Preston, Westaway & Yuen - Adaptation plans - developed nations by Mytemp Accnt

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407â&#x20AC;&#x201C;438 DOI 10.1007/s11027-010-9270-x ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Climate adaptation planning in practice: an evaluation of adaptation plans from three developed nations Benjamin L. Preston & Richard M. Westaway & Emma J. Yuen

Received: 10 November 2009 / Accepted: 13 October 2010 / Published online: 28 October 2010 # Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract Formal planning for climate change adaptation is emerging rapidly at a range of geo-political scales. This first generation of adaptation plans provides useful information regarding how institutions are framing the issue of adaptation and the range of processes that are recognized as being part of an adaptation response. To better understand adaptation planning among developed nations, a set of 57 adaptation plans from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States was evaluated against a suite of 19 planning processes identified from existing guidance instruments for adaptation planning. Total scores among evaluated plans ranged from 16% of the maximum possible score to 61%, with an average of 37%. These results suggest adaptation plans are largely under-developed. Critical weaknesses in adaptation planning are related to limited consideration for non-climatic factors as well as neglect for issues of adaptive capacity including entitlements to various forms of capital needed for effective adaptation. Such gaps in planning suggest there are opportunities for institutions to make better use of existing guidance for adaptation planning and the need to consider the broader governance context in which adaptation will occur. In addition, the adaptation options prescribed by adaptation plans reflect a preferential bias toward low-risk capacity-building (72% of identified options) over the delivery of specific actions to reduce vulnerability. To the extent these findings are representative of the state of developed nation adaptation planning, there appear to be significant deficiencies in climate change preparedness, even among those nations often assumed to have the greatest adaptive capacity. Keywords Climate change . Adaptation . Adaptive capacity . Planning . Evaluation B. L. Preston (*) Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, One Bethel Valley Road, PO Box 2008, MS-6301, Oak Ridge, TN 37831-6253, USA e-mail: prestonbl@ornl.gov R. M. Westaway IMS Consulting, Bristol, UK E. J. Yuen CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia

408

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

1 Introduction Over the past two decades, institutions across a range of geo-political scales have given significant attention to the identification and implementation of policies and measures to address the risks posed by climate change. Typically, such policy development has been dominated by a focus on mitigation of climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions through top-down international and national policy initiatives including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC 1992; Pielke 1998; Pielke et al. 2007). However, recent years have witnessed increased attention to adaptation to climate change as a complementary risk management strategy. This attention likely can be attributed to (a) increased awareness of the vulnerability of social and environmental systems to climate variability (Adger et al. 2007); (b) increasing evidence of an anthropogenic signal in recent climate trends and extreme climatic events (Hegerl et al. 2007; Trenberth et al. 2007); and (c) a commitment to some level of unavoidable climate change regardless of future emissions trajectories (Meehl et al. 2007). The rapid development of adaptation as a mainstream strategy for addressing climate vulnerability is evidenced by a broad range of emergent adaptation policy development. At the international level, a variety of adaptation finance mechanisms have been established through the UNFCCC and/or the Kyoto Protocol more specifically including the Global Environment Facility Trust Fund, the Special Climate Change Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund, and the Adaptation Fund. These mechanisms are complimented by a range of other bi- and multi-lateral arrangements for adaptation finance. At the national level, developing nations have completed National Adaptation Programs of Action (NAPAs) that are intended to be frameworks for prioritizing adaptation needs. Developed nations have also commenced national adaptation planning. The European Union (EU), for example, developed a white paper in 2007 on EU adaptation options (CEC 2007), and a number of EU countries have developed national adaptation strategies (Swart et al. 2009). The U.S. National Research Council undertook an in-depth study of adaptation through the America’s Climate Choices initiative (NRC 2010), and the U.S. Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force was formed in 2009 to develop recommendations for adaptation policy, both domestically and internationally. Meanwhile, Australia has developed a National Climate Change Adaptation Framework (COAG 2007) and has made significant investments in adaptation science through the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation’s (CSIRO) Climate Adaptation Flagship research initiative. Such adaptation research and planning mirrors that which has occurred previously for the issue of greenhouse gas mitigation (Wheeler 2008). Yet, its relatively more recent emergence reflects the planning and policy lag that has occurred in institutions orienting themselves to adaptation challenges (Smith et al. 2009a). While the NAPA process has driven adaptation planning among least developed countries, a body of ‘first generation’ institutional adaptation plans has emerged rapidly from developed nations over the past 6 years, particularly at the state/province and local government/municipal scale. Australia, for example, initiated a Local Adaptation Pathways program in 2008 which provides grants to local governments to assist with climate risk assessment and adaptation planning. Meanwhile, Smith et al. (2010) summarize the range of adaptation planning activities occurring among U.S. states. Given the activity in this arena, it is appropriate to think critically about the effectiveness of such planning for addressing climate risk. Is adaptation planning simply the policy ‘flavor-of-the-month’, a worthwhile step on a long-term process of social and institutional learning, or a robust approach to securing near-term reductions in climate risk?

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

409

The goal of this paper is to present a critical desktop review of adaptation planning practice to identify potential gaps in problem framing and identify pathways that may lead to a more robust practice in the future. In so doing, this paper focuses on planning within developed nations due to the lack of existing mechanisms for evaluating adaptation in such nations as well as the pervasive assumption regarding the high adaptive capacity of wealthy nations. The paper begins by highlighting the need for evaluation in adaptation planning and summarizes recent attempts to evaluate adaptation processes, policies and measures. This is followed by the identification of a framework and associated set of planning processes that can be used as criteria for evaluating adaptation planning and their application to individual adaptation plans. The paper concludes with the discussion of the implications of this evaluation for adaptation planning practitioners.

2 The role of evaluation in adaptation planning The UFCCC has estimated that by 2030, investments of up to US$171 billion will be needed annually to meet the global demand for adaptation, with the majority of this investment in developed nations (UNFCCC 2007). If the financing and actual implementation of adaptation is to become a mainstream component of public policy, then formal frameworks for evaluating adaptation processes and outcomes will become increasingly important. More specifically, there are three key reasons why attention should be given to evaluation: 1) Ensuring reduction in societal and ecological vulnerability—One of the key aims of climate adaptation is to reduce the vulnerability of human and natural systems to the effects of climate variability and change (or, in other words, the avoidance of ‘dangerous’ climate change) (UNFCCC 1992; O’Neill and Oppenheimer 2002; Mastrandrea and Schneider 2004; Smith et al. 2009b). Ensuring such vulnerability has, in practice, been reduced requires methods for evaluating and tracking adaptation outcomes. In particular, such evaluation must ensure the social, economic and environmental benefits of adaptation policies and measures outweigh the costs and that additional negative externalities are not created. 2) Learning and adaptive management—Climate adaptation is fundamentally a process of social learning (Adger and Kelly 1999; Adger 2003). Yet, in the absence of methods for evaluating adaptation, opportunities for learning are lost. By tracking the successes and failures of different adaptation initiatives, institutions can identify effective, efficient and equitable policies and measures. This enables the development of more robust adaptation policy over time, through adaptive management (Holling 1978). 3) Need for accountability in an evidence-based policy environment—From a governance perspective, investments in adaptation and the outcomes they achieve must be transparent (Banks 2009). This is true for every aspect of the adaptation process, from the development of public communication initiatives, the execution of a regional vulnerability or risk assessment, the reform of a given planning policy, or infrastructure upgrades. Operationalizing adaptation actions within a policy environment will benefit from formal definition of criteria for success, metrics for measuring that success and transparent reporting to stakeholders (Moser 2009). At present, the extent to which adaptation planning is proceeding and the successes of such planning are a matter of polarized opinion. On one hand, some researchers have argued that human beings are inherently adaptive and the history of the species is one characterized by continual adjustment and adaptation to changing conditions and learning

410

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

about the success and failure of different livelihood and management strategies (Easterling et al. 2004). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has noted that society is adapting to climate change through both reactive and planned decision-making, although it cautions that the latter remains limited (Adger et al. 2007; pg. 724): There are now also examples of adaptation measures being put in place that take into account scenarios of future climate change and associated impacts. This is particularly the case for long-lived infrastructure which may be exposed to climate change impacts over its lifespan or, in cases, where business-as-usual activities would irreversibly constrain future adaptation to the impacts of climate change. On the other hand, other researchers have identified significant gaps in adaptation, noting a range of examples where adequate planning has not been conducted for known climate risks in the present day, much less years to decades in the future (Repetto 2008; pg. 20): Despite a half century of climate change that has significantly affected temperature and precipitation patterns... those organizations in the public and private sectors that are most at risk, that are making long-term investments and commitments, and that have the planning, forecasting and institutional capacity to adapt, have not yet done so. Such sentiments reflect the existence of an ‘adaptation deficit’ caused by institutional underinvestment in anticipatory climate risk management (Burton 2004, 2005; Burton and May 2004), resulting in persistent vulnerability to climate. The prevalence of adaptation deficits casts significant doubt on the capacity of institutions to develop and implement robust strategies for adaptation to both current and future risks. Easterling et al. (2004), for example, cite instances where adaptation actions, though not failing entirely, were not implemented in the most efficient and effective manner possible. They conclude that climate adaptation is likely to progress through a process of ‘muddling-through’ with occasional winners and losers manifesting on a somewhat ad hoc basis. Hence, there appears to be ample scope to mature adaptation science and applications to address those areas where adaptation has yet to occur and improve upon the ‘muddling through’ paradigm to secure efficacy, efficiency and equity in adaptation planning and implementation.

