28
17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Coordinating Lead Authors: W. Neil Adger (UK), Shardul Agrawala (OECD/France), M. Monirul Qader Mirza (Canada/Bangladesh) Lead Authors: Cecilia Conde (Mexico), Karen O’Brien (Norway), Juan Pulhin (Philippines), Roger Pulwarty (USA/Trinidad and Tobago), Barry Smit (Canada), Kiyoshi Takahashi (Japan) Contributing Authors: Brenna Enright (Canada), Samuel Fankhauser (EBRD/Switzerland), James Ford (Canada), Simone Gigli (Germany), Simon Jetté-Nantel (Canada), Richard J.T. Klein (The Netherlands/Sweden), Irene Lorenzoni (UK), David C. Major (USA), Tristan D. Pearce (Canada), Arun Shreshtha (Nepal), Priyadarshi R. Shukla (India), Joel B. Smith (USA), Tim Reeder (UK), Cynthia Rosenzweig (USA), Katharine Vincent (UK), Johanna Wandel (Canada) Review Editors: Abdelkader Allali (Morocco), Neil A. Leary (USA), Antonio R. Magalhães (Brazil) This chapter should be cited as: Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit and K. Takahashi, 2007: Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani, J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 717-743.

Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    1

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

17Assessment of adaptation practices, options,constraints and capacity

Coordinating Lead Authors:W. Neil Adger (UK), Shardul Agrawala (OECD/France), M. Monirul Qader Mirza (Canada/Bangladesh)

Lead Authors:Cecilia Conde (Mexico), Karen O’Brien (Norway), Juan Pulhin (Philippines), Roger Pulwarty (USA/Trinidad and Tobago),

Barry Smit (Canada), Kiyoshi Takahashi (Japan)

Contributing Authors:Brenna Enright (Canada), Samuel Fankhauser (EBRD/Switzerland), James Ford (Canada), Simone Gigli (Germany),

Simon Jetté-Nantel (Canada), Richard J.T. Klein (The Netherlands/Sweden), Irene Lorenzoni (UK), David C. Major (USA),

Tristan D. Pearce (Canada), Arun Shreshtha (Nepal), Priyadarshi R. Shukla (India), Joel B. Smith (USA), Tim Reeder (UK),

Cynthia Rosenzweig (USA), Katharine Vincent (UK), Johanna Wandel (Canada)

Review Editors:Abdelkader Allali (Morocco), Neil A. Leary (USA), Antonio R. Magalhães (Brazil)

This chapter should be cited as:Adger, W.N., S. Agrawala, M.M.Q. Mirza, C. Conde, K. O’Brien, J. Pulhin, R. Pulwarty, B. Smit and K. Takahashi, 2007: Assessment of

adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of

Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, M.L. Parry, O.F. Canziani,

J.P. Palutikof, P.J. van der Linden and C.E. Hanson, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 717-743.

Page 2: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

718

Executive summary.....................................................719

17.1 Concepts and methods .....................................719

17.2 Assessment of current adaptation practices..72017.2.1 Adaptation practices ............................................720

17.2.2 Examples of adaptation practices........................721

Box 17.1 Tsho Rolpa Risk Reduction Project in Nepalas observed anticipatory adaptation....................723

Box 17.2 Adaptation practices in the financial sector ......723

17.2.3 Assessment of adaptation costs and benefits.....724

Box 17.3 Adaptation costs and benefits for agriculturein the Gambia .......................................................726

17.3 Assessment of adaptation capacity,options and constraints ....................................727

17.3.1 Elements of adaptive capacity .............................727

Box 17.4 Adaptation costs and benefits in the watermanagement sector of South Africa ....................727

17.3.2 Differential adaptive capacity ...............................728

17.3.3 Changes in adaptive capacity over time..............729

Box 17.5 Gender aspects of vulnerability andadaptive capacity .................................................730

17.4 Enhancing adaptation: opportunitiesand constraints...................................................730

17.4.1 International and national action forimplementing adaptation .....................................731

Box 17.6 Early lessons on effectiveness and legitimacyof National Adaptation Programmes of Action ....732

17.4.2 Limits and barriers to adaptation .........................733

Box 17.7 Is adaptation constrained or facilitated byindividual extreme events?...................................733

Box 17.8 Do voluntary or displacement migrationsrepresent failures to adapt? .................................736

17.5 Conclusions ..........................................................737

References......................................................................737

Table of Contents

Page 3: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Executive summary

Adaptation to climate change is already taking place, but ona limited basis (very high confidence).Societies have a long record of adapting to the impacts ofweather and climate through a range of practices that includecrop diversification, irrigation, water management, disaster riskmanagement, and insurance. But climate change poses novelrisks often outside the range of experience, such as impactsrelated to drought, heatwaves, accelerated glacier retreat andhurricane intensity [17.2.1].

Adaptation measures that also consider climate change are beingimplemented, on a limited basis, in both developed and developingcountries. These measures are undertaken by a range of public andprivate actors through policies, investments in infrastructure andtechnologies, and behavioural change. Examples of adaptations toobserved changes in climate include partial drainage of the TshoRolpa glacial lake (Nepal); changes in livelihood strategies inresponse to permafrost melt by the Inuit in Nunavut (Canada); andincreased use of artificial snow-making by the Alpine ski industry(Europe, Australia and North America) [17.2.2]. A limited butgrowing set of adaptation measures also explicitly considersscenarios of future climate change. Examples include considerationof sea-level rise in design of infrastructure such as theConfederation Bridge (Canada) and in coastal zone management(United States and the Netherlands) [17.2.2].

Adaptation measures are seldom undertaken in response toclimate change alone (very high confidence).Many actions that facilitate adaptation to climate change areundertaken to deal with current extreme events such as heatwavesand cyclones. Often, planned adaptation initiatives are also notundertaken as stand-alone measures, but embedded withinbroader sectoral initiatives such as water resource planning,coastal defence and disaster management planning [17.2.2,17.3.3]. Examples include consideration of climate change in theNational Water Plan of Bangladesh and the design of floodprotection and cyclone-resistant infrastructure in Tonga [17.2.2].

Many adaptations can be implemented at low cost, butcomprehensive estimates of adaptation costs and benefitsare currently lacking (high confidence).There is a growing number of adaptation cost and benefit-costestimates at regional and project level for sea-level rise,agriculture, energy demand for heating and cooling, waterresource management, and infrastructure. These studies identifya number of measures that can be implemented at low cost orwith high benefit-cost ratios. However, some commonadaptations may have social and environmental externalities.Adaptations to heatwaves, for example, have involved increaseddemand for energy-intensive air-conditioning [17.2.3].

Limited estimates are also available for global adaptation costsrelated to sea-level rise, and energy expenditures for spaceheating and cooling. Estimates of global adaptation benefits forthe agricultural sector are also available, although such literature

does not explicitly consider the costs of adaptation.Comprehensive multi-sectoral estimates of global costs andbenefits of adaptation are currently lacking [17.2.3].

Adaptive capacity is uneven across and within societies(very high confidence).There are individuals and groups within all societies that haveinsufficient capacity to adapt to climate change. For example,women in subsistence farming communities are disprop-ortionately burdened with the costs of recovery and coping withdrought in southern Africa [17.3.2].

The capacity to adapt is dynamic and influenced by economic andnatural resources, social networks, entitlements, institutions andgovernance, human resources, and technology [17.3.3]. Multiplestresses related to HIV/AIDS, land degradation, trends in economicglobalisation, and violent conflict affect exposure to climate risksand the capacity to adapt. For example, farming communities inIndia are exposed to impacts of import competition and lowerprices in addition to climate risks; marine ecosystems over-exploited by globalised fisheries have been shown to be lessresilient to climate variability and change [17.3.3].

There are substantial limits and barriers to adaptation (veryhigh confidence).High adaptive capacity does not necessarily translate into actionsthat reduce vulnerability. For example, despite a high capacity toadapt to heat stress through relatively inexpensive adaptations,residents in urban areas in some parts of the world, including inEuropean cities, continue to experience high levels of mortality[17.4.2]. There are significant barriers to implementing adaptation.These include both the inability of natural systems to adapt to therate and magnitude of climate change, as well as technological,financial, cognitive and behavioural, and social and culturalconstraints. There are also significant knowledge gaps foradaptation as well as impediments to flows of knowledge andinformation relevant for adaptation decisions [17.4.1, 17.4.2].

New planning processes are attempting to overcome thesebarriers at local, regional and national levels in both developingand developed countries. For example, least-developed countriesare developing National Adaptation Programmes of Action andsome developed countries have established national adaptationpolicy frameworks [17.4.1].

17.1 Concepts and methods

This chapter is an assessment of knowledge and practice onadaptation since the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). Inthe TAR, adaptation and vulnerability were defined, types ofadaptation were identified, and the role of adaptive capacity wasrecognised (Smit et al., 2001). Notable developments thatoccurred since the TAR include insights on: a) actual adaptationsto observed climate changes and variability; b) plannedadaptations to climate change in infrastructure design, coastalzone management, and other activities; c) the variable nature of

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

719

Page 4: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

vulnerability and adaptive capacity; and d) policy developments,under the United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) and other international, national and localinitiatives, that facilitate adaptation processes and actionprogrammes (Adger et al., 2005; Tompkins et al., 2005; Westand Gawith, 2005).

This chapter assesses the recent literature, focussing on real-world adaptation practices and processes, determinants anddynamics of adaptive capacity, and opportunities and constraintsof adaptation. While adaptation is increasingly regarded as aninevitable part of the response to climate change, the evidencein this chapter suggests that climate change adaptation processesand actions face significant limitations, especially in vulnerablenations and communities. In most of the cases, adaptations arebeing implemented to address climate conditions as part of riskmanagement, resource planning and initiatives linked tosustainable development.

This chapter retains the definitions and concepts outlined in theTAR and examines adaptation in the context of vulnerability andadaptive capacity. Vulnerability to climate change refers to thepropensity of human and ecological systems to suffer harm andtheir ability to respond to stresses imposed as a result of climatechange effects. The vulnerability of a society is influenced by itsdevelopment path, physical exposures, the distribution ofresources, prior stresses and social and government institutions(Kelly and Adger, 2000; Jones, 2001; Yohe and Tol, 2002; Turneret al., 2003; O’Brien et al., 2004; Smit and Wandel, 2006). Allsocieties have inherent abilities to deal with certain variations inclimate, yet adaptive capacities are unevenly distributed, bothacross countries and within societies. The poor and marginalisedhave historically been most at risk, and are most vulnerable to theimpacts of climate change. Recent analyses in Africa, Asia andLatin America, for example, show that marginalised, primaryresource-dependent livelihood groups are particularly vulnerable toclimate change impacts if their natural resource base is severelystressed and degraded by overuse or if their governance systems arein or near a state of failure and hence not capable of respondingeffectively (Leary et al., 2006).

Adaptation to climate change takes place through adjustmentsto reduce vulnerability or enhance resilience in response toobserved or expected changes in climate and associated extremeweather events. Adaptation occurs in physical, ecological andhuman systems. It involves changes in social and environmentalprocesses, perceptions of climate risk, practices and functions toreduce potential damages or to realise new opportunities.Adaptations include anticipatory and reactive actions, private andpublic initiatives, and can relate to projected changes intemperature and current climate variations and extremes that maybe altered with climate change. In practice, adaptations tend to beon-going processes, reflecting many factors or stresses, rather thandiscrete measures to address climate change specifically.

Biological adaptation is reactive (see Chapter 4), whereasindividuals and societies adapt to both observed and expectedclimate through anticipatory and reactive actions. There arewell-established observations of human adaptation to climatechange over the course of human history (McIntosh et al., 2000;Mortimore and Adams, 2001). Despite evidence of successstories, many individuals and societies still remain vulnerable

to present-day climatic risks, which may be exacerbated byfuture climate change. Some adaptation measures are undertakenby individuals, while other types of adaptation are planned andimplemented by governments on behalf of societies, sometimesin anticipation of change but mostly in response to experiencedclimatic events, especially extremes (Adger, 2003; Kahn, 2003;Klein and Smith, 2003).

The scientific research on adaptation is synthesised in thischapter according to: current adaptation practices to climatevariability and change; assessment of adaptation costs andbenefits; adaptive capacity and its determinants, dynamics andspatial variations; and the opportunities and limits of adaptationas a response strategy for climate change.

17.2 Assessment of current adaptationpractices

17.2.1 Adaptation practices

In this chapter, adaptation practices refer to actualadjustments, or changes in decision environments, which mightultimately enhance resilience or reduce vulnerability to observedor expected changes in climate. Thus, investment in coastalprotection infrastructure to reduce vulnerability to storm surgesand anticipated sea-level rise is an example of actualadjustments. Meanwhile, the development of climate riskscreening guidelines, which might make downstreamdevelopment projects more resilient to climate risks (Burton andvan Aalst, 2004; ADB, 2005), is an example of changes in thepolicy environment.

With an explicit focus on real-world behaviour, assessments ofadaptation practices differ from the more theoretical assessmentsof potential responses or how such measures might reduce climatedamages under hypothetical scenarios of climate change.Adaptation practices can be differentiated along severaldimensions: by spatial scale (local, regional, national); by sector(water resources, agriculture, tourism, public health, and so on);by type of action (physical, technological, investment, regulatory,market); by actor (national or local government, internationaldonors, private sector, NGOs, local communities and individuals);by climatic zone (dryland, floodplains, mountains, Arctic, and soon); by baseline income/development level of the systems inwhich they are implemented (least-developed countries, middle-income countries, and developed countries); or by somecombination of these and other categories.

From a temporal perspective, adaptation to climate risks canbe viewed at three levels, including responses to: currentvariability (which also reflect learning from past adaptations tohistorical climates); observed medium and long-term trends inclimate; and anticipatory planning in response to model-basedscenarios of long-term climate change. The responses across thethree levels are often intertwined, and indeed might form acontinuum.

Adapting to current climate variability is already sensible in aneconomic development context, given the direct and certainevidence of the adverse impacts of such phenomena (Goklany,

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

720

Page 5: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

1995; Smit et al., 2001; Agrawala and Cane, 2002). In addition,such adaptation measures can be synergistic with developmentpriorities (Ribot et al., 1996), but there could also be conflicts. Forexample, activities such as shrimp farming and conversion ofcoastal mangroves, while profitable in an economic sense, canexacerbate vulnerability to sea-level rise (Agrawala et al., 2005).

Adaptation to current climate variability can also increaseresilience to long-term climate change. In a number of cases,however, anthropogenic climate change is likely to also requireforward-looking investment and planning responses that gobeyond short-term responses to current climate variability. Thisis true, for example, in the case of observed impacts such asglacier retreat and permafrost melt (Schaedler, 2004; Shrestha andShrestha, 2004). Even when impacts of climate change are not yetdiscernible, scenarios of future impacts may already be ofsufficient concern to justify building some adaptation responsesinto planning. In some cases it could be more cost-effective toimplement adaptation measures early on, particularly forinfrastructure with long economic life (Shukla et al., 2004), or ifcurrent activities may irreversibly constrain future adaptation tothe impacts of climate change (Smith et al., 2005).

17.2.2 Examples of adaptation practices

There is a long record of practices to adapt to the impacts ofweather as well as natural climate variability on seasonal tointerannual time-scales – particularly to the El Niño-SouthernOscillation (ENSO). These include proactive measures such ascrop and livelihood diversification, seasonal climate forecasting,community-based disaster risk reduction, famine early warningsystems, insurance, water storage, supplementary irrigation and soon. They also include reactive or ex-poste adaptations, for example,emergency response, disaster recovery, and migration (Sperlingand Szekely, 2005). Recent reviews indicate that a ‘wait and see’or reactive approach is often inefficient and could be particularlyunsuccessful in addressing irreversible damages, such as speciesextinction or unrecoverable ecosystem damages, that may resultfrom climate change (Smith, 1997; Easterling et al., 2004).

Proactive practices to adapt to climate variability have advancedsignificantly in recent decades with the development of operationalcapability to forecast several months in advance the onset of ElNiño and La Niña events related to ENSO (Cane et al., 1986), aswell as improvements in climate monitoring and remote sensing toprovide better early warnings on complex climate-related hazards(Dilley, 2000). Since the mid 1990s, a number of mechanisms havealso been established to facilitate proactive adaptation to seasonalto interannual climate variability. These include institutions thatgenerate and disseminate regular seasonal climate forecasts(NOAA, 1999), and the regular regional and national forums andimplementation projects worldwide to engage with local andnational decision makers to design and implement anticipatoryadaptation measures in agriculture, water resource management,food security, and a number of other sectors (Basher et al., 2000;Broad and Agrawala, 2000; Meinke et al., 2001; Patt and Gwata,2002; De Mello Lemos, 2003; O’Brien and Vogel, 2003;Ziervogel, 2004). An evaluation of the responses to the 1997-98El Niño across 16 developing countries in Asia, Asia-Pacific,Africa, and Latin America highlighted a number of barriers to

effective adaptation, including: spatial and temporal uncertaintiesassociated with forecasts of regional climate, low level ofawareness among decision makers of the local and regionalimpacts of El Niño, limited national capacities in climatemonitoring and forecasting, and lack of co-ordination in theformulation of responses (Glantz, 2001). Recent research alsohighlights that technological solutions such as seasonal forecastingare not sufficient to address the underlying social drivers ofvulnerabilities to climate (Agrawala and Broad, 2002).Furthermore, social inequities in access to climate information andthe lack of resources to respond can severely constrain anticipatoryadaptation (Pfaff et al., 1999).

