environmental, and other social goals through institutional
approaches that are equitable and participative in order themselves to
be sustainable.
Box 20-1 | Goals for Climate-Resilient Pathways
Climate-resilient pathways are development trajectories of combined mitigation and adaptation to realize the goal of sustainable
development that help avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system” as specified in Article 2 of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
Article 2 of the UNFCCC outlines its ultimate objective as the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a
level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system … in order to allow ecosystems to adapt
naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a
sustainable manner.” Article 3.4 of the Convention recognizes that “Parties have a right to and should promote sustainable
development.” A number of recent decisions by the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC has attempted to recognize the
scientific view that the increase in global temperature should be below 2°C and encourage long-term cooperative action to combat
climate change. The Decisions agreed in Cancun at COP-16 recognize “… deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions are required
according to science, and as documented in the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, with a view to reducing global greenhouse
gas emissions so as to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2°C above preindustrial levels … consistent with
science … [and] also recognizes the need to consider … strengthening the long-term global goal on the basis of the best available
scientific knowledge.” The preamble of the Cancun Decisions highlights the central importance of the link between climate change
and employment and “Realizes that addressing climate change requires a paradigm shift towards building a low-carbon society that
offers substantial opportunities and ensures continued high growth and sustainable development, based on innovative technologies
and more sustainable production and consumption and lifestyles, while ensuring a just transition of the workforce that creates
decent work and quality jobs” (UNFCCC, 2011, Decision 1/CP.16). The 2011 COP, in a decision known as the Durban Platform,
increases the strength of the language in the Decision 1/CP.17 to conclude, “… climate change represents an urgent and potentially
irreversible threat to human societies and the planet and thus requires to be urgently addressed … with a view to accelerating the
reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions....” This decision was followed by the decisions adopted in Doha at the 18th Conference
of the Parties that noted with grave concern the significant gap between the aggregate effect of Parties’ mitigation pledges in terms
of global annual emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020 and aggregate emission pathways consistent with having a likely chance of
holding the increase in global average temperature below 2°C or 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. As such, the current UNFCCC
negotiations have identified +2°C or 1.5°C as the desirable target upper limit,implicitly equating this with “dangerous” in Article 2.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 20.2 | What do you mean by
“transformational changes”?
Transformational change is a fundamental change
in a system, its nature, and/or its location that can
occur in human institutions, technological and
biological systems, and elsewhere. It most often
happens in responding to significantly disruptive
events or concerns about them. For climate-resilient
pathways for development, transformations in
social processes may be required to get voluntary
social agreement to undertake transformational
adaptations that avoid serious disruptions of
sustainable development.
1108
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
20.2. Climate Change as a Threat
to Sustainable Development
Climate-resilient pathways bring together (1) sustainable development
a
s the larger context for societies, regions, nations, and the global
community with (2) climate change effects as threats to (and possibly
opportunities for) sustainable development and (3) responses to reduce
any effects that would undermine future development and even offset
already achieved gains. Resilience is defined in this report as the ability
of a social, ecological, or socio-ecological system and its components
to anticipate, reduce, accommodate, or recover from the effects of a
hazardous event or trend in a timely and efficient manner (see Glossary).
Climate resilience refers to the outcomes of evolutionary processes
of managing change in order to reduce disruptions and enhance
opportunities. Considering alternative climate-resilient pathways cannot
be separated from levels of climate change. Overall, most climate
change scientists, decision makers, and stakeholders agree that (1) there
is a level of climate change that is low enough that climate resilience
for most systems could be achieved without enormous efforts and
widespread transformational adaptation; (2) there is a level of climate
change that is high enough that climate resilience cannot be expected
to cope with severe impacts on most systems (e.g., Rockstrom et al.,
2009); and (3) between those two levels the challenges to climate
resilience grow as the level of climate change rises. Scientists do not,
however, agree on what magnitude of climate change (e.g., average
global warming) defines each of the two levels. Some experts support
the view (Box 20-1 and Section 20.3.1) that any level above 2°C would
mean impacts that are incompatible with sustainable development
(Metz et al., 2002). The Summary for Policymakers of the WGII AR4
indicated that there is an approximate threshold between 2.5°C and
3°C of warming, above which impact concerns are severe but below
which concerns are less severe (IPCC, 2007b, Figure SPM.2; see also
Smith et al., 2009). Other scientists are unconvinced that system
sensitivities to climate parameters such as temperature increase are
understood well enough to support any specific warming threshold (e.g.,
National Research Council, 2010c), and some scientists and policymakers
are unconvinced that adaptive management and adaptive response
capacities are well enough understood to support determinations of
limits to adaptation and resilience (Chapter 16). Most experts in
all three groups, however, agree that prospects for climate-resilient
development pathways are related fundamentally to what the world
accomplishes with climate change mitigation (e.g., New et al., 2012).
20.2.1. Links between Sustainable Development
and Climate Change
20.2.1.1. Objectives of Sustainable Development
Different actors have used the concept of sustainable development to
pursue a variety of objectives in policy and practice worldwide, with the
common denominator of delivering improved human well-being while
sustaining environmental services (Sen, 1999; Morgan and Farsides,
2009; Von Bernard and Gorbaran, 2010). “Sustainable development”
is a concept rooted in concerns about balance in the relationships
between society and nature (e.g., Brown, 1981). The Brundtland Report
(WCED, 1987, p. 43) defines the idea as “development that meets the
n
eeds of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs.” It contains within it two key
concepts of “needs”: in particular the essential needs of the world’s
poorest, to which overriding priority should be given; and the idea of
limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization
on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs (Rao,
2000). It stresses that equitable economic development is key to
addressing environmental problems both in developing and developed
regions in ways that are sustainable for the long term (Halsnaes et al.,
2008; Lafferty and Meadowcroft, 2010).
Historically, policy and science have subsequently influenced the
development of the concept. Concerns about declining environmental
quality, and increasing population growth, coupled with increasing rates
of consumption (energy, natural resources, input-intensive living
standards), motivated changes in some countries, related for example to:
• Water and air quality standards
• Management of hazardous materials
• Changes in regulation (although some literature says that current
institutional controls and linkages are counterproductive (Barker,
2008; O’Hara, 2009; Scrieciu et al., 2013))
• Agricultural and industrial practices
• Water and solid waste management
• A movement toward greater efficiency in resource use including
recycling
• An emphasis on energy efficiency, progressing toward renewable
energy as an alternative to non-renewable fossil fuel resources (Frey
and Linke, 2002).
In this context, global discourse and practice have helped to establish
principles and aspirational plans. Examples include Agenda 21, which
is a comprehensive plan of action adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit
by more than 178 governments (Sitarz, 1994) and the 2012 “Rio+20”
conference, which issued a statement urging countries to renew their
commitment to sustainable development. Improved understandings of
the short- and long-term implications of climate change and extreme
events (IPCC FAR, SAR, TAR, AR4, Special Report on Managing the Risks
of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation
(SREX)) have influenced conceptualizations of sustainable development
and related objectives such as poverty reduction, health, livelihood and
food security, and other aspects of human welfare related to the idea
of “climate-resilient development.” These discussions occurred against
an emerging understanding of “rights to development” (e.g., UNFCCC
Article 2), juxtaposed with the lack of consensus about justifiable
patterns of consumption and a recognition that development processes
have altered global environmental systems, including climates (Crutzen
and Stoermer, 2000; IPCC, 2007a, 2012; Oliver-Smith et al., 2012).
However, in practice some national authorities interpret sustainable
development as pursuing current economic development (Beg et al.,
2002; Swart et al., 2003; Arndt et al., 2012; Yohe, 2012), as many
countries aspire to carbon-intensive development models akin to the
systems in place in most industrialized countries—from food production,
trade, and transport to household consumption (Grist, 2008; Brown,
2011; Sanwal, 2012).
In contrast, to many observers, carbon-intensive development models
in industrialized and developing countries appear broadly inconsistent
1109
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
w
ith objectives such as poverty reduction, improving human health, and
securing food and livelihoods associated with the idea of sustainable
development (Ehrenfeld, 2008; Grist, 2008; Marston, 2012; see also
Victor and Rosenbluth, 2007; Victor, 2008) and with efforts to define
and establish “safe operating spaces” for humanity (Röckstrom et al.,
2009; Preston et al., 2013). While diverse interpretations of the concept
are used, the literature suggests that many indicators of human welfare
are already being compromised to some degree and at different scales
by climate-related stressors (see Section 20.2.1.2).
One way that sustainable development pathways can contribute to
climate resilience is by pursuing consumption patterns that ensure social
and economic development while reducing use of natural resources and
maintaining ecosystem services. It is possible that the desired objectives
of consumption might be met in ways that require fewer resources and
produce fewer emissions (Kates, 2000b; see also Leiserowitz et al., 2005).
Ideas about equity and values play a role in sustainable development and
how policy makers perceive trade-offs in aims to improve human well-
being. In many cases, growth in consumption that raises human well-
being (such as food and health services), especially among populations
with incomes rising from low levels, is a catalyst for economic and social
development (Clark et al., 2008; Deaton, 2008). In contrast, for populations
already at high consumption levels, increasing material consumption
does not necessarily translate into higher well-being (Easterlin, 1974,
2001; Adger, 2010; see also WGIII AR5 Chapter 4). This observation is
reflected in research on subjective human happiness, satisfaction, and
material comfort (Huesemann, 2006; Dolan and White, 2007; Fleurbaey,
2009; Cafaro, 2010; DeLeire and Kalil, 2010).
20.2.1.2. Risks and Threats Posed by Climate Change,
Interacting with Other Factors and Driving Forces
As the implications of climate change and their extent become better
understood (Chapter 18) and as particular reasons for concern have begun
to come into focus (Chapter 19), climate change has been increasingly
seen as an issue for sustainable development—with the potential either
to aid or impede its successful implementation (e.g., Halsnaes et al.,
2008; Munasinghe, 2010).
The links between sustainable development and climate adaptation and
mitigation are cross-cutting and complex. First, the impacts of climate
change, and ill-designed responses to these impacts, may derail current
sustainable development policy and potentially offset already achieved
gains. These impacts are expected to affect numerous sectors such as
agriculture, forestry, and energy; threaten coastal zones and other
vulnerable areas; and pose critical challenges to governance and
political systems (World Bank, 2010, pp. 39-69; Adger et al., 2011; IPCC,
2012; see also Box 20-2 and Chapters 18, 19). Examples include poverty
and livelihoods (Chapter 13), food security (Chapter 7), human security
(Chapter 12), rural and urban areas (Chapters 8, 9), and economic sectors
(Chapters 10, 17). For instance, effects of climate change on key
ecological resources and systems can jeopardize sustainable development
in systems closely dependent on natural capital. Moreover, although
impacts will affect both developed and developing regions, the latter
are considered especially problematic owing to lower adaptive capacity
(World Bank, 2010, Chapter 13; Lemos et al., 2013). Second, mitigation
has the potential to keep these threats at a moderate rather than extreme
level, and adaptation will enhance the ability of different systems to
cope with the remaining impacts, therefore modulating negative effects
on sustainable development (IPCC, 2007a).
Third, many of the conditions that define vulnerability to climate
impacts and the ability to mitigate and adapt to them are firmly rooted
in development processes (e.g., structural deficits and available assets
and entitlements) (Brooks et al., 2005; Lemos et al., 2013; see also
Section 15.2.1). Indeed, climate change will act as a threat multiplier
and will create new poor in low-income countries and middle- to high-
income countries (Chapter 13). Fourth, sustainable development intersects
with many of the drivers of climate change, especially regarding
energy production and consumption and the ability to mitigate emissions
(IPCC, 2011; see also Chapter 9). Fifth, because several of the desirable
characteristics of climate responses and sustainable development may
overlap (e.g., implementation of no-regrets options, equitable distribution
of resources, increased adaptive capacity and livelihood capitals,
functioning ecosystems and maintained biodiversity), systems that
prioritize sustainable development may be better at designing and
implementing successful mitigation and adaptation (Forsyth, 2007;
Brown, 2011).
Finally, climate mitigation and adaptation, if planned and integrated
well, have the potential to create opportunities to foster sustainable
development (see Section 20.3.3). Under the threat of climate change,
Box 20-2 | Key Reasons for Concern about
Climate Change Effects on
Sustainable Development
Chapter 19 identifies a number of “Key Risks, Key
Vulnerabilities, and Reasons for Concern” (see especially
Section 19.6.3 and Table 19-4). Emergent risks from climate
change related to sustainable development include losses
of ecosystem services, challenges to land and water
management, effects on human health, particular risks of
severe harm and loss in certain vulnerable areas, increasing
prices of food commodities on the global market,
consequences for migration flows at particular times and
places, increasing risks of flooding, risks of food insecurity,
systemic risks to infrastructures from extreme events, loss
of biodiversity, and risks for rural livelihoods. These risks
differ according to the magnitude of climate change and
both regional and socioeconomic differences in vulnerability.
Some unique and threatened systems are at risk at current
temperatures, with risks increasing at even relatively small
increases in global mean temperature. Risks grow if the
magnitude of warming increases.
1110
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
s
ustainable development depends on changes in social awareness
and values that lead to innovative actions and practices, including
increased attention to both disaster risk management and climate
change adaptation in anticipation of (and in response to) changes in
climate extremes (IPCC, 2012). Understanding how to enhance positive
feedbacks between mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development
(e.g., win-win and triple-win interventions) while minimizing potential
trade-offs between them (see Section 20.3.3) is an essential part of
planning for and pursuing climate-resilient pathways. In the following
paragraphs, we discuss these links in light of empirical research and
specific examples (Box 20-2; also see discussions of Representative
Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
(SSPs) in Chapter 1). While some of the links described above have been
contemplated in the scholarly literature, there remain considerable gaps
in our knowledge base to inform climate-resilient pathways.
The relationship between climatic change and development policy has
often been theorized as essentially twofold. On the one hand, climate
change will affect development policy as needs to respond to negative,
and perhaps positive, impacts arise (Burton et al., 2002; Halsnaes and
Verhagen, 2007; IPCC, 2007a; Schipper, 2007). On the other hand,
development policy critically shapes carbon emission paths, the ability
to develop sustainable adaptation and mitigation options, and to build
overall adaptive capacity (Bizikova et al., 2007; Metz and Kok, 2008; Garg
et al., 2009; Lemos et al., 2013). Because of the recognized relationship
between development and climate change drivers and responses, some
authors have called for a “political economy of climate change” that
takes into consideration ideas, power, and resources at different scales
from the local to the global (e.g., Tanner and Allouche, 2011).
Enhancing resilience to respond to effects of climate change includes
adopting good development practices that are consonant with building
sustainable livelihoods and, in some cases, challenging current models
of development (Boyd et al., 2008; McSweeny and Coomes, 2011).
Moreover, promoting development pathways that are both equitable and
sustainable is also a key to addressing climate change (Wilbanks, 2003;
Nelson et al., 2007). In this sense, integrating sustainable development
and overall climate change policy can be all the more relevant if “cross-
linkages between poverty, the use of natural capital and environmental
degradation” are recognized (Veeman and Politylo, 2003, p. 317; see also
Matthew and Hammill, 2009). Especially in less developed regions, the
relationship between vulnerability to climate impacts and development
is often very close and mutually dependent, as such realities as low
per capita income and inequitable distribution of resources; lack of
education, health care, and safety; and weak institutions and unequal
power relations fundamentally shape sensitivity, exposure, and adaptive
capacity to climate impact (Kates, 2000a; Adger et al., 2003; Garg et al.,
2009; McSweeny and Coomes, 2011; Lemos et al., 2013). In these
regions, reducing risks that affect resource-dependent communities is
increasingly viewed as a necessary but insufficient way to tackle the
myriad problems associated with climate change impacts (Jerneck and
Olsson, 2008). Building the capacity of individuals, communities, and
governance systems to adapt to climate impacts is both a function of
dealing with developmental deficits (e.g., poverty alleviation, reducing
risks related to famine and food insecurity, enabling/implementing public
health and mass education and literacy programs) and of improving
risk management (e.g., alert systems, disaster relief, crop insurance,
seasonal climate forecasts, risk insurance) (Mirza, 2003; Schipper and
Pelling, 2006; IPCC, 2012; Warner et al., 2012a; see also Chapters 12, 13).
Hence, it is important to understand not only the relative importance
of different kinds of interventions (climate and non-climate) in building
adaptive capacity but also the potential positive and negative synergies
between them (Lemos et al., 2013).
While research increasingly highlights the intersection between
vulnerability, adaptive capacity, and developmental structural deficits (see
Chapter 13 for a detailed discussion), there is also growing recognition
that the intractability of many of these problems may inhibit the
development of climate-resilient pathways. For example, in northeast
Brazil, the fact that local traditional politics relied on patron-client
relationships with drought-affected households to maintain power
suggests that there was little incentive for policies that dramatically
decreased their level of vulnerability (Tompkins et al., 2008). Omolo
(2010) argues that in northwestern Kenya, in pastoralist societies of
Turkana, in spite of increasing numbers of women-headed households,
participation of women in key decisions such as investment, resource
allocation, and planning on where to move or settle in the aftermath
of drought and floods is still quite low. A serious concern is that our
inability to readily address these kinds of structural problems may limit
options for future generations of marginalized social groups to be active
agents of a climate-resilient future. In this sense, it is critical to understand
how existing path-dependent trajectories (e.g., socio-technical, behavioral,
institutional) that form the contextual basis for climate change action
at different scales (Burch, 2010) may inhibit (or help) the realization of
future climate-resilient pathways.
A number of studies recognize that not every possible response to climate
change is consistent with sustainable development, as some strategies
and actions may have negative impacts on the well-being of others and
of future generations (Gardiner et al., 2010; Eriksen et al., 2011; see
also Section 19.3.2.5). For example, some mitigation interventions such
as the subsidization of the ethanol industry in the USA might compromise
long-term resilience through both undesirable ecological effects (e.g.,
loss of crop diversity, soil erosion, and aquifer depletion) and social
effects (e.g., reduction of flexibility for alternative fuel development,
potential for food insecurity; Adger et al., 2011). Likewise, in central
Vietnam some responses to climate change impact, such as building
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 20.3 | Why are climate-resilient
pathways needed for
sustainable development?