3 Prior work on evaluating adaptation A range of researchers and publications have identified evaluation and monitoring of adaptation as core components of climate risk management and adaptation planning. For example, one of the stages in the United Nations Development Programme’s Adaptation Policy Framework consists of “implementing, monitoring, evaluating, improving and sustaining the initiatives launched by the adaptation project” (Lim et al. 2005; pg. 2). Meanwhile, Australia’s climate risk management guidance for business and government states that “all steps of the risk management process must be kept under review” (AGO 2006; pg. 20). Emphasis on evaluation and monitoring of adaptation programs and projects appears frequently in a broad range of other guidance instruments for adaptation planning, environmental management and international development. There also has been some discussion among international organizations regarding appropriate approaches and metrics for evaluating adaptation (UNDP 2007; Hedger et al. 2008; IGES 2008). Such discussions have largely centred on evaluating substantive outcomes of capacity building activities and adaptation actions and do not necessarily examine or critique the upstream planning processes that lead to those actions.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407â&#x20AC;&#x201C;438

411

Different guidance instruments, however, emphasize different aspects of planning, making it difficult to determine what planning processes are appropriate from a single instrument. This is evident among a number of recent reflections upon adaptation guidance and practice (Table 1), which include consideration of a wide range of procedural and substantive aspects of adaptation planning. For example FĂźssel (2008) uses 14 criteria for effective adaptation planning for public health to compare different adaptation guidance instruments. These criteria largely emphasize different procedural aspects of the development of adaptation plans (e.g., management of uncertainty, mainstreaming, assessment of barriers). Meanwhile, Perkins et al. (2007) evaluate the substantive aspects of adaptation planning guidance (e.g., level of detail, suggested adaptation options, links to additional resources). Smith et al. (2009c) look upstream of planning processes, identifying a suite of foundational criteria that comprise the governance architecture to support adaptation. Hence, there are multiple lines of evidence and perspectives that can contribute to evaluating the degree of rigor associated with adaptation planning and actions emerging from institutions. The lack of consensus among guidance instruments highlights the fact that a systematic approach to monitoring and evaluation for climate change adaptation has yet to emerge, and the capacity to undertake such monitoring and evaluation and incorporate it into adaptation policy is lacking. On a more positive note, however, it is also apparent that this problem is increasingly recognized, and some tentative steps are being made to address this gap. Much of the discussion and implementation of formal evaluation mechanisms has largely been confined to the developing world (UNDP 2007; Hedger et al. 2008; IGES 2008). For example, the guidelines for the preparation of NAPAs require identification of the methods by which evaluation and monitoring will be conducted (UNFCCC 2002). Osman-Elasha and Downing (2007) summarize some lessons from NAPA processes in Eastern and Southern Africa, and a recent evaluation conducted by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Denmark and the Global Environment Facility have looked more comprehensively at the NAPA process and the Least Developed Country Fund (MFAD and GEF 2009). Development assistance through the Global Environment Facility and World Bank undergoes routine evaluation, although Agrawala and van Aalst (2008) note that a range of barriers exist to the effective integration of adaptation within such assistance programs and project. Within the developed world, the OECD has investigated progress on adaptation planning in the National Communications (NCs) to the UNFCCC made by Annex-I nations (Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala 2006). The investigation used eight criteria to assess NCs from 39 countries, and distinguished between the process of completing impacts assessments, articulation of intentions to act and evidence of adaptation actions themselves. Swart et al. (2009) recently completed a review of national adaptations strategies of European Union member countries, which included an examination of motivating factors underlying strategy development, problem framing, science/policy linkages as well as multi-scaled governance arrangements. At a more local level, Wheeler (2008) analyses a selection of climate change plans that have emerged from state and local governments in the United States. In total, climate change planning was investigated for 64 state and local governments, which involved a review of planning documents produced as well as an interview with at least one official involved in each jurisdiction. It was found that plans dealt overwhelmingly with mitigation of, rather than adaptation to, climate change. Only 11 plans mentioned adaptation, and even when they did it was generally as a topic for further research and planning. Hence, while critical examination of adaptation in the developed world is an area of some inquiry, the evaluation of adaptation has not been translated into a practice. This can be attributed to a number of factors including (a) the assumed high adaptive capacity of developed nations which reduces the perceived importance of evaluation; (b) poor

1. Applicable to different levels of government and types of environmental challenges

1. Clear procedural structure

Core Components

4. Includes means to assess sensitivity, adaptive capacity, vulnerability 5. Suggests steps for adaptive actions 6. Covers implementation 7. Provides links to additional resources Includes stakeholders

3. Prioritization of assessment efforts

4. Identification of key information needs

5. Inclusion of key stakeholders

6. Choice of relevant spatial and temporal scales

7. Balanced consideration of current and future risks

14. Assessment of key obstacles to adaptation

13. Disease-specific methods and tools

12. Cross-sectoral integration

11. Mainstreaming of climate adaptation

10. Prioritization of adaptation actions

9. Policy guidance in the absence of quantitative risk estimates

8. Management of uncertainties

2. Sufficient detail for policy construction 3. Provides a decision-making framework

2. Flexible assessment procedure

Emphasis on substantive aspects of adaptation planning

Emphasis on procedural aspects of adaptation planning

Emphasis

Perkins et al. (2007)

FĂźssel (2008)

Reference

8. Explicit incorporation of adaptation in projects

7. Formulation of adaptation policies/ modification of existing policies

6. Establishment of institutional mechanisms for adaptation responses

5. Mention of policies synergistic with adaptation

4. Identification of adaptation options

3. Impact assessments

2. Climate change scenarios

1. Historical climatic trends

Emphasis on adaptation progress

Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala (2006)

10. Adaptation research

9. Technology development and diffusion

8. Funding for adaptation

7. Explicit consideration of barriers to adaptation

6. Appropriate use of decision analysis techniques

5. Climate change information

4. Stakeholder involvement

3. Institutional organization

2. Political leadership

1. Historical climatic trends

Emphasis on governance to support adaptation planning

Smith et al. (2009b)

Table 1 Examples of different perspectives for the evaluation of institutional adaptation. Each reference identifies a different suite of relevant criteria for assessing adaptation processes and/or planning which serve as plausible, but contextually varied, foundations for the evaluation of adaptation

412 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407â&#x20AC;&#x201C;438

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407â&#x20AC;&#x201C;438

413

recognition of the importance of evaluation; (c) limited involvement of evaluation practitioners in adaptation planning; and/or (d) institutional reluctance to reflect critically upon planning processes. Despite the limited uptake of evaluation for adaptation planning to date, such evaluation is likely to grow in importance in the future. The remainder of this paper therefore describes a framework for the evaluation of adaptation planning, with particular emphasis not on adaptation actions per se, but the planning processes by which those actions are selected and the infrastructure for their implementation.

4 A framework for evaluation To evaluate the comprehensiveness of adaptation planning as currently undertaken by developed nations, an evaluation methodology was implemented that links evaluation theory with guidance for adaptation planning as developed by the practitioner community. This methodology was comprised of five activities, which were implemented in sequence: 1) Identification of core stages in adaptation planning from the decision science and development evaluation literature; 2) Identification of critical planning processes associated with each planning stage that can be used as evaluation criteria; 3) Selection of adaptation plans for evaluation; 4) Scoring of plans against evaluation criteria; and 5) Categorization of adaptation options embodied within plans Each of these activities is discussed further below along with the inherent limitations posed by this methodology. 4.1 Adaptation planning stages Developing a framework for evaluating adaptation planning is aided by structuring the planning process. Climate adaptation planning effectively represents social and decision processes that facilitate the implementation of interventions to reduce vulnerability and/or take advantage of potential opportunities associated with climate variability and change. Practitioners of the policy sciences recognize decision processes as being comprised of three stages: pre-decision, decision, and post-decision (Laswell 1956; Clark 2002). This conceptualization recognizes the fact that there are a range of activities that occur prior to a decision event, which may include learning, communication and deliberation, and the establishment of a process by which the decision will be made. Similarly, there are a range of activities that occur post-decision that are often associated with the actual implementation of that decision, resolution of disputes associated with implementation, appraisal of decision outcomes and, ultimately, determination of whether a decision will be upheld or reversed. This framing of decision processes emphasizes that the evaluation of a decision or plan of action solely on outcomes is problematic. For example, Clark (2002; pg. 81) states, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Successfulâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; outcomes do not necessarily indicate good processes and may reflect the values of those doing the appraisals more than those of the communities involved in or affected by the programs. The processes by which decisions are made are themselves central to robust policy development. This focus on the procedural aspects of decision-making is also found within the literature on more formal evaluation methods for development programs and projects.

414

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

One of the classic models for evaluation across a range of policy disciplines is the use of Logic Frameworks. Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) has formed the foundation for evaluation in development for decades as evidenced by the evaluation protocols for the United States Agency for International Development as well as the Australian Agency for International Development (USAID 1973; Rosenberg and Posner 1979; Cummings 1997; AusAid 2005). The LFA approach incorporates the analysis of (a) the relationships among program goals and objectives; (b) the activities by which those objectives may be realized; (c) the inputs and resources required to undertake those activities; and (d) the outputs that emerge from the execution of identified activities. Each of these may be associated with one or more indicators as well as a host of underpinning assumptions. In the planning of adaptation, for example, this would entail critiquing the various processes by which adaptation goals and objectives were developed; scrutinizing the availability and adequacy of inputs and resources that underpin adaptation activities; examining the various processes by which adaptation options are selected; and critiquing the steps associated with the delivery of adaptation actions and the monitoring of their successes and failures. Mapping these targets of evaluation back to the analytical components of LFA results in the definition of four key stages of adaptation planning: ‘goal-setting’, ‘stock-taking’, ‘decision-making’, and ‘implementation and evaluation’ (Table 2). These structural elements form the foundation of an evaluation framework. The next step is then to further deconstruct this structure to identify specific processes associated with each of these four stages. 4.2 Identification of key adaptation planning processes Using the four aforementioned stages of adaptation planning to evaluate adaptation plans requires the development of a suite of processes that reflect the range of activities that might be expected at each stage to ensure robust planning. Despite the limited scrutiny of adaptation planning in practice, an extensive literature on guidance for adaptation planning and policy development exists and continues to grow. Such guidance embodies current thinking among adaptation researchers with respect to what steps should be taken in adaptation planning. Therefore, this study used such literature to define a set of key adaptation planning processes. Twenty guidance instruments for adaptation planning were interrogated (Table 3). These included adaptation planning manuals and handbooks for developed and developing nations, across a range of geo-political scales, but were restricted to English-language resources. The majority of these instruments were chosen due to their primary focus on adaptation to climate change. Nearly half of the instruments were produced specifically for local government, while others targeted either a single sector or, more broadly, any organization that is undertaking adaptation. Guidance instruments were reviewed through an inductive approach to identify key processes associated with adaptation planning that could be subsequently applied to adaptation plans as evaluation criteria. Key processes are thought of as representing shared or recurring practice across the adaptation guidance instruments that are currently available, and are therefore processes that should be considered by individuals and organizations involved in adaptation planning (in contrast to specific approaches, methods or keywords). This led to the development of nineteen process-based evaluation criteria—two pertaining to ‘goal-setting’, five pertaining to ‘stock-taking’, eight pertaining to ‘decision-making’, and four pertaining to ‘implementation and evaluation’ (Table 2). Their identification was an inherently iterative process, such that the list of processes evolved as the review progressed. Despite the diversity of guidance instruments that were considered, there was a high level of similarity across instruments with respect to inclusion of individual criteria, with instruments capturing an