Table 17.1 provides an illustrative list of various types ofadaptations that have been implemented by a range of actorsincluding individuals, communities, governments and the privatesector. Such measures involve a mix of institutional andbehavioural responses, the use of technologies, and the design ofclimate resilient infrastructure. They are typically undertaken inresponse to multiple risks, and often as part of existing processesor programmes, such as livelihood enhancement, water resourcemanagement, and drought relief.

A growing number of measures are now also being put in placeto adapt to the impacts of observed medium- to long-term trends inclimate, as well as to scenarios of climate change. In particular,numerous measures have been put in place in the winter tourismsector in Alpine regions of many Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries to respond toobserved impacts such as reduced snow cover and glacier retreat.These measures include technologies such as artificial snow-makingand associated structures such as high altitude water reservoirs,economic and regional diversification, and the use of market-basedinstruments such as weather derivatives and insurance (e.g., Konig,1999, for Australia; Burki et al., 2005, for Switzerland; Harrison etal., 2005, for Scotland; Scott et al., 2005, for North America).Adaptation measures are also being put in place in developingcountry contexts to respond to glacier retreat and associated risks,such as the expansion of glacial lakes, which pose serious risks tolivelihoods and infrastructure. The Tsho Rolpa risk-reductionproject in Nepal is an example of adaptation measures beingimplemented to address the creeping threat of glacial lake outburstflooding as a result of rising temperatures (see Box 17.1).

Recent observed weather extremes, particularly heatwaves(e.g., 1995 heatwave in Chicago; the 1998 heatwave in Toronto;and the 2003 heatwave in Europe), have also provided thetrigger for the design of hot-weather alert plans. While suchmeasures have been initiated primarily in response to currentweather extremes, at times there is implicit or explicitrecognition that hot weather events might become more frequentor worsen under climate change and that present adaptationshave often been inadequate and created new vulnerabilities(Poumadère et al., 2005). Public health adaptation measureshave now been put in place that combine weather monitoring,early warning, and response measures in a number of placesincluding metropolitan Toronto (Smoyer-Tomic and Rainham,2001; Ligeti, 2004; Mehdi, 2006), Shanghai (Sheridan andKalkstein, 2004) and several cities in Italy and France (ONERC,2005). Weather and climate extremes have also led to a numberof adaptation responses in the financial sector (see Box 17.2).

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

721

Page 6: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

722

REGIONCountryReference

Climate-relatedstress

Adaptation practices

AFRICAEgyptEl Raey (2004)

Sea-level rise Adoption of National Climate Change Action Plan integrating climate change concerns intonational policies; adoption of Law 4/94 requiring Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) forproject approval and regulating setback distances for coastal infrastructure; installation of hardstructures in areas vulnerable to coastal erosion.

SudanOsman-Elasha et al.(2006)

Drought Expanded use of traditional rainwater harvesting and water conserving techniques; building ofshelter-belts and wind-breaks to improve resilience of rangelands; monitoring of the number ofgrazing animals and cut trees; set-up of revolving credit funds.

BotswanaFAO (2004)

Drought National government programmes to re-create employment options after drought; capacity buildingof local authorities; assistance to small subsistence farmers to increase crop production.

ASIA & OCEANIABangladeshOECD (2003a); Pouliotte(2006)

Sea-level rise;salt-waterintrusion

Consideration of climate change in the National Water Management Plan; building of flowregulators in coastal embankments; use of alternative crops and low-technology water filters.

PhilippinesLasco et al. (2006)

Drought; floods Adjustment of silvicultural treatment schedules to suit climate variations; shift to drought-resistant crops; use of shallow tube wells; rotation method of irrigation during water shortage;construction of water impounding basins; construction of fire lines and controlled burning;adoption of soil and water conservation measures for upland farming.

Sea-level rise;storm surges

Capacity building for shoreline defence system design; introduction of participatory riskassessment; provision of grants to strengthen coastal resilience and rehabilitation ofinfrastructures; construction of cyclone-resistant housing units; retrofit of buildings to improvedhazard standards; review of building codes; reforestation of mangroves.

Drought; salt-water intrusion

Rainwater harvesting; leakage reduction; hydroponic farming; bank loans allowing for purchaseof rainwater storage tanks.

AMERICASCanada(1) Ford and Smit (2004)(2) Mehdi (2006)

(1) Permafrostmelt; change inice cover

Changes in livelihood practices by the Inuit, including: change of hunt locations; diversification ofhunted species; use of Global Positioning Systems (GPS) technology; encouragement of foodsharing.

(2) Extremetemperatures

Implementation of heat health alert plans in Toronto, which include measures such as: opening ofdesignated cooling centres at public locations; information to the public through local media;distribution of bottled water through the Red Cross to vulnerable people; operation of a heatinformation line to answer heat-related questions; availability of an emergency medical servicevehicle with specially trained staff and medical equipment.

United StatesEasterling et al. (2004)

Sea-level rise Land acquisition programmes taking account of climate change (e.g., New Jersey Coastal BlueAcres land acquisition programme to acquire coastal lands damaged/prone to damages bystorms or buffering other lands; the acquired lands are being used for recreation andconservation); establishment of a ‘rolling easement’ in Texas, an entitlement to public ownershipof property that ‘rolls’ inland with the coastline as sea-level rises; other coastal policies thatencourage coastal landowners to act in ways that anticipate sea-level rise.

Mexico and ArgentinaWehbe et al. (2006)

Drought Adjustment of planting dates and crop variety (e.g., inclusion of drought-resistant plants such asagave and aloe); accumulation of commodity stocks as economic reserve; spatially separatedplots for cropping and grazing to diversify exposures; diversification of income by addinglivestock operations; set-up/provision of crop insurance; creation of local financial pools (asalternative to commercial crop insurance).

EUROPEThe Netherlands,Government of theNetherlands (1997 and2005)

Sea-level rise Adoption of Flooding Defence Act and Coastal Defence Policy as precautionary approachesallowing for the incorporation of emerging trends in climate; building of a storm surge barriertaking a 50 cm sea-level rise into account; use of sand supplements added to coastal areas;improved management of water levels through dredging, widening of river banks, allowing riversto expand into side channels and wetland areas; deployment of water storage and retentionareas; conduct of regular (every 5 years) reviews of safety characteristics of all protectinginfrastructure (dykes, etc.); preparation of risk assessments of flooding and coastal damageinfluencing spatial planning and engineering projects in the coastal zone, identifying areas forpotential (land inward) reinforcement of dunes.

Austria, France, SwitzerlandAustrian Federal Govt.(2006); Direction duTourisme (2002); SwissConfederation (2005)

Upward shift ofnatural snow-reliability line;glacier melt

Artificial snow-making; grooming of ski slopes; moving ski areas to higher altitudes and glaciers;use of white plastic sheets as protection against glacier melt; diversification of tourism revenues(e.g., all-year tourism).

Permafrost melt;debris flows

Erection of protection dams in Pontresina (Switzerland) against avalanches and increasedmagnitude of potential debris flows stemming from permafrost thawing.

United KingdomDefra (2006)

Floods; sea-levelrise

Coastal realignment under the Essex Wildlife Trust, converting over 84 ha of arable farmland into saltmarsh and grassland to provide sustainable sea defences; maintenance and operation of theThames Barrier through the Thames Estuary 2100 project that addresses flooding linked to theimpacts of climate change; provision of guidance to policy makers, chief executives, and parliamenton climate change and the insurance sector (developed by the Association of British Insurers).

Table 17.1. Examples of adaptation initiatives by region, undertaken relative to present climate risks, including conditions associated with climate change.

Page 7: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

723

Box 17.1. Tsho Rolpa Risk Reduction Project in Nepal as observedanticipatory adaptation

The Tsho Rolpa is a glacial lake located at an altitude of about4,580 m in Nepal. Glacier retreat and ice melt as a result ofwarmer temperature increased the size of the Tsho Rolpa from0.23 km² in 1957/58 to 1.65 km² in 1997 (Figure 17.1). The 90-100 million m³ of water, which the lake contained by this time,were only held by a moraine dam – a hazard that called forurgent action to reduce the risk of a catastrophic glacial lakeoutburst flood (GLOF).

If the dam were breached, one third or more of the water couldflood downstream. Among other considerations, this posed amajor risk to the Khimti hydropower plant, which was underconstruction downstream. These concerns spurred theGovernment of Nepal, with the support of international donors,to initiate a project in 1998 to lower the level of the lake throughdrainage. An expert group recommended that, to reduce therisk of a GLOF, the lake should be lowered three metres bycutting a channel in the moraine. A gate was constructed toallow for controlled release of water. Meanwhile, an earlywarning system was established in 19 villages downstream incase a Tsho Rolpa GLOF should occur despite these efforts.Local villagers were actively involved in the design of thesystem, and drills are carried out periodically. In 2002, the four-year construction project was completed at a cost of US$3.2million. Clearly, reducing GLOF risks involves substantial costsand is time-consuming as complete prevention of a GLOFwould require further drainage to lower the lake level.

Sources: Mool et al. (2001); OECD (2003b); Shrestha andShrestha (2004).Figure 17.1. Tsho Rolpa Risk Reduction Project in Nepal as

observed anticipatory adaptation.

Box 17.2. Adaptation practices in the financial sector

Financial mechanisms can contribute to climate change adaptation. The insurance sector – especially property, health and cropinsurance – can efficiently spread risks and reduce the financial hardships linked to extreme events. Financial markets caninternalise information on climate risks and help transfer adaptation and risk-reduction incentives to communities and individuals(ABI, 2004), while capital markets and transfer mechanisms can alleviate financial constraints to the implementation of adaptationmeasures. To date, most adaptation practices have been observed in the insurance sector. As a result of climate change, demandfor insurance products is expected to increase, while climate change impacts could also reduce insurability and threateninsurance schemes (ABI, 2004; Dlugolecki and Lafeld, 2005; Mills et al., 2005; Valverde and Andrews, 2006). While these marketsignals can play a role in transferring adaptation incentives to individuals, reduced insurance coverage can, at the same time,impose significant economic and social costs. To increase their capacity in facing climate variability and change, insurers havedeveloped more comprehensive or accessible information tools, e.g., risk assessment tools in the Czech Republic, France,Germany and the United Kingdom (CEA, 2006). They have also fostered risk prevention through: (i) implementing andstrengthening building standards, (ii) planning risk prevention measures and developing best practices, and (iii) raising awarenessof policyholders and public authorities (ABI, 2004; CEA, 2006; Mills and Lecomte, 2006). In the longer term, climate change mayalso induce insurers to adopt forward-looking pricing methods in order to maintain insurability (ABI, 2004; Loster, 2005).

Page 8: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

There are now also examples of adaptation measures beingput in place that take into account scenarios of future climatechange and associated impacts. This is particularly the case forlong-lived infrastructure which may be exposed to climatechange impacts over its lifespan or, in cases, where business-as-usual activities would irreversibly constrain future adaptation tothe impacts of climate change. Early examples where climatechange scenarios have already been incorporated ininfrastructure design include the Confederation Bridge inCanada and the Deer Island sewage treatment plant in Bostonharbour in the United States. The Confederation Bridge is a 13km bridge between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Thebridge provides a navigation channel for ocean-going vesselswith vertical clearance of about 50 m (McKenzie and Parlee,2003). Sea-level rise was recognised as a principal concernduring the design process and the bridge was built one metrehigher than currently required to accommodate sea-level riseover its hundred-year lifespan (Lee, 2000). In the case of theDeer Island sewage facility, the design called for raw sewagecollected from communities onshore to be pumped under Bostonharbour and then up to the treatment plant on Deer Island. Afterwaste treatment, the effluent would be discharged into theharbour through a downhill pipe. Design engineers wereconcerned that sea-level rise would necessitate the constructionof a protective wall around the plant, which would then requireinstallation of expensive pumping equipment to transport theeffluent over the wall (Easterling et al., 2004). To avoid such afuture cost the designers decided to keep the treatment plant ata higher elevation, and the facility was completed in 1998. Otherexamples where ongoing planning is considering scenarios ofclimate change in project design are the Konkan Railway inwestern India (Shukla et al., 2004); a coastal highway inMicronesia (ADB, 2005); the Copenhagen Metro in Denmark(Fenger, 2000); and the Thames Barrier in the United Kingdom(Dawson et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2006).

A majority of examples of infrastructure-related adaptationmeasures relate primarily to the implications of sea-level rise.In this context, the Qinghai-Tibet Railway is an exception. Therailway crosses the Tibetan Plateau with about a thousandkilometres of the railway at least 13,000 feet (4,000 m) abovesea level. Five hundred kilometres of the railway rests onpermafrost, with roughly half of it ‘high temperature permafrost’which is only 1 to 2°C below freezing. The railway line wouldaffect the permafrost layer, which will also be impacted bythawing as a result of rising temperatures, thus in turn affectingthe stability of the railway line. To reduce these risks, designengineers have put in place a combination of insulation andcooling systems to minimise the amount of heat absorbed by thepermafrost (Brown, 2005).

In addition to specific infrastructure projects, there are nowalso examples where climate change scenarios are beingconsidered in more comprehensive risk management policiesand plans. Efforts are underway to integrate adaptation to currentand future climate within the Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) procedures of several countries in the Caribbean (Vergara,2006), as well as Canada (Lee, 2000). A number of other policyinitiatives have also been put in place within OECD countriesthat take future climate change (particularly sea-level rise) into

account (Moser, 2005; Gagnon-Lebrun and Agrawala, 2006). Inthe Netherlands, for example, the Technical AdvisoryCommittee on Water Defence recommended the design of newengineering works with a long lifetime, such as storm surgebarriers and dams, to take a 50 cm sea-level rise into account(Government of the Netherlands, 1997). Climate change isexplicitly taken into consideration in the National WaterManagement Plan (NWMP) of Bangladesh, which was set upto guide the implementation of the National Water Policy. Itrecognises climate change as a determining factor for futurewater supply and demand, as well as coastal erosion due to sea-level rise and increased tidal range (OECD, 2003a).

There are now also examples of consideration of climatechange as part of comprehensive risk management strategies atthe city, regional and national level. France, Finland and theUnited Kingdom have developed national strategies andframeworks to adapt to climate change (MMM, 2005; ONERC,2005; DEFRA, 2006). At the city level, meanwhile, climatechange scenarios are being considered by New York City as partof the review of its water supply system. Changes in temperatureand precipitation, sea-level rise, and extreme events have beenidentified as important parameters for water supply impacts andadaptation in the New York region (Rosenzweig and Solecki,2001). A nine-step adaptation assessment procedure has nowbeen developed (Rosenzweig et al., 2007). A key feature of theseprocedures is explicit consideration of several climate variables,uncertainties associated with climate change projections, andtime horizons for different adaptation responses. Adaptationscan be divided into managerial, infrastructure, and policycategories and assessed in terms of time frame (immediate,interim, long-term) and in terms of the capital cycle for differenttypes of infrastructure. As an example of adaptation measuresthat have been examined, a managerial adaptation that can beimplemented quickly is a tightening of water regulations in theevent of more frequent droughts. Also under examination arelonger-term infrastructure adaptations such as the construction offlood-walls around low-lying wastewater treatment plants toprotect against sea-level rise and higher storm surges.

17.2.3 Assessment of adaptation costs and benefits

The literature on adaptation costs and benefits remains quitelimited and fragmented in terms of sectoral and regionalcoverage. Adaptation costs are usually expressed in monetaryterms, while benefits are typically quantified in terms of avoidedclimate impacts, and expressed in monetary as well as non-monetary terms (e.g., changes in yield, welfare, populationexposed to risk). There is a small methodological literature onthe assessment of costs and benefits in the context of climatechange adaptation (Fankhauser, 1996; Smith, 1997; Fankhauseret al., 1998; Callaway, 2004; Toman, 2006). In addition thereare a number of case studies that look at adaptation options forparticular sectors (e.g., Shaw et al., 2000, for sea-level rise); orparticular countries (e.g., Smith et al., 1998, for Bangladesh;World Bank, 2000, for Fiji and Kiribati; Dore and Burton, 2001,for Canada).

Much of the literature on adaptation costs and benefits isfocused on sea-level rise (e.g., Fankhauser, 1995a; Yohe and

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

724

Page 9: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Schlesinger, 1998; Nicholls and Tol, 2006) and agriculture (e.g.,Rosenzweig and Parry, 1994; Adams et al., 2003; Reilly et al.,2003). Adaptation costs and benefits have also been assessed ina more limited manner for energy demand (e.g., Morrison andMendelsohn, 1999; Sailor and Pavlova, 2003; Mansur et al.,2005), water resource management (e.g., Kirshen et al., 2004),and transportation infrastructure (e.g., Dore and Burton, 2001).In terms of regional coverage, there has been a focus on theUnited States and other OECD countries (e.g., Fankhauser,1995a; Yohe et al., 1996; Mansur et al., 2005; Franco andSanstad, 2006), although there is now a growing literature fordeveloping countries also (e.g., Butt et al., 2005; Callaway etal., 2006; Nicholls and Tol, 2006).