Sustainable development requires managing many
threats and risks, including climate change. Because
climate change is a growing threat to development,
sustainability will be more difficult to achieve for
many locations, systems, and populations unless
development pathways are pursued that are
resilient to effects of climate change.
1111
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
d
ams to prevent flooding and saltwater intrusion and to generate
power, threaten the livelihood of poor communities. First, the relocation
of communities and the inundation of forestland to build dams limit
households’ access to land and forest products. Second, a government
focus on irrigated rice agriculture can reduce poor households’ ability
to diversify their income portfolio, decreasing their long-term adaptive
capacity (Beckman, 2011). Indeed, the consequences of responses to
climate change, whether related to mitigation or adaptation, can
negatively influence future vulnerability, unless there is awareness of
and response to these interactions (Eriksen et al., 2011). Here, the role
of values in responding to climate change becomes important from a
variety of perspectives, including intergenerational, particularly when
those currently in positions of power and authority assume that their
prioritized values will be shared by future generations (O’Brien, 2009;
Eriksen et al., 2011). Acknowledging the importance of intergenerational
equity, it has been argued that participatory processes and “deliberative
democracy” can include the concerns, values, and perceptions of a wide
range of stakeholders, raising some of the ethical impacts attached to
climate-related risks (Backstrand, 2003; see also Deere-Birebeck, 2009).
Such an approach could have a bearing on the way risks are assessed
and addressed at the science-policy interface, with significant implications
for sustainable development. For example, research by Wolf et al. (2009)
on climate change responses in western Canada shows that individual
quests to minimize their environmental impact and sense of responsibility
(normatively defined as ecological citizenship) play an important role
in the identification and implementation of sustainable responses to
water scarcity. In contrast, inequitable distribution of power among
those affected by climate impact can suppress innovative decisions
about the future by limiting participation in designing solutions. In light
of the complex interactions among climate change responses and
sustainable development, there is a need for more holistic responses
that place human well-being and security at the forefront, while
building on existing strengths and capacities (Tompkins and Adger,
2004; O’Brien et al., 2010). This entails integrating multiple objectives
and policy goals in order to promote responses to climate change that
contribute to resilience and that are sustainable as social and policy
conditions change (Meadowcroft, 2000; Tompkins and Adger, 2004;
Pintér et al., 2011).
A reality in many countries may be that development in its many forms
(economic, human, and sustainable) can enhance the capacity to adapt
(Lemos et al., 2013), while at the same time adding to greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions. Yet, the World Development Report 2010 suggests
that climate change responses have the potential to contribute to
sustainable development as, for example, in the case of financial
assistance with transition to low-carbon growth paths (World Bank,
2010) or in the case of mitigation policies that could increase income
and/or enhance the quality of growth in vulnerable groups such as
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in
Developing Countries (REDD+). And while vulnerable sectors such as
agriculture give us particular reasons for concern (see Box 20-2), they
may offer opportunities in some instances to reduce climate-related
risks and threats by integrating both adaptation and mitigation strategies
as a lever for reducing poverty and promoting climate-resilient pathways.
Particularly necessary is addressing institutional and social capacities
for responding to both climate change impacts and mitigation responses.
For example, Chhatre and Agrawal (2009) show that climate change
m
itigation can benefit livelihoods if ownership of forest commons is
transferred to local communities.
Some interventions related to climate change responses aim to combine
goals of sustainable development, climate change adaptation, and
climate change mitigation into “win-win” or “triple-win” approaches
that highlight overlaps between these goals. Examples include
mechanisms such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and
Joint Implementation (JI) (e.g., Millar et al., 2007), which may seek to
offset carbon emissions, build adaptive capacities of local communities,
and provide sustainable development dividends despite mixed results
in terms of accomplishing these goals in practice (Corbera and Brown,
2008). Specifically in the case of the CDM, robust empirical research
shows overwhelming negative results in win-win terms—while the goal
of offsetting carbon emissions has fared better, generating sustainable
development dividend has been difficult. For example, after examining
16 existing CDM projects around the world, Sutter and Parreno (2007)
found that whereas they could meet 72% of their emissions reduction
goals, fewer than 1% might actually contribute significantly to sustainable
development in the host country. Furthermore, their research suggests
that there might be an actual trade-off between the goals of efficient
generation of certified emissions reduction (CERs) and the broader
generation of the sustainable development dividend (see also
Winkelman and Moore, 2011). Even when relatively successful, triple-
win interventions may result in unequal distribution of benefits across
mitigation, adaptation, and sustainable development (Bryan et al.,
2013). Because relationships among the three goals can lead to both
positive and negative consequences, it is important to unravel
conditions that lead to desirable outcomes (Chhartre and Agrawal,
2009) (see Section 20.3.3). Moreover, the fact that currently available
institutional arrangements that attempt to combine mitigation and
sustainable development (such as CDM) are not achieving win-win
goals indicates the need for rapidly developing means for evaluating,
changing, and improving current policy instruments and mechanisms
(Dovers and Hezri, 2010).
Given these connections, there is growing consensus in the literature
about a need to integrate development and climate policies; however,
the means to achieve this integration differ and are not without
controversy (see, e.g., Seballos and Kreft, 2011). An approach often
described in the literature is mainstreaming, where governments
incorporate climate-related concerns into existing policy (Dovers and
Hezri, 2010). A major factor constraining the “mainstreaming” of climate
adaptation into development is the disconnect between access to
globally available adaptation funds and developing countries’ own
development agendas (Hardee and Mutunga, 2009; Seballos and Kreft,
2011). This disconnect can potentially inhibit the development of robust
local organizations and institutions that effectively integrate or
mainstream climate change considerations into development priorities.
In particular, research focusing on the National Adaptation Programmes
of Action (NAPAs) and the Strategic Programmes for Climate Resilience
(SPCRs), designed to support least developed countries to mainstream
adaptation, shows that lack of coordination between government
sectors, lack of technical capacity, and discrepancies between long-term
development goals and short-term adaptation interventions still
constrain mainstreaming efforts (Saito, 2013; see also Section 15.2).
Even where climate-related initiatives and programs are reasonably well
1112
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
c
oordinated, bureaucratic complexities can cause communities to be
overlooked (Chukwumerije and Schroeder, 2009). For example, in
Mexico, despite the governmental discourse supporting climate change
policy, actual implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions have
been constrained by lack of resources and institutional coordination
and limited societal involvement (Sosa-Rodriguez, 2013). Other factors—
such as lack of financial and human resources, unclear distribution of
costs and benefits, fragmented management, mismatches in scale of
governance and implementation, lack and unequal distribution of
climate information, lack of institutional memory, and trade-offs with
other priorities—may also limit the smooth mainstreaming of climate
adaptation action into development (Eakin and Lemos, 2006; Bizikova
et al., 2007; Agrawala and van Aalst, 2008; Kok et al., 2008; Metz and
Kok, 2008, Sietz et al., 2011). Finally, empirical evidence suggests that
the relationship between development variables and climate change
responses can be a mixture of positives and negatives, if development
variables are not managed well (Garg et al., 2009). For example, in a
study of the relationship between malaria incidence, development, and
climate variables in India, Garg et al. (2009) found that while some
development interventions such as building irrigation canals and dams
can, in some cases, increase the incidence of malaria and water-borne
diseases (when they exacerbate potential breeding grounds for malarial
parasites), others such as higher per capita income can reduce negative
health impacts of climate change significantly—although the distribution
of benefits can differ between types of interventions (also see Campbell-
Landrum and Woodruff, 2006). Understanding how development
variables intersect with climate responses is especially important because
governments and other actors rarely make decisions in isolation; rather,
they respond to multiple stressors both in rural and urban environments
(Eakin, 2005; Agrawal, 2010; Wilbanks and Kates, 2010; Lemos et al.,
2013). Moreover, some evidence suggests that, in practice, decision
makers (from heads of households to policy makers) often do not place
climate change at the top of their priority list of critical issues to address
(Garg et al., 2007; Kok et al., 2008), although this situation seems to
be changing. Moreover, the increasing importance of climatic change
in shaping social and governmental policy agendas has resulted in a
growing number of examples of specific interventions to respond to
climate change, both in developed and developing regions (Ayers and
Huq, 2009; Burch, 2010; Bierbaum et al., 2013; for examples of
adaptation planning see Chapter 15, especially Section 15.2, and
Chapter 14, especially Section 14.3).
20.2.2. Climate-Resilient Pathways
20.2.2.1. Framing Climate-Resilient Pathways
Climate-resilient pathways integrate current and evolving understandings
of climate change consequences and conventional and alternative
development pathways to meet the goals of sustainable development (see
WGIII AR5 Chapter 4). They can be seen as development trajectories that
include both mitigation and adaptation, as well as effective development
institutions. Climate-resilient pathways represent iterative processes
for managing change within complex systems, where unintended
consequences are common owing to feedbacks, teleconnections, cross-
scale linkages, thresholds, and nonlinear effects (Folke et al., 2002; Scheffer
et al., 2009; Lenton, 2011a). Climate-resilient pathways recognize that
i
ncreasing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs can lead to impacts
that have long-term implications for sustainable development. The
observed and projected impacts of climate change on poverty and
livelihoods, food and water security, health, and human security are
well documented in this report (see Chapters 11, 12, 13).
The pursuit of climate-resilient pathways involves identifying vulnerabilities
to climate change impacts; assessing opportunities for reducing risks;
and taking actions that are consistent with the goals of sustainable
development. These actions may involve a combination of incremental
and transformative responses that take into account (1) current and
anticipated changes in both climate averages and extremes; (2) the
dynamic development context that influences social vulnerability, risk
perception, conflict resolution, and resilience; and (3) recognition of
human agency and capacity to influence the future. This last point is
significant, as humans have the capacity to manage risk and to decrease
vulnerability through both mitigation and adaptation, as well as
through choices of development goals and strategies (IPCC, 2012).
Climate-resilient pathways call for decisions and actions that take into
account both short- and long-term time horizons. In the short term,
society will have to adapt to changes in the climate that are linked to
past emissions, and both incremental and transformative adaptation may
thus be significant. Mitigation responses taken in the short term will
have a strong influence on climate-resilient pathways for sustainable
development in the future, shaping needs for transformative adaptation
over a long time horizon. Considering the potential for nonlinear impacts
associated with increasing global temperatures, the threats to sustainable
development are likely to become greater over time (Wilbanks et al.,
2007; Stafford et al., 2010; see also Chapter 12). Discussions of climate-
resilient pathways thus cannot be separated from levels of climate
change.
20.2.2.2. Elements of Climate-Resilient Pathways
If climate change continues on its current path toward relatively
significant impacts (National Research Council, 2010b), climate-resilient
pathways will become increasingly challenging, requiring explicit
attention to responses in virtually all regions, sectors, and systems to
avoid disruptions of development processes. Climate-resilient pathways
include two overarching attributes: (1) actions to reduce climate change
and its impacts, including both mitigation and adaptation, and (2)
actions to ensure that effective risk management institutions, strategies,
and choices can be identified, implemented, and sustained as an
integrated part of development processes (Edenhofer et al., 2012).
Box 20-3 draws on material throughout the chapter to list a number of
attributes of climate-resilient pathways categorized into awareness and
capacity, resources, and practices. Each of the items is amenable to
strategy development in appropriate national, regional, and local contexts.
For example, in many cases effective response to extreme events can
benefit both from iterative problem-solving and bottom-up engagement
in risk management, and from human development to enhance capacities
for risk management and adaptive behavior (Tompkins et al., 2008).
Folke (2006) characterizes resilience as a process of innovation and
development. Pathways should therefore be continuously moving
toward a more adapted and less vulnerable state; in some instances,
1113
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
there may be stages of slow development followed by periods where
progress increases speed. Further, the nonlinearity, variability, and
uncertainty of climate impacts necessitate a system that allows for the
flexibility to adapt to unexpected and even extreme events (Holling,
1973). This is especially true in light of political, economic, or resource
constraints, where pathways at the local level will need to be not only
flexible but also practical and feasible in both the short term and long
term. One of the most challenging aspects of climate-resilient pathways
is that they exist in distinctive local contexts, where they are shaped by
external linkages that connect them across geographic scales and time.
For example, resilience cannot be achieved in a few privileged places if
it is not achieved in other connected places, because instabilities in
adversely impacted situations will spill over to other situations through
such effects as resource supply constraints, conflict, migration, or disease
transmission (Wilbanks, 2009; IPCC, 2012, Chapter 7).
Climate-resilient pathways are in fact a process, not an outcome
(Manyena, 2006), involving both incremental and transformational
changes. The pathways therefore need to be built on a foundation of
constantly advancing knowledge, where information is adjusted based
on changing scientific knowledge on climate parameters and altering
social, economic, and natural resource situations (Berkes, 2007). While
some measures will be reactive, the main elements of a pathway are
intentional and proactive: anticipating future change and developing
appropriate plans and responses. Although payoffs from specific long-
term pathways may be unknown, strategies and actions can be pursued
now that will contribute significantly to moving toward climate-resilient
pathways while helping improve human livelihoods, social and economic
well-being, and responsible environmental management (Section 20.6.2).
20.3. Contributions to Resilience
through Climate Change Responses
Climate change responses include mitigation, adaptation, and integrated
mitigation and adaptation strategies. Related to these responses but
generally considered a separate response issue is “geoengineering”
(see Box 20-4).
20.3.1. Mitigation
In IPCC’s assessment reports, mitigation is the subject of WGIII, to which
readers are referred for comprehensive information about options and
strategies for reducing GHG emissions and increasing GHG uptakes by
the Earth system. For this chapter, the issue is how climate change
Box 20-3 | Selected Elements of Climate-Resilient Pathways
Awareness and capacity
• A high level of social awareness of climate change risks
• A demonstrated commitment to contribute appropriately to reducing net greenhouse gas emissions, integrated with national
development strategies
• Institutional change for more effective resource management through collective action
• Human capital development to improve risk management and adaptive capacities
• Leadership for sustainability that effectively responds to complex challenges
Resources
• Access to scientific and technological expertise and options for problem solving, including effective mechanisms for providing
climate information, services, and standards
• Access to financing for appropriate climate change response strategies and actions
• Information linkages in order to learn from experiences of others with mitigation and adaptation
Practices
• Continuing development and evaluation of institutionalized vulnerability assessments and risk management strategy
development, and refinement based on emerging information and experience
• Monitoring of emerging climate change impacts and contingency planning for responding to them, including possible needs for
transformational responses
• Policy, regulatory, and legal frameworks that encourage and support distributed voluntary actions for climate change risk
management
• Effective programs to assist the most vulnerable populations and systems in coping with impacts of climate change
1114
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
mitigation relates to sustainable development, which was addressed
by WGII AR4 Chapter 12 (IPCC, 2007a) and is also the focus of WGIII
AR5 Chapter 4, including attention to equity issues.
In general terms, mitigation is recognized to be important for sustainable
development in two ways (Riahi, 2000). First, it reduces the rate and
magnitude of climate change, which reduces climate-related stresses
on sustainable development, including effects of extreme weather and
climate events (Washington et al., 2009; Lenton, 2011b; IPCC, 2012; see
also Section 20.2; Box 20-1). But recent observations of the rate of
increase in global carbon dioxide emissions (e.g., Peters et al., 2013)
suggest that the challenge of stabilizing concentrations is growing (for
further information about international accords, national pledges and
inventory reports, and continuing negotiations, along with summaries
of current and projected progress with mitigation, see WGIII AR5).
Second, trajectories for technological and institutional change to reduce
net GHG emissions interact with development pathways. In some cases,
national pledges to achieve mitigation targets (e.g., Figure 20-1) may be
congruent with sustainable development in urban settings, such as green
growth strategies that reduce local and regional air pollution, enhancing
prospects for multilevel governance and integrated management of
resources, and encouraging broader participation in development
processes (Lebel, 2005; Seto et al., 2010). In other cases, such effects as
higher energy prices associated with transitions from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources have the potential to have adverse effects
on local and regional economic and social development (IPCC, 2011,
Chapter 9).
The challenge for climate-resilient pathways is to identify and implement
mixes of technological and governance options that reduce net carbon
emissions and at the same time support sustainable economic and
social growth in a context where rising demands for economic and social
development need to be combined with technology transitions without
disrupting the development process. For example, strategies such as
increasing carbon uptakes and decreasing carbon losses in the soil
Box 20-4 | Considering Geoengineering Responses
If climate change mitigation is not sufficiently successful, policymakers may be faced with demands to find further ways to reduce
climate change and its effects.
Such options include intentional large-scale interventions in the Earth system either to reduce the amount of absorbed solar energy
in the climate system or to increase the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO
2
) from the atmosphere (see Glossary). An example of the
former is to inject sulfates into the stratosphere. Examples of the latter include facilities to scrub CO
2
from the air and chemical
interventions to increase uptakes by oceans, soil, or biomass (UK Royal Society, 2009; WGIII AR5 Chapter 6; WGI AR5 Chapters 6, 7;
see also Chapter 19).
Discussions of geoengineering have only recently become an active area of discourse in science, despite a longer history of efforts to
modify climate (Schneider, 1996, 2008; Keith, 2000; Crutzen, 2006). Many of the possible options are known to be technically feasible,
but their costs, effectiveness, and side effects are exceedingly poorly understood (National Research Council, 2010b; Goes et al.,
2011; MacCracken, 2011; Vaughan and Lenten, 2011). For example, some interventions in the atmosphere might not be unacceptably
expensive in terms of direct costs, but they might affect the behavior of such Earth system processes as the Asian monsoons (Robock
et al., 2008; Brovkin et al., 2009). Some interventions to increase carbon uptakes, such as scrubbing CO
2
from the Earth’s atmosphere,
might be socially acceptable but economically very expensive. Moreover, it is possible that optimism about geoengineering options
might invite complacency regarding mitigation efforts.
