Frameworks to assess climate change responses—a systematic analysis to enhance frameworks for carbon dioxide removal

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

Abstract Achieving ambitious climate targets, such as greenhouse gas neutrality, requires a broad mix of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures across different scales and timeframes. The planning and implementation of these measures necessitate holistic assessment frameworks that transparently and consistently evaluate what is feasible and desirable in both the short and long term. While the development and refinement of such frameworks is increasingly discussed in the context of CDR, a systematic analysis of existing frameworks in light of prevailing requirements is still missing. This study addresses this gap by conducting a systematic literature review of assessment frameworks used for climate change responses, analyzing how they address what we identified as key requirements. By expanding the scope beyond CDR specific assessment frameworks, we identify and derive valuable insights and approaches that can inform their refinement. Following a three-step approach, we first conducted a preceding scoping review to determine key requirements for holistic assessments. Second, a systematic literature review was conducted to identify a broad range of assessment frameworks for climate responses. Third, based on a qualitative content analysis, we examined how these frameworks address the previously identified key requirements. The results reveal that existing assessment frameworks often lack a consistent and transparent conceptual and operational structure. This can lead to misinterpretations and misunderstandings. Policy-relevant aspects such as the integration of temporal dynamics and portfolio assessments, including the investigation of synergies and trade-offs, are rarely addressed, although promising approaches are emerging. Following the current discussion to adjust assessment frameworks for CDR, future research should incorporate both short- and long-term temporal dynamics and strengthen the inclusion of ethical and social science perspectives. By synthesizing existing approaches and identifying critical gaps, this review provides guidance towards more robust and transparent assessment frameworks, supporting well-informed decision-making in the context of CDR.