17.2.3.1 Sectoral and regional estimatesThe literature on costs and benefits of adaptation to sea-level

rise is relatively extensive. Fankhauser (1995a) usedcomparative static optimisation to examine the trade-offsbetween investment in coastal protection and the value of landloss from sea-level rise. The resulting optimal levels of coastalprotection were shown to significantly reduce the total costs ofsea-level rise across OECD countries. The results alsohighlighted that the optimal level of coastal protection wouldvary considerably both within and across regions, based on thevalue of land at risk. Fankhauser (1995a) concluded that almost100% of coastal cities and harbours in OECD countries shouldbe protected, while the optimal protection for beaches and opencoasts would vary between 50 and 80%. Results of Yohe andSchlesinger (1998) show that total (adjustment and residual landloss) costs of sea-level rise could be reduced by around 20 to50% for the U.S. coastline if the real estate market pricesadjusted efficiently as land is submerged. Nicholls and Tol(2006) estimate optimal levels of coastal protection under IPCCSpecial Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES; Nakićenović andSwart, 2000) A1FI, A2, B1, and B2 scenarios. They concludethat, with the exception of certain Pacific Small Island States,coastal protection investments were a very small percentage ofgross domestic product (GDP) for the 15 most-affected countriesby 2080 (Table 17.2).

Ng and Mendelsohn (2005) use a dynamic framework tooptimise for coastal protection, with a decadal reassessment ofthe protection required. It was estimated that, over the period2000 to 2100, the present value of coastal protection costs forSingapore would be between US$1 and 3.08 million (a verysmall share of GDP), for a 0.49 and 0.86 m sea-level rise. Alimitation of these studies is that they only look at gradual sea-level rise and do not generally consider issues such as theimplications of storm surges on optimal coastal protection. In astudy of the Boston metropolitan area Kirshen et al. (2004)include the implications of storm surges on sea-level risedamages and optimal levels of coastal protection under variousdevelopment and sea-level rise scenarios. Kirshen et al. (2004)conclude that under 60 cm sea-level rise ‘floodproofing’measures (such as elevation of living spaces) were superior tocoastal protection measures (such as seawalls, bulkheads, andrevetments). Meanwhile, coastal protection was found to beoptimal under one-metre sea-level rise. Another limitation ofsea-level rise costing studies is their sensitivity to (land and

structural) endowment values which are highly uncertain at moreaggregate levels. A global assessment by Darwin and Tol (2001)showed that uncertainties surrounding endowment values couldlead to a 17% difference in coastal protection, a 36% differencein amount of land protected, and a 36% difference in direct costglobally. A further factor increasing uncertainty in costs is thesocial and political acceptability of adaptation options. Tol et al.(2003) show that the benefits of adaptation options forameliorating increased river flood risk in the Netherlands couldbe up to US$20 million /yr in 2050. But they conclude thatimplementation of these options requires significant institutionaland political reform, representing a significant barrier toimplanting least-cost solutions.

Adaptation studies looking at the agricultural sectorconsidered autonomous farm level adaptation and many alsolooked at adaptation effects through market and internationaltrade (Darwin et al., 1995; Winters et al., 1998; Yates and Street,1998; Adams et al., 2003; Butt et al., 2005). The literaturemainly reports on adaptation benefits, usually expressed in termsof increases in yield or welfare, or decreases in the number ofpeople at risk of hunger. Adaptation costs, meanwhile, weregenerally not considered in early studies (Rosenzweig and Parry,1994; Yates and Street, 1998), but are usually included in recentstudies (Mizina et al., 1999; Adams et al., 2003; Reilly et al.,2003; Njie et al., 2006). Rosenzweig and Parry (1994) andDarwin et al. (1995) estimated residual climate change impactsto be minimal at the global level, mainly due to the significantbenefits from adaptation. However, large inter and intra-regionalvariations were reported. In particular, for many countrieslocated in tropical regions, the potential benefits of low-costadaptation measures such as changes in planting dates, cropmixes, and cultivars are not expected to be sufficient to offset thesignificant climate change damages (Rosenzweig and Parry,1994; Butt et al., 2005).

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

725

Protection costs (%GDP) for the 2080s

SRES scenarios A1FI A2 B1 B2

Micronesia 7.4 10.0 5.0 13.5

Palau 6.1 7.0 3.9 9.1

Tuvalu 1.4 1.7 0.9 2.2

Marshall Islands 0.9 1.3 0.6 1.7

Mozambique 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.8

French Polynesia 0.6 0.8 0.4 1.0

Guinea-Bissau 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.6

Nauru 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.6

Guyana 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4

New Caledonia 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4

Papua New Guinea 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4

Kiribati 1.2 0.0 0.3 0.0

Maldives 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2

Vietnam 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2

Cambodia 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1

Table 17.2. Sea-level rise protection costs in 2080 as a percentage ofGDP for most-affected countries under the four SRES world scenarios(A1FI, A2, B1, B2)

Source: Adapted from Nicholls and Tol (2006).

Page 10: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

More extensive adaptation measures have been evaluated insome developing countries (see, for example, Box 17.3). Forthe 2030 horizon in Mali, Butt et al., (2005) estimate thatadaptation through trade, changes in crop mix, and thedevelopment and adoption of heat-resistant cultivars couldoffset 90 to 107% of welfare losses induced by climate changeimpacts on agriculture.

In addition to their effect on average yield, adaptationmeasures can also smooth out fluctuations in yields (andconsequently social welfare) as a result of climate variability.Adams et al. (2003) found that adaptation welfare benefits forthe American economy increased from US$3.29 billion (2000values) to US$4.70 billion (2000 values) when their effect onyield variability is included. In the case of Mali, Butt et al.(2005) show that adaptation measures could reduce thevariability in welfare by up to 84%.

A particular limitation of adaptation studies in theagricultural sector stems from the diversity of climate changeimpacts and adaptation options but also from the complexity ofthe adaptation process. Many studies make the unrealisticassumption of perfect adaptation by individual farmers. Even ifagricultural regions can adapt fully through technologies andmanagement practices, there are likely to be costs of adaptationin the process of adjusting to a new climate regime. Recentstudies for U.S. agriculture found that frictions in the adaptationprocess could reduce the adaptation potential (Schneider et al.,2000a; Easterling et al., 2003; Kelly et al., 2005).

With regard to adaptation costs and benefits in the energysector, there is some literature – almost entirely on the UnitedStates – on changes in energy expenditures for cooling andheating as a result of climate change. Most studies show thatincreased energy expenditure on cooling will more than offsetany benefits from reduced heating (e.g., Smith and Tirpak,1989; Nordhaus, 1991; Cline, 1992; Morrison and Mendelsohn,1999; Mendelsohn, 2003; Sailor and Pavlova, 2003; Mansur etal., 2005). Morrison and Mendelsohn (1999), meanwhile,estimate net adaptation costs (as a result of increased coolingand reduced heating) for the U.S. economy ranging fromUS$1.93 billion to 12.79 billion by 2060. They also estimated

that changes in building stocks (particularly increases in coolingcapacity) contributed to the increase in energy expenditure byUS$2.98 billion to US$11.5 billion. Mansur et al. (2005),meanwhile, estimate increased energy expenditures for theUnited States ranging from US$4 to 9 billion for 2050, andbetween US$16 and 39.8 billion for 2100.

Besides sea-level rise, agriculture, and energy demand, thereare a few studies related to adaptation costs and benefits inwater resource management (see Box 17.4) and transportationinfrastructure. Kirshen et al. (2004) assessed the reliability ofwater supply in the Boston metropolitan region under climatechange scenarios. Even under a stable climate, the authorsproject the reliability of water supply to be 93% by 2100 onaccount of the expected growth in water demand. Factoring inclimate change reduces the reliability of water supply to 82%.Demand side management measures could increase thereliability slightly (to 83%), while connecting the local systemsto the main state water system would increase reliability to97%. The study, however, does not assess the costs of suchadaptation measures.

Dore and Burton (2001) estimate the costs of adaptation toclimate change for social infrastructure in Canada, moreprecisely for the roads network (roads, bridges and storm watermanagement systems) as well as for water utilities (drinkingand waste water treatment plants). In this case, the additionalcosts for maintaining the integrity of the portfolio of socialassets under climate change are identified as the costs ofadaptation. In the water sector, potential adaptation strategiessuch as building new treatment plants, improving efficiency ofactual plants or increasing retention tanks were considered andresults indicated that adaptation costs for Canadian cities couldbe as high as Canadian $9,400 million for a city like Toronto ifextreme events are considered. For the transportation sector,Dore and Burton (2001) also estimate that replacing all iceroads in Canada would cost around Canadian $908 million.However, the study also points out that retreat of permafrostwould reduce road building costs. Also, costs of winter control,such as snow clearance, sanding, and salting, are generallyexpected to decrease as temperature rises.

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

726

Box 17.3. Adaptation costs and benefits for agriculture in the Gambia

Njie et al. (2006) investigated climate change impacts and adaptation costs and benefits for cereal production in the Gambia.Under the SRES A2 scenario the study estimated that for the period 2010 to 2039, millet yield would increase by 2 to 13%. Forthe period 2070 to 2099 the outcome is highly dependent on projected changes in precipitation as it could range from a 43%increase to a 78% decrease in millet yield. Adaptation measures such as the adoption of improved cultivars, irrigation, andimproved crop fertilisation were assessed in a framework accounting for projections of population growth, water demand andavailability. These measures were estimated to increase millet yield by 13 to 43%, while reducing interannual variability by 84 to200% in the near term (2010 to 2039). However, net adaptation benefits (value of higher production minus cost of implementation)were not necessarily positive for all adaptation strategies. In the near term, net adaptation benefits were estimated at US$22.3to 31.5 million for crop fertilisation and US$81.1 to 88.0 million for irrigation. The authors conclude that irrigation is more effectiveto improve crop productivity under climate change conditions, but the adoption of improved crop fertilisation is more costefficient. Meanwhile, much uncertainty remains regarding the cost of developing improved cultivars. In the distant future, potentialprecipitation decrease would make irrigation an imperative measure.

Page 11: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

17.2.3.2 Global estimatesSome adaptation costs are implicitly included in estimates

of global impacts of climate change. Tol et al. (1998) estimatethat between 7% and 25% of total climate damage costsincluded in earlier studies such as Cline (1992), Fankhauser(1995b) and Tol (1995) could be classified as adaptation costs.In addition, recent studies, including Nordhaus and Boyer(2000), Mendelsohn et al. (2000) and Tol (2002), incorporatewith greater detail the effects of adaptation on the globalestimation of climate change impacts. In these models,adaptation costs and benefits are usually embedded withinclimate damage functions which are often extrapolated from alimited number of regional studies. Furthermore, the sourcestudies which form the basis for the climate damage functionsdo not always reflect the most recent findings. As a result, thesestudies offer a global and integrated perspective but are basedon coarsely defined climate change and adaptation impacts andonly provide speculative estimates of adaptation costs andbenefits.

Mendelsohn et al. (2000) estimate that global energy costsrelated to heating and cooling would increase by US$2 billionto US$10 billion (1990 values) for a 2°C increase intemperature by 2100 and by US$51 billion to US$89 billion(1990 values) for a 3.5°C increase. For a 1°C increase, Tol(2002) estimates global benefits from reduced heating at aroundUS$120 billion, and global costs resulting from increasedcooling at around US$75 billion. The same study estimates theglobal protection costs at US$1,055 billion for a one-metre sea-level rise. There are preliminary estimates of the global costs of‘climate proofing’ development (World Bank, 2006), but thecurrent literature does not provide comprehensive multi-sectoral estimates of global adaptation costs and benefits. Thebroader macroeconomic and economy-wide implications ofadaptations on economic growth and employment remainlargely unknown (Aaheim and Schjolden, 2004).

17.3 Assessment of adaptation capacity,options and constraints

17.3.1 Elements of adaptive capacity

Adaptive capacity is the ability or potential of a system torespond successfully to climate variability and change, andincludes adjustments in both behaviour and in resources andtechnologies. The presence of adaptive capacity has been shownto be a necessary condition for the design and implementation ofeffective adaptation strategies so as to reduce the likelihood andthe magnitude of harmful outcomes resulting from climatechange (Brooks and Adger, 2005). Adaptive capacity alsoenables sectors and institutions to take advantage ofopportunities or benefits from climate change, such as a longergrowing season or increased potential for tourism.

Much of the current understanding of adaptive capacitycomes from vulnerability assessments. Even if vulnerabilityindices do not explicitly include determinants of adaptivecapacity, the indicators selected often provide important insightson the factors, processes and structures that promote or constrainadaptive capacity (Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). One clear resultfrom research on vulnerability and adaptive capacity is that somedimensions of adaptive capacity are generic, while others arespecific to particular climate change impacts. Generic indicatorsinclude factors such as education, income and health. Indicatorsspecific to a particular impact, such as drought or floods, mayrelate to institutions, knowledge and technology (Yohe and Tol,2002; Downing, 2003; Brooks et al., 2005; Tol and Yohe, 2007).

Technology can potentially play an important role in adaptingto climate change. Efficient cooling systems, improved seeds,desalination technologies, and other engineering solutionsrepresent some of the options that can lead to improvedoutcomes and increased coping under conditions of climatechange. In public health, for example, there have been successfulapplications of seasonal forecasting and other technologies to

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

727

Box 17.4. Adaptation costs and benefits in the water management sector of South Africa

Callaway et al. (2006) provide estimates of water management adaptation costs and benefits in a case study of the Berg Riverbasin in South Africa. Adaptation measures investigated include the establishment of an efficient water market and an increasein water storage capacity through the construction of a dam. Using a programming model which linked modules of urban andfarm water demand to a hydrology module, the welfare related to water use (value for urban and farm use minus storage andtransport cost) were estimated for the SRES B2 climate change scenario and the assumption of a 3% increase in urban waterdemand. Under these conditions and the current water allocation system, the discounted impact of climate change over the next30 years was estimated to vary between 13.5 and 27.7 billion Rand. The net welfare benefits of adapting water storage capacityunder current allocation rights were estimated at about 0.2 billion Rand, while adding water storage capacity in the presence ofefficient water markets would yield adaptation benefits between 5.8 and 7 billion Rand. The authors also show that, underefficient water markets, the costs of not adapting to climate change that does occur outweigh the costs of adapting to climatechange that does not occur.

N.B.: All monetary estimates are expressed in present values for constant Rand for the year 2000, discounting over 30 years ata real discount rate of 6%.

Page 12: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

adapt health provisions to anticipated extreme events (Ebi et al.,2005). Often, technological adaptations and innovations aredeveloped through research programmes undertaken bygovernments and by the private sector (Smit and Skinner, 2002).Innovation, which refers to the development of new strategies ortechnologies, or the revival of old ones in response to newconditions (Bass, 2005), is an important aspect of adaptation,particularly under uncertain future climate conditions. Althoughtechnological capacity can be considered a key aspect ofadaptive capacity, many technological responses to climatechange are closely associated with a specific type of impact,such as higher temperatures or decreased rainfall.

New studies carried out since the TAR show that adaptivecapacity is influenced not only by economic development andtechnology, but also by social factors such as human capital andgovernance structures (Klein and Smith, 2003; Brooks and Adger2005; Næss et al., 2005; Tompkins, 2005; Berkhout et al., 2006;Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). Furthermore, recent analysis arguesthat adaptive capacity is not a concern unique to regions with lowlevels of economic activity. Although economic developmentmay provide greater access to technology and resources to investin adaptation, high income per capita is considered neither anecessary nor a sufficient indicator of the capacity to adapt toclimate change (Moss et al., 2001). Tol and Yohe (2007) showthat some elements of adaptive capacity are not substitutable: aneconomy will be as vulnerable as the ‘weakest link’ in itsresources and adaptive capacity (for example with respect tonatural disasters). Within both developed and developingcountries, some regions, localities, or social groups have a loweradaptive capacity (O’Brien et al., 2006).

There are many examples where social capital, socialnetworks, values, perceptions, customs, traditions and levels ofcognition affect the capability of communities to adapt to risksrelated to climate change. Communities in Samoa in the southPacific, for example, rely on informal non-monetaryarrangements and social networks to cope with storm damage,along with livelihood diversification and financial remittancesthrough extended family networks (Adger, 2001; Barnett, 2001;Sutherland et al., 2005). Similarly, strong local and internationalsupport networks enable communities in the Cayman Islands torecover from and prepare for tropical storms (Tompkins, 2005).Community organisation is an important factor in adaptivestrategies to build resilience among hillside communities inBolivia (Robledo et al., 2004). Recovery from hazards in Cubais helped by a sense of communal responsibility (Sygna, 2005).Food-sharing expectations and networks in Nunavut, Canada,allow community members access to so-called country food attimes when conditions make it unavailable to some (Ford et al.,2006). The role of food sharing as a part of a community’scapacity to adapt to risks in resource provisioning is also evidentamong native Alaskans (Magdanz et al., 2002). Adaptivemigration options in the 1930s USA Dust Bowl were greatlyinfluenced by the access households had to economic, social andcultural capital (McLeman and Smit, 2006). The cultural changeand increased individualism associated with economic growthin Small Island Developing States has eroded the sharing of riskwithin extended families, thereby reducing the contribution ofthis social factor to adaptive capacity (Pelling and Uitto, 2001).

17.3.2 Differential adaptive capacity

The capacity to adapt to climate change is unequal across andwithin societies. There are individuals and groups within allsocieties that have insufficient capacity to adapt to climatechange. As described above, there has been a convergence offindings in the literature showing that human and social capitalare key determinants of adaptive capacity at all scales, and thatthey are as important as levels of income and technologicalcapacity. However, most of this literature also argues that thereis limited usefulness in looking at only one level or scale, andthat exploring the regional and local context for adaptivecapacity can provide insights into both constraints andopportunities.