In any case, implications for sustainable development are largely unknown. Even though some views have been expressed that
geoengineering is needed now to avoid irreversible impact such as the loss of biodiversity (while many governments have not begun
to consider it at all), several countries consider it a research priority rather than a current decision-making option (National Research
Council, 2010b). The challenge is to understand what geoengineering options would do to moderate global climate change and also
to understand what their ancillary effects and risks might be. This would allow policymakers in the future to respond if severe
disruptions appear and, as a result, there is a need to consider rather dramatic technology alternatives. Some observers propose that
research efforts should include limited experiments with geoengineering options, but agreement has not been reached about criteria
for determining what experiments are appropriate or ethical (Chapter 19.5.4; WGIII AR5 Chapter 3.3.7; Blackstock and Long, 2010;
Gardiner, 2010).
1115
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
t
hrough better agricultural management practices—which can reduce
net emissions—can improve soil water storage capacity. Practices such
as conservation tillage can also increase water retention in drought
conditions and help to sequester carbon in soils (Halsnaes et al., 2008).
In many cases, however, this challenge remains very difficult to meet.
Mitigation and development also interact in a third way in that different
groups and countries’ abilities to implement mitigation critically depends
on their “mitigative capacity” (Yohe, 2001): their “ability to reduce
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions or enhance natural sinks” and
the “skills, competencies, fitness, and proficiencies that a country has
attained which can contribute to GHG emissions mitigation” (Winkler
et al., 2007). Here, many of the determinants of mitigative capacity are
fundamentally shaped by different countries’ levels of development,
including their current level of emissions; their stock of human, financial,
and technological capital, such as the ability to pay for mitigation; the
magnitude and cost of available abatement opportunities; the regulatory
effectiveness and market rules; the education and skills base; the suite
of mitigation technologies available; the ability to absorb new
technologies; and the level of infrastructure development (Box 20-4).
20.3.2. Adaptation
Adaptation is the subject of four chapters of this WGII AR5 (Chapters
14 to 17), to which readers are referred for comprehensive descriptions
of concepts, options, strategies, and examples of adaptation practices.
For this section, we focus on the intersection between adaptation and
s
ustainable development. Overall, climate adaptation and sustainable
development are linked in several ways: first, many of the determinants
of adaptive capacity to respond to climate impact and indicators of
sustainable development overlap; second, adaptive capacity building
may critically contribute to the well-being of both social and ecological
systems; and third, building adaptive capacity within a sustainable
development framework may require transformational changes (Dovers
and Hezri, 2010; Kates et al., 2012; Lemos et al., 2013).
Around the globe, the ability of communities and individuals to respond
to climate change is predicated on a number of capacities (e.g., human
capital, information and technology, material resources and infrastructure,
organizational and social capital, political capital, wealth and financial
capital, institutions and entitlements) that typically overlap with
indicators of development (Smit and Pilifozofa, 2001; Yohe and Tol, 2002;
Eakin and Lemos, 2006). However, building these capacities both in
developed and less developed regions has implications for sustainable
development because it might increase the consumption of materials
and create potential negative effects on ecosystems (e.g., building of
new infrastructure and increasing consumption). In terms of governance,
climate change adaptation and sustainable development share many
characteristics (e.g., issues of spatial and temporal scales, uncertainty,
poorly defined jurisdictions; Dovers and Hezri, 2010), and designing
and implementing successful interventions require different kinds of
capacities, including political and administrative structures (Eakin and
Lemos, 2006; Wilbanks et al., 2007). Building adaptive capacity may
critically contribute to the improvement of the well-being of both social
and ecological systems by bettering livelihoods and reducing pressure
Pledged emission reduction from
projected business-as-usual emissions
Pledged emission reduction
target
No actionOpen action
Pledged emission intensity
reduction target
Figure 20-1 | Pledges by Annex 1 and Annex 2 countries in response to the Copenhagen Accord (see http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5264.php,
http://unfccc.int/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/items5265.php). Refer to Table SM21-1 for groupings of countries and territories of the world of relevance for
international climate change policy making.
1116
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
on the environment, especially in less developed regions (see Section
20.4.3). Regarding social systems, it is important to consider not only the
factors that enable the building of different capacities (e.g., institutions
and governance) but also how to guarantee that those who need it the
most have access to them (Nelson et al., 2007; Gupta et al., 2010). It is
also vital to understand how different capacities influence each other,
positively and negatively (Lemos et al., 2013), and how they may affect
the long-term resilience of social-ecological systems (Adger et al., 2011;
Box 20-5). Indeed, adaptation can be important in reducing stresses on
development processes, especially in vulnerable areas where it can help
to promote and support sustainable development. For example, where
adaptation planning stimulates participatory social processes, including
equity and legitimacy, as well as discussions regarding different
adaptation options, it can encourage communities to think more clearly
about broader sustainable development goals and pathways (National
Research Council, 2010a).
Given recent trends in GHG emissions and projections of climate futures
that suggest impacts of climate change will be serious and widespread
(e.g., Auerswald et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2011), adaptation may require
considering transformational changes, in which potentially impacted
systems move to fundamentally new patterns, dynamics, and/or locations
(Schipper, 2007; Kates et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2012; Park et al.,
2012). Desirable adaptation strategies may vary according to specific
kinds of climate change threat, location, impacted system, the
geographical scale of attention, and the time frame of strategic risk
management planning (Thomalla et al., 2006; Heltberg et al., 2009;
National Research Council, 2010a). Transformational adaptation policy at
different scales needs to take into consideration the goals of sustainable
development, both by fostering positive synergies and by avoiding
negative feedbacks between them. This is especially important because
some adaptation options might lead to inequitable and unsustainable
outcomes, and some adaptations at one scale may negatively affect
vulnerability in another (Thomas and Twyman, 2005; Eriksen et al., 2011;
Eriksen and Brown, 2011; see also Sections 20.3.3, 20.4.4 and Chapter
14 for a more detailed discussion). For example, in the USA, building
adaptive capacity for water management through drought preparedness
plans at one scale (the state level) may constrain the flexibility of
managers at lower scales (community water systems) to respond
successfully to drought (Engle, 2013).
Indeed, adaptation pathways can foster food and water security, human
health, and air and water quality and natural resource management,
while promoting gender equality and other desirable outcomes consistent
with sustainable development goals. However, creating the conditions
for the emergence of such outcomes will require better integration in
the implementation of policies and programs at all scales. By selecting
materials not harmful to the environment, promoting the conservation
Box 20-5 | Case Studies from China
Water-saving irrigation has enhanced climate change adaptation capacity, improved ecosystem services, and promoted regional
sustainable development in China:
• Water-saving irrigation measures in cropland adaptation to climate change. Water-saving irrigation is one effective measure to
deal with the water scarcity and food security issues caused by climate change (Hanjra and Qureshi, 2010; Tejero et al., 2011).
Given an increase in non-agricultural water consumption, China’s agriculture could be faced with a severe shortage of water
resources (Xiong et al., 2010). Through water-saving irrigation practices, water saved from 2007 to 2009 added up to a total of
61.82–129.66 10
9
m
3
, which accounted for 5.6–11.8%
of the national total water consumption; total energy
saved was equal to 9.59–20.85 Mt of standard coal;
and total CO
2
emissions were reduced by 21.83–47.48
Mt of CO
2
. Therefore, water saving irrigation has had
a positive effect in dealing with climate change and
sustainable development (Zou et al., 2012).
• Water-saving irrigation measures in alpine grassland for adapting to climate change. In recent years, the rise in precipitation and
temperature has led to the melting of glaciers and expansion to inland high mountain lakes, contributing to alpine grassland
degradation in northern Tibet (Gao et al., 2010). Among many grassland protection measures, alpine grassland water-saving
irrigation measures could be effective in redistributing and making full use of increased precipitation and lake water in the dry
period, which would reduce the negative effects of climate change and make full use of favorable conditions (Editorial Board of
National Climate Change Assessment, 2011; Gao et al., 2012). A 3-year demonstration of alpine grassland water-saving irrigation
measures showed that alpine grassland primary productivity nearly doubled while the number of plant species increased from
19 to 29, helping to protect and restore the alpine grassland ecosystem and ecosystem services and to promote regional
socioeconomic sustainable development in Northern Tibet (Gao et al., 2012).
2007 2008 2009
Water saved (10
9
m
3
) 1 9 . 3 7 – 4 0 . 8 6 1 9 . 8 6 – 41.55 22.58 – 47.25
Energy saved (Mt of standard coal) 2.92 – 6.39 3.08 – 6.72 3 . 5 8 – 7 . 7 3
C
O
2
emission reduction (Mt of CO
2
)
6.66 – 14.58 7.02 – 15.31 8.15 – 17.59
Table 20-1 | Water and energy savings and CO
2
emission reductions from water-
saving irrigation measures in cropland.
1117
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
o
f energy, water, and other resources, promoting reuse and recycling,
minimizing waste generation, protecting habitat, and addressing needs
of marginalized groups, adaptation can contribute to win-win and triple-
win options that can support a diverse array of development goals
(Bizikova et al., 2007; Seto et al., 2010; see also Sections 15.3.1, 20.3.3
and UNFCCC, 2011).
20.3.3. Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
for Sustainable Risk Management
Because both adaptation and mitigation are parts of climate-resilient
pathways, and because each benefits from progress with the other (e.g.,
Section 20.2), integrating the two kinds of climate change responses
within the broader context of sustainable development has been
suggested as an aspirational goal (Wilbanks et al., 2007; Bizikova et al.,
2010), especially when policy attention and financial commitments to
climate change responses must consider the pursuit of both adaptation
and mitigation. In practice, however, mitigation and adaptation tend to
involve different time frames, communities of interest, and decision-
making responsibilities (IPCC, 2007a; Wilbanks et al., 2007).
Integration of climate change responses with development processes is
a further aspirational goal. Recent research suggests that mitigation and
adaptation are likely to be more effective when they are designed and
implemented in the context of other interventions within the broader
context of sustainability and resilience (Wilbanks and Kates, 2010; ADB
and ADBI, 2012). Moreover, studies focusing on the intersection
between sustainable development and climate policy point out that
integration between the two is a desirable although complex path
(Section 20.2.1.2; Beg et al., 2002; Robinson et al., 2006; Swart and
Raes, 2007; Wilson and McDaniels, 2007; Halsnaes et al., 2008; Ayers
and Huq, 2009). Wilson and McDaniels suggest three reasons to
integrate across adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development:
(1) many dimensions of the values that are important for decision making
are common to all three decision contexts; (2) impacts from any one of
the three decision contexts may have important consequences for the
others; and (3) the choice among alternatives in one context can be a
means for achieving the underlying values important in the others.
A key factor in integrating climate change adaptation and mitigation
into sustainable risk management is to understand the processes of
decision making at different scales. The distribution of costs and benefits
of mitigation and adaptation differ; for example, mitigation benefits are
more global, adaptation benefits are often more localized, the research
and policy discourses are often unrelated, and the constituencies and
decision makers are often different (mitigation may involve powerful
industrial stakeholders from the energy sector concentrated at higher
levels of decision making, while adaptation may involve more dispersed
stakeholders at the local level across sectors) (Wilbanks et al., 2007).
To significantly reduce total global emissions, mitigation decisions must
be taken either by major emitters, or by groups of countries. At the
national and international level, direct responsibilities to curb the main
drivers of global climate change are dispersed across countries (Banerjee,
2012). In contrast, adaptation often falls to practitioners where local
responsibility is clearer, although it often depends on support from
national and global scale (Tanner and Allouche, 2011).
I
n many cases, the challenge of fostering synergies while avoiding
negative feedbacks often comes into focus in place-based discussions of
climate change responses and development objectives such as localities
and small regions (Dang et al., 2003; Wilbanks, 2003; Bulkeley and
Schroeder, 2012). Globally, a particular hurdle is the practice of applying
available mitigation resources only for reducing emissions beyond that
which would have occurred without those resources (“additionality”),
when access to resources for adaptation efforts should take into account
the critical role of co-benefits in supporting development in other ways
while at the same time reducing vulnerabilities to climate change
impacts (National Research Council, 2010a; see also Section 20.4.1).
Choices in integrating adaptation and mitigation will vary according to
the circumstances of each country and each locality (Wilbanks, 2003;
De Boer et al., 2010). In highly vulnerable countries, adaptation may be
seen as the highest priority because there are immediate benefits to be
obtained by reducing vulnerabilities to current climate variability and
extremes as well as future climate changes. In the case of developed
countries, adaptation initiatives have often been seen as a lower priority
because it is perceived that there is abundant adaptive capacity (Naess
et al., 2005). Yet major losses and damages in some industrialized
countries related to climatic variability and extremes challenge this
perception (e.g., Hurricane Sandy, tornadoes, and drought in the USA
in 2011 and 2012). Mitigation may be seen as more acute political
question—involving well-organized stakeholders concerned about
costs—in countries that contribute a large proportion of GHG emissions
(e.g., National Research Council, 2011), and it may be seen as an
investment opportunity for the domestic private sector.
As indicated above, one emerging strategy to integrate climate and
development policies is the design of “win-win” and “triple-win”
interventions that seek to achieve an appropriate mix of mitigation and
adaptation within the context of sustainable development (Pyke et al.,
2007; Swart and Raes, 2007). Swart and Raes suggest a number of factors
that should be taken into consideration when evaluating combined
adaptation and mitigation policy designs, including (1) avoiding trade-
offs, when designing policies for mitigation or adaptation; (2) identifying
synergies; (3) enhancing response capacity; (4) developing institutional
links between adaptation and mitigation, for example, in national
institutions and in international negotiations; and (5) mainstreaming
adaptation and mitigation considerations into broader sustainable
development policies. Box 20-5 provides a case study of an initiative in
China that has been a winner for both climate change responses and
regional sustainable development. The potential for climate-resilient
pathways may already be limited, however, in part because of path
dependency stemming from choices on mitigation, adaptation, and
political interpretations and subsequent choices around “sustainable”
development (Swart et al., 2003; Barker, 2008); and, in many cases,
interventions have not delivered win-win results, which raises questions
about the actual attainability of win-win strategies given legal, political,
economic, and/or institutional obstacles (Warner et al., 2012b; see also
Section 20.2.1.2).
In synthesizing evidence from a series of empirical articles focusing on
the intersection between mitigation and adaptation (M&A), Wilbanks
and Sathaye (2007) argue that M&A pathways might be alternatives in
reducing costs, complementary to and reinforcing each other (e.g.,
1118
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
i
mprovements in building energy efficiency), or competitive and
mutually contradictory (e.g., coastal protection vs. reductions in sea level
rise). In Bangladesh, for example, waste-to-compost projects contribute
to mitigation through reducing methane emissions; to adaptation
through soil improvement in drought-prone areas; and to sustainable
development through the preservation of ecosystem services (Ayers
and Huq, 2009; also see Vergara et al., 2012, regarding possible
development benefits of mitigation and adaptation in Latin America
and the Caribbean). Land management and forestry activities contribute
to ecosystem-based mitigation, for example, through the reduction of
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and adaptation,
for example, through the conservation of hydrological services provided
to people facing water problems, as well as renewable energy (see
several cases of ecosystem-based adaptation in Pramova et al., 2012).
However, trade-offs are also possible, for example, if ecosystem
management for mitigation purposes reduces the livelihood opportunities
and the adaptive capacity of local people (Locatelli et al., 2011). The
scale of these examples is often local, however, and longer term success
of these pathways will depend on the broader context of mitigation
and facilitation of adaptation options (Metz et al., 2002).
When integrating across the goal of finding climate-resilient pathways
(and win-win solutions), decision makers often need to address issues
of scale, along with trade-offs in values such as economic profitability
versus stability of food and livelihood security (e.g., in agricultural policy),
relationships between development ends and means, uncertainty and
path dependencies, and institutional complexity (Tol, 2004; Klein et al.,
2005; Wilson and McDaniels, 2007). They also need to consider the
possibility of ancillary co-benefits, complementarities and potential
contradictions, opportunity costs, and unknown negative and positive
feedbacks (e.g., interactions among options and paybacks (Rosenzweig
and Tubiello, 2007; Swart and Raes, 2007; Wilbanks and Sathaye, 2007;
Kok et al., 2008; IPCC, 2007a, Chapter 18; National Research Council,
2010a)). Current research is examining trade-offs and complementarities
between mitigation and adaptation in different sectors. In the energy
sector, for instance, Kopytko and Perkins (2011) have examined to
what extent the siting of nuclear power plants might constrain future
adaptation to sea level rise. Others ask about such issues as adaptation
implications of the production of biofuels (La Rovere et al., 2009);
agriculture and water (Rosenzweig and Tubiello, 2007; Shah, 2009;
Falloon and Betts, 2010; Rounsevell et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2010);
conservation (Rounsevell et al., 2010; Turner et al., 2010); use of
mitigation programs to finance adaptation (Hof et al., 2009); and the
urban environment (Biesbroek et al., 2009; Hamin and Gurran, 2009;
Roy, 2009; Romero-Lankao and Wilbanks, 2011; Viguié and Hallegatte,
2012).
20.4. Contributions to Resilience
through Sustainable Development
Strategies and Choices
Although climate change responses can contribute significantly to
climate-resilient development pathways, some of the key elements of
resilience lie in sustainable development implementation, which can
make resilience either more or less achievable. Examples of ways that
development strategies and choices can contribute to climate resilience
i
nclude being capable of resolving trade-offs among economic and
environmental goals (e.g., Bamuri and Opeschoor, 2007), ensuring
effective institutions in developing, implementing, and sustaining resilient
strategies, and enhancing the range of choices through innovation (e.g.,
Folke et al., 2002; Chuku, 2009; Hallegatte, 2009).
2
0.4.1. Resolving Trade-offs between
Economic and Environmental Goals
Sustainable development pathways will be more climate resilient if
they develop and utilize socioeconomic and institutional structures
that are effective in resolving trade-offs among social, economic, and
environmental goals—a central tenet of sustainable development
(Section 20.2.1.1). As climate change poses risks to goals such as poverty
reduction, food and livelihood security, human health, and economic
prosperity (Chapter 19), societies face the task of defining how to
manage these risks and what levels of risk without compromising what
they value most and what defines their societies. The management of
risk—and the weighting of various categories of risk—depends on
social definitions of what consequences are acceptable, tolerable, or
intolerable (Chapter 16).