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

415

average of 80% of relevant criteria, and all criteria were present within at least 50% of the guidance instruments. These adaptation planning criteria are not necessarily considered ‘optimal’ or ‘best practice’ as others may frame key adaptation issues in a different manner (e.g., Table 1), and there may be additional processes that would improve adaptation planning, but which have not typically been included in the adaptation literature to date. 4.3 Selection of adaptation strategies and plans The adaptation criteria identified in Section 4.2 were subsequently used to interrogate a broad range of adaptation strategies and plans that have been produced in recent years. A total of 57 adaptation plans published prior to December, 2008 were accessed within the public domain in Australia (n=18), the United Kingdom (n=20) and the United States (n= 18) (see Table 7 of Appendix for details). While representative of the plans available in the public domain at the time of the study, the selected plans were a convenience sample, and new plans continue to emerge. The selected plans represent a broad range of geo-political scales, from local governments to national government agencies. Twelve of the 57 plans address a specific sector, such as public health, natural resources management or agriculture, but the majority pursue adaptation planning across a spectrum of issues relevant to the organization in question. It was apparent that the adaptation plans had been developed through different processes. For 50 of the 57 (88%) adaptation plans evaluated in this study, the plan was prepared within and by the government or organization in question. In many cases, it was undertaken by a single department (often linked to environmental or sustainability functions), but in others it was achieved through the formation of a cross-government working group or committee. The remaining eight adaptation plans were produced by outside bodies, including independent agencies, academic institutions and specialist consultancies. It also rapidly became clear that the assessed adaptation plans were produced for different purposes. Through the evaluation process, three broad categories of planning document emerged, crudely characterized here as ‘strategy documents’, ‘consultation papers,’ and ‘action plans’. Strategy documents (comprising 30% of planning documents) are primarily aspirational in nature and may contain a vision of where a government or organization wants to be, but provide little in the way of substantive actions for getting there (Swart et al. 2009). Consultation papers (14%) outline a planned course of action, but one which is not necessarily intended to be implemented in its current form. They instead invite review or consultation within government itself (where the paper has been written by an independent group) or externally from a wider range of stakeholders, interested parties or the general public. Such documents may represent a preliminary deliberative phase prior to the development of a more formal and comprehensive adaptation plan. As such, the proposed actions are at a relatively high-level, with limited specificity. Action plans (54%) provide a structured list of tasks, steps or measures that are planned to be implemented so as to meet a defined adaptation target or goal, and therefore represent official policy prescriptions. Adaptation action plans tend to be functional, typically including details about roles, responsibilities, mechanisms and timescales. Unless otherwise stated, this paper uses the generic term ‘adaptation plan’ to refer to all of these documents. 4.4 Scoring of adaptation plans The evaluation of individual adaptation plans was conducted by scoring each plan against the aforementioned adaptation planning criteria. Each criterion was scored on a three-point

Stage descriptions

Establishing what decision-makers seek to achieve through adaptation and how performance with respect to obtaining goals will be determined.

Assessing institutional assets and liabilities that facilitate or hinder adaptation planning and policy implementation. As such, this stage effectively represents an assessment of adaptive capacity. However, to further discriminate between different components of adaptive capacity, this stage was conceptualized as assessment of five stocks of capital relevant to adaptation, based upon the sustainable livelihoods literature (Ellis 2000; Nelson et al. 2005, 2007; Iwanski et al. 2009).

Processes associated with determining what adaptation policies and measures are appropriate. This stage encompasses a variety of tasks, from engaging with stakeholders about preferred adaptation responses, assessment of climate and non-climate system drivers, assessment of impacts, vulnerability and risk and the prioritization of different adaptation options and their harmonization with existing policy structures.

Adaptation stage

Goal-Setting (Goals, Objectives, Purpose)

Stock-Taking (Inputs)

Decision-Making (Activities)

Consideration of variability and trends in other environmental and socio-economic factors relevant to the system of interest.

Assessment of non-climate drivers

Consideration of stocks and flows of financial resources and obligations within and among individuals and institutions including cash revenue, credit and debt and mechanisms for financial risk management.

Assessment of financial capital

Consideration of historical climate trends, current climate variability and future climate projections.

Consideration of material culture, assets and infrastructure that is sensitive to climate and/ or integral in the management of climate risks.

Assessment of physical capital

Assessment of climate drivers

Consideration of natural resource stocks and environmental services which are sensitive to climate and/or integral in the management of climate risks.

Assessment of natural capital

Engagement of relevant stakeholders and communities throughout the adaptation process.

Consideration of the existing governance, institutional and policy contexts for adaptation, including the capacity and entitlements of those institutions, organizations and businesses responsible for designing, delivering and implementing adaptation measures.

Assessment of social capital

Stakeholder engagement

Consideration of the existing skills, knowledge and experience of individuals responsible for adaptation planning and implementation.

Consideration of what successful adaptation will look like and how it will be measured.

Identification of success criteria Assessment of human capital

Establishing the objectives, goals and priorities for adaptation.

Criteria descriptions

Articulation of objectives, goals and priorities

Adaptation processes

Table 2 Descriptions of adaptation planning stages and processes used as evaluation criteria in the current study. Planning is categorized into four stages needed for robust adaptation planning, each of which is comprised of multiple adaptation processes

416 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407â&#x20AC;&#x201C;438

Stage descriptions

Processes associated with the implementation of preferred adaptation options which may include communication, the removal of barriers and the assignation of roles and responsibilities. In addition, this stage also includes downstream processes associated with monitoring and evaluation of implemented actions.

Adaptation stage

Implementation and Evaluation

Table 2 (continued)

Establishing the mechanisms that will allow implementation of adaptation measures. Establishing a system of monitoring and evaluation that allows the performance of adaptation to be assessed against success criteria and for review of inputs and procedures.

Monitoring, evaluation and review

Identification of ways in which climate change adaptation can be institutionalized or embedded into existing or new policies and plans.

Mainstreaming

Implementation

Identification of where opportunities exist to implement adaptation in a manner that promotes synergies with existing policies or plans, including mitigation.

Exploitation of synergies

Establishing who is responsible for different aspects of an adaptation strategy.

Identification and comparison of different adaptation options and a means for selecting between them.

Options appraisal

Definition of roles and responsibilities

Transparency about the assumptions made to establish those impacts and risks and the uncertainties involved in their estimation.

Acknowledgement of assumptions and uncertainties

Communication and dissemination of adaptation plans and any downstream outcomes to the appropriate stakeholders and communities.

Assessment of the impact of changes in climate, vulnerability or resilience to those changes and the relative importance of climate and non-climate risks.

Assessment of impacts, vulnerability and/or risk

Communication and outreach

Criteria descriptions

Adaptation processes

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407â&#x20AC;&#x201C;438 417

418

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

Table 3 The adaptation guidance instruments used in the current study. These instruments were reviewed through an inductive process to identify common adaptation processes that could serve as evaluation criteria for adaptation plans Reference

Title

Publisher

AGO (2006)

Climate change impacts and risk management: a guide for business and government

Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage

AGO (2007)

Climate change adaptation options for local government. IPCC technical guidelines for assessing climate change impacts and adaptations

Australian Government Department of Environment and Heritage Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

Carter et al. (1994) CIG (2007)

Preparing for climate change: a guidebook University of Washington; King County, for local, regional, and state governments Washington; and ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability, USA

ESPACE (2007)

Planning in a changing climate: the strategy.

Feenstra et al. (1998)

Handbook on methods for climate change United Nations Environment Programme impacts assessment and adaptation strategies (version 2.0).

Klein et al. (1999)

Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC technical guidelines be applied?

LGAQ (2007)

Adapting to climate change: a Queensland Local Government Association of local government guide. Queensland, Australia

Lim et al. (2005)

Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change

United Nations Development Program and the Global Environment Facility

Mehdi et al. (2006)

Adapting to climate change: an introduction for Canadian municipalities.

Natural Resources Canada

NDCC (2009)

Developing an action plan.

NZCCO (2004a)

Coastal hazards and climate change: a guidance manual for local government in New Zealand. Preparing for climate change: a guide for local government in New Zealand.

Nottingham Declaration Partnership, UK Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand

NZCCO (2004b)

The Environment Department, Hampshire County Council, UK

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change

Ministry for the Environment, New Zealand

Simpson et al. (2008)

Climate change adaptation and mitigation in the tourism sector. Frameworks, tools and practices.

United Nations Environment Programme

Tompkins et al. (2005)

Surviving climate change in small islands—a guidebook.

Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, UK

UKCIP (2008)

The UKCIP adaptation wizard v 2.0.