17.3.2.1 Adaptive capacity is uneven across societiesThere is some evidence that national-level indicators of

vulnerability and adaptive capacity are used by climate changenegotiators, practitioners, and decision makers in determiningpolicies and allocating priorities for funding and interventions(Eriksen and Kelly, 2007). However, few studies have beenglobally comprehensive, and the literature lacks consensus onthe usefulness of indicators of generic adaptive capacity andthe robustness of the results (Downing et al., 2001; Moss etal., 2001; Yohe and Tol, 2002; Brooks et al., 2005; Haddad,2005). A comparison of results across five vulnerabilityassessments shows that the 20 countries ranked ‘mostvulnerable’ show little consistency across studies (Eriksen andKelly, 2007). Haddad (2005) has shown empirically that theranking of adaptive capacity of nations is significantly alteredwhen national aspirations are made explicit. He demonstratesthat different aspirations (e.g., seeking to maximise the welfareof citizens, to maintain control of citizens, or to reduce thevulnerability of the most vulnerable groups) lead to differentweightings of the elements of adaptive capacity, and hence todifferent rankings of the actual capacity of countries to adapt.It has been argued that national indicators fail to capture manyof the processes and contextual factors that influence adaptivecapacity, and thus provide little insight on adaptive capacity atthe level where most adaptations will take place (Eriksen andKelly, 2007).

The specific determinants of adaptive capacity at thenational level thus represent an area of contested knowledge.Some studies relate adaptive capacity to levels of nationaldevelopment, including political stability, economic well-being, human and social capital and institutions (AfDB et al.,2003). National-level adaptive capacity has also beenrepresented by proxy indicators for economic capacity, humanand civic resources and environmental capacity (Moss et al.,2001). Alberini et al. (2006) use expert judgement based on aconjoint choice survey of climate and health experts toexamine the most important attributes of adaptive capacity andfind that per capita income, inequality in the distribution ofincome, universal health care coverage, and high access toinformation are the most important attributes allowing acountry to adapt to health-related risks. Coefficients on theserankings were used to construct an index of countries withhighest to lowest adaptive capacity.

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

728

Page 13: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

17.3.2.2 Adaptive capacity is uneven within nations due tomultiple stresses

The capacity to adapt to climate change is not evenlydistributed within nations. Adaptive capacity is highlydifferentiated within countries, because multiple processes ofchange interact to influence vulnerability and shape outcomesfrom climate change (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2002; Dow et al.,2006; Smit and Wandel, 2006; Ziervogel et al., 2006). In India,for example, both climate change and market liberalisation foragricultural commodities are changing the context for agriculturalproduction. Some farmers may be able to adapt to these changingconditions, including discrete events such as drought and rapidchanges in commodity prices, while other farmers may experiencepredominately negative outcomes. Mapping vulnerability of theagricultural sector to both climate change and trade liberalisationat the district level in India, O’Brien et al. (2004) consideredadaptive capacity as a key factor that influences outcomes. Acombination of biophysical, socio-economic and technologicalconditions were considered to influence the capacity to adapt tochanging environmental and economic conditions. Thebiophysical factors included soil quality and depth, andgroundwater availability, whereas socio-economic factorsconsisted of measures of literacy, gender equity, and thepercentage of farmers and agricultural wage labourers in a district.Technological factors were captured by the availability ofirrigation and the quality of infrastructure. Together, these factorsprovide an indication of which districts are most and least able toadapt to drier conditions and variability in the Indian monsoons,as well as to respond to import competition resulting fromliberalised agricultural trade. The results of this vulnerabilitymapping show the districts that have ‘double exposure’ to bothprocesses. It is notable that districts located along the Indo-Gangetic Plains are less vulnerable to both processes, relative tothe interior parts of the country (see Figure 17.2).

17.3.2.3 Social and economic processes determine thedistribution of adaptive capacity

A significant body of new research focuses on specificcontextual factors that shape vulnerability and adaptive capacity,influencing how they may evolve over time. These place-basedstudies provide insights on the conditions that constrain orenhance adaptive capacity at the continental, regional or localscales (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2002; Allison et al., 2005;Schröter et al., 2005; Belliveau et al., 2006). These studies differfrom the regional and global indicator studies assessed above bothin approach and methods, yet come to complementary conclusionson the state and distribution of adaptive capacity.

The lessons from studies of local-level adaptive capacity arecontext-specific, but the weight of studies establishes broadlessons on adaptive capacity of individuals and communities. Thenature of the relationships between community members iscritical, as is access to and participation in decision-makingprocesses. In areas such as coastal zone management, theexpansion of social networks has been noted as an importantelement in developing more robust management institutions(Tompkins et al., 2002). Local groups and individuals often feeltheir powerlessness in many ways, although none so much as inthe lack of access to decision makers. A series of studies has

shown that successful community-based resource management,for example, can potentially enhance the resilience ofcommunities as well as maintain ecosystem services andecosystem resilience (Tompkins and Adger, 2004; Manuta andLebel, 2005; Owuor et al., 2005; Ford et al., 2006) and that thisconstitutes a major priority for the management of ecosystemsunder stress (such as coral reefs) (Hughes et al., 2003, 2005).

Much new research emphasises that adaptive capacity is alsohighly heterogeneous within a society or locality, and for humanpopulations it is differentiated by age, class, gender, health andsocial status. Ziervogel et al. (2006) undertook a comparativestudy between households and communities in South Africa,Sudan, Nigeria and Mexico and showed how vulnerability to foodinsecurity is common across the world in semi-arid areas wheremarginal groups rely on rain-fed agriculture. Across the casestudies food insecurity was not determined solely or primarily byclimate, but rather by a range of social, economic, and politicalfactors linked to physical risks. Box 17.5 describes how adaptivecapacity and vulnerability to climate change impacts are differentfor men and women, with gender-related vulnerability particularlyapparent in resource-dependent societies and in the impacts ofextreme weather-related events (see also Box 8.2).

17.3.3 Changes in adaptive capacity over time

Adaptive capacity at any one scale may be facilitated orconstrained by factors outside the system in question. At thelocal scale, such constraints may take the form of regulations or

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

729

Figure 17.2. Districts in India that rank highest in terms of vulnerabilityto: (a) climate change and (b) import competition associated witheconomic globalisation, are considered to be double exposed(depicted with hatching). Adapted from O’Brien et al. (2004).

Page 14: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

economic policies determined at the regional or national levelthat limit the freedom of individuals and communities to act, orthat make certain potential adaptation strategies unviable. Thereis a growing recognition that vulnerability and the capacity toadapt to climate change are influenced by multiple processes ofchange (O’Brien and Leichenko, 2000; Turner et al., 2003;Luers, 2005). Violent conflict and the spread of infectiousdiseases, for example, have been shown to erode adaptivecapacity (Woodward, 2002; Barnett, 2006). Social trends such asurbanisation or economic consequences of trade liberalisationare likely to have both positive and negative consequences forthe overall adaptive capacity of cities and regions (Pelling,2003). For example, trade liberalisation policies associated withglobalisation may facilitate climate change adaptation for some,but constrain it for others. In the case of India, many farmers nolonger plant traditional, drought-tolerant oilseed crops becausethere are no markets due to an influx of cheap imports fromabroad (O’Brien et al., 2004). The globalisation of fisheries hasdecreased the resilience of marine ecosystems (Berkes et al.,

2006). Exploitation of sea urchins and herbivorous reef fishspecies in the past three decades in particular have been shownto make reefs more vulnerable to recurrent disturbances such ashurricanes and to coral bleaching and mortality due to increasedsea surface temperatures (Hughes et al., 2003; Berkes et al.,2006).

In the Canadian Arctic, experienced Inuit hunters, dealingwith changing ice and wildlife conditions, adapt by drawing ontraditional knowledge to alter the timing and location ofharvesting, and ensure personal survival (Berkes and Jolly,2001). Young Inuit, however, do not have the same adaptivecapacity. Ford et al. (2006) attribute this to the imposition ofwestern education by the Canadian Federal Government in the1970s and 1980s which resulted in less participation in huntingamong youth and consequent reduced transmission of traditionalknowledge. This resulted in a perception among elders andexperienced hunters, who act as an institutional memory for themaintenance and transmittance of traditional knowledge, thatthe young are not interested in hunting or traditional Inuit ways

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

730

Box 17.5. Gender aspects of vulnerability and adaptive capacity

Empirical research has shown that entitlements to elements of adaptive capacity are socially differentiated along the lines of age,ethnicity, class, religion and gender (Cutter, 1995; Denton, 2002; Enarson, 2002). Climate change therefore has gender-specificimplications in terms of both vulnerability and adaptive capacity (Dankelman, 2002). There are structural differences between menand women through, for example, gender-specific roles in society, work and domestic life. These differences affect thevulnerability and capacity of women and men to adapt to climate change. In the developing world in particular, women aredisproportionately involved in natural resource-dependent activities, such as agriculture (Davison, 1988), compared to salariedoccupations. As resource-dependent activities are directly dependent on climatic conditions, changes in climate variabilityprojected for future climates are likely to affect women through a variety of mechanisms: directly through water availability,vegetation and fuelwood availability and through health issues relating to vulnerable populations (especially dependent childrenand elderly). Most fundamentally, the vulnerability of women in agricultural economies is affected by their relative insecurity ofaccess and rights over resources and sources of wealth such as agricultural land. It is well established that women aredisadvantaged in terms of property rights and security of tenure, though the mechanisms and exact form of the insecurity arecontested (Agarwal, 2003; Jackson, 2003). This insecurity can have implications both for their vulnerability in a changing climate,and also their capacity to adapt productive livelihoods to a changing climate.

There is a body of research that argues that women are more vulnerable than men to weather-related disasters. The impacts ofpast weather-related hazards have been disaggregated to determine the differential effects on women and men. Such studieshave been done, for example, for Hurricane Mitch in 1998 (Bradshaw, 2004) and for natural disasters more generally (Fordham,2003). These differential impacts include numbers of deaths, and well-being in the post-event recovery period. Thedisproportionate amount of the burden endured by women during rehabilitation has been related to their roles in the reproductivesphere (Nelson et al., 2002). Children and elderly persons tend to be based in and around the home and so are often more likelyto be affected by flooding events with speedy onset. Women are usually responsible for the additional care burden during theperiod of rehabilitation, whilst men generally return to their pre-disaster productive roles outside the home. Fordham (2003) hasargued that the key factors that contribute to the differential vulnerability of women in the context of natural hazards in SouthAsia include: high levels of illiteracy, minimum mobility and work opportunities outside the home, and issues around ownershipof resources such as land.

The role of gender in influencing adaptive capacity and adaptation is thus an important consideration for the development ofinterventions to enhance adaptive capacity and to facilitate adaptation. Gender differences in vulnerability and adaptive capacityreflect wider patterns of structural gender inequality. One lesson that can be drawn from the gender and development literatureis that climate interventions that ignore gender concerns reinforce the differential gender dimensions of vulnerability (Denton,2004). It has also become clear that a shift in policy focus away from reactive disaster management to more proactive capacitybuilding can reduce gender inequality (Mirza, 2003).

Page 15: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

of living. This further eroded traditional knowledge by reducinginter-generational contact, creating a positive feedback in whichyouth is locked into a spiral of knowledge erosion. Theincorporation of new technology in harvesting (including GPS,snowmobiles and radios), representing another type ofadaptation, has reinforced this spiral by creating a situation inwhich traditional knowledge is valued less among young Inuit.

Among wine producers in British Columbia, Canada,Belliveau et al. (2006) demonstrate how adaptations to changingeconomic conditions can increase vulnerability to climate-related risks. Following the North American Free TradeAgreement, grape producers replaced low quality grape varietieswith tender varieties to compete with higher-quality foreignimports, many of which have lower costs of production. Thischange enhanced the wine industry’s domestic and internationalcompetitiveness, thereby reducing market risks, butsimultaneously increased its susceptibility to winter injury. Thusthe initial adaptation of switching varieties to increase economiccompetitiveness changed the nature of the system to make itmore vulnerable to climatic stresses, to which it was previouslyless sensitive. To minimise frost risks, producers use overheadirrigation to wet the berries. The extra water from irrigation,however, can dilute the flavour in the grapes, reducing qualityand decreasing market competitiveness.

The vulnerability of one region is often ‘tele-connected’ toother regions. In a study of coffee markets and livelihoods inVietnam and Central America, Adger et al. (2007) found thatactions in one region created vulnerability in the other throughdirect market interactions (Vietnamese coffee increased globalsupply and reduced prices), interactions with weather-relatedrisks (coffee plant diseases and frosts) and the collapse of theInternational Coffee Agreement in 1989. In Mexico, Guatemalaand Honduras, the capacity of smallholder coffee farmers to dealwith severe droughts in 1997 to 1998 and 1999 to 2002 wascomplicated by low international coffee prices, reflectingchanges in international institutions and national policies (Eakinet al., 2005). Concurrently, market liberalisation in Mexico,Guatemala and Honduras reduced state intervention incommodity production, markets and prices in the region. Therewere also constraints to adaptation related to a contraction ofrural finance, coupled with a strong cultural significanceattached to traditional crops. Since coffee production is alreadyat the upper limit of the ideal temperature range in this region,it is likely that climate change will reduce yields, challengingfarmers to switch to alternative crops, which currently havepoorly developed marketing mechanisms.

The capacity of smallholder farmer households in Kenya andTanzania to cope with climate stresses is often influenced by theability of a household member to specialise in one activity or ina limited number of intensive cash-yielding activities (Eriksen etal., 2005). However, many households have limited access tothis favoured coping option due to lack of labour and human andphysical capital. This adaptation option is further constrained bysocial relations that lead to the exclusion of certain groups,especially women, from carrying out favoured activities withsufficient intensity. At present, relatively few investments gointo improving the viability of these identified coping strategies.Instead, policies tend to focus on decreasing the sensitivity of

agriculture to climate variability. This might actually reinforcethe exclusion of population groups in dry lands where farmersare reluctant to adopt certain agricultural technologies becauseof their low market and consumption values and associated highcosts (Eriksen et al., 2005). Eriksen et al. (2005) conclude thatthe determinants of adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers inKenya and Tanzania are multiple and inter-related.

In summary, empirical research carried out since the TAR hasshown that there are rarely simple cause-effect relationshipsbetween climate change risks and the capacity to adapt. Adaptivecapacity can vary over time and is affected by multiple processesof change. In general, the emerging literature shows that thedistribution of adaptive capacity within and across societiesrepresents a major challenge for development and a majorconstraint to the effectiveness of any adaptation strategy. Someadaptations that address changing economic and socialconditions may increase vulnerability to climate change, just asadaptations to climate change may increase vulnerability to otherchanges.

17.4 Enhancing adaptation: opportunitiesand constraints

17.4.1 International and national actions forimplementing adaptation

An emerging literature on the institutional requirements foradaptation suggests that there is an important role for publicpolicy in facilitating adaptation to climate change. This includesreducing vulnerability of people and infrastructure, providinginformation on risks for private and public investments anddecision-making, and protecting public goods such as habitats,species and culturally important resources (Haddad et al., 2003;Callaway, 2004; Haddad, 2005; Tompkins and Adger, 2005). Inaddition, further literature sets out the case for internationalfinancial and technology transfers from countries with highgreenhouse gas emissions to countries that are most vulnerableto present and future impacts, for use in adapting to the impactsof climate change (Burton et al., 2002; Simms et al., 2004; Baer,2006; Dow et al., 2006; Paavola and Adger, 2006). Baer (2006)calculates the scale of these transfers from polluting countries,based on aggregate damage estimates of US$50 billion.

Considerable progress has also been made in terms of fundingadaptation within the UNFCCC. Least-developed countries havebeen identified as being particularly vulnerable to climatechange, and planning for their adaptation has been facilitatedthrough development of National Adaptation Programmes ofAction (NAPAs). In completing a NAPA, a country identifiespriority activities that must be implemented in the immediatefuture in order to address urgent national climate changeadaptation needs (Burton et al., 2002; Huq et al., 2003).Although only 15 countries had completed their national NAPAreports as of mid-2007, a number of specific projects wereidentified in these reports for priority action. Since theimplementation of NAPAs had not commenced at the time ofthis assessment, their outcomes in terms of increased adaptive

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

731

Page 16: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

capacity or reduced vulnerability to climate change risks couldnot be evaluated. The process of developing NAPAs is, however,being monitored. Box 17.6 discusses some emerging lessonsfrom Bangladesh. Early evidence suggests that NAPAs face thesame constraints on effectiveness and legitimacy as othernational planning processes (e.g., National Adaptation Plansunder the Convention to Combat Desertification), includingnarrow and unrepresentative consultation processes (Thomasand Twyman, 2005).

In the climate change context, the term ‘mainstreaming’ hasbeen used to refer to integration of climate change vulnerabilitiesor adaptation into some aspect of related government policy suchas water management, disaster preparedness and emergencyplanning or land-use planning (Agrawala, 2005). Actions thatpromote adaptation include integration of climate informationinto environmental data sets, vulnerability or hazardassessments, broad development strategies, macro policies,sector policies, institutional or organisational structures, or indevelopment project design and implementation (Burton andvan Aalst, 1999; Huq et al., 2003). By implementingmainstreaming initiatives, it is argued that adaptation to climatechange will become part of or will be consistent with other well-established programmes, particularly sustainable developmentplanning.