There is a long-standing assumption that economic growth is in conflict
with environmental management (Victor and Rosenbluth, 2007; Hueting,
2010). Much of this thinking can be traced back to Malthus and his
assertions that population growth (and associated consumption) would
expand at an increasing rate until the limits of the Earth’s capacity were
reached (Malthus, 1798). The very idea of sustainable development itself
springs from a need to respond to such Malthusian ideas. The views
expounded in the Brundtland Report, for example, are that development
should not be unconstrained but should rather be modified into a
“sustainable” form (WCED, 1987). Views about relationships between
economic growth and environmental protection range widely from
arguments that sustainable development is inconsistent with continued
economic growth (e.g., Robinson, 2004) to arguments that economic
growth and associated technological innovation can enhance options
for environmental management (Lovins and Cohen, 2011). Relationships
between affluence and environmental protection are complex, as poverty
can lead to land degradation and affluence can afford support for nature
preservation, while economic growth is built on levels of resource
extraction and use that require significant changes in environments.
Sustainable development cannot escape continuing tensions between
economic growth and environmental management goals, where
strongly held views across society often differ so fundamentally that
conflict results unless social processes and institutional mechanisms are
effective in resolving a host of trade-offs (Boyd et al., 2008), with both
values and processes varying according to development context.
Examples of frameworks of thought often related to addressing trade-
offs are multi-metric valuation and co-benefits (see also Ness et al.,
2007, regarding tools for sustainability assessment; Bizikova et al., 2008,
Appendix 1; Gulledge et al., 2010):
• Multi-metric valuation. In evaluating development pathways, there
are often needs to combine a number of dimensions associated
with different valuation metrics and information requirements, such
as monetary measures of returns and non-monetary metrics of risk.
1119
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
F
ields ranging from aquatic ecology to risk assessment and financial
management have developed tools for such complex valuations,
including graphical mapping (e.g., Sheppard and Meitner, 2005;
Rose, 2010; Moed and Plume, 2011; UNFCCC, 2011) and the
construction of multi-metric indexes (e.g., Johnston et al., 2011).
Multi-metric indicators have been widely studied and critiqued, and
they are an active topic of research (e.g., Drouineau et al., 2012;
Schoolmaster, 2013). A key challenge is weighting different valuations
being combined quantitatively, which may be addressed in part by
constructing multiple indices. More commonly in collective decision
making, however, analytical-deliberative group processes are used
to evaluate, weight, and combine different dimensions and metrics
qualitatively (National Research Council, 1996).
• Co-benefits. An issue in both climate and development policy,
related in some cases to access to financial support (e.g., Miller,
2008), is the fact that a specific resilience-enhancing action may
have benefits for both development and for addressing concerns
about climate change. International funding for mitigation projects
has often adopted the concept of “additionality,” which takes the
position that financial support should be limited to those climate
change response benefits that are in addition to what would be
happening in development processes otherwise (e.g., Muller, 2009).
This general concept (e.g., “incremental” costs and benefits) has
been applied in financial support for adaptation as well. A co-
benefits approach, on the other hand, takes the position that actions
that benefit both development and climate change responses
simultaneously should be encouraged and that a combination of both
kinds of benefits should increase the attractiveness of a proposed
action (Section 20.3.3). Co-benefits of mitigation actions, such as
health benefits, have been extensively analyzed (e.g., Younger et
al., 2008; Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2009;
WHO, 2011; EPA, 2012), and they are being actively explored for
adaptation as well (e.g., National Research Council, 2010a; UNFCCC,
2011).
As an example of co-benefits, mechanisms such as REDD+ have the
potential to achieve both carbon emissions reduction and to benefit
livelihoods of those living in forested areas, as well as supporting
benefits to social equity (Anglesen et al., 2009; UNEP, 2013). As one
instance, the government of Ethiopia has recognized the multiple
benefits that can be derived and has incorporated a REDD+ initiative in
critical sectors of the economy to develop an environmentally sustainable
growth path in Ethiopia (FDRE, 2011). Tools for analyzing such issues
are associated with research on “externalities” (e.g., Baumol and Oates,
1988; Klenow and Rodriguez-Clare, 2005; also see Chapter 17 and multi-
metric valuations above), but participative planning and decision making
usually incorporate a co-benefits perspective as a matter of course.
In practice, trade-offs between different development goals (Stoorvogel
et al., 2004) may or not be resolved in coherent ways (Metz et al., 2002).
In many cases, resolutions emerge through untidy social processes of
evolution and attrition, reflecting dynamics of values, power, control,
and surprises, rather than through formal analysis (Bizikova et al., 2008).
In some cases, trade-offs are addressed with the assistance of scenario
development, the creation of descriptive narratives, and other projections
of future contingencies (IPCC, 2012, Chapter 8), along with participative
vulnerability assessments (National Research Council, 2010a).
20.4.2. Ensuring Effective Institutions in Developing,
Implementing, and Sustaining Resilient Strategies
Climate-resilient pathways will benefit from institutions that are effective
and flexible in the face of a wider range of challenges, of which climate
change is only one (Gupta et al., 2010). Governance systems, including
public and private organizations, will need resources (e.g., human, financial,
political, technological) to enable vulnerable societies that are sensitive
to the impacts of climate change to transform their lives. Effective
management of natural capital and ecosystem goods and services can
be accomplished only where there are strong institutions as stewards and
a regulatory force to ensure that vulnerable communities are protected
from climate shocks and stresses and that growth from climate change
is inclusive (Mitchell and Tanner, 2006). Moderating the impacts of climate
change will also require strong a foundation in science and technology;
but the deployment of science and relevant technologies cannot take
place in a vacuum. It will need effective institutional arrangements to
bolster both adaptation and mitigation demands and to combine
technology options with local knowledge (Section 20.4.3).
“Institutions” refer not only to formal structures and processes but also
to the rules of the game and the norms and cultures that underpin
environmental values and belief systems (see Glossary). Ostrom (1986)
defines institutions as the rules, norms, and practices defining social
behavior in a particular context—the action arena. Institutions define
roles and provide social context for action and structure social interactions
(Hodgson, 2003). Definitions of sustainability are shaped largely by
institutional values, cultures, and norms. Institutions also critically influence
our ability to govern and manage the resources and systems that shape
adaptation, mitigation, and sustainable development. Fostering climate-
resilient pathways requires strong institutions that are able to create
an enabling environment through which adaptive and mitigative
capacities can be built (IPCC, 2007a, Chapter 20; Gupta et al., 2010).
Implicit in institutional resilience is the capacity of the exposed unit and
the players within an action arena to devise rules that allows them to
recover from environmental shocks, and equally ones that provide
incentives and benefits that equitably distribute resources across social
groups (Handmer and Dovers, 1996; McSweeny and Coomes, 2011).
Hence, the trajectory to a climate-resilient pathway requires institutional
arrangements that foster innovation, monitoring, and evaluation of
strategies for managing climate impacts and reducing risks.
Transformative action within a framework of climate-resilient pathways
is rooted in strong and viable institutions and in an institutional context
that adaptively manages the allocation of resources and processes of
change. Institutions at different levels are the object of societal pressures
and challenges relating to environmental change. Local institutions
are particularly adroit in coping with multiple changes. These changes
often force local actors and organizations to rethink their institutional
arrangements and make adjustments that will allow them to cope with
multiple vulnerabilities (McSweeny and Coomes, 2011), and their bottom-
up initiatives are critically important to climate-resilient pathways.
Organizational mechanisms are central to building linkages between
local level adaptation action and national level planning. In six case
studies in West Africa and Latin America, Agrawal et al. (2011) found
that these connections are missing in all the countries studied. However,
in these countries external policy support catalyzed adaptation actions
1120
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
t
hrough three types of intervention mechanisms: information, incentives,
and institutions.
Local institutions crucially influence the ability of communities to adapt
and benefit from adaptation and mitigation programs in rural and urban
settings (Corbera and Brown, 2008; Chhartre and Agrawal, 2009; Agrawal,
2010). For instance, institutions tend to play an influential role in shaping
farmers’ decisions and helping them make strategic choices with several
implications for livelihoods and sustainable development (Agrawal,
2010). In rural areas, current socioeconomic dynamics, rapid population
growth, commercialized agriculture, new agricultural trends, and
technological advancements in agriculture have meant that local
organizations and actors have seen a change in their role managing
environmental resources; local institutions are themselves in a state
of flux as they are subjected to uncertainties in climatic condition
(Senaratne and Wickramasinghe, 2010). However, in developing countries,
particularly in Africa, where traditional knowledge could potentially
moderate this uncertainty, it is often not recognized as a reference point
for managing climate risks and emerging threats. In Kenya, the importance
of indigenous knowledge, given increased uncertainty and climate-
related risks, has compelled national agencies such as the Kenyan
Meteorological Agencies and vulnerable groups such as the indigenous
communities commonly known as rainmakers to form strategic reciprocal
links. By working closely together to calibrate their forecasts and test
the efficacy of the results against climate change impacts on agricultural
productivity, the two groups have been able to demonstrate the benefits
of Western science and traditional knowledge systems to increase
effectiveness (Ziervogel and Opere, 2010). In integrating different kinds
of knowledge, participatory processes, which call for a deliberative form
of decision making among stakeholders, are well suited to the governance
culture necessary for effective adaptation and mitigation. However,
findings in the literature regarding the effectiveness of participatory
processes are mixed. For example, though some scholars have argued
that deliberative democracy methods can bring diverse stakeholders
and kinds of knowledge (e.g., lay, expert, and indigenous) together thus
putting in place a more communicative model of science delivery (Benn
et al., 2009), empirical research shows that stakeholder participation
does not always lead to consensus (Rowe and Frewer, 2004; Bell et al.,
2011; also see Salter et al., 2010).
In addition, better institutions are needed to handle the large flows of
funds and other resources that are associated with managing and
improving the delivery systems that will allow people and organizations
to take advantage of opportunities that will trigger a set of actions to
combat the negative impacts of climate change. The complexity of
different resource flows and distributional effects related to adaptation
and mitigation is at the heart of the sustainable development debate,
with numerous implications for equity and justice (O’Brien and Leichenko,
2003; Roberts and Parks, 2006). The nature and dynamics of climate
change call for flexibility to “allow society to modify its institutions at
a rate commensurate with the rapid rate of environmental change”
(Gupta et al., 2008). Here, institutional “renewal” is essential to achieve
a degree of social cohesion and transformation.
An institutional response to climate change is even more fundamental in
common pool property resources such as freshwater, especially because
in a changing climate, many river basins are subjected to increased
p
recipitation or water scarcity that affects both their ecosystems and
the resources that support the livelihoods of those communities
dependent on them. The quality and performance of the organizations
and mechanisms created to manage these resources are largely shaped
by the rules they follow and the suitability of these rules to the social
ecological system in which they are embedded (Bisaro et al., 2010).
Indeed, a climate-resilient pathway is one that will not only manage
biophysical changes, but also address inherent institutional asymmetries
that can further reinforce current inequalities in the way common pool
resources are managed. In this context, the monitoring and mediation
capacities and the degree to which resource management organizations
are embedded at different scales across the governance regime will largely
shape its adaptive capacity and sustainability. Thus, the vulnerability of
large river basins will largely depend not only on the changing biophysical
conditions, but also on institutional architecture that is put in place to
manage risks and build resilience. For example, Schlager and Heikkila
(2011) argue that compacts that have fixed allocation rules tend to
exhibit greater vulnerability to climate change mainly because the
system is far too rigid and does not allow for much flexibility in dealing
with the changing hydrologic regime. States such as Colorado in the
USA have dealt with water scarcity more efficiently mainly because
users of the basin have access to venues that allow them to design and
review current rules (Schlager and Heikkila, 2011).
Common problems with institutional arrangements for adaptively
managing natural resources include a frequent incompatibility of current
governance structures with many of those that may be necessary for
promoting social and ecological resilience. For example, some major
tenets of traditional management styles have “in many cases operated
through exclusion of users and the top-down application of scientific
knowledge in rigid programmes” (Tompkins and Adger, 2004, p. 10).
20.4.3. Enhancing the Range of Choices
through Innovation
Finally, climate resilience will in most cases depend on innovation,
developing new ideas and options or adapting robust familiar ideas and
options to meet emerging new needs and to respond to surprises (see
also WGIII AR5 Chapter 6). As indicated in the previous section,
integrated strategies for climate resilience can benefit from considering
possibilities to develop new options through social, institutional, and
technological innovation. For example, if a climate-resilient pathway for
a particular region calls for coping with greater water scarcity, innovations
might consider changes in water rights practices, improving the
understanding of groundwater dynamics and recharge, improving
technologies and policies for water use efficiency improvements, and
in coastal areas the development of more affordable technologies for
desalination (Lebel, 2005; National Research Council, 2010a). One key
issue for risk management, therefore, is assessing needs for and possible
benefits from targeting innovation efforts on critical vulnerabilities.
Innovations can include both technological and social changes, which
in many cases are closely related (Rohracher, 2008; Raven et al., 2010),
as technology and society evolve together (Kemp, 1994). An important
characteristic of such socio-technical transitions are the interactions
and conflicts between new, emerging systems and established regimes,
1121
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
w
ith strong actors defending business-as-usual (Kemp, 1994; Perez,
2002; IPCC, 2012).
Effective use of innovations depends on more than idea and/or
technology development alone. Unless the innovations, the skills required
to use them, and the institutional approaches appropriate to deploy
them are effectively transferred from providers to users, effects of
innovations—however promising—are minimized (IPCC, 2012).
Challenges in putting science and technology to use for sustainable
development have received considerable attention (e.g., Nelson and
Winter, 1982; Patel and Pavit, 1995; National Research Council, 1999;
International Council for Science, 2002; Kristjanson et al., 2009). These
studies emphasize the wide range of contexts that shape both barriers
and potentials and the importance of “co-production” of knowledge,
integrating general scientific knowledge with other forms of knowledge
(e.g., local, indigenous, practical knowledge, experience, and expertise).
If obstacles related to intellectual property rights can be overcome,
however, the growing power of the information technology revolution
could accelerate the transfer of technologies and other innovations
(linked with local knowledge) in ways that would be very promising for
strengthening local resilience (Wilbanks and Wilbanks, 2010).
New technologies have the potential to allow a number of developing
countries to benefit from knowledge in ways that will give them
considerable advantage in building the relevant social and institutional
infrastructure to sustain a climate-resilient pathway. Advances in mobile
technologies in developing countries, for example, have increased the
accessibility of farmers to critical information such as disease surveillance,
information related to agricultural inputs, and market prices for crops
(Hazell et al., 2010; Juma, 2011). Biotechnology applications in biological
systems have the potential to lead to increased food security and
sustainable forestry practices, as well as improving health in developing
countries by enhancing food nutrition.
20.5. Determinants of Resilience
in the Face of Serious Threats
Climate change is not the only type of change occurring in the 21st
century. Many households, communities, organizations, countries, and
regions are confronting a confluence of economic, political, demographic,
social, cultural, and environmental changes. Issues such as poverty,
economic crisis, increasing inequality, and violent conflict often draw
attention away from concerns about climate change, the loss of
biodiversity and ecosystem services, and other global environmental
issues. However, the impacts of climate change and extreme events can
exacerbate food insecurity, slow down the pace of poverty reduction in
urban areas, influence human health, and jeopardize sustainable
development (Chapters 11, 12, 13). Resilience is a concept that takes
into account how systems, communities, sectors, or households deal with
disturbance, uncertainty, and surprise over time, and it is characterized
by both adaptability and transformability (Walker and Salt, 2006; Folke
et al., 2010; Westley et al., 2011). The sections below consider two
important components of climate-resilient pathways: transformational
adaptation in response to the impacts of climate change, and
transformational change to reduce vulnerability and the risk of high-
magnitude climate change.
20.5.1. Relationships between the Magnitude and Rate
of Climate Change and Requirements for
Transformational Adaptation
The timing and ambition levels of global GHG mitigation efforts will
influence the magnitude and rate of climate change and its impacts,
particularly in the second half of the 21st century and beyond (Kriegler et
al., 2012; Peters et al., 2013; Rogelj et al., 2013; see also Box 20-3). Model
results based on integrated scenarios that take into account geophysical,
technological, social, and political uncertainties indicate that reaching
the often-discussed limit of a 2°C average global temperature increase
calls for mitigation of emissions through increased energy efficiency
and lower energy demand well before 2020 (Peters et al., 2013; Rogelj
et al., 2013; see also Section 20.6.1). If the magnitude and rate of climate
change is kept minimal or moderate, incremental adaptation may be a
sufficient response to consequences in many locations and contexts.
However, in cases where vulnerability is currently high, transformational
adaptation may be needed to respond to changes in climate and climate
variability. In the absence of ambitious mitigation efforts, the impacts
of climate change can be expected to increase dramatically from the
second half of the 21st century onward (see Chapter 19). In this case,
transformational adaptation may be required in advance of disruptive
impacts to reduce risks and vulnerabilities (Kates et al., 2012).
This distinction between incremental and transformational adaptation
is important: incremental adaptation can be considered extensions of
actions and behaviors that already are in place to reduce losses or
enhance benefits associated with climate change, often where the goal
is to maintain the essence and integrity of an existing system or process
at a given scale (Kates et al., 2012; Park et al., 2012). Transformational
adaptation, in contrast, includes actions that change the fundamental
attributes of a system in response to actual or expected impacts of climate
change. These may involve adaptations at a larger scale or greater
intensity than previously experienced; adaptations that are new to a
region or system; or adaptations that transform places or lead to a shift
in the location of activities (Kates et al., 2012). Such transformations
are expected to occur when the rate and magnitude of climate change
threatens to overwhelm the resilience of existing systems, or when
vulnerability is high (Kates et al., 2012). Transformational adaptation
often occurs in continuous interaction with incremental adaptations (see
IPCC, 2012, Figure 8-1; Park et al., 2012). Although thresholds or tipping
points in complex systems are difficult to predict, studies from a variety
of disciplines indicate some generic properties associated with transitions
between different states, including an increase in recovery times from
disturbances such as extreme weather events (Scheffer et al., 2009;
Lenton, 2011a). The risks associated with a high magnitude and rate of
climate change and its impacts on natural and managed resources and
systems are considerable. The limits to adaptation (Chapter 16) suggest
that transformational change may be a requirement for sustainable
development in a changing climate (Westley et al., 2011; O’Brien, 2012).