UK Climate Impacts Programme

UNFCCC (2002)

Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programs of action.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

USAID (2007)

Adapting to climate variability and change: US Agency for International Development a guidance manual for development planning

Willows and Connell (2003) World Bank (2008)

Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty, and decision-making Climate resilient cities : a primer on reducing vulnerabilities to disasters

UK Climate Impacts Programme World Bank

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

419

scale (0, 1 or 2) resulting in a maximum possible score of 38 (see Perkins et al. 2007). The specific requirements associated with each possible score varied among different criteria, but generally followed a consistent system (Table 4; see Table 8 of Appendix for details). The scoring system is best illustrated with a simple example. One of the evaluation criteria is ‘assessment of impacts, vulnerability and/or risk’. For a particular plan to receive a score of 0 for this criterion, the plan would have to fail to address the implications of climate change impacts, vulnerability and risk for adaptation planning or acknowledge that understanding of such issues may be a core component of planning. A score of 1 would be assigned if the plan acknowledged impacts, vulnerability and risk as being important but failed to actually undertake or present evidence that some assessment of vulnerability and risk had been conducted (e.g., climate risk assessment was stated as one of the adaptation actions to be undertaken in the future). To receive a score of 2, the plan would have to articulate the various impacts, vulnerabilities and/or risks that are relevant to the planning authority and communicate the process by which such determinations were made. All information regarding the plans themselves and their evaluation was stored in a Microsoft Access® database. In addition to a range of descriptors about the plans and their scores, the database also contained justifications for the scores (with specific references to text within the plans) as well as a summary of the adaptation options identified within the plan. Regardless of the care invested in articulating conditions by which scores are assigned, this evaluation process was unavoidably subjective. To minimize bias, scoring criteria were explicitly defined (Table 8 of Appendix), and scores were assigned by one investigator and then reviewed by a second investigator to detect inconsistencies that were subsequently resolved through deliberation. In addition, the sensitivity of the results was tested using an alternative, two-point scoring system that reflected simply the presence or absence of a particular criterion. 4.5 Classifying adaptation options The majority of adaptation plans evaluated contained one or more adaptation options, and a total of 507 adaptation options were identified from the 57 adaptation plans. Some plans lacked any adaptation options, outlining only broad principles for adaptation. In contrast, some of the more detailed action plans prescribed more than 50 specific options. The detail associated with these options varied significantly among the different plans, as did the

Table 4 Summary of the scoring system used in the current study. Each of the 57 adaptation plans were scored against the 19 evaluation criteria (Table 2), with scores comprised of either 0, 1, or 2. General conditions that merit the assignment of different scores are described further below. See Table 8 of Appendix for a complete description of process-specific scoring criteria Score Necessary conditions 0

No evidence of consideration for a particular criterion was apparent within the published plan. This suggests a particular concept or planning process was neglected

Evidence exists of consideration of a particular criterion during the development of the adaptation plan. This suggests the concept or process in question was recognized or acknowledged as being of some importance. However, the concept or process remained underdeveloped, suggesting additional consideration may be required for robust planning. Evidence exists of consideration of a particular criterion during the development of the adaptation plan and significant effort was invested as part of the planning process (or prior to the planning process) to establish a particular criterion or complete a particular process.

420

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

manner in which options were presented and labeled. In order to facilitate comparisons between plans, all adaptation options reported were classified using a standardized typology of adaptation strategies based on terminology used by the UK Climate Impacts Program’s Climate Adaptation Wizard (UKCIP 2008; Table 5). This typology was comprised of seven different broad adaptation strategies. Three of these strategies were recognized as being ones that contribute to ‘building adaptive capacity’ while four contribute to ‘delivering adaptation actions’. Individual adaptation options within the adaptation plans were then mapped to this typology. While this resulted in the aggregation of a diverse array of adaptation options and resulted in a coarse level of classification, it was judged to be sufficient to detect first-order preferences among institutions with respect to broad approaches to adaptation. 4.6 Limitations A number of caveats apply to the aforementioned methods. First, the evaluation approach used here only assessed information contained within the adaptation plans themselves, which tended to take the form of concise, high-level and often glossy documents. Although lacking detail, such publications are often preferred by public institutions due to their utility in communication. It is important to recognize that this does not mean that significant investments of time and resources have not occurred behind the scenes including the production of more detailed, internal reports and documents. This emphasizes the need for more bottom-up or longitudinal investigative approaches that provide insight into how plans are developed and implemented. Second, it should be noted that the adaptation plans included in this study effectively represent the first generation of plans, for which there are few prior precedents or models Table 5 The typology of adaptation strategies used for classification adaptation options identified from the 57 adaptation plans (adapted from UKCIP 2008) Strategy

Example

Building Adaptive Capacity Gathering and sharing information

Undertaking research; collecting and monitoring data; and raising awareness through education and training initiatives

Creating a supportive institutional framework

Changing standards, legislation, and best practice guidance; and developing appropriate policies, plans and strategies

Creating supportive social structures

Changing internal organizational systems; developing personnel or other resources to deliver the adaptation actions; and working in partnership.

Delivering Adaptation Actions Bearing the risks

Manage retreat from sea-level rise and/or flooding

Sharing or spreading the risks

Insurance and/or hedging against uncertainty

Avoiding or reducing the risks

Upgrade of existing infrastructure; installation of new infrastructure; changing the timing and/or location of activities and enterprises; bolstering emergency and disaster management responses

Exploiting new opportunities

Adjust behavior to take advantage of changing climatic conditions; deploy a new technology and/or practice; engage in a new activity or enterprise

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

421

apart from the more general guidance instruments. As such, what should or should not be addressed in adaptation planning remains a matter for discussion and will vary with institutional context. The fact that existing adaptation guidance varies considerably with respect to recommended processes suggests the greatest utility of existing adaptation planning may be ‘learning-by-doing’ through the sharing of knowledge and the experience gained. Hence, despite allocating scores, this study has avoided ranking or singling-out individual adaptation strategies or plans for performance (or lack of performance) as such judgments were deemed of lesser utility than building broader understanding around the current state of adaptation planning as a whole and identification of where improvements can be made. Third, adaptation plans considered for evaluation were drawn in relatively equal proportions from three developed nations, in an attempt to develop more generalized understanding of the state of planning throughout the developed world. That said, caution should be exercised in making assumptions about how representative the selected plans are of developed nations’ planning practice at large. More importantly, evaluated plans are likely not representative of adaptation planning in developing nations. Adaptation planning in developing nations is progressing through different mechanisms, adaptation priorities are often quite different for developing versus developed nations, and the scales of both the adaptation deficit and adaptive capacity in the developing world are incommensurate with what is observed in developed nations. Nevertheless, there are certainly opportunities for shared learning regarding adaptation policy and practice between developed and developing nations. Finally, it is important to note that while this study focuses on formal efforts that are explicitly designated as climate change adaptation planning, the bulk of adaptation efforts will likely be implicit, informal and may not even be recognized as climate adaptation per se.

5 Results The total scores across all 57 adaptation plans evaluated ranged from 6 out of 38 (or 16% of the maximum score) to 22 out of 38 (or 61%), with an average of 14 (or 37%) (Fig. 1). This suggests that none of the adaptation plans evaluated provided comprehensive coverage of all adaptation criteria. Indeed, only 7 adaptation plans scored at least 20 out of 38 (or greater than 50%). Ten adaptation plans scored less than 10 out of 38 (less than 26%). Further insights can be obtained by analysing the scores based on other factors (Fig. 2), although none of the differences observed among different categorizations of adaptation plans were statistically significant, largely due to sample size and significant heterogeneity in scores. There was a tendency for plans at the local/municipal scale to score slightly higher than those at higher geo-political scales, suggesting the more narrowly defined the system of interest, the greater the potential for more detailed planning. This may reflect a degree of ‘planning fatigue,’ whereby the broader the bounds of the system of interest, the more difficult it is to provide comprehensive, detailed information on planning. In addition, ‘action plans’ tended to score higher than ‘consultation papers’, and, particularly ‘strategy documents’, which again reflects the greater specificity and comprehensiveness associated with those plans designed to guide specific actions. Not surprisingly, longer plans scored higher than shorter plans. Furthermore, the highest score obtained by the shortest adaptation plans (those with less than 12 pages) was 18 out of 38 (or 47%) suggesting brevity provides fewer opportunities to address the evaluation criteria.

422

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

Fig. 1 Frequency distribution of evaluation scores for individual adaptation plans. Results are presented as either the total number corresponding with each category or the percentage of all adaptation plans falling within a given category. Note that the highest possible score is 38

It is also instructive to examine the adaptation planning criteria which scored highest and lowest across all the adaptation plans evaluated (Table 6). For example, those criteria where average scores were at least one standard deviation above the mean included, ‘assessment of impacts, vulnerability and/or risk’, ‘communication and outreach’, ‘articulation of objectives, goals and priorities’, and ‘assessment of climate drivers’. However, even for these criteria, when a plan received a score greater than 0 the assigned score tended to be 1 rather than 2. Despite acknowledging the importance of such elements, evaluated plans tended to lack rigorous climate analyses and assessments of vulnerability and risk. Similarly, the emphasis placed on communication and articulation of objectives was not backed by specific communication plans or targeted objectives that are integrated into broader institutional planning. Those criteria where average scores were at least one standard deviation below the mean included ‘assessment of financial capital’, ‘identification of success criteria’, ‘assessment of non-climate drivers’ ‘acknowledgement of assumptions and uncertainties,’ and ‘assessment of natural capital’ (Table 6). Correlation analysis among evaluation criteria resulted in the identification of a number of associations (Table 6). Such associations can assist in identifying planning practitioners’ perceived linkages as well as cognitive disconnects among different adaptation processes. For example, the strongest associations were observed between ‘implementation’ and ‘evaluation, monitoring and review’, as well as between ‘assessment of human capital’ and ‘assessment of social capital’. Both of these represent natural pairings of related, and even overlapping, processes. In addition, the criterion ‘assessment of impacts, vulnerability and/ or risk’ was significantly correlated with both ‘assessment of climate drivers’ and ‘options appraisal’. This reflects an overall tendency of adaptation plans to frame the adaptation process around the linear pathway of gathering climate information, assessing risks, and identifying adaptation options. The criterion ‘communication and outreach’ was associated