Mainstreaming initiatives have been classified in thedevelopment planning literature at four levels. At theinternational level, mainstreaming of climate change can occurthrough policy formulation, project approval and country-levelimplementation of projects funded by internationalorganisations. For example, the International Federation of RedCross and Red Crescent (IFRC) are working to facilitate a linkbetween local and global responses through its Climate ChangeCentre (Van Aalst and Helmer, 2003). An example of aninitiative at the regional level is the MACC (MainstreamingAdaptation to Climate Change) project in the Caribbean. Itassesses the likely impacts of climate change on key economicsectors (i.e., water, agriculture and human health) while also

defining responses at community, national and regional levels.Various multi-lateral and bi-lateral development agencies, suchas the Asian Development Bank, are attempting to integrateclimate change adaptation into their grant and loan activities(ADB, 2005; Perez and Yohe, 2005). Other aid agencies havesought to screen out those loans and grants which are mal-adaptations and create new vulnerabilities, to ascertain the extentto which existing development projects already consider climaterisks or address vulnerability to climate variability and change,and to identify opportunities for incorporating climate changeexplicitly into future projects. Klein et al. (2007) examine theactivities of several major development agencies over the pastfive years and find that while most agencies already considerclimate change as a real but uncertain threat to futuredevelopment, they have not explicitly examined how theiractivities affect vulnerability to climate change. They concludethat mainstreaming needs to encompass a broader set ofmeasures to reduce vulnerability than has thus far been the case.

Much of the adaptation planning literature emphasises therole of governments, but also recognises the constraints that theyface in implementing adaptation actions at other scales (Few etal., 2007). There are few examples of successful mainstreamingof climate change risk into development planning. Agrawala andvan Aalst (2005) identified following five major constraints: (a)relevance of climate information for development-relateddecisions; (b) uncertainty of climate information; (c)compartmentalisation with governments; (d) segmentation andother barriers within development-cooperation agencies; and (e)trade-offs between climate and development objectives. TheAdaptation Policy Framework (APF) (Lim et al., 2005)developed to support national planning for adaptation by theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP) providesguidance on how these obstacles and barriers to mainstreamingcan be overcome. Mirza and Burton (2005) found that theapplication of APF was feasible when they applied it for urbanflooding in Bangladesh and droughts in India. However, theyconcluded that application of the APF could encounter problems

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

732

Box 17.6. Early lessons on effectiveness and legitimacy of National AdaptationProgrammes of Action

At present there is sparse documentary evidence on outcomes of NAPA planning processes or implementation. One case thathas been examined is that of the Bangladesh NAPA (Huq and Khan, 2006). The authors recommend that NAPAs should adopt(a) a livelihood rather than sectoral approach, (b) focus on near- and medium-term impacts of climate variability as well as long-term impacts, (c) should ensure integration of indigenous and traditional knowledge, and (d) should ensure procedural fairnessthrough interactive participation and self-mobilisation (Huq and Khan, 2006). They found that NAPA consultation and planningprocesses have the same constraints and exhibit the same problems of exclusion and narrow focus as other national planningprocesses (such as those for Poverty Reduction Strategies). They conclude that the fairness and effectiveness of nationaladaptation planning depends on how national governments already include or exclude their citizens in decision-making andthat effective participatory planning for climate change requires functioning democratic structures. Where these are absent,planning for climate change is little more than rhetoric (Huq and Khan, 2006). Similar issues are raised and findings presentedby Huq and Reid (2003), Paavola (2006) and Burton et al. (2002). The key role of non-government and community-basedorganisations in ensuring the sustainability and success of adaptation planning is likely to become evident over the incomingperiod of NAPA development and implementation.

Page 17: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

related to a lack of micro-level socio-economic information, andgaps in stakeholder participation in the planning, design,implementation and monitoring of projects.

In summary, the opportunities for implementing adaptationas part of government planning are dependent on effective,equitable and legitimate actions to overcome barriers and limitsto adaptation (ADB, 2005; Agrawala and van Aalst, 2005; Limet al., 2005). Initial signals of impacts have been hypothesisedto create the demand and political space for implementingadaptation, the so-called ‘policy windows hypothesis’. Box 17.7,however, reveals that evidence is contested on whetherindividual weather-related catastrophic events can facilitateadaptation action, or whether they act as a barrier to long-termadaptation.

17.4.2 Limits and barriers to adaptation

Most studies of specific adaptation plans and actions arguethat there are likely to be both limits and barriers to adaptationas a response to climate change. The U.S. National Assessment(2001), for example, maintains that adaptation will notnecessarily make the aggregate impacts of climate changenegligible or beneficial, nor can it be assumed that all availableadaptation measures will actually be taken. Further evidencefrom Europe and other parts of the globe suggests that highadaptive capacity may not automatically translate into successfuladaptations to climate change (O’Brien et al., 2006). Researchon adaptation to changing flood risk in Norway, for example,has shown that high adaptive capacity is countered by weakincentives for proactive flood management (Næss et al., 2005).Despite increased attention to potential adaptation options, thereis less understanding of their feasibility, costs, effectiveness, andthe likely extent of their actual implementation (U.S. NationalAssessment, 2001). Despite high adaptive capacity andsignificant investment in planning, extreme heatwave eventscontinue to result in high levels of mortality and disruption toinfrastructure and electricity supplies in European, North

American and east Asian cities (Klinenberg, 2003; Mohanty andPanda, 2003; Lagadec, 2004; Poumadère et al., 2005).

This section assesses the limits to adaptation that have beendiscussed in the climate change and related literatures. Limitsare defined here as the conditions or factors that renderadaptation ineffective as a response to climate change and arelargely insurmountable. These limits are necessarily subjectiveand dependent upon the values of diverse groups. These limitsto adaptation are closely linked to the rate and magnitude ofclimate change, as well as associated key vulnerabilitiesdiscussed in Chapter 19. The perceived limits to adaptation arehence likely to vary according to different metrics. For example,the five numeraires for judging the significance of climatechange impacts described by Schneider et al. (2000b) - monetaryloss, loss of life, biodiversity loss, distribution and equity, andquality of life (including factors such as coercion to migrate,conflict over resources, cultural diversity, and loss of culturalheritage sites) - can lead to very different assessments of thelimits to adaptation. But emerging literature on adaptationprocesses also identifies significant barriers to action infinancial, cultural and policy realms that raise questions aboutthe efficacy and legitimacy of adaptation as a response to climatechange.

17.4.2.1 Physical and ecological limitsThere is increasing evidence from ecological studies that the

resilience of coupled socio-ecological systems to climate changewill depend on the rate and magnitude of climate change, and thatthere may be critical thresholds beyond which some systems maynot be able to adapt to changing climate conditions withoutradically altering their functional state and system integrity (seeexamples in Chapter 1). Scheffer et al. (2001) and Steneck et al.(2002), for instance, find thresholds in the resilience of kelp forestecosystems, coral reefs, rangelands and lakes affected both byclimate change and other pollutants. Dramatic climatic changesmay lead to transformations of the physical environment of aregion that limit the possibilities for adaptation (Nicholls and Tol,

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

733

Box 17.7. Is adaptation constrained or facilitated by individual extreme events?

The policy window hypothesis refers to the phenomenon whereby adaptation actions such as policy and regulatory change arefacilitated and occur directly in response to disasters, such as those associated with weather-related extreme events (Kingdon,1995). According to this hypothesis, immediately following a disaster, the political climate may be conducive to legal, economicand social change which can begin to reduce structural vulnerabilities, for example, in such areas as mainstreaming genderissues, land reform, skills development, employment, housing and social solidarity. The assumptions behind the policy windowshypothesis are that (a) new awareness of risks after a disaster leads to broad consensus, (b) development and humanitarianagencies are ‘reminded’ of disaster risks, and (c) enhanced political will and resources become available. However, contraryevidence on policy windows suggests that, during the post-recovery phase, reconstruction requires weighing, prioritising andsequencing of policy programming, and there is the pressure to quickly return to conditions prior to the event rather thanincorporate longer-term development policies (Christoplos, 2006). In addition, while institutions clearly matter, they are oftenrendered ineffective in the aftermath of a disaster. As shown in diverse contexts, such as ENSO-related impacts in Latin America,induced development below dams or levees in the U.S. and flooding in the United Kingdom, the end result is that short-termrisk reduction can actually produce greater vulnerability to future events (Pulwarty et al., 2003; Berube and Katz, 2005; Penning-Rowsell et al., 2006).

Page 18: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

2006; Tol et al., 2006). For example, rapid sea-level rise thatinundates islands and coastal settlements is likely to limitadaptation possibilities, with potential options being limited tomigration (see Chapter 15, Barnett and Adger, 2003; Barnett,2005). Tol et al. (2006) argue that it is technically possible to adaptto five metres of sea-level rise but that the resources required areso unevenly distributed that in reality this risk is outside the scopeof adaptation. In the Sudano-Sahel region of Africa, persistentbelow-average rainfall and recurrent droughts in the late 20thcentury have constricted physical and ecological limits bycontributing to land degradation, diminished livelihoodopportunities, food insecurity, internal displacement of people,cross-border migrations and civil strife (Mortimore and Adams,2001; Leary et al., 2006; Osman-Elasha et al., 2006). The loss ofArctic sea ice threatens the survival of polar bears, even if huntingof bears were to be reduced (Derocher et al., 2004). The loss ofkeystone species may cascade through the socio-ecologicalsystem, eventually influencing ecosystems services that humansrely on, including provisioning, regulating, cultural, andsupporting services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2006).

The ecological literature has documented regime shifts inecosystems associated with climatic changes and other drivers(Noss, 2001; Scheffer et al., 2001). These regime shifts areargued to impose limits on economic and social adaptation (vanVliet and Leemans, 2006). Economies and communities that aredirectly dependent on ecosystems such as fisheries andagricultural systems are likely to be more affected by suddenand dramatic switches and flips in ecosystems. In a review ofsocial change and ecosystem shifts, Folke et al. (2005) show thatthere are significant challenges to resource management fromecosystem shifts and that these are often outside the experienceof institutions. The loss of local knowledge associated withthresholds in ecological systems is a limit to the effectivenessof adaptation (Folke et al., 2005).

17.4.2.2 Technological limitsTechnological adaptations can serve as a potent means of

adapting to climate variability and change. New technologiescan be developed to adapt to climate change, and the transfer ofappropriate technologies to developing countries forms animportant component of the UNFCCC (Mace, 2006). However,there are also potential limits to technology as an adaptationresponse to climate change.

First, technology is developed and applied in a social context,and decision-making under uncertainty may inhibit the adoptionor development of technological solutions to climate changeadaptation (Tol et al., 2006). For example, case studies from theRhine delta, the Thames estuary and the Rhone delta in Europesuggest that although protection from five-metre sea-level rise istechnically possible, a combination of accommodation andretreat is more likely as an adaptation strategy (Tol et al., 2006).

Second, although some adaptations may be technologicallypossible, they may not be economically feasible or culturallydesirable. For example, within the context of Africa, large-scaleengineering measures for coastal protection are beyond the reachof many governments due to high costs (Ikeme, 2003). In colderclimates that support ski tourism, the extra costs of making snowat warmer average temperatures may surpass a threshold where

it becomes economically unfeasible (Scott et al., 2003; Scott etal., 2007). Although the construction of snow domes and indoorarenas for alpine skiing has increased in recent years, thistechnology may not be an affordable, acceptable or appropriateadaptation to decreasing snow cover for many communitiesdependent on ski tourism. Finally, existing or new technologyis unlikely to be equally transferable to all contexts and to allgroups or individuals, regardless of the extent of country-to-country technology transfers (Baer, 2006). Adaptations that areeffective in one location may be ineffective in other places, orcreate new vulnerabilities for other places or groups, particularlythrough negative side effects. For example, althoughtechnologies such as snowmobiles and GPS have facilitatedadaptation to climate change among some Inuit hunters, theseare not equally accessible to all, and they have potentiallycontributed to inequalities within the community throughdifferential access to resources (Ford et al., 2006).

17.4.2.3 Financial barriersThe implementation of adaptation measures faces a number of

financial barriers. At the international level, preliminary estimatesfrom the World Bank indicate that the total costs of ‘climateproofing’ development could be as high as US$10 billion toUS$40 billion /yr (World Bank, 2006). While the analysis notesthat such numbers are only rough estimates, the scale ofinvestment implied constitutes a significant financial barrier. At amore local level, individuals and communities can be similarlyconstrained by the lack of adequate financial resources. Deepfinancial poverty is a factor that constrains the use of seeminglyinexpensive health measures, such as insecticide-treated bed nets,while limited public finances contribute to choices by publichealth agencies to give low priority to measures that would reducevulnerability to climate-related health risks (Taylor et al., 2006;Yanda et al., 2006). In field surveys and focus groups, farmersoften cite the lack of adequate financial resources as an importantfactor that constrains their use of adaptation measures which entailsignificant investment, such as irrigation systems, improved ornew crop varieties, and diversification of farm operations (Smitand Skinner, 2002).

Lack of resources may also limit the ability of low-incomegroups to afford proposed adaptation mechanisms such asclimate-risk insurance. In the case of Mexico, a restructuring ofpublic agricultural institutions paralleled market liberalisation,reducing the availability of publicly subsidised credit, insuranceand technical assistance for smallholders (Appendini, 2001).Even where both crop insurance and contract farming werebeing actively promoted by the state and federal government tohelp farmers address climatic contingencies and price volatility,very few of the surveyed farmers had crop insurance (Wehbe etal., 2006). In addition, individuals often fail to purchaseinsurance against low-probability high-loss events even when itis offered at favourable premiums. While this may occur becauseof the relative benefits and costs of alternatives, the trade-offsmay not be explicit. Kunreuther et al. (2001) show that thesearch costs involved in collecting and analysing relevantinformation to clarify trade-offs can be enough to discourageindividuals from undertaking such assessments, and thus frompurchasing coverage even when the premium is affordable.

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

734

Page 19: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Climate change is also likely to raise the actuarial uncertaintyin catastrophe risk assessment, placing upward pressure oninsurance premiums and possibly leading to reductions in riskcoverage (Mills, 2005).

17.4.2.4 Informational and cognitive barriersExtensive evidence from psychological research indicates

that uncertainty about future climate change combines withindividual and social perceptions of risk, opinions and values toinfluence judgment and decision-making concerning climatechange (Oppenheimer and Todorov, 2006). It is increasinglyclear that interpretations of danger and risk associated withclimate change are context specific (Lorenzoni et al., 2005) andthat adaptation responses to climate change can be limited byhuman cognition (Grothmann and Patt, 2005; Moser, 2005).Four main perspectives on informational and cognitiveconstraints on individual responses (including adaptation) toclimate change emerge from the literature.

1. Knowledge of climate change causes, impacts and possiblesolutions does not necessarily lead to adaptation. Well-established evidence from the risk, cognitive and behaviouralpsychology literatures points to the inadequacy of the ‘deficitmodel’ of public understanding of science, which assumesthat providing individuals with scientifically soundinformation will result in information assimilation, increasedknowledge, action and support for policies based on thisinformation (Eden, 1998; Sturgis and Allum, 2004;Lorenzoni et al., 2005). Individuals’ interpretation ofinformation is mediated by personal and societal values andpriorities, personal experience and other contextual factors(Irwin and Wynne, 1996). As a consequence, an individual’sawareness and concern either do not necessarily translateinto action, or translate into limited action (Baron, 2006;Weber, 2006). This is also known as the ‘value-action’ or‘attitude-behaviour’ gap (Blake, 1999) and has been shownin a small number of studies to be a significant barrier toadaptation action (e.g., Patt and Gwata, 2002).

2. Perceptions of climate change risks are differing. A smallbut growing literature addresses the psychologicaldimensions of evaluating long-term risk; most focuses onbehaviour changes in relation to climate change mitigationpolicies. However, some studies have explored thebehavioural foundations of adaptive responses, including theidentification of thresholds, or points at which adaptivebehaviour begins (e.g., Grothmann and Patt, 2005). Keyfindings from these studies point to different types ofcognitive limits to adaptive responses to climate change. Forexample, Niemeyer et al. (2005) found that thresholds ofrapid climate change may induce different individualresponses influenced by trust in others (e.g., institutions,collective action, etc.), resulting in adaptive, non-adaptive,and maladaptive behaviours. Hansen et al. (2004) foundevidence for a finite pool of worry among farmers in theArgentine Pampas. As concern about one type of riskincreases, worry about other risks decreases. Consequently,concerns about violent conflict, disease and hunger,terrorism, and other risks may overshadow considerationsabout the impacts of climate change and adaptation. This

work also indicates, consistently with findings in the widerclimate change risk literature (e.g., Moser and Dilling, 2004),that individuals tend to prioritise the risks they face, focusingon those they consider – rightly or wrongly – to be the mostsignificant to them at that particular point in time.Furthermore, a lack of experience of climate-related eventsmay inhibit adequate responses. It has been shown, forinstance, that the capacity to adapt among resource-dependent societies in southern Africa is high if based onadaptations to previous changes (Thomas et al., 2005).Although concern about climate change is widespread andhigh amongst publics in western societies, it is not ‘here andnow’ or a pressing personal priority for most people(Lorenzoni and Pidgeon, 2006). Weber (2006) found thatstrong visceral reactions towards the risk of climate changeare needed to provoke adaptive behavioural changes.