20.5.2. Elements of and Potentials for
Transformational Change
Transformational change can be considered a means of reducing risk
and vulnerability, not only by adapting to the impacts of climate change,
1122
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
b
ut also by challenging the systems and structures, economic and social
relations, and beliefs and behaviors that contribute to climate change
and social vulnerability. In cases where current development pathways
are considered as the root causes of climate risk and vulnerability,
transformation of wider political, economic, and social systems may be
necessary (Pelling, 2010; IPCC, 2012; Lemos et al., 2013).
Transformation is defined as a change in the fundamental attributes of
natural and human systems (see Glossary). Within the WGII AR5,
transformation could reflect strengthened, altered, or aligned
paradigms, goals, or values towards promoting adaptation for sustainable
development, including poverty reduction. Transformations can occur quite
suddenly, in response to a specific event or a momentous incident, or they
may emerge gradually over time (Loorbach, 2007). Transformational
change is often difficult to order or plan, and there are many social,
political, and cultural barriers and resistances. Transformational change
can threaten vested interests, or prioritize the interests of some over
the well-being of others, and it is never a neutral process (Meadowcroft,
2009; Smith and Stirling, 2010). At the national level, transformation is
considered most effective when it considers a country’s own visions and
approaches to achieve sustainable development in accordance with their
national circumstances and priorities. While not every transformation is
considered ethical, equitable, or sustainable, it is possible to promote
deliberate transformations that reduce climate risk and vulnerability
and contribute to global sustainability (Folke et al., 2010; Kates et al.,
2012; O’Brien, 2012).
There is an extensive literature on transitions and transformations covering
a variety of sectors and factors that influence changes in systems and
behaviors (Geels, 2002; Calvin et al., 2009; Berkhout et al., 2010; Pelling
2010; Shove and Walker, 2010; WGIII AR5 Chapter 6). Transformations
can be promoted by creating enabling conditions, which include a
supportive social environment, information flows, and access to options,
resources, and incentives for change (Kates et al., 2012). Transformations
can also be stimulated through rules and regulations that necessitate
innovations, alternative options, or new behaviors. Finally, transformations
may result when alternative systems and structures eventually make
old ones seem outdated. Often, dramatic focal events can draw attention
to the need for change and mobilize groups or networks to advocate
transformational change (Hernes, 2012).
Transformation processes are linked to learning, leadership, empowerment,
and collaboration within and across institutions, organizations, and
groups (Heifetz et al., 2009; IPCC, 2012, Chapter 8; Kates et al., 2012;
O’Brien, 2012). Other key elements associated with transformations
include adaptable institutions (cultural, economic, and governance), all
types of capital, diversity in landscapes, seascapes and institutions,
learning platforms, collective action and networks, as well as reflexivity
and the capacity to take different perspectives (Loorbach 2007; Folke
et al., 2010; Schlitz et al., 2010; Westley et al., 2011). Many of the
elements of climate-resilient pathways discussed in Box 20-3 can, in fact,
support transformation.
Transformations can take place within diverse realms or spheres (see
Figure 20-2). Within each sphere, there exist both catalysts and
constraints to transformation. The core of transformational change
occurs in what is labeled in Figure 20-2 as the “practical sphere.” Here,
measures such as technological innovations and economic incentives
are used to influence sustainable behaviors and responses. The outcomes
of transformations in this sphere are observable and measurable; many
sustainability policies and initiatives target transformations in this
sphere. However, these transformations are often constrained by larger
systems and structures, including financial, political, legal, social,
economic, ecological, and cultural systems that define the boundaries
for action. The “political sphere” is where systems and structures are
transformed (intentionally or unintentionally) through politics and social
movements, or through changes in social and cultural norms and power
relations. Systems and structures often reflect dominant cultural beliefs
and worldviews, and it is here where value conflicts may be experienced
or resolved. A third sphere of transformation is the “personal sphere,”
which includes individual and collective beliefs, values, and worldviews,
as well as the dominant paradigms. Transformations in this sphere can
influence systems, structures, behaviors, and responses, and thus they
represent important leverage points for sustainability. Attention to
transformations in all three spheres is considered necessary in response
to the observed and anticipated impacts of climate change (Beddoe et
al., 2009; O’Brien and Sygna, 2013).
20.6. Toward Climate-Resilient Pathways
20.6.1. Alternative Climate-Resilient Pathways
Climate-resilient pathways consist of future trajectories of development
that combine adaptation and mitigation in the context of sustainable
POLITICAL
O
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
f
o
r
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
PERSONAL
PRACTICAL
B
ehaviors and
technical responses
B
e
l
i
e
f
s
,
v
a
l
u
e
s
,
w
o
r
l
d
v
i
e
w
s
,
a
n
d
p
a
r
a
d
i
g
m
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
Figure 20-2 | The three spheres of transformation. Transformational change may be
an effective leverage point for promoting climate-resilient pathways for sustainable
development. This figure depicts three interacting spheres or realms where
transformational changes toward sustainability may be initiated. Transformations in the
outer two spheres can have a large influence on behaviors and technical responses,
contributing to nonlinear transformations to sustainability (O’Brien and Sygna, 2013).
1123
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
d
evelopment implementation. At any scale (local or regional) there are
alternative paths leading to similar levels of climate resilience (Holling,
1973). At any time along a pathway, more or less resilience may be
observed at specified points within the system (or locality), while the
total amount of resilience within the entire system remains unchanged
(Folke, 2006). Each potential alternative pathway can be strengthened
and evaluated based on certain risk management characteristics/
elements: the capacity to (1) foresee risk/vulnerability; (2) decrease
climate change impacts; (3) respond rapidly to unpredictable, uneven,
and extreme events; (4) include considerable amounts of proactive
adaptation; and (5) evolve in support of societal advancement and
balanced environmental management.
Examples in this chapter demonstrate that many of the choices involved
in framing and supporting attempts to increase and sustain climate
resilience are made largely at global and national levels, but many of
the actions to sustain resilience are made at local levels. The global
pathways that emerge are accumulations of these local and national
choices. In these processes, path dependence is strong enough such
that risk management decisions in the near term are more likely to lead
to resilience if long-term objectives are included as well as a wider
spatial scale up to and including the global level.
A central issue in considering alternative pathways is the extent to
which they may fail to meet a criterion of climate resilience. Or to put
the question more simply, “are there any boundaries on the envelope
of climate resilience?” The answer is highly scale dependent. We
have a carbon legacy in the atmosphere, and total prevention/avoidance
of impacts is now unachievable (Dickinson, 2007). At any level of
stabilization of GHG concentrations, with even the strongest emissions
reduction targets, some localities or systems or populations will be
vulnerable to disruptions because there is in effect no limit below which
universal prevention of residual loss and damages can be assured.
Transformational change will therefore need to be a key component in
nearly all alternative climate-resilient pathways.
In the event that global surface mean temperatures rise through +2°C
to +4°C and higher (Anderson and Bows, 2008; Schneider, 2008; New
et al., 2012), sustainability will become significantly more difficult to
achieve (food security is a notable example; see Chapter 7). For example,
a business-as-usual future society where unsustainable development
paths are the norm, where technology transfer between countries is
lacking, population growth increases rapidly, GHG emission go unabated,
and institutions and governance structures are ineffective at creating
effective climate change policies, would almost certainly result in losses
so widespread that a development pathway would not be resilient
(Riahi et al., 2011; Arnell et al., 2013). A pathway that included these
elements would fall outside the “boundaries of the envelope of climate
resilience.”
Within these boundaries, climate-resilient pathways can be made up of
a collective of alternative choices at the regional level, where they
are dependent upon specific demographics, potentials for economic
development and growth, ecological and ecosystem services, access
to natural resources, institutional and governance structures, and
technological development and transfer. This concept at the global
level offers a conceptual framework for considering alternative mixes
o
f actions in support of climate resilience. Pathways can be developed
to illustrate a range of possible futures, as a basis for discussion,
following different yet distinct storylines. These dimensions can then
be related to socioeconomic challenges confronting climate change
mitigation and adaptation (as one aspect of sustainable development).
One such pathway could have relatively limited challenges to both
adaptation and mitigation, while another has substantial challenges to
both adaptation and mitigation. Any pathway characterized by low
challenges to both has a high potential to be more climate resilient at
the global scale and in many local or national situations. A pathway
characterized by high challenges to both adaptation and mitigation has
a high potential to be less climate resilient at the global scale and in
many localities and countries.
20.6.2. Implications for Current Sustainable
Development Strategies and Choices
Decision makers face an array of choices in their efforts to define and
implement pathways that will help to improve human well-being now
and in the future in the face of climate change and other stressors.
Although payoffs from specific long-term pathways may be uncertain
at this time, growing evidence (IPCC, 2007; see also Chapters 8 to 13,
16 to 19) suggests that decision points and actions are at hand now.
Climate-resilient development pathways are not only about actions
taken in the future, but they are also about strategies and choices that
are taken today. In fact, damage and loss patterns are not limited to
future vulnerabilities; in many areas they are impeding food production
and other essential development services in ways that deepen and widen
poverty (Chapter 13), contribute to involuntary migration (Chapter 12;
Warner and Afifi, 2013), and pressure food production and food prices
(Chapters 7, 17; Warner and van der Geest, 2013).
In this sense, delaying action in the present may reduce options for
climate-resilient pathways in the future. In some parts of the world,
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ 20.4 | Are there things that we can
be doing now that will put
us on the right track toward
climate-resilient pathways?
Yes. Climate-resilient pathways begin now, because
it is time to consider possible strategies that would
increase climate resilience while at the same time
helping to improve human livelihoods and social and
economic well-being. Combining these strategies
with a process of iterative monitoring, evaluation,
learning, innovation, and contingency planning
will reduce climate change disaster risks, promote
adaptive management, and contribute significantly
to prospects for climate-resilient pathways.
1124
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
i
nadequate efforts to address effects of emerging climate stressors are
already eroding the basis for sustainable development. New studies
find that among people who attempt to cope with current stresses, most
experienced negative residual impacts and as a consequence faced
eroding household income and food security, health, and education
opportunities and were more likely to migrate and lose housing and
livelihood assets (Monnereau and Abraham, 2013; Rabbani et al., 2013;
Traore et al., 2013; Warner and van der Geest, 2013; Yaffa, 2013). For
example, in the Punakha district in Bhutan, 87% of households that
adopted coping measures reported that they were still experiencing
adverse effects of changing monsoon patterns despite the adaptation
measures (Kusters and Wangdi, 2013). Evidence (Chapters 7, 8, 12, 13,
16, 19) suggests that waiting to take more effective action may reduce
the range of choices for climate-resilient pathways in the future
(National Research Council, 2011).
More generally, IPCC (2012) makes the case that a window of opportunity
exists now for considering possible strategies that would increase climate
resilience while at the same time helping to improve human livelihoods
and social and economic well-being. It suggests that a process of iterative
monitoring, evaluation, learning, innovation, and contingency planning
will reduce climate change disaster risks, promote adaptive management,
and contribute significantly to prospects for climate-resilient pathways.
In this sense, strategies and actions can be pursued now that will move
toward climate-resilient pathways while at the same time helping
to improve human livelihoods, social and economic well-being, and
responsible environmental management.
As policy makers explore what pathways to pursue, they will increasingly
face questions about managing discourses about what societal objectives
to pursue unchanged, where compromises in objectives are tolerable,
and what consequences including loss and damage may be associated
with different pathways. In considering possible needs for transformational
pathways (Section 20.5), extreme weather occurrences such as major
floods, wildfires, cyclones, and heat waves may focus societal attention
on vulnerabilities and stressors and provide a “policy window” for major
changes (Kingdon, 1995; Birkland, 2006; Kates et al., 2012). Discussions
of transformation may require broader-based social discourse (Pelling
et al., 2007) and iterative institutional learning (Berkhout et al., 2006),
on the basis of growing evidence, knowledge, and experience. Systems
to monitor emerging stresses and threats will aid decision makers at
different scales to evaluate alternative pathways (Kates et al., 2012).
20.7. Priority Research/Knowledge Gaps
Because integrating climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation,
and sustainable development is a relatively new challenge, research
should be a very high priority indeed to inform strategies and actions.
The most salient research need is to improve the understanding of how
climate change mitigation and adaptation can be combined with resilient
sustainable development pathways in a wide variety of regional and
sectoral contexts (Wilbanks, 2010). One starting point is simply improving
the capacity to characterize benefits, costs, potentials, and limitations
of major mitigation and adaptation options, along with their external
implications for equitable development, so that integrated climate change
response strategies can be evaluated more carefully (Wilbanks et al.,
2
007; National Research Council, 2011). What are the major trade-offs?
What are the potential synergies? How do implications of integrated
mitigation/adaptation strategies vary with location, climate change risks
and vulnerabilities, scale, and development objectives and capacities
(e.g., Hugé et al., 2011)? In these regards, the best of global science
needs to be combined with national and local expertise to advance
knowledge related to climate-resilient pathways.
Related to this general priority are at least three specific research needs:
• Advances in conceptual and methodological understandings of, and
tools to support research on, multiple drivers of development
pathways and climate change impacts; possible feedback effects
among mitigation, adaptation, and development; possible thresholds/
tipping points that could cause particular challenges for development;
and possible transformations to reduce losses and damages and
support sustainable development (Stern and Wilbanks, 1999;
National Research Council, 2010a; see also Section 20.5).
• Advances in knowledge about how to respond sustainably to climate
change extremes and extreme events, when and where they pose
development challenges that would appear to require transformative
changes in affected human and/or environmental systems. What
might the response options be, and how can they be facilitated where
they merit consideration (e.g., Pelling, 2010; Lemos et al., 2013)?
• Research on how to reconcile the importance of synergies between
climate change adaptation and mitigation actions with widespread
use of the concept of “additionality.” For example, how might
criteria be established for access to financial support for adaptation
that incorporates the development importance of co-benefits? Such
research could inform discourses about differences between
adaptation and development in ways that enable the flow of
financial resources to support adaptations (National Research
Council, 2010a).
Further research needs include:
• Research attention to potentials for technological and institutional
innovations to ease threats to sustainable development from
climate change impacts and responses. In other words, how might
climate change responses represent opportunities for innovative
development paths? How might technological development be part
of a strategy for development/climate change response integration
(Wilbanks, 2010)?
• Research on strategies for institutional development, including
improving understanding of how social institutions affect resource
use (Stern and Wilbanks, 1999), improving understanding of risk-
related judgment and decision-making under uncertainty (Stern and
Wilbanks, 1999), and best practices in creating institutions that will
effectively integrate climate change responses with sustainable
development characteristics such as participation, equity, and
accountability.
• Research on strategies for the implementation of adaptive
management and risk reduction for development. Examples of
important research needs include improving the understanding of
respective roles and interactions between autonomous response
behavior and policy initiatives; improving the body of empirical
evidence about how to implement changes that are judged to be
desirable, for example, adaptive management and governance
capacity; and improving the understanding of differences between
1125
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
r
etrofitting older infrastructures (challenge in many industrialized
countries) and designing new infrastructures (challenge in many
rapidly developing countries) (IPCC, 2012, Chapter 8).
• Research to improve the understanding of how to build social
inclusiveness into development/climate change response integration.
As suggested above, research is needed on issues of social values/
climate justice/equity/participation and how they intersect with the
deployment of mitigation, adaptation interventions, and sustainable
development policy in different regional/sociopolitical contexts
(IPCC, 2012, Chapter 8).
• Research on factors that influence deliberate transformations that
are ethical, equitable, and sustainable (Kates et al., 2012; O’Brien,
2012).
• The development of structures for learning from emerging integrated
climate change response/development experience, for example,
approaches and structures for monitoring, recording, evaluating,
and learning from experience and identifying “best practices” and
their characteristics (National Research Council, 2010a; Hilden,
2011; IPCC, 2012, Chapter 8).
Finally, it is very possible that progress with global climate change
mitigation will not be sufficient to avoid relatively high levels of regional
and sectoral impacts, and that such conditions would pose growing
challenges to the capacity of adaptation to avoid serious disruptions to
development processes. If this were to become a reality later in this
century, one response could be a rush toward geoengineering
approaches. In preparation for such a contingency, and perhaps as an
additional way to show how important progress with mitigation will
be in framing prospects for sustainable development in many contexts,
there is a very serious need for research on geoengineering costs,
benefits, risks, a wide range of possible impacts, and fair and equitable
structures for global policy and decision making (UK Royal Society,
2009; Kates et al., 2012).
But a fundamental aim of research to improve capacities for climate-
resilient pathways for sustainable development is to avoid such an
unfortunate outcome. It seeks to do so by strengthening the base of
knowledge that underlies and supports effective actions by viewing
climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, and sustainable
development in an integrative and mutually supportive way.
References
ADB and ADBI, 2012: Low-Carbon Green Growth in Asia: Policies and Practices. Joint
study of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Asian Development Bank
Institute (ADBI), ADB, Manila, Philippines, 246 pp.
Adger, W.N., 2010: Climate change, human well-being, and insecurity. New Political
Economy, 15(2), 275-292.
Adger, W.N., S. Huq, K. Brown, D. Conway, and M. Hulme, 2003: Adaptation to climate
change in the developing world. Progress in Development Studies, 3, 179-195.
Adger, W.N., K. Brown, D.R. Nelson, F. Berkes, H. Eakin, C. Folke, K. Galvin, L.
Gunderson, M. Goulden, and K. O’Brien, 2011: Resilience implications of policy
responses to climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,
2(5), 757-766.