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

423

Fig. 2 Total scores summarized by pages, percentage on adaptation, country, scale, year, sector and type. Mean score represents the average among all planning documents within a given category. Error bars represent the lowest and highest score within a given category. Note that the highest possible score is 38

with ‘articulation of objectives, goals, and values’, ‘implementation’, and ‘acknowledgement of assumptions and uncertainties’, which reflects those activities for which communication is likely to play a critical role. Meanwhile, those criteria which lacked any association tended to be those that were most frequently neglected among adaptation plans, reflecting their overall poor integration into planning processes. The adaptation options prescribed within individual plans reflected a bias toward capacity building over specific adaptation actions. The majority (72%) of adaptation options reported were classified as ‘building adaptive capacity’ (Fig. 3), with ‘gathering and sharing information’ the most frequently-cited adaptation strategy. This perhaps suggests that despite the completion of adaptation planning, many institutions still perceive themselves to be suffering from a deficit of knowledge that may need to be addressed prior to, or at least in conjunction with, the delivery of specific adaptation actions. In effect, this reflects a preference for delaying adaptation until greater certainty regarding the costs and benefits of different actions is known, even among those institutions that are currently embracing the rhetoric of adaptation. Furthermore, the emphasis on ‘creating supportive institutional frameworks’ reflects the perception among institutions that significant underpinning policy review, reform and development is likely needed to effectively and efficiently achieve adaptation goals. It is interesting to note that despite the prioritization of capacity building among priority adaptation options, the plans themselves reflect little consideration for ‘stock-taking’ processes (Table 6). This raises the question of whether significant capacity building is needed before more substantive measures to reduce vulnerability can be implemented or are options that build adaptive capacity popular simply because they are perceived to be convenient, low-risk and non-controversial actions that make sense under any circumstances. Furthermore, this emphasis on capacity building stands in contrast to the adaptation responses prioritized in the NAPAs, of which less than 10% were focused on education and capacity building (MFAD and GEF 2009). This

424

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

Table 6 Scores for individual evaluation criteria applied to adaptation plans. Each adaptation criterion is ranked based upon its mean score across all 57 evaluated adaptation plans. Criteria are further stratified based upon their degree of deviation from the group mean for all criteria. Scores represent the percentages of adaptation plans receiving specific scores (0, >0, 1, or 2) for each criterion. Associated criteria represent those processes that are significantly correlated (p<0.05) with a given criterion and are identified based upon their ranking Rank

Adaptation criteria

Scores

Associated criteria (by rank)

% of 0s

% >0

% of 1s

% of 2s

>1 Standard Deviation above the Mean 1

Assessment of impacts, vulnerability and/or risk

4, 13

Communication and outreach

3, 7, 8, 15

Articulation of objectives, goals and priorities

2, 6, 8, 10, 17

Assessment of climate drivers

1, 11, 13

<1 Standard Deviation from the Mean 5

Implementation

9, 17

Definition of roles and responsibilities

3, 18

7 8

Stakeholder engagement Exploitation of synergies

21 30

79 70

67 53

12 18

2, 17 2, 3

Mainstreaming

5, 10, 11, 13

Monitoring, evaluation and review

3, 5, 6, 9, 17

Assessment of social capital

Assessment of natural capital

Options appraisal

1, 4

Assessment of human capital

2 none

>1 Standard Deviation below the Mean 15 Acknowledgement of assumptions and uncertainties

4, 9, 18 none

Assessment of non-climate drivers

Identification of success criteria

3, 5, 7, 10

Assessment of financial capital

Assessment of physical capital

none

suggests a significant disparity between how developed and developing countries frame the issue of adaptation and the urgency placed on vulnerability reduction—an issue that merits further investigation. Politically risk-averse adaptation planning is also evident from those adaptation options that are classified as ‘delivering adaptation actions’. For example, ‘bearing climate change risks and losses’ and ‘risk spreading’ are widely recognized as credible adaptation responses (Füssel 2008). In practice, given that it is unlikely that all climate change impacts can be prevented entirely and that insurance is a common risk-spreading mechanism for institutions in the developed world, it could be argued that these will become inescapable forms of adaptation. Yet, with the exception of some provisions for planned retreat in coastal areas due to sea-level rise and a few considerations of insurance, both of these adaptation strategies were largely ignored within the 57 adaptation plans evaluated here. This could be indicative of an institutional aversion to acknowledging unavoidable impacts

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

425

Fig. 3 Synthesis of adaptation strategies prescribed within surveyed adaptation plans. Adaptation options within each plan were classified into one of seven broad types of adaptation strategies, based upon the UKCIP terminology (UKCIP 2008). The ‘percentage of plans incorporating the specified strategy’ represents the proportion of the 57 adaptation plans that had at least one adaptation option consistent with a given adaptation strategy. The percentage of all adaptation options associated with the specific strategy’ represents the proportion of all adaptation options across all adaptation plans that were categorized into one of the seven strategies

even when losses might be compensated through risk-spreading mechanisms. Government institutions have historically been characterized as providing services and protecting property, infrastructure and quality of life, rather than simply accepting adverse impacts. As such, adaptation options that ‘avoid or reduce’ climate impacts are far more common (Fig. 3). Often these options focus on management activities that were already being developed for other reasons and therefore represent ‘low regret’ or ‘no regrets’ actions that largely target existing adaptation deficits. For example, heatwave warning systems, expansion of water storage capacity and/or efficiency of use, and continuation of wildlife protection and ecological conservation activities are actions which have future adaptation benefits, but also largely reflect existing challenges and/or designated management responsibilities. This emphasis on short-term benefits may hinder the implementation of adaptation actions needed to secure long-term resilience, such as enhanced investments in long-lived infrastructure to ensure it is robust against potential climate change decades in the future (Fankhauser et al. 1999). Occasionally, adaptation plans also highlighted opportunities that may arise in the future. For example, a changing climate could pose opportunities for some agricultural enterprises, while new development and new technologies may enable more climate-sensitive and climate-resilient communities to emerge.

6 Discussion Adaptation is rapidly climbing the policy agenda as a strategy for climate risk management that complements reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. While evidence of the

426

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

implementation of proactive and anticipatory adaptation policies and measures that specifically address future climate change remains limited (Adger et al. 2007), a broad range of institutions are initiating planning efforts to identify appropriate adaptation actions. Although the pace at which such planning is emerging suggests a process of rapid institutional and social learning, ideally such learning should contribute eventually to effective adaptation that reduces vulnerability. The ultimate effectiveness of climate adaptation is difficult to determine or quantify, particularly for measures or actions designed to achieve long-term reductions in risk. As such, the best method to ensuring robust adaptation is to ensure rigorous adaptation planning processes. The current study, in conjunction with insights from other authors (Repetto 2008; Swart et al. 2009), suggests that such rigor currently is lacking in the developed world. The set of adaptation plans considered here reveal disparities between the elements of adaptation planning typically suggested in guidance instruments and those that actually appear within planning documents. Currently, adaptation planning for climate change is largely characterized by an approach that focuses on the consideration of possible future climate changes and associated impacts, identification of adaptation options to address these impacts, and communication of this information to stakeholders. This approach resembles the classic template for an impacts assessment (e.g. Carter et al. 1994), which stresses the ‘top-down’ acquisition of quantitative information regarding climate change and its consequences, but treats the management of such consequences as a consideration at the tail-end of the assessment process, rather than an issue to be considered throughout. Similarly, Füssel (2007) discusses approaches to adaptation, but focuses largely on approaches to the assessment of climate impacts, vulnerability and risk, which is an important, but by no means the only, component of adaptation planning. Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala (2006) find similar shortcomings in National Communications, which discuss biophysical climatic change and downstream impacts at length, but include little documentation of adaptation priorities or their implementation. Swart et al. (2009) also identify the implementation of adaptation measures and multi-scaled policy integration to be weaknesses of national adaptation strategies in the EU. This situation is somewhat disappointing given the diversity of guidance instruments and alternative frameworks for adaptation planning that are now available (Lim et al. 2005; Dessai and van der Sluijs 2007; Lynch et al. 2008). An overarching failing of the adaptation plans considered in the current study would appear to be a limited appreciation of the wider governance context in which both climate change and its management will manifest. For example, the common failure to adequately consider climate change in the context of other biophysical and socioeconomic drivers that will affect systems of human value creates the potential for biased and incomplete perceptions of risk. Hence, the adaptation planning process could be improved through more effective problem orientation (Clark 2002). Adaptation needs to be integrated with other social, urban and regional planning, disaster mitigation and sustainable development efforts, raising the question of whether there is utility in framing climate adaptation as a discrete set of planning processes. Meanwhile, even when potentially effective adaptation policies and measures have been identified, a broad range of barriers may exist to their implementation (Adger et al. 2009). These barriers are often associated with entitlements to various forms of capital that underpin adaptation processes (Adger and Kelly 1999), and often expressed more conventionally as lack of funding, lack of information or expertise, or lack of political will or community support (Smith et al. 2009a). Developing an effective strategy for adaptation therefore requires not simply identifying potential climate impacts and adaptation options, but also taking stock of existing assets and liabilities for managing