3. Perceptions of vulnerability and adaptive capacity areimportant. Psychological research, for example, has providedempirical evidence that those who perceive themselves to bevulnerable to environmental risks, or who perceivethemselves to be victims of injustice, also perceivethemselves to be more at risk from environmental hazardsof all types (Satterfield et al., 2004). Furthermore,perceptions by the vulnerable of barriers to actually adaptingdo, in fact, limit adaptive actions, even when there arecapacities and resources to adapt. Grothman and Patt (2005)examined populations living with flood risk in Germany andfarmers dealing with drought risk in Zimbabwe in order tobetter understand cognitive constraints. They found thataction was determined by both perceived abilities to adaptand observable capacities to adapt. They conclude that adivergence between perceived and actual adaptive capacityis a real barrier to adaptive action. Moser (2005) similarlyfinds that perceived barriers to action are a major constraintin coastal planning for sea-level rise in the United States.

4. Appealing to fear and guilt does not motivate appropriateadaptive behaviour. In fact, communications research hasshown that appealing to fear and guilt does not succeed infostering sustained engagement with the issue of climatechange (Moser and Dilling, 2004). Analysis of print mediaportrayal of climate change demonstrates public confusionwhen scientific arguments are contrasted in a black-and-white, for-and-against manner (Boykoff and Boykoff, 2004;Carvalho and Burgess, 2005; Ereaut and Segnit, 2006). Callsfor effective climate-change communication have focusedon conveying a consistent, sound message, with the reality ofanthropogenic climate change at its core. This, coupled withmaking climate change personally relevant throughmessages of practical advice on individual actions, helps toembed responses in people’s locality. Visualisation imageryis being increasingly explored as a useful contribution toincreasing the effectiveness of communication about climatechange risks (e.g., Nicholson-Cole, 2005; Sheppard, 2005).

Overall, the psychological research reviewed here indicates thatan individual’s awareness of an issue, knowledge, personalexperience, and a sense of urgency of being personally affected,constitute necessary but insufficient conditions for behaviour orpolicy change. Perceptions of risk, of vulnerability, motivation

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

735

Page 20: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

and capacity to adapt will also affect behavioural change. Theseperceptions vary among individuals and groups withinpopulations. Some can act as barriers to adapting to climatechange. Policymakers need to be aware of these barriers, providestructural support to overcome them, and concurrently worktowards fostering individual empowerment and action.

17.4.2.5 Social and cultural barriersSocial and cultural limits to adaptation can be related to the

different ways in which people and groups experience, interpretand respond to climate change. Individuals and groups may havedifferent risk tolerances as well as different preferences aboutadaptation measures, depending on their worldviews, values andbeliefs. Conflicting understandings can impede adaptive actions.Differential power and access to decision makers may promoteadaptive responses by some, while constraining them for others.Thomas and Twyman (2005) analysed natural-resource policiesin southern Africa and showed that even so-called community-based interventions to reduce vulnerability create excluded groupswithout access to decision-making. In addition, diverse

understandings and prioritisations of climate change issues acrossdifferent social and cultural groups can limit adaptive responses(Ford and Smit, 2004).

Most analyses of adaptation propose that successfuladaptations involve marginal changes to material circumstancesrather than wholesale changes in location and development paths.A few studies have examined the need for and potential formigration, resettlement and relocation as an adaptive strategy, forexample, but the cultural implications of large-scale migration arenot well understood and could represent significant limits toadaptation. Box 17.8 presents evidence that demonstrates that,while relocation and migration have been used as adaptationstrategies in the past, there are often large social costs associatedwith these and unacceptable impacts in terms of human rights andsustainability. The possibility of migration as a response to climatechange is still rarely broached in the literature on adaptation toclimate change, perhaps because it is entirely outside theacceptable range of proposals (Orlove, 2005).

Although scientific research indicates that forest ecosystemsin northern Canada are among those regions at greatest risk from

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

736

Box 17.8. Do voluntary or displacement migrations represent failures to adapt?

Migration by individuals or relocation of settlements have been discussed in various studies as a potential adaptive responseoption to climate change impacts when local environments surpass a threshold beyond which the system is no longer able tosupport most or all of the population. There has been, for example, discussion of the possibility that sea-level rise will make itimpossible for human populations to remain on specific islands. For instance, New Zealand has been discussed as a possiblesite of relocation for the people of Tuvalu, a nation consisting of low-lying atolls in the western Pacific. Patel (2006) and Barnett(2005) argue that there would be enormous economic, cultural and human costs if large populations were to abandon their long-established home territories and move to new places. Sea-level rise impacts on the low-lying Pacific Island atoll states of Kiribati,Tuvalu, Tokelau and the Marshall Islands may, at some threshold, pose risks to their sovereignty or existence (Barnett, 2001).Barnett and Adger (2003) argue that this loss of sovereignty itself represents a dangerous climate change and that the possibilityof relocation represents a limit of adaptation.

The ability to migrate as an adaptive strategy is not equally accessible to all, and decisions to migrate are not controlledexclusively by individuals, households, or local and state governments (McLeman, 2006). Studies in Asia and North America(Adger et al., 2002; Winkels, 2004; McLeman and Smit, 2006) show that strong social capital can obviate the need for relocationin the face of risk, and is also important in determining the success and patterns of migration as an adaptive strategy: the spatialpatterns of existing social networks in a community influence their adaptation to climate change. Where household socialnetworks are strong at the local scale, adaptations that do not lead to migration, or that lead to local-scale relocations, are morelikely responses than long-distance migration away from areas under risk. Conversely, if the community has widespread socialnetworks, or is part of a transnational community, then far-reaching migration is possible. McLeman and Smit (2006) show thata range of economic, social and cultural processes played roles in shaping migration behaviour and migration patterns inresponse to climate conditions and resulting long-term drought in rural eastern Oklahoma in the 1930s. While temporary migrationhas often been used as a risk management response to climate variability, permanent migration may be required when physicalor ecological limits to adaptation have been surpassed.

Mendelsohn et al. (2007) examined correlations between incomes in rural districts in the United States and in Brazil, withparameters of present climate and physical parameters of agricultural productivity. They argued that climate affects agriculturalproductivity which, in turn, affects per capita income (even when this is defined as both farm and non-farm incomes for a district)and that climatic changes that reduce productivity may have direct consequences in rural poverty. Mendelsohn et al. (2007)therefore argue that climate change impacts in rural economies may make migration and relocation a necessary but undesirableadaptation. Finan and Nelson (2001), however, suggest that government policies in Brazil, such as rural retirement policies, haveactually augmented household adaptive capacity and attracted young migrants back from cities. Thus migration can beinfluenced by government intervention. In the case of island states, Barnett (2005) argues that adaptation should already bedeemed as unsuccessful if it has limited development opportunities.

Page 21: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

the impacts of climate change, the social dimensions of forest-dependent communities indicate both a limited communitycapacity and a limited potential to perceive climate change as asalient risk issue that warrants action. Climate change messagesare often associated with environmentalism andenvironmentalists, who have been perceived by many residentsof resource-dependent communities as an oppositional politicalforce. Risk perceptions tend to be higher for women than for men,the higher concern levels of women may either be stifled or simplybe unexpressed in a highly male-dominated environment(Davidson et al., 2003).

Anthropological research suggests that the scale and noveltyof climate changes are not the sole determinants of degree ofimpact (Orlove, 2005). Societies change their environments, andthus alter their own vulnerability to climate fluctuations. Theexperience of development of the Colorado River Basin in theface of environmental uncertainty clearly illustrates that impactsand interventions can reverberate through the systems in ways thatcan only be partially traced and predicted (Pulwarty et al., 2005).

Accounting for future economic and social trends involvesproblems of indeterminacy (imperfectly understood structures andprocesses), discontinuity (novelty and surprise in social systems),reflexivity (the ability of people and organisations to reflect onand adapt their behaviour), and framing (legitimately-diverseviews about the state of the world) (Berkhout et al., 2002;Pulwarty et al., 2003). Case studies reveal that there exists adiversity of local or traditional practices for ecosystemmanagement under environmental uncertainty. These include rulesfor social regulation, mechanisms for cultural internalisation oftraditional practices and the development of appropriate worldviews and cultural values (Pretty, 2003).

Social and cultural limits to adaptation are not well researched:Jamieson (2006) notes that a large segment of the U.S. populationthink of themselves as environmentalists but often vote forenvironmentally negative candidates. Although many societies arehighly adaptive to climate variability and change, vulnerability isdynamic and likely to change in response to multiple processes,including economic globalisation (Leichenko and O’Brien, 2002).The Inuit, for example, have a long history of adaptation tochanging environmental conditions. However, flexibility in groupsize and group structure to cope with climate variability andunpredictability is no longer a viable strategy, due to settlement inpermanent communities. Also, memories and hunting narrativesare appearing unreliable because of rapid change. Furthermore,there are emerging vulnerabilities, particularly among the youngergeneration through lack of knowledge transfer, and among thosewho do not have access to monetary resources to purchaseequipment necessary to hunt in the context of changing conditions(Ford et al., 2006).

17.5 Conclusions

Adaptation has the potential to alleviate adverse impacts, aswell as to capitalise on new opportunities posed by climatechange. Since the TAR, there has been significantdocumentation and analysis of emerging adaptation practices.

Adaptation is occurring in both the developed and developingworlds, both to climate variability and, in a limited number ofcases, to observed or anticipated climate change. Adaptation toclimate change is seldom undertaken in a stand-alone fashion,but as part of broader social and development initiatives.Adaptation also has limits, some posed by the magnitude andrate of climate change, and others that relate to financial,institutional, technological, cultural and cognitive barriers. Thecapacities for adaptation, and the processes by which it occurs,vary greatly within and across regions, countries, sectors andcommunities. Policy and planning processes need to take theseaspects into account in the design and implementation ofadaptation. The review in this chapter suggests that a highpriority should be given to increasing the capacity of countries,regions, communities and social groups to adapt to climatechange in ways that are synergistic with wider societal goals ofsustainable development.

There are significant outstanding research challenges inunderstanding the processes by which adaptation is occurringand will occur in the future, and in identifying areas forleverage and action by government. Many initiatives onadaptation to climate change are too recent at the time of thisassessment to evaluate their impact on reducing societalvulnerability. Further research is therefore needed to monitorprogress on adaptation, and to assess the direct as well asancillary effects of such measures. In this context there is alsoa need for research on the synergies and trade-offs betweenvarious adaptation measures, and between adaptation and otherdevelopment priorities. Human intervention to manage theprocess of adaptation in biological systems is also not wellunderstood, and the goals of conservation are contested.Hence, research is also required on the resilience of socio-ecological systems to climate change. Another key area whereinformation is currently very limited is on the economic andsocial costs and benefits of adaptation measures. In particular,the non-market costs and benefits of adaptation measuresinvolving ecosystem protection, health interventions, andalterations to land use are under-researched. Information is alsolacking on the economy-wide implications of particularadaptations on economic growth and employment.

References

Aaheim, A. and A. Schjolden, 2004: An approach to utilise climate change im-pacts studies in national assessments. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 147-160.

ABI, 2004: A Changing Climate for Insurance – A Summary Report for ChiefExecutives and Policymakers.Association of British Insurers, London, 20pp.

Adams, R.M., B.A. McCarl and L.O. Mearns, 2003: The effects of spatial scaleof climate scenarios on economic assessments: An example from U.S. agri-culture. Climatic Change, 60, 131-148.

ADB, 2005: Climate proofing: A risk-based approach. Asian DevelopmentBank, Manila, 219 pp.

Adger, W.N., 2001: Scales of governance and environmental justice for adapta-tion and mitigation of climate change. Journal of International Development,13, 921-931.

Adger, W.N., 2003: Social capital, collective action, and adaptation to climatechange. Econ. Geog., 79, 387-404.

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

737

Page 22: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Adger, W.N., P.M. Kelly, A. Winkels, L. Huy and C. Locke, 2002: Migration, re-mittances, livelihood trajectories and social resilience. Ambio, 31, 358-366.

Adger, W.N., N.W. Arnell and E.L. Tompkins, 2005: Successful adaptation to cli-mate change across scales. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 77-86.

Adger, W. N., H. Eakin, and A. Winkels, 2007: Nested and networked vulnera-bilities in South East Asia. Global Environmental Change and the South-eastAsian Region: An Assessment of the State of the Science, L. Lebel, et al., Eds.,Island Press, Washington, District of Columbia, in press.

AfDB, ADB, DFID, DGIS, EC, BMZ, OECD, UNDP, UNEP and WB, 2003:Poverty and Climate Change Reducing the Vulnerability of the Poor throughAdaptation. UNEP, Nairobi, 43 pp.

Agarwal, B., 2003: Gender and land rights revisited: exploring new prospects viathe state, family and market. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3, 184-224.

Agrawala, S., 2005: Putting climate change in the development mainstream: in-troduction and framework. Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Linking ClimateChange and Development, S. Agrawala, Ed., OECD, Paris, 23-43.

Agrawala, S. and K. Broad, 2002: Technology transfer perspectives on climateforecast applications. Research in Science and Technology Studies, 13, 45-69.

Agrawala, S. and M.A. Cane, 2002: Sustainability: lessons from climate vari-ability and climate change. Columbia Journal of Environmental Law, 27, 309-321.

Agrawala, S. and M. van Aalst, 2005: Bridging the gap between climate changeand development. Bridge Over Troubled Waters: Linking Climate Change andDevelopment, S. Agrawala, Ed., OECD, Paris, 133-146.

Agrawala, S., S. Gigli, V. Raksakulthai, A. Hemp, A. Moehner, D. Conway, M.El Raey, A. Uddin Amhed, J. Risbey, W. Baethgen and D. Martino, 2005: Cli-mate change and natural resource management: key themes from case studies.Bridge Over Troubled Waters – Linking Climate Change and Development, S.Agrawala, Ed., OECD, Paris, 85-146.

Alberini, A., A. Chiabai and L. Muehlenbachs, 2006: Using expert judgement toassess adaptive capacity to climate change: a conjoint choice survey. GlobalEnviron. Chang., 16, 123-144.

Allison, E.H., W.N. Adger, M.C. Badjeck, K. Brown, D. Conway, N.K. Dulvy,A. Halls, A. Perry and J.D. Reynolds, 2005: Effects of climate change on thesustainability of capture and enhancement fisheries important to the poor:analysis of the vulnerability and adaptability of fisherfolk living in poverty.Fisheries Management Science Programme London, Department for Interna-tional Development Final Technical Report.. Project No. R4778J, , 167 pp.[Available online at http://www.fmsp.org.uk.].

Appendini, K., 2001: De la Milpa a los Tortibonos: La Restructuración de laPolítica Alimentaria en México (2da edición.). México, DF, Colegio de Méx-ico, 259 pp.

Austrian Federal Government, 2006: Fourth National Communication of theAustrian Federal Government, in Compliance with the Obligations under theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Federal LawGazette No. 414/1994), according to Decisions 11/CP.4 and 4/CP.5 of the Con-ference of the Parties. Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environmentand Water Management, Vienna, 241 pp.

Baer, P., 2006: Adaptation: who pays whom? Fairness in Adaptation to ClimateChange, W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq, and M.J. Mace, Eds., MIT Press,Cambridge Massachusetts, 131-153.

Barnett, J., 2001: Adapting to climate change in Pacific island countries: theproblem of uncertainty. World Development, 29, 977-993.

Barnett, J., 2005: Titanic states? Impacts and responses to climate change in thePacific islands. Journal of International Affairs, 59, 203-219.

Barnett, J., 2006: Climate change, insecurity and injustice. Fairness in Adapta-tion to Climate Change,W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq, and M.J. Mace, Eds.,MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, 115-129.

Barnett, J. and W.N. Adger, 2003: Climate dangers and atoll countries. ClimaticChange, 61, 321-337.

Baron, J. 2006: Thinking about global warming. Climatic Change, 77, 137-150.Basher, R., C. Clark, M. Dilley and M. Harrison, 2000: Coping with the Cli-mate: A Way Forward. A Multi-Stakeholder Review of Regional Climate Out-look Forums. IRI Publication CW/01/02, Columbia University, New York, 27pp.

Bass, B., 2005: Measuring the adaptation deficit. Discussion on keynote paper:climate change and the adaptation deficit. Climate Change: Building the Adap-tive CapacityA. Fenech, D. MacIver, H. Auld, B. Rong and Y.Y. Yin, Eds., En-vironment Canada, Toronto, 34-36.

Belliveau, S., B. Smit and B. Bradshaw, 2006: Multiple exposures and dynamicvulnerability: Evidence from the grape and wine industry in the Okanagan Val-ley, Canada. Global Environ. Chang., 16, 364-378.

Berkes, F. and Co-authors, 2006: Globalization, roving bandits and marine re-sources. Science, 311, 1557-1558.

Berkes, F. and Jolly, D. (2001) Adapting to climate change: social-ecologicalresilience in a Canadian Western arctic community. Conserv. Ecol. 5, 18.[Available online at http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art18/]).

Berkhout, F., J. Hertin and A. Jordan, 2002: Socio-economic futures in climatechange impact assessment: using scenarios as learning machines. Global En-viron. Chang., 17, 83-95.

Berkhout, F., J. Hertin and D.M. Gann, 2006: Learning to adapt: organisationaladaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78, 135-156.

Berube, A. and B. Katz, 2005: Katrina’s Window: Confronting ConcentratedPoverty across America. Special Analysis of Metropolitan Policy, BrookingsInstitution. Washington, District of Columbia, 13 pp.