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 International Bank for Reconstruction
and Development / The World Bank, Washington, DC, USA, pp. 173-198.
Agrawal, A., R. Mearns, N. Perrin, and M. Kononen, 2011: Area-Based Development,
Local Institutions & Climate Adaptation: A Comparative Analysis from West
Africa and Latin America. The World Bank Group, Washington, DC, USA, 56 pp.
Agrawala, S. and M. van Aalst, 2008: Adapting development cooperation to adapt
to climate change. Climate Policy, 8(2), 183-193.
Anderson, K. and A. Bows, 2008: Reframing the climate change challenge in light of
post-2000 emission trends. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A,
366(1882), 3863-3882.
Angelson, A., 2009: Realizing REDD+: National Strategy and Policy Options. Center
for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia, 362 pp.
Arndt, C., P. Chinowsky, S. Robinson, K. Strzepek, R. Tarp, and R. Thurlow, 2012:
Economic development under climate change. Review of Development
Economics, 16(3), 369-377, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9361.2012.00668.x.
Arnell, N.W., J.A. Lowe, S. Brown, S.N. Gosling, P. Gottschaalk, J. Hinkel, B. Lloyd-
Hughes, R.J. Nicholls, T.J. Osborn, T.M. Osborne, G.A. Rose, P. Smith, and R.F.
Warren, 2013: A global assessment of the effects of climate policy on the
impacts of climate change. Nature Climate Change, 3, 512-519.
Auerswald, H., K. Konrad, and M.P. Thum, 2011: Adaptation, Mitigation and Risk-
Taking in Climate Policy. CESifo Working Paper No. 3320, Category 10: Energy
and Climate Economics, The CESifo Group: the Center for Economic Studies
(CES), the Ifo Institute and the Munich Society for the Promotion of Economic
Research (CESifo GmbH), The CESifo Group, Munich, Germany, 22 pp.
Ayers, J.M. and S. Huq, 2009: The value of linking mitigation and adaptation: a case
study of Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 43(5), 753-764.
Bäckstrand, K., 2003: Civic science for sustainability: reframing the role of experts,
policy-makers and citizens in environmental governance. Global Environmental
Politics, 3(4), 24-41.
Bamuri, T. and M.H. Opeschoor, 2007: Climate change and sustainable development:
realizing the opportunity. Ambio, 35(1), 2-8.
Banerjee, S.B., 2012: A climate for change? Critical reflections on the Durban United
Nations Climate Change Conference. Organization Studies, 33(12), 1761-1786,
doi:10.1177/0170840612464609.
Barker, T., 2008: The economics of avoiding dangerous climate change. An editorial
essay on The Stern Review. Climatic Change, 89(3-4), 173-194.
Baumol, W. and W. Oates, 1989: The Theory of Environmental Policy. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK, 299 pp.
Beckman, M., 2011: Converging and conflicting interests in adaptation to environmental
change in central Vietnam. Climate and Development, 3, 32-41.
Beddoe, R., R. Costanza, J. Farley, E. Garza, J. Kent, I. Kubiszewski, L. Martinez, T.
McCowen, K. Murphy, N. Myers, Z. Ogden, K. Stapleton, and J. Woodward, 2009:
Overcoming systemic roadblocks to sustainability: the evolutionary redesign
of worldviews, institutions, and technologies. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(8), 2483-2489.
Beg, N., J.C. Morlot, O. Davidson, Y. Afrane-Okesse, L. Tyani, F. Denton, Y. Sokona, J.P.
Thomas, E.L. La Rovere, J.K. Parikh, K. Parikh, and A.A. Rahman, 2002: Linkages
between climate change and sustainable development. Climate Policy, 2(2-3),
129-144.
Bell, A., N. Engle, and M. Lemos, 2011: How does diversity matter? The case of Brazilian
river basin councils. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 42, www.ecologyandsociety.org/
vol16/iss1/art42/.
Benn, S., D. Dunphy, and A. Martin, 2009: Governance of environmental risk: new
approaches to managing stakeholder involvement, Journal of Environmental
Management, 90, 1567-1575.
Berkes, F., 2007: Understanding uncertainty and reducing vulnerability: lessons from
resilience thinking. Natural Hazards, 41, 283-295.
Berkhout, F., J. Hertin, and D.M. Gann, 2006: Learning to adapt: organizational
adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78, 135-156.
Berkhout, F., G. Verbong, A.J. Wieczorek, R. Raven, L. Lebel, and X. Bai, 2010:
Sustainability experiments in Asia: innovations shaping alternative development
pathways? Environmental Science and Policy, 13, 261-271.
Bierbaum, R., J.B. Smith, A. Lee, M. Blair, L. Carter, F.S. Chapin, P. Fleming, S. Ruffo,
M. Stultz, S. McNeeley, E. Wasley, and L. Verduzzo, 2013: A comprehensive
review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less
than needed. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 18(3),
361-406.
Biesbroek, G.R., J. Swart, and W.G.M. van der Knaap, 2009: The mitigation-adaptation
dichotomy and the role of spatial planning. Habitat International, 33(3), 230-
237.
1126
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
Birkland, T.A., 2006: Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic Events.
Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC, USA, 216 pp.
Bisaro, A., J. Hinkel, and N. Kranz, 2010: Multilevel water, biodiversity, and climate
adaptation governance: evaluating adaptive management in Lesotho.
Environmental Science & Policy, 13, 637-647.
Bizikova, L., J. Robinson, and S. Cohen, 2007: Linking climate change and sustainable
development at the local level. Climate Policy, 7, 271-277.
Bizikova, L., T. Neale, and I. Burton, 2008: Canadian Communities’ Guidebook for
Adaptation to Climate Change. Including an Approach to Generate Mitigation
Co-Benefits in the Context of Sustainable Development. 1
st
edn, Adaptation
and Impacts Research Division (AIRD), Environment Canada and the University
of British Columbia, Vancouver, Environment Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada,
100 pp.
Bizikova, L., S. Burch, S. Cohen, and J. Robinson, 2010: 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 and New York, NY, USA, pp. 157-179.
Blackstock, J.J. and J.C.S. Long, 2010: The politics of geoengineering. Science,
327(5965), 527, doi:10.1126/science.1183877.
Boyd, E., H. Osbahr, P.J. Ericksen, E.L. Tompkins, M.C. Lemos, and F. Miller, 2008:
Resilience and climatizing development: examples and policy implications.
Development, 51(3), 390-396.
Brooks, N., W.N. Adger, and P.M. Kelley, 2005: The determinants of vulnerability and
adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation.
Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions, 15(2), 151-163.
Brovkin, V., V. Petoukhov, M. Claussen, E. Bauer, A. Archer, and C. Jaeger, 2009:
Geoengineering climate by stratospheric sulfur injections: Earth system
vulnerability to technological failure. Climatic Change, 92, 243-259.
Brown, K., 2011: Sustainable adaptation: an oxymoron? Climate and Development,
3, 21-31.
Brown, L., 1981: Building a Sustainable Society. W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., New York,
NY, USA, 433 pp.
Bryan, E., C. Ringler, B. Okoba, J. Koo, M. Herrero, and S. Silvestri, 2013: Can agriculture
support climate change adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation and rural
livelihoods? Insights from Kenya. Climatic Change, 118(2), 151-165.
Bulkeley, H. and H. Schroeder, 2012: Beyond state/non-state divides: global cities
and the governing of climate change. European Journal of International
Relations, 18(4), 743-766.
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: Human and Policy Dimensions, 20, 287-297.
Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova, and E.L. Schipper, 2002: From impact assessment
to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy. Climate Policy, 2,
145-159.
Cafaro, P., 2010: Getting to less. Ethics, Place, and Environment, 13(1), 11-14.
Calvin, K., J. Edmonds, B. Bond-Lamberty, L. Clarke, S.H. Kim, P. Kyle, S.J. Smith, A.
Thomson, and M. Wise, 2009: 2.6: Limiting climate change to 450 ppm CO
2
equivalent in the 21
st
century. Energy Economics, 31(Suppl. 2), S107-S120.
Campbell-Lendrum, D. and R. Woodruff, 2006: Comparative risk assessment of the
burden of disease from climate change. Environmental Health Perspectives,
114, 1935-1941.
Chhatre, A. and A. Agrawal, 2009: Trade-offs and synergies between carbon storage
and livelihood benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(42), 17667-17670.
Chuku, C.A., 2009: Pursuing an integrated development and climate policy framework
in Africa: options for mainstreaming. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for
Global Change, 15(1), 41-52.
Chukwumerije, O. and H. Schroeder, 2009: How can justice, development and
climate mitigation be reconciled for developing countries in a post-Kyoto
settlement? Climate and Development, 1, 10-15.
Clark, A.E., P. Frijters, and M.A. Shields, 2008: Relative income, happiness, and utility:
an explanation for the Easterlin Paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic
Literature, 46(1), 95-144.
Corbera, E. and K. Brown, 2008: Building institutions to trade ecosystem services:
marketing forest carbon in Mexico. World Development, 36, 1956-1979.
Crutzen, P.J., 2006: Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: a
contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change, 77(3-4), 211-220.
Crutzen, P.J. and E.F. Stoermer, 2000: The “Anthropocene”. Global Change Newsletter,
41, 17-18.
Dang, H.H., A. Michaelowa, and D.D. Tuan, 2003: Synergy of adaptation and mitigation
strategies in the context of sustainable development: the case of Vietnam.
Climate Policy, 3(Suppl. 1), S81-S96.
De Boer, J., J.A. Wardekker, and J.P. van der Sluijs, 2010: Frame-based guide to situated
decision-making on climate change. Global Environmental Change: Human and
Policy Dimensions, 20(3), 502-510.
Deaton, A., 2008: Income, health and well-being around the world: evidence from
the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22, 53-72.
Deere-Birbeck, C., 2009: Global governance in the context of climate change: the
challenges of increasingly complex risk parameters. International Affairs, 85(6),
1173-1194.
DeLeire, T. and A. Kalil, 2010: Does consumption buy happiness? Evidence from the
United States. International Review of Economics, 57(2), 163-176.
Dickinson, T. (ed.), 2007: Compendium of Adaptation Models for Climate Change.
1
st
edn., Adaptation and Impacts Research Division (AIRD), Environment
Canada, Toronto, ON, Canada, 41 pp.
Dolan, P. and M.P. White, 2007: How can measures of subjective well-being be used
to inform public policy? Perspectives in Psychological Science, 2, 71-85.
Dovers, S.R. and A.A. Hezri, 2010: Institutions and policy processes: the means to
the ends of adaptation. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1(2),
212-231.
Drouineau, H., J. Lobry, C. Delpech, M. Bouchoucha, S. Mahevas, A. Courrat, S.
Pasquaud, and M. Lepage, 2012: A Bayesian framework to objectively combine
metrics when developing stressor specific multimetric indicators. Ecological
Indicators, 13, 314-321.
Eakin, H., 2005: Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: cases from
central Mexico. World Development, 33, 1923-1938.
Eakin, H. and M.C. Lemos, 2006: Adaptation and the state: Latin America and the
challenge of capacity-building under globalization. Environmental Change-
Human and Policy Dimensions, 16, 7-18.
Easterlin, R.A., 1974: Does economic growth improve the human lot? In: Nations
and Households in Economic Growth: Essays in Honor of Moses Abramovitz
[David, P.A. and M.W. Reder (eds.)]. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY, USA,
pp. 89-125.
Easterlin, R.A., 2001: Income and happiness: toward a unified theory. Economic
Journal, 111, 465-484.
Edenhofer, O., J. Wallacher, H. Lotze-Campen, M. Reder, B. Knopf, and J. Müller, 2012:
Climate Change, Justice and Sustainability: Linking Climate and Development
Policy. Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands, 401 pp.
Editorial Board of National Climate Change Assessment, 2011: Second National
Climate Change Assessment Report. Editorial Board of National Climate
Change Assessment (EBNCCA), Science Press, Beijing, China, 710 pp.
Ehrenfeld, J., 2008: Sustainability by Design: A Subversive Strategy for Transforming
Our Consumer Culture. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, USA, 246 pp.
Engle, N.L., 2013: The role of drought preparedness in building and mobilizing
adaptive capacity in states and their community water systems. Climatic
Change, 118(2), 291-306.
EPA, 2012: Co-Benefits Risk Assessment (COBRA) Screening Model: A Tool that
Estimates the Health and Economic Benefits of Air Quality Policies. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA, epa.gov/
statelocalclimate/resources/cobra.html.
Eriksen, S. and K. Brown, 2011: Sustainable adaptation to climate change. Climate
and Development, 3(1), 3-6.
Eriksen, S., P. Aldunce, C.S. Bahinipati, R.D. Martins, J.I. Molefe, C. Nhemachena, K.
O’Brien, F. Olorunfemi, J. Park, L. Sygna, and K. Ulsrud, 2011: When not every
response to climate change is a good one: identifying principles for sustainable
adaptation. Climate and Development, 3(1), 7-20, doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0060.
Falloon, P. and R. Betts, 2010: Climate impacts on European agriculture and water
management in the context of adaptation and mitigation – the importance of
an integrated approach. Science of the Total Environment, 408(23), 5667-5687.
FDRE, 2011: Ethiopia’s Climate-Resilient Green Economy: Green Economy Strategy.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 188 pp.
Fleurbaey, M., 2009: Beyond GDP: the quest for a measure of well-being and social
welfare. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 1029-1075.
Folke, C., 2006: Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological
systems analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253-267.
Folke, C., S.R. Carpenter, T. Elmqvist, L. Gunderson, C.S. Holling, and B. Walker, 2002:
Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world
of transformations. Ambio, 31, 437-440.
1127
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
Folke, C., S.R. Carpenter, B. Walker, M. Scheffer, T. Chapin, and J. Rockström, 2010:
Resilience thinking: integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability.
Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20, www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/.
Forsyth, T., 2007: Promoting the “development dividend” of climate technology
transfer: can cross-sector partnerships help? World Development, 35, 1684-1698.
Frey, G.W. and D.J. Linke, 2002: Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy
resource meeting global energy challenges in a reasonable way. Energy Policy,
30, 1261-1265.
Gao, Q.-z., Y.-f. Wan, H.-m. Xu, Y. Li, W.-z. Jiangcun, and A. Borjigidai, 2010: Alpine
grassland degradation index and its response to recent climate variability in
Northern Tibet, China. Quaternary International, 226(1-2), 143-150.
Gao, Q.-z., Y. Li, H.-m. Xu, Y.-f. Wan, and W.-z. Jiangcun, 2012: Adaptation strategies
of climate variability impacts on alpine grassland ecosystems in Tibetan Plateau.
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 19(2), 199-209.
Gardiner, S., 2010: Ethics and climate change: an introduction. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change, 1(1), 54-56.
Gardiner, S.M., S. Caney, D. Jamieson, and H. Shue, 2010: Climate Ethics: Essential
Readings. Oxford University Press, New York, NY, USA, 351 pp.
Garg, A., P.R. Shukla, and M. Kapshe, 2007: From climate change impacts to
adaptation: a development perspective for India. Natural Resources Forum, 31,
132-141.
Garg, A., R. Dahiman, S. Bhattacharya, and P.R. Shukla, 2009: Development, malaria
and adaptation to climate change: a case study from India. Environmental
Management, 43, 779-789.
Geels, F.W., 2002: Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes:
a multilevel perspective and case study. Research Policy, 31(8-9), 1257-1274.
Goes, M., N. Tuana, and K. Keller, 2011: The economics (or lack thereof) of aerosol
geoengineering. Climatic Change, 109, 719-744.
Grist, N., 2008: Positioning climate change in sustainable development discourse.
Journal of International Development, 20, 783-803.
Gulledge, J., L.J. Richardson, L. Adkins, and S. Seidel (eds.), 2010: Assessing the Benefits
of Avoided Climate Change: Cost-Benefit Analysis and Beyond. Proceedings of
Workshop on Assessing the Benefits of Avoided Climate Change, Washington,
DC, March 16-17, 2009, Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Arlington, VA,
USA, 231 pp.
Gupta, J., K. Termeer, J. Klostermann, S. Meirjerirnk, M. van den Brink, P. Jong, and S.
Nooteboom, 2008: Institutions for Climate Change: A Method to Assess the
Inherent Characteristics of Institutions to Enable the Adaptive Capacity of
Society. Institute for Environmental Studies, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 19 pp.
Gupta, J., C. Termeer, K. 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, 459-471.
Hallegatte, S., 2009: Strategies to adapt to an uncertain climate change. Global
Environmental Change, 19(2), 240-247.
Halsnaes, K. and J. Verhagen, 2007: Development based climate change adaptation
and mitigation. Conceptual issues and lessons learned in studies in developing
countries. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5), 665-
684.
Halsnaes, K., P.R. Shukla, and A. Garg, 2008: Sustainability development and climate
change: lessons from country studies. Climate Policy, 8(2), 202-219.
Hamin, E.M. and N. Gurran, 2009: Urban form and climate change: balancing
adaptation and mitigation in the US and Australia. Habitat International, 33,
238-245.
Handmer, J. and S. Dovers, 1996: A typology of resilience: rethinking institutions for
sustainable development. Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 9(4),
482-511, doi: 10.1177/108602669600900403.
Hanjra, M.A. and M.E. Qureshi, 2010: Global water crisis and future food security in
an era of climate change. Food Policy, 35, 365-377.
Hardee, K. and C. Mutunga, 2009: 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(2), 113-126.
Hazell, P., J. Anderson, N. Balzer, A. Hastrup-Clemmensen, U. Hess, F. Rispoli, K. Hardee,
and C. Mutunga, 2010: The Potential for Scale and Sustainability in Weather
Index Insurance for Agriculture and Rural Livelihoods. International Fund for
Agricultural Development (IFAD) and World Food Programme (WFP) working
jointly through the IFAD-WFP Weather Risk Management Facility (WRMF),
Rome, Italy, 153 pp.