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

427

risk and devising mechanisms by which adaptation barriers can be overcome (CIG 2007; Hulme et al. 2007; Adger et al. 2009). Yet, assessments of capital were some of the more frequently neglected processes among the adaptation plans evaluated in the this study, despite the fact that the adaptation options identified within adaptation plans indicate a high institutional demand for capacity-building. Undoubtedly, the actions prescribed by adaptation plans must reflect institutional assumptions, biases and constraints, such as limited budget flexibility or the need for consistency across other items on policy agendas. These should, however, be made explicit and transparent through both the assessment of capital constraints during the planning process as well acknowledgement of key assumptions that are the basis of perceptions of vulnerability and risk or the appropriateness of different adaptation policies and measures. The apparent gaps in adaptation planning processes arise, in part, from the ad hoc nature in which planning is progressing. While there is likely significant collective evolution as individual planning efforts learn from those that have come before, the lack of formalized practice for adaptation planning and the inconsistent use of existing adaptation guidance means that many institutions are largely ‘muddling through’ the planning process. While this doesn’t necessarily preclude the development of an effective process and a quality planning outcome, it certainly increases the risk of failure. Australia, for example, has experimented with the development of a common framework for undertaking climate change risk assessment and adaptation planning (AGO 2006). Despite such efforts, Preston and Kay (2010) find risk assessments based upon this framework remain ad hoc, with large variations in methods and rigor from one locale to another. In contrast, the NAPA process for least developed countries (LDCs) is based upon a standard template to which all adaptation assessment and planning has been aligned (UNFCCC 2002), which facilitates critique, comparison, and learning from the NAPA process (Osman-Elasha and Downing 2007). Yet the relatively low levels of funding available to LDCs for completing NAPAs likely placed inherent constraints on their ability to serve as robust platforms for long-term adaptation planning. Delays in implementing the NAPAs and the provisioning of funds to finance priority adaptation projects have also slowed the pace of adaptation (MFAD and GEF 2009). Hence, the formation of overarching institutions and standardized methods for planning are not necessarily ensure robust adaptation. Developing a common framework for adaptation planning is challenged by the need to maintain regard for the highly localized and contextual nature of climate vulnerability and appropriate adaptation responses. Overly-prescribed planning runs the risk of devolving into a technical exercise that services bureaucratic needs while neglecting societal needs. One potential method for balancing standardization and context in adaptation planning is through the use of participatory approaches, whereby the planning framework establishes a process of engagement among communities and governing institutions that work collectively to define the problem and design adaptation strategies that are robust while being sensitive to normative preferences (World Bank 1996; Brunner et al. 2005). Such participatory approaches are invaluable for three key reasons (Stern and Fineberg 1996). Firstly, in ‘wicked’ or post-normal situations, as characterized by uncertainty over outcomes, multiple interests and high stakes (Lorenzoni et al. 2006), both expert and local knowledge are important for defining goals and developing solutions (Brown 2005). Secondly, involvement of local communities can help bolster support for and facilitate the implementation of adaptation plans once they are developed. Lastly, from the perspective of procedural justice, communities have the right to be involved in equitable decision-making processes that

428

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407â&#x20AC;&#x201C;438

affect their lives and participation can aid in fostering trust and building social capital (Paavola and Adger 2002). The transaction costs associated with participatory planning can be high, albeit necessary to achieve long term objectives, suggesting such approaches are often best applied to post-normal challenges characterized by complexity, deep uncertainty, and conflicts among values. While climate adaptation would appear to epitomize such challenges, truly participatory approaches to adaptation planning remain relatively unusual and not standard practice.

7 Conclusions Adaptation science is a burgeoning discipline that sits across a range of research communities, yet one which is inherently grounded in policy development and practice. The growing urgency associated with responding to climate risk has elevated climate adaptation on policy agendas across a broad array of institutions and governance networks (Swart et al. 2009), and has resulted in a rapid growth in adaptation planning. This growth has many positive implications, such as the potential for social learning on adaptation, the identification of possible knowledge gaps and barriers to adaptation, and reductions in societal and ecological vulnerability to both climate variability and climate change. Nevertheless, as with any nascent practice, the first generation of adaptation plans emerging from developed nations indicates there is significant room for improvement. While often assumed to possess high adaptive capacity, due to high levels of wealth, education and technology, significant long-term evolution of adaptation planning and practice within developed nations likely will be needed before such capacity can be effectively deployed in adaptation. Adaptation plans frequently mention the need to mainstream adaptation into existing policies and capitalize upon synergies among adaptation and other policy goals. Yet, adaptation plans themselves largely frame adaptation in a narrow, climate-centric manner that overlooks the capacity and institutional challenges associated with the process. In addition, the simple fact that institutions have opted to develop management plans that are specific to climate change, and in some cases solely adaptation, rather than integrating climate change into the range of existing policies and environmental management efforts, suggests that demonstrating action on climate change (as opposed to securing positive societal and ecological outcomes) may be the key driver of adaptation planning in many instances. This is supported by the observation that institutions are preferentially focused on low-risk knowledge acquisition and capacity-building measures over specific actions to reduce vulnerability that could prove more costly, controversial or difficult to implement. Nevertheless, the existing practice and guidance on adaptation planning provides a foundation upon which to build, and the most critical consideration is perhaps not adaptation plans themselves, but how they are implemented. With greater emphasis on the critical evaluation of adaptation planning including both procedural as well as substantive aspects of the decision-making process and the movement toward some consensus around how â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;best practiceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; for participatory adaptation planning can be framed, it is hoped that this important area of science and policy can mature rapidly. Acknowledgements This work was supported through a Julius Career Award granted to the lead author by the CSIRO as well as support from the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship. The authors also acknowledge the assistance of William Perkins of the U.S Environmental Protection Agency and Dr. Suraje Dessai of the University of Exeter.

Sponsoring agency

Devon County Council

Government Office for Yorkshire and Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber the Humber, Sustainability Commission sub-group Climate Action Team

Collingwood Environmental Planning Prepared for South East England and Land Use Consultants Regional Assembly

2004

2005

2006

National Biodiversity and Climate Change Action Plan

Shifting Shores: Living with a changing coastline

Victorian Greenhouse Strategy Action Plan Update

A Warm Response—Our Climate Change Challenge:

Your Climate: Yorkshire and Humber’s Climate Change Action Plan

Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Implementation Plan for the Draft South East Plan

The Northern Territory Strategy for Greenhouse Action

National Agriculture and Climate Change Action Plan 2006–2009

National Trust

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council

Environment Protection Agency for Northern Territories Government

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council

Environment Protection Agency for Northern Territories Government

California Environmental Protection Agency

Devon County Council

Victorian Government Department of Victorian Government Department Sustainability and Environment of Sustainability and Environment

National Trust

Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council

2004

Adapting to Climate Change: Enhancing Victoria’s capacity Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council

2003

Leicester Partnership and the Institute of Energy and Sustainable Leicester Environment Development, De Montfort Partnership University Victorian Government Department of Victorian Government Department Sustainability and Environment of Sustainability and Environment

Year of Author publication

City of Leicester Climate Change Strategy

Title

Table 7 The adaptation plans evaluated in this work, sorted by date published or launched

Appendix

Local/ Municipal

National

Regional/ State

Local/ Municipal

Australia National

Australia Regional/ State

USA

Australia Regional/ State

Australia National

Australia Regional/ State

Scale

Country

Agriculture

Multiple

Heritage

Biodiversity

Multiple

Sector

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438 429

North West Regional Development Agency South Gloucestershire Council Acclimatise Ltd

Maunsell Australia Department of Climate Change

2006

2007

Rising to the Challenge: A Climate Change Action Plan for England’s Northwest 2007–09

South Gloucestershire Climate Change Strategy and Action Plan

Rising to the Challenge: The City of London Corporation’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy

King County 2007 Climate Plan

Brisbane’s Plan For Action on Climate Change and Energy National Climate Change Adaptation Framework The City of New York The City of Los Angeles

Sustainability and Climate Change Division, SA Government

2007

PlaNYC

Green LA: An Action Plan to Lead the Nation In Fighting Global Warming

Tackling Climate Change: South Australia’s Greenhouse Policy 2007–2020

King County Council

Department of Agriculture and Food, Department of Agriculture and Food, Australia Regional/ State of Western Australia State of Western Australia State

2006

Climate Change and Adaptation in South West Western Australia

Sustainability and Climate Change Division, SA Government

The City of Los Angeles

The City of New York

Department of Climate Change

Brisbane City Council

King County Council

City of London Corporation

South Gloucestershire Council

North West Regional Development Agency

Department of Health, Western Australia

2006

Health impacts of climate change: Adaptation strategies for Western Australia

Local/ Municipal

Regional/ State

Local/ Municipal

Australia Regional/ State

USA

Australia Local/ Municipal Australia National

USA

Australia Regional/ State

Department of Primary Industries and Department of Primary Industries Water, State of Tasmania and Water, State of Tasmania

Scale

2006

Country

Draft Climate Change Strategy for Tasmania

Sponsoring agency

Year of Author publication

Title

Table 7 (continued)

Multiple

Health

Multiple

Sector

430 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

Sustainability Policy and Programs, ACT Government City of Olympia Public Works Department (Water Resources)

2007

Weathering the Change

City of Olympia’s Response to the Challenge of Climate Change: A Background Report and Preliminary Recommendations

Great Barrier Reef Climate Change Action Plan 2007–2012 NSW Inter-agency Biodiversity and Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Working Group City of Keene City of Homer

West Midlands Regional Assembly Governor’s Climate Change Integration Group Lake District National Park Authority Sustainability North East Miami-Dade County Council

2007–2008 NSW Biodiversity and 2007 Climate Change Adaptation Framework

2007

Climate Action Plan: Reducing the Threat 2007 of Global Climate Change Through Government and Community Efforts

2007

2008

Adapting to Climate Change: Planning a Climate Resilient Community

West Midlands Regional Climate Change Action Plan

A Framework for Addressing Rapid Climate Change

Managing Climate Change: The Lake District National Park Authority’s Action Plan

Climate Change Action Plan for North East England

Climate Change Advisory Task Force: Second Report and Initial Recommendations

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

The State of Queensland (Department The State of Queensland of Natural Resources and Water) (Department of Natural Resources and Water)

2007

ClimateSmart Adaptation 2007–12: An action plan for managing the impacts of climate change