Bettencourt, S. and Co-authors, 2006: Not if but when, Adapting to natural haz-ards in the Pacific Islands Region: A policy note. East Asia and Pacific Region,Pacific Islands Country Management Unit, World Bank, Washington, Districtof Columbia, 46 pp.

Blake, J., 1999: Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: ten-sions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4,257-278.

Boykoff, M.T. and J.M. Boykoff, 2004: Balance as bias: global warming andthe US prestige press. Global Environ. Chang., 14, 125-136.

Bradshaw, S., 2004: Socio-economic impacts of natural disaster: a gender analy-sis. UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean(ECLAC), Santiago, 60 pp.

Broad, K. and S. Agrawala, 2000: Policy forum: climate - the Ethiopia food cri-sis - uses and limits of climate forecasts. Science, 289, 1693-1694.

Brooks, N. and W.N. Adger, 2005: Assessing and enhancing adaptive capacity.Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E.L. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge UniversityPress, New York, 165-182.

Brooks, N., W.N. Adger and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The determinants of vulnerabil-ity and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adapta-tion. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 151-163.

Brown, J.L., 2005: High-altitude railway designed to survive climate change.Civil Eng., 75, 28-28.

Burki, R., H. Elsasser, B. Abegg and U. Koenig, 2005: Climate change andtourism in the Swiss Alps. Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change,M. Halland J. Higham, Eds., Channelview Press, London, 155-163.

Burton, I. and M. van Aalst, 1999: Come Hell or High Water: Integrating Cli-mate Change Vulnerability and Adaptation into Bank Work. World Bank,Washington, District of Columbia, 60 pp.

Burton, I. and M.K. van Aalst, 2004: Look Before You Leap? A Risk ManagementApproach for Incorporating Climate Change Adaptation in World Bank Op-erations, Final Draft, Prepared for the Climate Change Team. World Bank,Washington, District of Columbia, 57 pp.

Burton, I., S. Huq, B. Lim, O. Pilifosova and E.L. Schipper, 2002: From im-pacts assessment to adaptation priorities: the shaping of adaptation policy.Clim. Policy, 2, 145-159.

Butt, A.T., B.A. McCarl, J. Angerer, P.T. Dyke and J.W. Stuth, 2005: The eco-nomic and food security implications of climate change. Climatic Change, 68,355-378.

Callaway, J.M., 2004: Adaptation benefits and costs: are they important in theglobal policy picture and how can we estimate them?Global Environ. Chang.,14, 273-282.

Callaway, J.M., D.B. Louw, J.C. Nkomo, M.E. Hellmuth and D.A. Sparks, 2006:The Berg River Dynamic Spatial Equilibrium Model: A New Tool for Assess-ing the Benefits and Costs of Alternatives for Coping With Water DemandGrowth, Climate Variability, and Climate Change in the Western Cape. AIACCWorking Paper 31, The AIACC Project Office, International START Secre-tariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 41 pp. [Available online athttp://www.aiaccproject.org/].

Cane, M.A., S.E. Zebiak and S.C. Dolan, 1986: Experimental Forecasts of El-Nino. Nature, 321, 827-832.

Carvalho, A. and J. Burgess, 2005: Cultural circuits of climate change in U.K.broadsheet newspapers, 1985-2003. Risk Anal., 25, 1457-1469.

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

738

Page 23: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

CEA, 2006: Climate Change and Natural Events – Insurers contribute to facethe challenges. Comité Européen des Assurances, Paris, 27 pp.

Christoplos, I, 2006: The Elusive Window of Opportunity for Risk Reduction inPost-Disaster Recovery. Discussion Paper ProVention Consortium Forum2006 - Strengthening global collaboration in disaster risk reduction, Bangkok,February 2-3, 4 pp.

Cline, W., 1992: The Economics of Global Warming. Institute for InternationalEconomics, Washington, District of Columbia, 399 pp.

Cutter, S.L., 1995: The forgotten casualties: women, children, and environmen-tal change. Global Environ. Chang., 5, 181-194.

Dankelman, I., 2002: Climate change: learning from gender analysis andwomen’s experiences of organising for sustainable development. Gender andDevelopment, 10, 21-29.

Darwin, R.F. and Tol, R.S.J., 2001: Estimates of the economic effects of sealevel rise. Environ. Resour. Econ., 19, 113-129.

Darwin, R.F., M. Tsigas, J. Lewandrowski and A. Raneses, 1995: World Agri-culture and Climate Change: Economic Adaptations. Agricultural EconomicReport Number 703, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Re-search Service, Washington, District of Columbia, 86 pp.

Davidson, D.J., T. Williamson and J.R. Parkins, 2003: Understanding climatechange risk and vulnerability in northern forest-based communities. Can. J.Forest. Res., 33, 2252-2261.

Davison, J., 1988: Agriculture, Women and the Land: the African Experience.Westview, Boulder, Colorado, 278 pp.

Dawson, R.J., J.W. Hall, P.D. Bates and R.J. Nicholls, 2005: Quantified analy-sis of the probability of flooding in the Thames estuary under imaginableworst-case sea level rise scenarios. Int.J. Water Resour. D., 21, 577-591.

De Mello Lemos, M.C., 2003: A tale of two policies: The politics of climateforecasting and drought relief in Ceará, Brazil. Policy Sci., 36, 101-123.

Defra, 2006: The UK’s Fourth National Communication under the United Na-tions Framework Convention on Climate Change. United Kingdom Depart-ment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London., 135 pp.

Denton, F., 2002: Climate change vulnerability, impacts, and adaptation: whydoes gender matter? Gender and Development, 10, 10-20.

Denton, F., 2004: Gender and climate change - Giving the “Latecomer” a headstart. IDS Bull., 35, 42-49.

Derocher, A.E., N.J. Lunn and I. Stirling, 2004: Polar bears in a warming climate.Intergr. Comp. Biol., 44, 163-176.

Dilley, M., 2000: Reducing vulnerability to climate variability in SouthernAfrica: the growing role of climate information. Climatic Change, 45, 63-73.

Direction du Tourisme, 2002: Les chiffres clés du tourisme de montagne enFrance, 3ème edition. Service d’Etudes et d’Aménagement touristique de lamontagne, Paris, 44 pp.

Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate Change and the Financial Sector:An Agenda for Action. Allianz and the World Wildlife Fund, Munich, 57 pp.

Dore, M. and I. Burton, 2001: The Costs of Adaptation to Climate Change inCanada: A Stratified Estimate by Sectors and Regions – Social Infrastructure.Climate Change Laboratory, Brock University, St Catharines, Ontario , 117pp.

Dow, K., R.E. Kasperson and M. Bohn, 2006: Exploring the social justice im-plications of adaptation and vulnerability. Fairness in Adaptation to ClimateChange, W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq and M.J. Mace, Eds.,. MIT Press:Cambridge Massachusetts, 79-96.

Downing, T., 2003: Toward a vulnerability/adaptation science: lessons fromfamine early warning and food security. Climate Change Adaptive Capacityand Development, J.B. Smith, R.J.T. Klein and S. Huq, Eds., Imperial CollegePress, London, 77-100.

Downing, T.E., R. Butterfield, S. Cohen, S. Huq, R. Moss, A. Rahman, Y.Sokona and L. Stephen, 2001: Vulnerability Indices: Climate Change Impactsand Adaptation. UNEP, Nairobi, 91 pp.

Eakin, H., C.M. Tucker and E. Castellanos, 2005: Market shocks and climatevariability: the coffee crisis in Mexico, Guatemala, and Honduras. Mt. Res.Dev., 25, 304-309.

Easterling, W.E., N. Chhetri and X. Niu, 2003: Improving the realism of mod-elling agronomic adaptation to climate change: simulating technological sub-stitution. Climatic Change, 60, 149-173.

Easterling, W.E., B.H. Hurd and J.B. Smith, 2004: Coping with Global ClimateChange: The Role of Adaptation in the United States. Pew Center on GlobalClimate Change, Arlington, Virginia, 40 pp.

Ebi, K.L., B. Lim and Y. Aguilar, 2005: Scoping and designing an adaptationprocess. Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change, B. Lim, E.Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E.L. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge Uni-versity Press, New York, 33-46.

Eden, S., 1998: Environmental issues: knowledge, uncertainty and the environ-ment. Prog. Hum. Geog., 22, 425-432.

El Raey, M., 2004: Adaptation to Climate Change for Sustainable Developmentin the Coastal Zone of Egypt. ENV/EPOC/GF/SD/RD(2004)1/FINAL, OECD,Paris.

Enarson, E., 2002: Gender issues in natural disasters: talking points and researchneeds. Infocus Programme on Crisis Response and Reconstruction, Ed., Se-lected Issues Papers: Crisis, Women and Other Gender Concerns, Interna-tional Labour Office, Geneva, 5-10.

Ereaut, G. and N. Segnit, 2006: Warm words: how are we telling the climatechange story and can we tell it better? Institute for Public Policy Research,London, 32 pp.

Eriksen, S.H. and P.M. Kelly, 2007: Developing credible vulnerability indicatorsfor climate adaptation policy assessment.Mitigation and Adaptation Strategiesfor Global Change, 12, 495-524.

Eriksen, S.H., K. Brown and P.M. Kelly, 2005: The dynamics of vulnerability:locating coping strategies in Kenya and Tanzania. Geogr. J., 171, 287-305.

Fankhauser, S., 1995a: Protection versus retreat: the economic costs of sea-levelrise. Environ. Plann. A, 27, 299-319.

Fankhauser, S., 1995b: Valuing Climate Change: The Economics of the Green-house. Earthscan, London, 180 pp.

Fankhauser, S., 1996: Climate change costs - Recent advancements in the eco-nomic assessment. Energ. Policy, 24, 665-673.

Fankhauser, S., R.S.J. Tol and D.W. Pearce, 1998: Extensions and alternativesto climate change impact valuation: on the critique of IPCC Working GroupIII’s impact estimates. Environ. Dev. Econ., 3, 59-81.

FAO, 2004: Drought impact mitigation and prevention in the Limpopo RiverBasin, A situation analysis. Land and Water Discussion Paper 4, FAO, Rome,160 pp.

Fenger, J., 2000: Implications of accelerated sea-level rise (ASLR) for Denmark.Proceeding of SURVAS Expert Workshop on European Vulnerability and Adap-tation to impacts of Accelerated Sea-Level Rise, 19th-21st June 2000, A.C. dela Vega-Leinert, R.J. Nicholls and R.S.J. Tol, Eds., Hamburg, Germany, 86-87.

Few, R., K. Brown and E. Tompkins, 2007: Climate change and coastal man-agement decisions: insights from Christchurch Bay, UK. Coast. Manage., 35,255-270.

Finan, T.J. and D.R. Nelson 2001: Making rain, making roads, making do: pub-lic and private adaptations to drought in Ceará, Northeast Brazil. Climate Res.,19, 97-108.

Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson and J. Norberg, 2005: Adaptive governance of so-cial-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Env.. Resour., 30, 441-473.

Ford, J. and B. Smit, 2004: A framework for assessing the vulnerability of com-munities in the Canadian Arctic to risks associated with climate change. Arc-tic, 57, 389-400.

Ford, J., B. Smit and J. Wandel, 2006: Vulnerability to climate change in theArctic: A case study from Arctic Bay, Nunavut. Global Environ. Chang., 16,145-160.

Fordham, M., 2003: Gender, disaster and development: the necessity of inte-gration. Natural Disasters and Development in a Globalising World, M.Pelling, M., Ed.,Routledge, London, 57-74.

Franco, G. and A. H. Sanstad, 2006: Climate Change and Electricity Demand inCalifornia. White Paper, CEC-500-2005-201-SF, February 2006, CaliforniaClimate Change Center, Sacramento, California, 40 pp.

Gagnon-Lebrun, F. and S. Agrawala, 2006: Progress on Adaptation to ClimateChange in Developed Countries: An Analysis of Broad Trends.ENV/EPOC/GSP(2006)1/FINAL, OECD, Paris, 51 pp.

Glantz, M.H., 2001: Once Burned, Twice Shy? Lessons Learned from the 1997-98 El Niño. United Nations University Press, Tokyo, 294 pp.

Goklany, I.M., 1995: Strategies to enhance adaptability: technological change,sustainable growth and free trade. Climatic Change, 30, 427-449.

Government of The Netherlands, 1997: Second Netherlands’ Communicationon Climate Change Policies. Prepared for the Conference of Parties under theFramework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Housing, SpatialPlanning and the Environment, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Ministry ofTransport, Public Works and Water Management, Ministry of Agriculture, Na-

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

739

Page 24: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

ture Management and Fisheries, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Hague, 162pp.

Government of The Netherlands, 2005: Fourth Netherlands’National Commu-nication under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Hague, 208pp.

Grothmann, T. and A. Patt, 2005: Adaptive capacity and human cognition: theprocess of individual adaptation to climate change. Global Environ. Chang.,15, 199-213.

Haddad, B.M., 2005: Ranking the adaptive capacity of nations to climate changewhen socio-political goals are explicit. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 165-176.

Haddad, B.M., L. Sloan, M. Snyder and J. Bell, 2003: Regional climate changeimpacts and freshwater systems: focusing the adaptation research agenda. In-ternational Journal of Sustainable Development, 6, 265-282.

Hall, J.W., P.B. Sayers, M.J.A. Walkden and M. Panzeri, 2006: Impacts of cli-mate change on coastal flood risk in England and Wales: 2030–2100. Phi-los.T.Royal Soc. A., 364, 1027-1049.

Hansen, J., S. Marx and E. U. Weber, 2004: The role of climate perceptions, ex-pectations, and forecasts in farmer decision making: The Argentine pampasand south Florida. IRI Technical Report 04-01. International Research Institutefor Climate Prediction, Palisades, New York. [http://iri.columbia.edu/out-reach/publication/report/04-01/report04-01.pdf].

Harrison, S.J., S.J. Winterbottom and R.C. Johnson, 2005: Changing snow coverand winter tourism and recreation in the Scottish Highlands. Tourism, Recre-ation and Climate Change,M. Hall and J. Higham, Eds., Channelview Press,London, 143-154.

Hughes, T.P., A.H. Baird, D.R. Bellwood, M. Card, S.R. Connolly, C. Folke, R.Grosberg, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, J.B.C. Jackson, J. Kleypas, J.M. Lough, P. Mar-shall, M. Nystrom, S.R. Palumbi, J.M. Pandolfi, B. Rosen and J. Roughgarden,2003: Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs. Sci-ence, 301, 929-933.

Hughes, T.P., D.R. Bellwood, C. Folke, R.S. Steneck, and J. Wilson, 2005: Newparadigms for supporting the resilience of marine ecosystems. Trends in Ecol-ogy & Evolution, 20, 380-386.

Huq, S. and H. Reid, 2003: The role of peoples’ assessments. Tiempo, 48, 5-9.Accessed 11 October 2006. [Available online at http://www.tiempocybercli-mate.org/portal/archive/issue48/t48a2.htm].

Huq, S. and M.R. Khan, 2006: Equity in National Adaptation Programs of Ac-tion (NAPAs): the case of Bangladesh. Fairness in Adaptation to ClimateChange, W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq and M.J. Mace, Eds., MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts, 131-153.

Huq, S., A.A. Rahman, M. Konate, Y. Sokona and H. Reid, 2003: Mainstream-ing Adaptation to Climate Change in Least Developed Countries (LDCS). In-ternational Institute for Environment and Development, London, 57 pp.

Ikeme, J., 2003: Climate change adaptational deficiencies in developing coun-tries: the case of Sub-Saharan Africa. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategiesfor Global Change, 8, 29-52.

Irwin, A. and B. Wynne, Eds., 1996:Misunderstanding Science: The Public Re-construction of Science and Technology. Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, 240 pp.

Jackson, C., 2003: Gender analysis of land: beyond land rights for women? Jour-nal of Agrarian Change, 3, 453-480.

Jamieson, D., 2006: An American paradox. Climatic Change, 77, 97-102.Jones, R.N., 2001: An environmental risk assessment/management framework

for climate change impact assessments. Nat. Hazards, 23, 197-230.Kahn, M.E., 2003: Two measures of progress in adapting to climate change.Global Environ. Chang., 13, 307-312.

Kelly, D.L., C.D. Kolstad and G.T. Mitchell, 2005: Adjustment costs from en-vironmental change. J. Environ. Econ. Manag., 50, 468-495.

Kelly, P.M. and W.N. Adger, 2000: Theory and practice in assessing vulnerabil-ity to climate change and facilitating adaptation. Climatic Change, 47, 325-352.

Kingdon, J.W. 1995: Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, 2nd ed. Harper-Collins, New York, 254 pp.

Kirshen, P., M. Ruth, W. Anderson and T.R. Lakshmanan, 2004: Infrastructuresystems, services and climate changes: Integrated impacts and response strate-gies for the Boston Metropolitan area. Climate’s Long-term Impacts on MetroBoston (CLIMB) Final Report August 13, 2004. [Available online athttp://www.tufts.edu/tie/climb/].

Klein, R.J.T. and J.B. Smith, 2003: Enhancing the capacity of developing coun-tries to adapt to climate change: a policy relevant research agenda. ClimateChange, Adaptive Capacity and Development, J.B. Smith, R.J.T. Klein and S.Huq, Eds., Imperial College Press, London, 317-334.

