Assessing the feasibility of adaptation options: methodological advancements and directions for climate adaptation research and practice

Chandni Singh,Amir Bazaz,James Ford,Debora Ley,Aromar Revi

doi:10.1007/s10584-020-02762-x

Chandni Singh, Amir Bazaz + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02762-x

Copy DOI

Abstract

The Paris Agreement put adaptation prominently on the global climate action agenda. Despite a surge in research and praxis-based knowledge on adaptation, a critical policy roadblock is synthesizing and assessing this burgeoning evidence. We develop an approach to assess the multidimensional feasibility of adaptation options in a robust and transparent manner, providing direction for global climate policy and identifying knowledge gaps to further future climate research. The approach, which was tested in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C (SR1.5) to assess 23 adaptation options, is underpinned by a systematic review of recent literature, expert elicitation, and iterative peer review. It responds to the challenge of limited agreement on adaptation indicators, lack of fine-scale adaptation data, and challenges of assessing synergies and trade-offs with mitigation. The findings offer methodological insights into how future assessments such as the IPCC Assessment Report (AR) six and regional, national, and sectoral assessment exercises could assess adaptation feasibility and synthesize the growing body of knowledge on climate change adaptation.

Highlights

The need for rigorous, transparent adaptation feasibility assessmentsClimate change research is growing exponentially with the literature doubling every 5–6 years (Haunschild et al 2016)
We present a rigorous and transparent process to assess the feasibility of adaptation options globally, anchoring them around four system transitions
Reflecting on the process used in the IPCC Special Report on 1.5 °C, we lay out a multidimensional feasibility assessment framework (Fig. 1) along with its caveats

Summary

Introduction

The need for rigorous, transparent adaptation feasibility assessmentsClimate change research is growing exponentially with the literature doubling every 5–6 years (Haunschild et al 2016). While research across all topics are rising by 4% annually, climate change research has grown at an astounding 16% (Minx et al 2017) At this rate, the literature to be reviewed for the IPCC’s sixth assessment (AR6) is projected to span between 270,000 and 330,000 publications (Minx et al 2017). Adaptation research has grown rapidly: articles highlighting adaptation more than doubled between 2008 and 2011 (Bassett and Fogelman 2013) and grew by 150% from 2011 to 2014 (Webber 2016) Given this ‘big literature’ challenge (Minx et al 2017), adaptation experts have been grappling with ways to synthesize this evidence to inform policy and practice (Ford and Pearce 2010; Berrang-Ford et al 2015; Webber 2016). There are a range of approaches to assess and synthesize large bodies of knowledge, from rapid evidence assessments (McKinnon 2015; Sutherland and Wordley 2018) and systematic literature reviews to meta-analyses and expert-elicited scoping (Snilstveit et al 2013; Berrang-Ford et al 2015; Sutherland and Wordley 2018)

Objectives

Results

Conclusion