National

Scale

Miami-Dade County Council

Sustainability North East

Lake District National Park Authority

Governor of the State of Oregon

Government Office of the West Midlands

City of Homer

City of Keene

USA

Local/ Municipal

Regional/ State

Local/ Municipal

Regional/ State

Local/ Municipal

Australia Regional/ State

Department of Environment and Climate Change NSW

Local/ Municipal

Australia Local/ Municipal

USA

Australia Regional/ State

USA

Country

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

City of Olympia

Sustainability Policy and Programs, ACT Government

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

2007

CDC Policy on Climate Change and Public Health

Sponsoring agency

Year of Author publication

Title

Table 7 (continued)

Multiple

Biodiversity

Multiple

Health

Sector

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438 431

Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition The Scottish Government BeBirmingham (Birmingham Local Strategic Partnership)

2008

Assessment and Action Plan

Leicester City Council Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan

Preparing for a Sea Change in Florida

Adapting our ways: Managing Scotland’s 2008 Climate Risk

2008

Leeds Climate Change Strategy

Cutting CO2 for a Smarter Birmingham: Strategic Framework

Environment Agency California State University Institute of Climate Change, Oceans and Atmosphere

2008

Towards a City of Melbourne Climate Change Adaptation Strategy: A Risk Assessment and Action Plan Discussion Paper

Climate Action Plan

Climate Change Adaptation Strategy (2008–11)

Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Climate Change in Fresno California

The London climate change adaptation strategy

Climate Action Plan

City of Berkeley

Greater London Authority

State of Maryland

Defra Maunsell Australia

2008

Adapting to climate change in England

Leicester City Council

Department of Environmental Protection, City of New York

Leeds City Council

Year of Author publication

Title

Table 7 (continued)

City of Berkeley

USA

City of Fresno

USA UK

Greater London Authority

National

Local/ Municipal

Regional/ State

Local/ Municipal

Scale

Local/ Municipal

National

Regional/ State

Australia Local/ Municipal

USA

Country

Environment Agency

State of Maryland

City of Melbourne

Defra

BeBirmingham (Birmingham Local Strategic Partnership)

The Scottish Government

Florida Coastal and Ocean Coalition

Leicester City Council

Department of Environmental Protection, City of New York

Leeds City Council

Sponsoring agency

Multiple

Coastal

Multiple

Sector

432 Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

Environmental Protection Agency City of Chicago

2008

National Water Program Strategy Response to Climate Change Our City Our Future: Chicago Climate Action Plan

Natural England

Climate Change Strategy 2008–2012

Department of Water Resources, State of California Victorian Department of Primary Industries

2008

2009

Managing An Uncertain Future: Climate Change Adaptation Strategies for California’s Water

Victorian Climate Change Strategy for Fisheries and Aquaculture 2008–2018

Manchester Climate Change: Call to Action

Manchester City Council

Governor’s Action Team on Energy and Climate Change

2008

Florida’s Energy and Climate Change Action Plan

Local Government Association of South Australia

2008

Climate Change Policy

Year of Author publication

Title

Table 7 (continued)

Manchester City Council

Victorian Department of Primary Industries

Department of Water Resources, State of California

State of Florida

Environmental Protection Agency City of Chicago

Local Government Association of South Australia

Natural England

Sponsoring agency

National

Scale

Regional/ State

Local/ Municipal

National

Local/ Municipal

Australia Regional/ State

USA

Australia Regional/ State

Country

Multiple

Fisheries

Water

Multiple

Water

Multiple

Biodiversity

Sector

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438 433

434

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

Table 8 The scoring rules developed for evaluating to what extent each adaptation criterion is met by the adaptation plans Criteria

Score of ‘1’ requires evidence that…

Score of ‘2’ requires evidence that…

Articulation of objectives, goals and priorities

The broad purpose of the adaptation strategy has been stated, as well as some discussion of specific objectives, with some consideration of adaptation priorities.

There is a clear vision about the goals of the adaptation strategy and how it supports wider goals or targets in that locality, objectives that allow progress towards the goals to be recognized and adaptation priorities have been identified with some explanation or justification of choices made.

Identification of success criteria

Criteria or indicators that can be used to assess the progress or success of adaptation measures have been, or are planned to be, developed. These should be recognized as distinct from (though likely similar to) ‘ selection criteria’ used to appraise adaptation options and should be wider than simple indicators of climate change itself.

There has been consideration of what successful adaptation will look like, that criteria or indicators have been developed and that there are details of how achievement or attainment will be assessed.

Assessment of human capital

Existing skills, knowledge and experience of individuals responsible for adaptation planning and implementation have been acknowledged, or are planned to be assessed.

The existing skills, knowledge and experience of individuals responsible for adaptation planning and implementation have been assessed.

Assessment of social capital

Existing governance, institutional and policy contexts for adaptation (including the capacity and entitlements of those institutions, organizations and businesses responsible for designing, delivering and implementing adaptation measures) have been acknowledged, or are planned to be assessed.

The existing governance, institutional and policy contexts for adaptation, including the capacity and entitlements of those institutions, organizations and businesses responsible for designing, delivering and implementing adaptation measures, have been assessed.

Assessment of natural capital

Existing material culture, assets and infrastructure Existing material culture, assets (including which are sensitive to climate risks or integral information) and infrastructure, associated in their management have been acknowledged, with those institutions, organizations and or are planned to be assessed. businesses responsible for designing, delivering and implementing adaptation measures, which are sensitive to climate risks or integral in their management have been assessed.

Assessment of physical capital

The current nature or status of natural resource stocks and environmental services which are sensitive to climate risks or integral in their management have been acknowledged, or are planned to be assessed.

The existing nature or status of natural resource stocks and environmental services, associated with those institutions, organizations and businesses responsible for designing, delivering and implementing adaptation measures, which are sensitive to climate risks or integral in their management have been assessed.

Assessment of financial capital

Existing stocks and flows of financial resources and obligations associated with those institutions, organizations and businesses responsible for designing, delivering and implementing adaptation measures have been acknowledged, or are planned to be assessed.

Existing stocks and flows of financial resources and obligations, associated with those institutions, organizations and businesses responsible for designing, delivering and implementing adaptation measures, which are sensitive to climate risks or which can be used to manage climate risks have been assessed.

Stakeholder engagement

There has been interaction with stakeholders during the production of the adaptation strategy, or will be during the adaptation process.

Stakeholder engagement is central to the adaptation process.

Assessment of climate drivers

The relevant climate drivers have been identified, Climate drivers have been assessed in terms or are planned to be assessed. of historical trends, current variability and projected future changes.

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

435

Table 8 (continued) Criteria

Score of ‘1’ requires evidence that…

Score of ‘2’ requires evidence that…

Assessment of non-climate drivers

Other non-climate factors which may be relevant to the purpose of the adaptation strategy have been considered, or are planned to be assessed.

The relative importance of non-climate drivers has been assessed.

Assessment of impacts, Some analysis has taken place, or vulnerability and/ will take place, that identifies climate impacts, or risk vulnerabilities or risks.

Detailed analysis has taken place that identifies climate impacts, vulnerabilities or risks.

Acknowledgement of assumptions and uncertainties

Assumptions made during the adaptation process are recognized and uncertainties acknowledged.

Assumptions made at all stages of the adaptation process are explained and justified and that methods are developed, suggested or used to manage uncertainties.

Options appraisal

Some alternative adaptation measures were considered and that an options appraisal was undertaken.

A range of alternative adaptation measures were considered and details of the appraisal framework used to select preferred options.

Exploitation of synergies

Synergies with other policies and programs have been or will be recognized.

Integration with other policies and programs has been or will be achieved

Mainstreaming

Ways of mainstreaming adaptation measures have been or will be recognized.

Mainstreaming of adaptation measures has been or will be achieved

Communication and outreach

The adaptation strategy and the measures contained have been or will be communicated clearly to the relevant audiences.

A communication strategy has been established, placing the adaptation strategy within broader dissemination and outreach activities (e.g. website, workshops)

Definition of roles and responsibilities

Roles and responsibilities for different adaptation measures have been acknowledged or will be considered.

Roles and responsibilities for different adaptation measures have been assigned.

Implementation

Consideration has been given, or is planned to be given, to how the adaptation strategy will be implemented.

A clear implementation pathway has been developed that includes details about how implementation will occur (e.g. mechanisms, drivers, and incentives), what will be expected (e.g., outputs, deliverables) and when (e.g. timescale, milestones).

Monitoring, evaluation and review

Consideration has been given, or is planned to be given, to how the adaptation strategy will be monitored evaluated and reviewed.

A system of monitoring and evaluation is in place that allows the performance of adaptation to be assessed against success criteria and for review of inputs and procedures.