Heifetz, R., A. Grashow, and M. Linsky, 2009: The Practice of Adaptive Leadership:
Tools and Tactics for Changing Your Organization and the World. Harvard Business
School, Cambridge, MA, USA, 326 pp.
Heltberg, R., P.B. Siegel, and S.L. Jorgensen, 2009: Addressing human vulnerability
to climate change: toward a no-regrets approach. Global Environmental
Change, 19(1), 89-99.
Hernes, G., 2012: Hot Topic – Cold Comfort: Climate Change and Attitude Change.
Nordem Top Research Initiative, Oslo, Norway, 158 pp.
Hilden, M., 2011: The evolution of climate policies: the role of learning and evaluations.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1798-1811.
Hodgson, G.M., 2003: The hidden persuaders: institutions and individuals in
economic theory. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 27(2), 159-175.
Hof, A.F., K.C. de Bruin, R.B. Dellink, M.G.J. den Elzen, and D.P. van Vuuren, 2009: The
effect of different mitigation strategies on international financing of adaptation.
Environmental Science & Policy, 12, 832-843.
Holling, C.S., 1973: Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1-23.
Huesemann, M.H., 2006: Can advances in science and technology prevent global
warming? A critical review of limitations and challenges. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11(3), 539-577.
Hueting, R., 2010: Why environmental sustainability can most probably not be attained
with growing production. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 525-530.
Hugé, J., T. Waas, G. Eggermont, and A. Verbruggen, 2011: Impact assessment for a
sustainable energy future: reflections and practical experiences. Energy Policy,
39, 6243-6253.
International Council for Science, 2002: Science and Technology for Sustainable
Development: Consensus Report and Background Document, Mexico City
Synthesis Conference, 20-23 May 2002. ICSU Series on Science for Sustainable
Development No. 9, International Council for Science (ICSU), Paris, France, 30 pp.
IPCC, 2007a: Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability.
Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, M.L., O.F. Canziani, J.P.
Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden, and C.E. Hanson, (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 976 pp.
IPCC, 2007b: Summary for policymakers. 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, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 7-22.
IPCC, 2011: Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change
Mitigation. Prepared by Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, K. Seyboth, P.
Matschoss, S. Kadner, T. Zwickel, P. Eickemeier, G. Hansen, S. Schlömer, C. von
Stechow (eds)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY,
USA, 1075 pp.
IPCC, 2012: Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters
to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I
and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros,
T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K.
Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.
Jerneck, A. and L. Olsson, 2008: Adaptation and the poor: development, resilience
and transition. Climate Policy, 8, 170-182.
Johnston, R., K. Segerson, E.T. Schultz, E.Y. Besedin, and M. Ramachandran, 2011:
Indices of biotic integrity in stated preference valuation of ecosystem services.
Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1946-1956.
Juma, C., 2011: The New Harvest: Agricultural Innovation in Africa. Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, USA, 270 pp.
Kates, R.W., 2000a: Cautionary tales: adaptation and the global poor. Climatic
Change, 45, 5-17.
Kates, R.W., 2000b: Population and consumption: what we know, what we need to
know. Environment, 42(3), 10-19.
Kates, R.W., W.N. Travis, and T.J. Wilbanks, 2012: Transformational adaptation when
incremental adaptations are insufficient. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(19), 7156-7161.
Keith, D.W., 2000: Geoengineering the climate: history and prospect. Annual Review,
Energy and Environment, 25, 245-284.
Kemp, R., 1994: Technology and the transition to environmental sustainability: the
problems of technological regime shifts. Futures, 26(10), 1023-1046.
1128
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
Kingdon, J.W., 1995: Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies.2
nd
edn., Addison-
Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., New York, NY, USA, 253 pp.
Klein, R., E. Schipper, and S. Dessai, 2005: Integrating mitigation and adaptation into
climate and development policy: three research questions. Environmental
Science and Policy, 8(6), 579-588.
Klenow, P.J. and A. Rodríguez-Clare, 2005: Externalities and growth. In: Handbook
of Economic Growth [Aghion, A.P. and S. Durlauf (eds.)]. Vol. 1A, Elsevier B.V.,
Amsterdam, Netherlands, pp. 817-861.
Kok, M., B. Metz, J. Verhagen, and S. Van Rooijen, 2008: Integrating development
and climate policies: national and international benefits. Climate Policy, 8(2),
103-118.
Kopytko, N. and J. Perkins, 2011: Climate change, nuclear power, and the adaptation-
mitigation dilemma. Energy Policy, 39, 318-333.
Kriegler, E., B.C. O’Neill, S. Hallegate, T. Kram, R.J. Lempert, R.H. Moss, and T.J.
Wilbanks, 2012: The need for and use of socio-economic scenarios for climate
change analysis: a new approach based on shared socio-economic pathways.
Global Environmental Change, 22(4), 807-822.
Kristjanson, P., R.S. Reid, N. Dickson, W.C. Clark, D. Romney, R. Puskur, S. MacMillan,
and D. Grace, 2009: Linking international agricultural research knowledge with
action for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 106(13), 5047-5052.
Kusters, K. and N. Wangdi, 2013: The costs of adaptation: changes in water availability
and farmers’ responses in Punakha district, Bhutan. International Journal of
Global Warming, 5(4), 387-399.
La Rovere, E.L., A.C. Avzaradel, and J.M.G. Monteiro, 2009: Potential synergy
between adaptation and mitigation strategies: production of vegetable oils
and biodiesel in northeastern Brazil. Climate Research, 40, 233-239.
Lafferty, W.M. and J. Meadowcroft, 2010: Implementing Sustainable Development:
Strategies and Initiatives in High Consumption Societies. Oxford University
Press, New York, NY, USA, 523 pp.
Lebel, L., 2005: Carbon and water management in urbanization. Global Environmental
Change, 15(4), 293-295.
Leiserowitz, A.A., R.W. Kates, and T.M. Parris, 2005: What is sustainable development?
Goals, indicators, values, and practice. Environment: Science and Policy for
Sustainable Development, 47(1), 8-21.
Lemos, M.C., A. Agrawal, O. Johns, D. Nelson, and N. Engle, 2013: Building adaptive
capacity to climate change in less developed countries. In: Climate Science for
Serving Society: Research, Modeling and Prediction Priorities [Asrar, G.R. and
J.W. Hurrell (eds.)]. OSC Monograph Reviews, Springer Science, Dordrecht,
Netherlands, pp. 437-458.
Lenton, T.M., 2011a: Early warning of climate tipping points. Nature Climate Change,
1, 201-209.
Lenton, T.M., 2011b: 2 °C or not 2 °C? That is the climate question. Nature, 473, 7,
doi:10.1038/473007a.
Locatelli, B., V. Evans, A. Wardell, A. Andrade, and R. Vignola, 2011: Forests and
climate change in Latin America: linking adaptation and mitigation in projects
and policies. Forests, 2, 431-450.
Loorbach, D., 2007: Governance for sustainability. Sustainability: Science, Practice
& Policy, 3(2), 1-4.
Lovins, L.H. and B. Cohen, 2011: Climate Capitalism: Capitalism in the Age of Climate
Change. Hill and Wang, New York, NY, USA, 272 pp.
MacCracken, M., 2011: Potential applications of climate engineering technologies
to moderation of critical climate change impacts. In: Meeting Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Geoengineering
[Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, C. Field, V. Barros, T.F. Stocker,
Q. Dahe, J. Minx, K. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S. Schlömer, G. Hansen, and M.
Mastrandrea (eds.)]. Meeting held in Lima, Peru, 20-22 June 2011, IPCC
Working Group III Technical Support Unit, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact
Research, Potsdam, Germany, pp. 55-56.
Malthus, T.R., 1798: An Essay on the Principle of Population, as it Affects the Future
Improvement of Society, with Remarks on the Speculations of Mr. Godwin, M.
Condorcet, and Other Writers.1
st
edn., J. Johnson, London, UK, 396 pp.
Manyena, S.B., 2006: The concept of resilience revisited. Disasters, 30(4), 433-450.
Marshall, N.A., S.E. Park, W.N. Adger, K. Brown, and S.M. Howden, 2012: Transformational
capacity and the influence of place and identity. Environmental Research Letters,
7(3), 034022, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/7/3/034022.
Marston, A., 2012: One Planet – One Future: Equity and Resilience for Sustainable
Development: CARE at Rio Plus 20. CARE Denmark (CARE DK), Kobenhavn,
Denmark, 27 pp.
Matthew, R.A. and A. Hammill, 2009: Sustainable development and climate change
International Affairs, 85(6), 1117-1128.
McSweeney, K. and O.T. Coomes, 2011: Climate-related disaster opens a window
of opportunity for rural poor in northeastern Honduras. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(13), 5203-
5208.
Meadowcroft, J., 2000: Sustainable development: a new(ish) idea for a new century?
Political Studies, 48(2), 370-387.
Meadowcroft, J., 2009: What about the politics? Sustainable development, transition
management, and long term energy transitions. Policy Sciences, 42(4), 323-
340.
Metz, B. and M. Kok, 2008: Integrating development and climate policies. Climate
Policy, 8, 99-102.
Metz, B., M. Berk, M. den Elzen, B. de Vries, and D. van Vuuren, 2002: Towards an
equitable global climate change regime: a compatibility with Article 2 of the
Climate Change Convention and the link with sustainable development.
Climate Policy, 2(2-3), 211-230.
Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens, 2007: Climate change and forests of
the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications, 17(8),
2145-2151.
Miller, A.S., 2008: Financing the integration of climate change mitigation into
development. Climate Policy, 2, 152-169.
Mirza, M.M.Q., 2003: Climate change and extreme weather events: can developing
countries adapt? Climate Policy, 3, 233-248.
Mitchell, T., and S. Dovers, 2006: Adapting to Climate Change: Challenges and
Opportunities for the Development Community. Institute of Development
Studies (IDS), Tearfund, Teddington, UK, 36 pp.
Mitchell, T. and T. Tanner, 2006: Overcoming the Barriers: Mainstreaming Climate
Adaptation in Developing Countries. Tearfund Climate Change Briefing Paper
1, Climate Change and Disasters Group, Institute of Development Studies (IDS),
Tearfund, Teddington, UK, 28 pp.
Moed, H. and A. Plume, 2011: The multi-dimensional research assessment matrix.
Research Trends, (23), 5-7.
Monnereau, I. and S. Abraham, 2013: Limits to autonomous adaptation in response
to coastal erosion in Kosrae, Micronesia. International Journal of Global
Warming, 5(4), 416-432.
Morgan, J. and T. Farsides, 2009: Measuring meaning in life. Journal of Happiness
Studies, 10, 197-214.
Muller, B., 2009: Additionality in the Clean Development Mechanism: Why and What?
Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, EV44, Oxford, UK, 18 pp.
Munasinghe, M., 2010: Addressing the sustainable development and climate change
challenges together: applying the sustainonomics framework. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 2(5), 6634-6640.
Naess, 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: Human and Policy Dimensions, 15(2), 125-138.
Nelson, D.R., N. Adger, and K. Brown, 2007: Adaptation to environmental change:
contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and
Resources, 32(1), 395-419.
Nelson, R.R. and S. Winter, 1982: An Evolutional Theory of Economic Change. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 437 pp.
Ness, B., E. Urbel-Pirsalu, S. Anderberg, and S. Olsson, 2007: Categorising tools for
sustainability assessment. Ecological Economics, 60, 498-508.
Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2009: Co-Benefits of Climate
Policy. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), Bilthoven,
Netherlands, 72 pp.
New, M., D. Liverman, H. Schroder, and K. Anderson, 2012: Four degrees and beyond:
the potential for a global temperature increase of four degrees and its
implications. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 369, 6-19.
National Research Council, 1996: Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a
Democratic Society. Committee on Risk Characterization, National Research
Council, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA, 250 pp.
National Research Council, 1999: Our Common Journey: A Transition Toward
Sustainability. Board on Sustainable Development, National Research Council,
National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 350 pp.
National Research Council, 2010a: Adapting to Impacts of Climate Change. Report
of the Panel on Adapting to the Impacts of Climate Change, NAS/NRC
Committee on America’s Climate Choices, National Research Council,
Washington, DC, USA, 292 pp.
1129
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
National Research Council, 2010b: Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions,
Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia. Committee on
Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations,
National Research Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA,
298 pp.
National Research Council, 2011: America’s Climate Choices. Board on Atmospheric
Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, National Research
Council, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, USA, 144 pp.
O’Brien, K., 2009: Do values subjectively define the limits to climate change
adaptation? In: Adapting to Climate Change: Thresholds, Values, Governance
[Adger, N.W., J. Lorenzoni, and K. O’Brien (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 164-180.
O’Brien, K., 2012: Global environmental change II: from adaptation to deliberate
transformation. Progress in Human Geography, 36(5), 667-676.
O’Brien, K. and R.M. Leichenko, 2003: Winners and losers in the context of global
change. Annals, Association of American Geographers, 93(1), 89-103.
O’Brien, K. and L. Sygna, 2013: Responding to climate change: the three spheres of
transformation. In: Proceedings of Transformation in a Changing Climate, June
19-21, Oslo, Norway. University of Oslo, Department of Sociology and Human
Geography, Oslo, Norway, pp.16-23.
O’Brien, K.L., A.L. St. Clair, and B. Kristoffersen (eds.), 2010: Toward a New Science
on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 215-227.
O’Hara, P.A., 2009: Climate change and political economy. Ecological Economics,
69, 223-234.
Oliver-Smith, A., S.L. Cutter, K. Warner, C. Corendea, and K. Yuzva, 2012: Addressing
Loss and Damage in the Context of Social Vulnerability and Resilience. United
Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS),
Bonn, Germany, pp. 3-35.
Omolo, N., 2010: Gender and climate change-induced conflict in pastoral communities:
case study of Turkana in Northwestern Kenya. African Journal on Conflict
Resolution, 10(2), 81-102.
Ostrom, E., 1986: An agenda for the study of institutions. Public Choice, 48, 3-25.
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.
Patel, P. and K. Pavit, 1995: Patterns of technological activity: their measurement and
interpretation. In: Handbook of Economics of Innovation and Technological
Change [Stone, P. (ed.)]. Blackwell Handbooks in Economics, Blackwell
Publishers, Ltd., Oxford, UK, pp. 14-51.
Pelling, M., 2010: Adaptation to Climate Change: From Resilience to Transformation.
Routledge, Abingdon, UK and New York, NY, USA, 224 pp.
Pelling, M., C. High, J. Dearing, and D. Smith, 2007: Shadow spaces for social learning:
a relational understanding of adaptive capacity to climate change within
organizations. Environment and Planning A, 40, 867-884.
Perez, C., 2002: Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital: The Dynamics of
Bubbles and Golden Ages. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA, 198 pp.
Peters, G.P., R.M. Andrew, T. Boden, J.G. Canadell, P. Ciais, C. Le Quéré, G. Marland,
M.R. Raupach, and C. Wilson, 2013: The challenge to keep global warming
below 2ºC. Nature Climate Change, 3, 4-6.
Pintér, L., P. Hardi, A. Martinuzzi, and J. Hall, 2011: Bellagio STAMP: principles for
sustainability assessment and measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20-
28.
Pramova, E., B. Locatelli, I.H. Djoud, and O. Somorin, 2012: Forests and trees for
social adaptation to climate variability and change. Wiley Interdisciplinary
Reviews: Climate Change, 2(1), 434-450.
Preston, B.L., K. Dow, and F. Berkhout, 2013: The climate adaptation frontier.
Sustainability, 5(3), 1011-1035, doi:10.3390/su5031011.
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(7-8), 610-621.
Rabbani, G., A. Rahman, and K. Mainuddin, 2013: Salinity-induced loss and damage
to farming households in coastal Bangladesh. International Journal of Global
Warming, 5(4), 400-415.
Rao, P.K., 2000: Sustainable Development: Economics and Policy. Blackwell Publishers,
Ltd., Oxford, UK, 393 pp.
Raven, R., S. van den Bosch, and S. Weterings, 2010: Transitions and strategic niche
management: towards a competence kit for practitioners. International Journal
of Technology Management, 51(1), 57-74.
Riahi, K., 2000: Energy technology strategies for carbon dioxide mitigation and
sustainable development. Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, 32(2),
89-123.
Riahi, K., S. Rao, V. Krey, C. Cho, V. Chirkov, G. Fischer, G. Kindermann, N. Nakicenovic,
and P. Rafaj, 2011: RCP 8.5 – a scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas
emissions. Climatic Change, 109(1-2), 33-57.
Roberts, J.T. and B.C. Parks, 2006: A Climate of Injustice: Global Inequality, North-
South Politics, and Climate Policy. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, USA, 404 pp.
Robinson, J., 2004: Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable
development. Ecological Economics, 48, 369-384.
Robinson, J., M. Bradley, P. Busby, D. Connor, A. Murray, B. Sampson, and W. Soper,
2006: Climate change and sustainable development: realizing the opportunity.
Ambio, 35(1), 2-8.
Robock, A., L. Oman, and G. Stenchikov, 2008: Regional climate responses to
geoengineering with tropical and Arctic SO
2
injections. Journal of Geophysical
Research, 113(D16), 27, doi:10.1029/2008JD010050.
Rockström, J., W. Steffen, K. Noone, A. Persson, F.S. Chapin III, E.F. Lambin, T.M.
Lenton, M. Scheffer, C. Folke, H.J. Schellnhuber, B. Nykvist, C.A. de Wit, T. Hughes,
S. van der Leeuw, H. Rodhe, S. Sörlin, P.K. Snyder, R. Costanza, U. Svedin, M.
Falkenmark, L. Karlberg, R.W. Corell, V.J. Fabry, J. Hansen, B. Walker, D. Liverman,
K. Richardson, P. Crutzen, and J.A. Foley, 2009: A safe operating space for
humanity. Nature, 461(282), 472-475.
Rogelj, J., D.L. McCollum, A. Reisinger, M. Meinshausen, and K. Riahi, 2013:
Probabilistic cost estimates for climate change mitigation. Nature, 493, 79-83.
Rohracher, H., 2008: Energy systems in transition: contributions from social sciences.
International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management, 9(203),
144-161.
Romero-Lankao, P. and T.J. Wilbanks, 2011: Linkages between climate change
responses, research and policy directions. In: Global Report on Human Settlements
2011: Cities and Climate Change. UN Human Settlements Programme (UN-
HABITAT), Earthscan, London, UK and Washington, DC, USA, pp. 163-183.
Rose, S., 2010: The Importance of Multi-metric, Scale, and Sector Climate Change
Impacts Valuation. Presentation prepared for the Energy Modeling Forum (EMF)
Workshop: Climate Change Impacts and Integrated Assessment (CCIIA), July
27-August 4, Snowmass, CO, USA, emf.stanford.edu/files/docs/259/Rose7-
28.pdf.
Rosenzweig, C. and F.N. Tubiello, 2007: Adaptation and mitigation strategies in
agriculture: an analysis of potential synergies. Mitigation and Adaptation
Strategies for Global Change, 12, 855-873.
Rounsevell, M.D.A., T.P. Dawson, and P.A. Harrison, 2010: A conceptual framework
to assess the effects of environmental change on ecosystem services. Biodiversity
and Conservation, 19, 2823-2842.
Rowe, G. and L.J. Frewer, 2004: Evaluating public participation exercises: a research
agenda. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 29(4), 512-556.
Roy, M., 2009: Planning for sustainable urbanization in fast growing cities: mitigation
and adaptation issues addressed in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Habitat International,
33(3), 276-286.
Saito, N., 2013: Mainstreaming climate change adaptation in least developed countries
in South and Southeast Asia. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change, 18(6), 825-849.
Salter, J., J. Robinson, and A. Wick, 2010: Participatory methods of integrated assessment:
a review. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 1, 697-717.
Sanwal, M., 2012: Rio +20, climate change and development: the evolution of
sustainable development (1972-2012). Climate and Development, 42(2), 157-
166.
Scheffer, M., J. Bascompte, W.A. Brock, V. Brovkin, S.R. Carpenter, V. Dakos, H. Held,
E.H. van Nes, M. Rietkerk, and G. Sugihara, 2009: Early-warning signals for
critical transitions. Nature, 461, 53-59.
Schipper, L., 2007: Climate Change Adaptation and Development: Exploring the
Linkages. Working Paper No. 107, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research,
University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, 13 pp.
Schipper, L. and M. Pelling, 2006: Disaster risk, climate change and international
development: scope for, and challenges to integration. Disasters, 30(1 SI), 19-38.
Schlager, E. and T. Heikkila, 2011: Left high and dry? Climate change, common pool
resource theory and the adaptability of western water compacts. Public
Administration Review, 71(3), 461-470.
Schlitz, M.M., C. Vieten, and E.M. Miller, 2010: Worldview transformation and the
development of social consciousness. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 17(7-8),
18-36.
1130
Chapter 20 Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development
20
Schneider, S., 1996: Geoengineering: could – or should – we do it? Climatic Change,
33, 291-302.
Schneider, S., 2008: Geoengineering: could we or should we make it work?
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 366, 3843-3862.
Schoolmaster, D.R., J.B. Grace, E.W. Schweiger, G.R. Guntenspergen, B.R. Mitchell,
K.M. Miller, and A.N. Little, 2013: An algorithmic and information-theoretic
approach to multimetric index construction. Ecological Indicators, 26, 14-23.
Scrieciu, S., T. Barker, and F. Ackerman, 2013: Pushing the boundaries of climate
economics: critical issues to consider in climate policy analysis. Ecological
Economics, 85, 155-165.
Seballos, F. and S. Kreft, 2011: Towards an understanding of the political economy
of the PPCR. IDS Bulletin, 42(3), 33-41.
Sen, A., 1999: Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, NY, USA,
366 pp.
Senaratne, A. and K. Wickramasinghe, 2010: Climate change, local institutions and
adaptation experience: the village tank farming community in the dry zone of
Sri Lanka. In: Proceedings of the National Conference on Water, Food Security,
and Climate Change in Sri Lanka, BMICH, Colombo, June 9-11, 2009: Volume
2. Water Quality, Environment, and Climate Change [Evans, A. and K. Jinapala
(eds.)]. International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Battaramulla, Sri
Lanka, pp. 147-174.
Seto, K.C., R. Sanchez-Rodriguez, and M. Fragkias, 2010: The new geography of
contemporary urbanization and the environment. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 35, 167-194.
Shah, T., 2009: Climate change and groundwater: India’s opportunities for mitigation
and adaptation. Environmental Research Letters, 4(3), 035005, doi:10.1088/
1748-9326/4/3/035005.
Sheppard, S. and M. Meitner, 2005: Using multi-criteria analysis and visualization
for sustainable forest management planning with stakeholder groups. Forest
Ecology and Management, 207(1-2), 171-187.
Shove, E. and G. Walker, 2010: Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday
life. Research Policy, 39, 471-476.
Sietz, D., M. Boschütz, and R.J.T. Klein, 2011: Mainstreaming climate adaptation into
development assistance: rationale, institutional barriers and opportunities in
Mozambique. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(4), 493-502.
Sitarz, D. (ed.), 1994: Agenda 21: The Earth Summit Strategy to Save our Planet.
EarthPress, Boulder, CO, USA, 321 pp.
Smit, B. and O. Pilifosova, 2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context of
sustainable development and equity. In: Climate Change 2001: Impacts,
Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of the Working Group II to the Third
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
[McCarthy, J., O. Canziani, N. Leary, D. Dokken, and K. White (eds.)]. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, pp. 879-912.
Smit, B. and J. Wandel, 2006: Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global
Environmental Change, 16(3), 282-292.
Smith, A. and A. Stirling, 2010: The politics of social-ecological resilience and
sustainable socio-technical transitions. Ecology and Society, 15(1), 11,
www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art11/.
Smith, J.B., S.H. Schneider, M. Oppenheimer, G.W. Yohe, W. Hare, M.D. Mastrandrea,
A. Patwardan, I. Burton, J. Corfee-Morlot, C.H.D. Magadza, H.-M. Füssel, A.B.
Pittock, A. Rahman, A. Suarez, and J.-P. vanYpersele, 2009: Assessing dangerous
climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 106, 4133-4137.
Smith, M., L. Horrocks, A. Harvey, and C. Hamilton, 2011: Rethinking adaptation for
a 4°C world. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 369(1934),
196-216.
Sosa-Rodriguez, F.S., 2013: From federal to city mitigation and adaptation: climate
change policy in Mexico City. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global
Change, doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9455-1.
Stafford, S.G., D.M. Bartels, S. Begay-Campbell, J.L. Bubier, J.C. Crittenden, S.L. Cutter,
J.R. Delaney, T.E. Jordan, A.C. Kay, G.D. Libecap, J.C. Moore, N.N. Rabalais, D.
Rejeski, O.E. Sala, J.M. Shepherd, and J. Travis, 2010: Now is the time for action:
transitions and tipping points in complex environmental systems. Environment,
52(1), 38-45.
Stern, P.C. and T. J. Wilbanks, 2009: Appendix D: Fundamental research priorities to
improve the understanding of human dimensions of global change. In:
Restructuring Federal Climate Research to Meet the Challenges of Climate
Change. Committee on Strategic Advice on the U.S. Climate Change Science
Program, Division on Earth and Life Studies, Division of Behavioral and Social
Sciences and Education, National Research Council, National Academies Press,
Washington, DC, USA, pp. 167-202.
Stoorvogel, J.J., J.M. Antle, C.C. Crissman, and W. Bowen, 2004: The tradeoff analysis
model: integrated bio-physical and economic modeling. Agricultural Systems,
80, 43-66.
Stringer, L.C., J.C. Dyer, M.S. Reed, A.J. Dougill, C. Twyman, and D. Mkwambisi, 2009:
Adaptations to climate change, drought and desertification: local insights to
enhance policy in Southern Africa. Environmental Science & Policy, 12(7), 748-
765.
Sutter, C. and J.C. Parreño, 2007: Does the current Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) deliver its sustainable development claim? An analysis of officially
registered CDM projects. Climatic Change, 84, 75-90.
Swart, R. and F. Raes, 2007: Making integration of adaptation and mitigation work:
mainstreaming into sustainable development policies? Climate Policy, 7, 288-303.
Swart, R., J. Robinson, and S. Cohen, 2003: Climate change and sustainable
development: expanding the options. Climate Policy, 3(Suppl. 1), S19-S40.
Tanner, T. and J. Allouche, 2011: Towards a new political economy of climate change
and development. IDS Bulletin, 42(3), 1-14, doi: 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.
00217.x.
Tejero, I.G., V.H.D. Zuazo, J.A.J. Bocanegra, and J.A.L. Fernández, 2011: Improved
water-use efficiency by deficit irrigation programmes: implications for saving
water in citrus orchards. Scientia Horticulturae, 128(3), 274-282.
Thomalla, F., T. Downing, E. Spanger-Siegfried, and G. Han, 2006: Reducing hazard
vulnerability: towards a common approach between disaster risk reduction and
climate adaptation. Environment, 30(1), 39-48.
Thomas, D.S.G. and C. Twyman, 2005: Equity and justice in climate change adaptation
amongst natural-resource-dependant societies. Global Environmental Change,
15(2), 115-124.
Tol, R.S.J., 2004: Adaptation and mitigation: trade-offs in substance and methods.
Environmental Science and Policy, 8, 572-578.
Tompkins, E.L. and W.N. Adger, 2004: Does adaptive management of natural
resources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society, 9, 2-10.
Tompkins, E.L., M.C. Lemos, and E. Boyd, 2008: A less disastrous disaster: managing
response to climate-driven hazards in the Cayman Islands and NE Brazil.
Environmental Change, 18(4), 736-745.
Traore, S. and T. Owiyo, 2013: Dirty droughts causing loss and damage in Northern
Burkina Faso. International Journal of Global Warming, 5(4), 498-513.
Turner, W.R., B.A. Bradley, L.D. Estes, D.G. Hole, M. Oppenheimer, and D.S. Wilcove,
2010: Climate change: helping nature survive the human response. Conservation
Letters, 3(5), 304-312.
UK Royal Society, 2009: Geoengineering the Climate: Science, Governance, and
Uncertainty. The Royal Society, London, UK, 82 pp.
UN-REDD Programme, 2013: UN-REDD Programme, Multiple Benefits. United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), United Nations (UN) collaborative
initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
(REDD) in developing countries, UN-REDD Programme, UN-REDD Programme
Secretariat, Geneva, Switzerland.
UNFCCC, 2011: Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Adaptation Options: An Overview
of Approaches. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), UNFCCC Secretariat, Bonn, Germany, 48 pp.
Vaughan, N. and T. Linten, 2011: A review of climate geoengineering proposals.
Climatic Change, 109, 745-790.
Veeman, T.S. and J. Politylo, 2003: The role of institutions and policy in enhancing
sustainable development and conserving natural capital. Environment,
Development and Sustainability, 5, 317-332.
Vergara, W., A.R. Rios, L.M. Galindo, P. Gutman, P. Isbell, P. Suding, A. Grunwaldt, A.
Deeb, J. Samaniego, E. Allatorre, and M. Panuncio, 2012: The Climate and
Development Challenge for Latin America and the Caribbean: Options for
Climate-Resilient, Low-Carbon Development. Inter-American Development
Bank (IADB) in collaboration with the Economic Commission of Latin America
and the Caribbean (ECLAC) and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), IADB,
Washington, DC, USA, 103 pp.
Victor, P., 2008: Managing Without Growth: Slower by Design, Not Disaster. Edward
Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA, USA, 272 pp.
Victor, P. and G. Rosenbluth, 2007: Managing without growth. Ecological Economics,
61, 492-504.
Viguié, V. and S. Hallegatte, 2012: Trade-offs and synergies in urban climate policies.
Nature Climate Change, 5, 334-337.
1131
Climate-Resilient Pathways: Adaptation, Mitigation, and Sustainable Development Chapter 20
20
Von Bernard, H. and M. Gorboran, 2010: Causes for unsustainability. Ecología
Austral, 20(3), 303-306.
Walker, B. and D. Salt, 2006: Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People
in a Changing World. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA, 174 pp.
Warner, K. and T. Afifi, 2013: Where the rain falls: evidence from 8 countries on how
vulnerable households use migration to manage the risk of rainfall variability
and food insecurity. Climate and Development (in press), doi:10.1080/
17565529.2013.835707.
Warner, K. and K. van der Geest (eds.), 2013: Loss and damage from climate change:
local-level evidence from nine vulnerable countries. International Journal of
Global Warming, 5(4), 367-386.
Warner, K., S. Kreft, M. Zissener, P. Höppe, C. Bals, T. Loster, J. Linnerooth-Bayer, S.
Tschudi, E. Gurenko, A. Haas, S. Young, P. Kovacs, A. Dlugolecki, and A. Oxley,
2012a: Insurance Solutions in the Context of Climate Change-Related Loss and
Damage. Policy Brief No. 6, The Munich Climate Insurance Initiative (MCII),
hosted by the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human
Security (UNU-EHS), UNU-EHS, Bonn, Germany, 48 pp.
Warner, K., K. van der Geest, S. Kreft, S. Huq, S. Harmeling, K. Kusters, and A. de
Sherbinin, 2012b: Evidence from the Frontlines of Climate Change: Loss and
Damage to Communities Despite Coping and Adaptation. Loss and Damage in
Vulnerable Countries Initiative, Policy Report No. 9, United Nations University
Institute for Environment and Human Security (UNU-EHS), UNU-EHS, Bonn,
Germany, 86 pp.
Washington, W.M., R. Knutti, G.A. Meehl, H. Teng, C. Tebaldi, D. Lawrence, J. Buja,
and W.G. Strand, 2009: How much climate change can be avoided by mitiga-
tion? Geophysical Research Letters, 36(8), L08703, doi:10.1029/
2008GL037074.
WCED, 1987: Our Common Future. Report of the World Commission on Environment
and Development, Annex to General Assembly document A/42/427,
Development and International Co-operation: Environment, World Commission
on Environment and Development (WCED), Oxford University Press, London,
UK, 383 pp.
Westley, F., P. Olsson, C. Folke, T. Homer-Dixon, H. Vredenburg, D. Loorbach, J. Thompson,
M. Nilsson, E. Lambin, J. Sendzimir, B. Banerjee, V. Galaz, and S. van der Leeuw,
2011: Tipping toward sustainability: emerging pathways of transformation.
Ambio, 40(7), 762-780.
WHO, 2011: Health in the Green Economy: Health Co-Benefits of Climate Change
Mitigation –Transport Sector [Hosking, J., M. Pierpaolo, and C. Dora, (eds.)].
World Health Organization (WHO), Geneva, Switzerland, 144 pp.
Wilbanks, T.J., 2003: Integrating climate change and sustainable development in a
place-based context. Climate Policy, 3(Suppl. 1), S147-S154.
Wilbanks, T.J., 2009: How Geographic Scale Matters in Seeking Community
Resilience. CARRI Research Paper No. 7, Community and Regional Resilience
Initiative (CARRI), Oak Ridge, TN, USA, 13 pp.
Wilbanks, T.J., 2010: Inducing transformational energy technological change. Energy
Economics, 33(4), 699-708.
Wilbanks, T.J. and R.W. Kates, 2010: Beyond adapting to climate change: embedding
adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Annals Association
of American Geographers, 100(4), 719-728.
Wilbanks, T.J. and J. Sathaye, 2007: Integrating mitigation and adaptation as
responses to climate change: a synthesis. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies
for Global Change, 12, 957-962.
Wilbanks, J.T. and T.J. Wilbanks, 2010: Science, open communication, and sustainable
development. Sustainability, 2(4), 993-1015.
Wilbanks, T.J., P. Leiby, R.D. Perlack, J.T. Ensminger, and S.B. Wright, 2007: Toward an
integrated analysis of mitigation and adaptation: some preliminary findings
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 12(5), 713-725.
Wilson, C. and T. McDaniels, 2007: Structured decision-making to link climate change
and sustainable development. Climate Policy, 7(4), 353-370.
Winkelman, A.G. and M.R. Moore, 2011: Explaining the differential distribution of
Clean Development Mechanism projects across host countries. Energy Policy,
39, 1132-1143.
Winkler, H., K. Baumert, O. Blanchard, S. Burch, and J. Robinson, 2007: What factors
influence mitigative capacity? Energy Policy, 35, 692-703.
Wolf, J., K. Brown, and D. Conway, 2009: Ecological citizenship and climate change:
perceptions and practice. International Politics, 18(4), 467-485.
World Bank, 2010: World Development Report: Development and Climate Change.
The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank,
Washington, DC, USA, 417 pp.
Xiong, W., L. Holman, and E.D. Lin, 2010: Climate change, water availability, and
future cereal production in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment,
135, 58-69.
Yaffa, S., 2013: Coping measures not enough to avoid loss and damage from drought
in the North Bank region of the Gambia. International Journal of Global
Warming, 5(4), 467-482.
Yohe, G., 2001: Mitigative capacity: the mirror image of adaptive capacity on the
emissions side. Climatic Change, 49, 247-262.
Yohe, G., 2012: Economics and environmental studies. Review of Development
Economics, 16(3), 503-510.
Yohe, G. and R. Tol, 2002: Indicators for social and economic coping capacity: moving
toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global Environmental
Change, 12, 25-40.
Younger, M., H.R. Morrow-Almeida, S.M. Vindigni, and A.L. Dannenberg, 2008: The
built environment, climate change, and health: opportunities for co-benefits.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(5), 517-526.
Ziervogel, G. and A. Opere (eds.), 2010: Integrating Meteorological and Indigenous
Knowledge-Based Seasonal Climate Forecasts in the Agricultural Sector:
Lessons from Participatory Action Research in Sub-Saharan Africa. Climate
Change Adaptation in Africa (CCAA) Learning Paper, International Development
Research Centre (IDRC), Ottawa, ON, Canada, 19 pp.
Zou, X., Y. Li, Q. Gao, and Y. Wan, 2012: How water saving irrigation contributes to
climate change resilience: a case study of practices in China. Mitigation and
Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 17(2), 111-132.