References Adger WN (2003) Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climate change. Econ Geogr 79:387– 404 Adger WN, Kelly PM (1999) Social vulnerability to climate change and the architecture of entitlements. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 4:253–266 Adger WN, Agrawala S, Mirza MMQ et al (2007) Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. In: Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds) Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of working group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 717–743 Adger WN, Dessai S, Goulden M et al (2009) Are there social limits to adaptation to climate change? Clim Change 93:335–354

436

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

AGO (Australian Greenhouse Office) (2006) Climate change impacts and risk management: a guide for business and government. Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra AGO (Australian Greenhouse Office) (2007) Climate change adaptation options for local government. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra Agrawala S, van Aalst M (2008) Adapting development cooperation to adapt to climate change. Clim Pol 8:183–193 AusAid (Australian Agency for International Development) (2005) The logical framework approach. Australian guideline. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra Banks G (2009) Challenges of evidence-based policy-making. Productivity Commission, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra Brown VA (2005) Knowing: linking the knowledge cultures of sustainability and health. In: Brown VA, Grootjans J, Ritchie J, Townsend M, Verrinder G (eds) Sustainability and health: supporting global ecological integrity in public health. Earthscan, London, pp 131–161 Brunner RD, Steelman TA, Coe-Juell L et al (2005) Adaptive governance: integrating science, policy and decision making. Colombia University Press, New York Burton I (2004) Climate change and the adaptation deficit. Occasional Paper. Adaptation and Impacts Research Group, Meteorological Service of Canada 1: 1–6 Burton I (2005) Adapt and thrive: policy options for reducing the climate change adaptation deficit. Policy Options 33–38, December Burton I, May E (2004) The adaptation deficit in water resource management. IDS Bull 35:31–37 Carter TR, Parry ML, Harasawa H et al (1994) IPCC technical guidelines for assessing climate change impacts and adaptations. Department of Geography, University College, London CEC (Commission of the European Communities) (2007) Adapting to climate change in Europe—options for EU action. SEC(2007) 849, Brussels CIG (Climate Impacts Group) (2007) Preparing for climate change: a guidebook for local, regional, and state governments. Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington, King County, Washington, and ICLEI—Local Governments for Sustainability, Seattle Clark TW (2002) The policy process: a practical guide for natural resource professionals. Yale University Press, New Haven COAG (Council of Australian Governments) (2007) National climate change adaptation framework. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Canberra Cummings HF (1997) Logic models, logical frameworks and results-based management: contrasts and comparisons. Can J Dev Studies 18:587–596 Dessai S, van der Sluijs J (2007) Uncertainty and climate change adaptation—a scoping study. Copernicus Institute, Universiteit Utrecht and Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Easterling WE III, Hurd BH, Smith JB (2004) Coping with global climate change: the role of adaptation in the United States. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington Ellis F (2000) Rural livelihoods and diversity in developing countries. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York ESPACE (2007) Planning in a changing climate: the strategy. The Environment Department, Hampshire County Council, Winchester Fankhauser S, Smith JB, Tol RSJ (1999) Weathering climate change: some simple rules to guide adaptation decisions. Ecol Econ 30:67–78 Feenstra JF, Burton I, Smith JB et al (1998) Handbook on methods for climate change impacts assessment and adaptation strategies (version 2.0). United Nations Environment Programme, Institute for Environmental Studies, vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Füssel H-M (2007) Adaptation planning for climate change: concepts, assessment approaches, and key lessons. Sustain Sci 2:265–275 Füssel H-M (2008) Assessing adaptation to the health risks of climate change: what guidance can existing frameworks provide? Int J Environ Health Res 18(1):37–63 Gagnon-Lebrun F, Agrawala S (2006) Progress on adaptation to climate change in developed countries: an analysis of broad trends. ENV/EPOC/GSP(2006)1/FINAL, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris Hedger MM, Mitchell T, Leavy J et al (2008) Evaluation of adaptation to climate change from a development perspective. A study commissioned by the GEF Evaluation Office and financed by DFID. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton Hegerl GC, Zwiers FW, Braconnot P et al (2007) Understanding and attributing climate change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

437

intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp 663–746 Holling CS (1978) Adaptive environmental assessment and management. Wiley, New York Hulme M, Adger WN, Dessai S et al (2007) Limits and barriers to adaptation: four propositions. Tyndall Briefing Note No. 20, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich IGES (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies) (2008) Expert consultation on adaptation metrics, summary of the consultation. IGES, Kanagawa Iwanski S, Haja B, Razafindrabe N et al (2009) Fishery livelihoods and adaptation to climate change: a case study of Chilika lagoon, India. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 14:339–355 Klein RJT, Nicholls RJ, Mimura N (1999) Coastal adaptation to climate change: can the IPCC technical guidelines be applied? Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Chang 4:239–252 Laswell HD (1956) The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research and College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland, College Park LGAQ (Local Government Association of Queensland, Inc) (2007) Adapting to climate change: a Queensland local government guide. Local Government Association of Queensland, Inc, Fortitude Valley Lim B, Spanger-Siegfried E, Burton I et al (eds) (2005) Adaptation policy frameworks for climate change. United Nations Development Program and the Global Environment Facility, New York Lorenzoni I, Jones M, Turnpenny JR (2006) Climate change, human genetics, and post-normality in the UK. Futures 39(1):65–82 Lynch AH, Tryhorn L, Abramson R (2008) Working at the boundary: facilitating interdisciplinarity in climate change adaptation research. Bull Am Meteorol Soc. doi:10.1175/BAMS-89-2-169 Mastrandrea MD, Schneider SH (2004) Probabilistic integrated assessment of ‘dangerous’ climate change. Science 304:571–575 Meehl GA, Stocker TF, Collins WD et al (2007) Global climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp 747–846 Mehdi B, Mrena C, Douglas A et al (2006) Adapting to climate change: an introduction for Canadian municipalities. Canadian Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Network, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division, Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa MFAD (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark) and GEF (Global Environment Facility) (2009) Operation of the least developed countries fund for adaptation to climate change. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Copenhagen Moser SC (2009) Making a difference on the ground: the challenge of demonstrating the effectiveness of decision support. Clim Change 95:11–21 NDCC (Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change) (2009) Developing an action plan. Nottingham Declaration Partnership. Available via http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/nottingham/NottinghamDeclaration/Developing-an-Action-Plan Nelson R, Kokic P, Elliston L et al (2005) Structural adjustment: a vulnerability index for Australian broadacre agriculture. Aust Commodit 12(1):171–179 Nelson R, Brown PR, Darbas T et al (2007) The potential to map the adaptive capacity of Australian land managers for NRM policy using ABS data. Prepared for the National Land & Water Resources Audit by CSIRO and the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Canberra NRC (National Research Council) (2010) Adapting to the impacts of climate change. Panel on adapting to the impacts of climate change. National Academies of Science, Washington, DC NZCCO (New Zealand Climate Change Office) (2004a) Coastal hazards and climate change: a guidance manual for local government in New Zealand. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington NZCCO (New Zealand Climate Change Office) (2004b) Preparing for climate change: a guide for local government in New Zealand. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington O’Neill BC, Oppenheimer M (2002) Dangerous climate impacts and the Kyoto Protocol. Science 296:1971– 1972 Osman-Elasha B, Downing TE (2007) Lessons learned in preparing national adaptation programmes of action in Eastern and Southern Africa. European Capacity Building Initiative, Oxford Paavola J, Adger WN (2002). Justice and adaptation to climate change. Working Paper No. 23, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich Perkins B, Ojima D, Correll R (2007) A survey of climate change adaptation planning. H John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Washington, DC Pielke R Jr (1998) Rethinking the role of adaptation in climate policy. Glob Environ Change 8:159–170

438

Mitig Adapt Strateg Glob Change (2011) 16:407–438

Pielke R Jr, Prins G, Rayner S et al (2007) Climate change 2007: lifting the taboo on adaptation. Nature 445:597–598 Preston BL, Kay RN (2010) Managing climate risk in human settlements. In: Greenhouse 2009. Springer and CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp 205–219 Repetto R (2008) The climate crisis and the adaptation myth. Working Paper 13, Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven Rosenberg L, Posner L (1979) The logical framework: a manager’s guide to a scientific approach to design and evaluation. Practical Concepts Incorporated, Washington, DC Simpson MC, Gössling S, Scott D et al (2008) Climate change adaptation and mitigation in the tourism sector. Frameworks, tools and practices. UNEP, University of Oxford, UNWTO, WMO, Paris Smith TF, Brooke C, Measham TG et al (2009a) Case studies of adaptive capacity: systems approach to regional climate change adaptation strategies. Prepared for the Sydney Coastal Councils Group by the University of the Sunshine Coast and the CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship, Sippy Downs and Canberra Smith JB, Schneider SH, Oppenheimer M et al (2009b) Assessing dangerous climate change through an update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “reasons for concern”. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:4133–4137 Smith JB, Vogel JM, Cromwell JE III (2009c) An architecture for government action on adaptation to climate change. An editorial comment. Clim Change 95:53–61 Smith JB, Vogel JM, Cruce TL, Seidel S, Holsinger HA (2010) Adapting to climate change: a call for federal leadership. Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Arlington Stern P, Fineberg H (eds) (1996) Understanding risk: information decision in a democratic society. National Academy Press, Washington, DC Swart R, Biesbroeck R, Binnerup S et al (2009) Europe adapts to climate change: comparing national adaptation strategies. Partnership for European Environmental Research, Helsinki Tompkins EL, Nicholson-Cole SA, Hurlston L-A et al (2005) Surviving climate change in small islands—a guidebook. Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Trenberth KE, Jones PD, Ambenje P et al (2007) Observations: surface and atmospheric climate change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York, pp 235–336 UKCIP (United Kingdom Climate Impacts Programme) (2008) The UKCIP adaptation wizard v 2.0. UKCIP, Oxford. Available via http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?Itemid=273&id=147&option=com_content& task=view UNDP (United Nations Development Programme) (2007) Draft monitoring and evaluation framework for adaptation to climate change. UNDP, New York UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (1992) United Nations framework convention on climate change. United Nations, New York UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2002) Annotated guidelines for the preparation of national adaptation programs of action. United Nations, New York UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) (2007) Report on the analysis of existing and potential investment and financial flows relevant to the development of an effective and appropriate international response to climate change. United Nations, New York USAID (United States Agency for International Development) (1973) The logical framework: modifications based on experience. USAID Program Methods and Evaluation Division, Washington, DC USAID (United States Agency for International Development) (2007) Adapting to climate variability and change: a guidance manual for development planning. Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade, US Agency for International Development, Washington DC Wheeler SM (2008) State and municipal climate change plans. J Am Plann Assoc 74(4):481–496 Willows R, Connell R (2003) Climate adaptation: risk, uncertainty, and decision-making. UKCIP Technical Report, UK Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford, 154 pp World Bank (1996) The World Bank participation sourcebook. Report #15363. The World Bank, Washington, DC World Bank (2008) Climate resilient cities: a primer on reducing vulnerabilities to disasters. The World Bank, Washington, DC