Klein, R.J.T., S.E.H. Eriksen, L.O. Næss, A. Hammill, T.M. Tanner, C. Rob-ledo and K.L. O’Brien, 2007: Portfolio screening to support the mainstream-ing of adaptation to climate change into development assistance. ClimaticChange, 84, 23-44.

Klinenberg, E., 2003:Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago. Uni-versity of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois, 328 pp.

Konig, U., 1999: Climate change and snow tourism in Australia. GeographicaHelvetica, 54, 147-157.

Kunreuther, H., N. Novemsky and D. Kahneman, 2001: Making low probabili-ties useful. J. Risk Uncertainty, 23, 103-120.

Lagadec, P., 2004: Understanding the French heatwave experience: beyond theheat, a multi-layerd challenge. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Manage-ment, 12, 160-169.

Lasco, R., R. Cruz, J. Pulhin and F. Pulhin, 2006: Tradeoff analysis of adapta-tion strategies for natural resources, water resources and local institutions inthe Philippines. AIACC Working Paper No. 32, International START Secre-tariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp.

Leary, N., J. and Co-authors, 2006: For Whom the Bell Tolls: Vulnerabilities ina Changing Climate. AIACC Working Paper No. 30, International STARTSecretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp.

Lee, R.J., 2000: Climate Change and Environmental Assessment Part 1: Reviewof Climate Change Considerations in Selected Past Environmental Assess-ments. [Available online at http://www.ceaa-acee.gc.ca/015/001/005/index_e.htm].

Leichenko, R.M. and K.L. O’Brien, 2002: The dynamics of rural vulnerabilityto global change: the case of Southern Africa. Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change, 7, 1-18.

Ligeti, E., 2004: Adaptation Strategies to Reduce Health Risks from SummerHeat in Toronto. Your Health and a Changing Climate Newsletter 1, HealthCanada, Ottawa, Ontario, 9 pp.

Lim, B., E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Burton, E. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., 2005:Adaptation Policy Frameworks for Climate Change: Developing Strategies,Policies and Measures. Cambridge University Press, New York, 258 pp.

Lorenzoni, I. and N. Pidgeon, 2006: Public views on climate change: Europeanand USA perspectives. Climatic Change, 77, 73-95.

Lorenzoni, I., N.F. Pidgeon, and R.E. O’Connor, 2005: Dangerous climatechange: the role for risk research. Risk Anal., 25, 1387-1397.

Loster, T., 2005: Strategic management of climate change: options for the in-surance industry.Weather catastrophes and climate change - Is there still hopefor us? Geo Risks Research, MunichRe, Munich, 236-243.

Luers, A.L., 2005: The surface of vulnerability: An analytical framework for ex-amining environmental change. Global Environ. Chang., 15, 214-223.

Mace, M.J., 2006: Adaptation under the UN Framework Convention on ClimateChange: the international legal framework. Fairness in Adaptation to ClimateChange, W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq and M.J. Mace, Eds., MIT Press,Cambridge, Massachusetts, 53-76.

Magdanz, J.S., C.J. Utermohle and R.J. Wolfe, 2002: The Production and Dis-tribution of Wild Food in Wales and Deering, Alaska. Technical Paper 259.Division of Subsistence, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Juneau, Alaska.

Mansur, E.T., R. Mendelsohn and W. Morrison, 2005: A Discrete-ContinuousChoice Model of Climate Change Impacts on Energy. Social Science ResearchNetwork, Yale School of Management Working Paper No. ES-43, Yale Uni-versity, New Haven, Conecticut, 41 pp.

Manuta, J. and L. Lebel, 2005: Climate Change and the Risks of Flood Disas-ters in Asia: Crafting Adaptive and Just Institutions. Human Security and Cli-mate Change. An International Workshop, Oslo, 21–23 June 2005. [Availableonline at http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/Manuta&Lebel.pdf].

McIntosh, R.J., J.A. Tainter and S.K. McIntosh, Eds., 2000: The Way the WindBlows: Climate, History, and Human Action. Columbia University Press, NewYork, 448 pp.

McKenzie, K. and K. Parlee, 2003: The Road Ahead: Adapting to ClimateChange in Atlantic Canada. Canadian Climate Impacts and Adaptation Re-search Network, New Brunswick, Canada. [Available online at www.ele-ments.nb.ca/theme/climate03/cciarn/adapting.htm].

McLeman, R., 2006: Migration out of 1930s rural eastern Oklahoma: insights for

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

740

Page 25: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

climate change research. Great Plains Quarterly, 26, 27-40.McLeman, R. and B. Smit, 2006: Migration as an adaptation to climate change.Climatic Change, 76, 31-53.

Mehdi, B., 2006: Adapting to Climate Change: An Introduction for CanadianMunicipalities, Occasional Paper, Canadian Climate Impacts and AdaptationResearch Network (C-CIARN), Ottowa. [Available online at http://www.c-ciarn.ca/pdf/adaptations_e.pdf].

Meinke, H., K. Pollock, G.L. Hammer, E. Wang, R.C. Stone, A. Potgieter andM. Howden, 2001: Understanding Climate Variability to Improve AgriculturalDecision Making. Proceedings of the 10th Australian Agronomy Conference,2001, Hobart, Australia.

Mendelsohn, R., 2003: Appendix XI - The Impact of Climate Change on En-ergy Expenditures in California. Global Climate Change and California: Po-tential Implications for Ecosystems, Health, and the Economy, C. Thomas andR. Howard, Eds., Sacramento, California, 35 pp.

Mendelsohn, R., W. Morrison, M.E. Schlesinger and N.G. Andronova, 2000:Country-specific market impacts of climate change. Climatic Change, 45, 553-569.

Mendelsohn, R., A. Basist, P. Kurukulasuriya and A. Dinar, 2007: Climate andrural income. Climatic Change, 81, 101-118..

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2006: Ecosystems and Human Well-being:Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Island Press, Washington, Dis-trict of Columbia, 137 pp.

Mills, E., 2005: Insurance in a climate of change. Science, 309, 1040-1044.Mills, E. and E. Lecomte, 2006: From Risk to Opportunity: How Insurers CanProactively and Profitably Manage Climate Change. Ceres, Boston, Massa-chusetts, 42 pp.

Mills, E., R. Roth and G. LeComte, 2005: Availability and affordability of In-surance under Climate Change: A Growing Challenge for the U.S. CERESReport, Ceres, Boston, Massachusetts, 44 pp.

Mirza, M.M.Q., 2003: Climate change and extreme weather events: can devel-oping countries adapt? Climate Pol., 3, 233-248.

Mirza, M.M.Q. and I. Burton, 2005: Using adaptation policy framework to as-sess climate risks and response measures in South Asia: the case of floods anddroughts in Bangladesh and India. Climate Change and Water Resources inSouth Asia,M.M.Q. Mirza and Q.K. Ahmad, Eds., Taylor and Francis, London,279-313.

Mizina, S.V., J.B. Smith, E. Gossen, K.F. Spiecker and S.L. Witkowski, 1999:An evaluation of adaptation options for climate change impacts on agriculturein Kazakhstan. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 4,25-41.

MMM, 2005: Finland’s National Strategy for Adaptation to Climate Change.Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry of Finland, Helsinki, 281 pp.

Mohanty, P. and U. Panda, 2003: Heatwave in Orissa: a study based on heat in-dices and synoptic features. Regional Research Laboratory, Institute of Math-ematics and Applications, Bubaneshwar, 15 pp.

Mool, P.K., S.R. Bajracharya and S.P. Joshi, 2001: Inventory of Glaciers, Gla-cier Lakes and Glacial Lake Outburst Floods, Monitoring and Early WarningSystem in the Hindu Kush-Himalayan Region. ICIMOD/UNEP, Kathmandu,Nepal, 247 pp.

Morrison, W. and R. Mendelsohn, 1999: The impact of global warming on USenergy expenditures. The Impact of Climate Change on the United StatesEconomy, R. Mendelsohn, and J. Neumann, Eds., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 209-236.

Mortimore, M.J. and W.M. Adams, 2001: Farmer adaptation, change and ‘crisis’in the Sahel. Global Environ. Chang., 11, 49-57.

Moser, S., 2005: Impacts assessments and policy responses to sea-level rise inthree U.S. states: an exploration of human dimension uncertainties. GlobalEnviron. Chang., 15, 353-369.

Moser, S.C. and L. Dilling, 2004: Making climate hot. Communicating the ur-gency and challenge of global climate change. Environment, 46(, 32-46.

Moss, R.H., A.L. Brenkert and E.L. Malone, 2001: Vulnerability to ClimateChange: A Quantitative Approach. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory,Richland Washington, 70 pp.

Nakićenović, N. and R. Swart, Eds., 2000: IPCC Special Report on EmissionsScenarios, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 599 pp.

Næss, L.O., G. Bang, S. Eriksen and J. Vevatne, 2005: Institutional adaptationto climate change: flood responses at the municipal level in Norway. GlobalEnviron. Chang., 15, 125-138.

Nelson, V., K. Meadows, T. Cannon, J. Morton and A. Martin, 2002: Uncertainpredictions, invisible impacts, and the need to mainstream gender in climatechange adaptations. Gender and Development, 10, 51-59.

Ng, W. and R. Mendelsohn, 2005: The impact of sea level rise on Singapore.Environ. Dev. Econ., 10, 210-215.

Nicholls, R.J. and R.S.J. Tol, 2006: Impacts and responses to sea-level rise: Aglobal analysis of the SRES scenarios over the 21st Century. Philos. T. Roy.Soc. A, 364, 1073-1095.

Nicholson-Cole, S.A., 2005: Representing climate change futures: a critique ofthe use of images for visual communication. Computers, Environment andUrban Systems, 29, 255-273.

Niemeyer, S., J. Petts and K. Hobson, 2005: Rapid climate change and society:assessing responses and thresholds. Risk Anal., 25 1443-1455.

Njie, M., B.E. Gomez, M.E. Hellmuth, J.M. Callaway, B.P. Jallow and P.Droogers, 2006:Making Economic Sense of Adaptation in Upland Cereal Pro-duction Systems in The Gambia. AIACC Working Paper No. 37, InternationalSTART Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia. [Available online athttp://www.aiaccproject.org/working_papers/working_papers.html].

NOAA, 1999: An Experiment in the Application of Climate Forecasts: NOAA-OGPActivities Related to the 1997-1998 El Niño Event. Office of Global Pro-grams National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration U.S. Department ofCommerce, Washington, District of Columbia, 134 pp.

Nordhaus, W., 1991: To slow or not to slow: the economics of the greenhouseeffect. Economic Journal, 101, 920-937.

Nordhaus, W.D. and J. Boyer, 2000: Warming the World: Economic Models ofGlobal Warming. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 232 pp.

Noss, R.F. 2001: Beyond Kyoto: forest management in a time of rapid climatechange. Conservation Biology, 15, 578-590.

O’Brien, K., R. Leichenko, U. Kelkar, H. Venema, G. Aandahl, H. Tompkins, A.Javed, S. Bhadwal, S. Barg, L. Nygaard and J. West, 2004: Mapping vulnera-bility to multiple stressors: climate change and globalization in India. GlobalEnviron. Chang., 14, 303-313.

O’Brien, K., S. Eriksen, L. Sygna and L.O. Naess, 2006: Questioning Compla-cency: Climate Change Impacts, Vulnerability, and Adaptation in Norway.Ambio, 35, 50-56.

O’Brien, K.L. and R.M. Leichenko, 2000: Double exposure: assessing the im-pacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. GlobalEnviron. Chang., 10, 221-232.

O’Brien, K.L. and H.C. Vogel, Eds., 2003: Coping with Climate Variability: TheUse of Seasonal Climate Forecasts in Southern Africa. Ashgate Publishing,Aldershot, 176 pp.

OECD, 2003a: Development and Climate Change in Bangladesh: focus onCoastal Flooing and the Sundarbans, COM/ENV/EPOC/DCD/DAC(2003)3/FINAL, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris,70 pp.

OECD, 2003b:Development and Climate Change in Nepal: focus on Water Re-sources and Hydropower, COM/ENV/EPOC/DCD/DAC(2003)1/FINAL, Or-ganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 64 pp.

ONERC, 2005:Un climat à la dérive: comment s’adapter? Rapport de ONERCau Premier ministre et au Parlement, Observatoire national des effets duréchauffement climatique (ONERC), Paris, 107 pp.

Oppenheimer, M. and A. Todorov, 2006: Global warming: the psychology oflong term risk. Climatic Change, 77, 1-6.

Orlove, B., 2005: Human adaptation to climate change: a review of three his-torical cases and some general perspectives. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 589-600.

Osman-Elasha, B., N. Goutbi, E. Spanger-Siegfried, B. Dougherty , A. Hanafi ,S. Zakieldeen, A. Sanjak, H. Atti and H. Elhassan. 2006: Adaptation strategiesto increase human resilience against climate variability and change: Lessonsfrom the arid regions of Sudan. AIACC Working Paper 42, InternationalSTART Secretariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 42 pp.

Owuor, B., S. Eriksen and W. Mauta, 2005: Adapting to climate change in a dry-land mountain environment in Kenya. Mt. Res. Dev., 25, 310-315.

Paavola, J., 2006: Justice in adaptation to climate change in Tanzania. Fairnessin Adaptation to Climate Change, W.N. Adger, J. Paavola, S. Huq and M.J.Mace, Eds., MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 201-222.

Paavola, J. and W.N. Adger, 2006: Fair adaptation to climate change. Ecol.Econ., 56, 594–609.

Patel, S.S., 2006: Climate science: A sinking feeling. Nature, 440, 734-736.Patt, A. and C. Gwata, 2002: Effective seasonal climate forecast applications: ex-

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

741

Page 26: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

amining constraints for subsistence farmers in Zimbabwe. Global Environ.Chang., 12, 185-195.

Pelling, M., Ed., 2003: Natural Disasters and Development in a GlobalisingWorld. Routledge, London, 249 pp.

Pelling, M. and J. Uitto, 2001: Small island developing states: natural disastervulnerability and global change. Environmental Hazards, 3, 49-62.

Penning-Rowsell, E.C, C. Johnson and S.M., Tunstall, 2006: ‘Signals’ from pre-crisis discourse: Lessons from UK flooding for global environmental policychange? Global Environ. Chang., 16, 323-339.

Perez, R.T. and G. Yohe, 2005: Continuing the adaptation process. AdaptationPolicy Frameworks for Climate Change, B. Lim, E. Spanger-Siegfried, I. Bur-ton, E.L. Malone and S. Huq, Eds., Cambridge University Press, New York,205-224.

Pfaff, A., K. Broad and M. Glantz, 1999: Who benefits from climate forecasts?Nature, 397, 645-646.

Pouliotte, J., N. Islam, B. Smit and S. Islam, 2006: Livelihoods in ruralBangladesh. Tiempo, 59, 18-22. Accessed 11 October 2006. [Available onlineat http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/portal/archive/pdf/tiempo59low.pdf].

Poumadère, M., C. Mays, S. Le Mer and R. Blong, 2005: The 2003 heat wavein France: dangerous climate change here and now. Risk Anal., 25, 1483-1494.

Pretty, J., 2003: Social capital and the collective management of resources. Sci-ence, 302, 1912-1925.

Pulwarty, R., K., Broad and T., Finan, 2003: ENSO forecasts and decision mak-ing in Brazil and Peru. Mapping Vulnerability: Disasters, Development andPeople, G Bankoff, G. Frerkes and T. Hilhorst, Eds., Earthscan, London, 83-98.

Pulwarty, R., K. Jacobs, and R., Dole, 2005: The hardest working river: Droughtand critical water problems in the Colorado River Basin. Drought and WaterCrises: Science, Technology and Management, D. Wilhite., Ed., Taylor andFrancis Press, New York, 249-285.

Reilly, J., F. Tubiello, B. McCarl, D.Abler, R. Darwin, K. Fuglie, S. Hollinger,C. Izaurralde, S. Jagtap, J. Jones, L. Mearns, D. Ojima, E. Paul, K. Paustina,S. Riha, N. Rosenberg and C. Rosenzweig, 2003: US agriculture and climatechange: new results. Climatic Change, 57, 43-69.

Ribot, J.C., A.R. Magalhães and S.S. Panagides, Eds.,1996: Climate Variability,Climate Change and Social Vulnerability in the Semi-Arid Tropics. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, 189 pp.

Robledo, C., M. Fischler and A. Patino, 2004: Increasing the resilience of hill-side communities in Bolivia. Mt. Res. Dev., 24, 14-18.

Rosenzweig, C. and M.L. Parry, 1994: Potential impact of climate change onworld food supply. Nature, 367, 133-138.

Rosenzweig, C. and W.D. Solecki, 2001: Climate Change and a Global City:The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change—Metro EastCoast. Report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program, National As-sessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change forthe United States. Columbia Earth Institute, New York, 224 pp.

Rosenzweig, C., D.C. Major, K. Demong, C. Stanton, R. Horton and M. Stults,2007: Managing climate change risks in New York City’s water system – as-sessment and adaptation planning. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies forGlobal Change, doi:10.1007/s11027-006-9070-5.

Sailor, D.J. and A.A. Pavlova, 2003: Air conditioning market saturation and longterm response of residential cooling energy demand to climate change. En-ergy, 28, 941-951.

Satterfield, T.A., C.K. Mertz and P. Slovic, 2004: Discrimination, vulnerability,and justice in the face of risk. Risk Anal., 24, 115-129.

Schaedler, B., 2004: Climate Change Issues and Adaptation Strategies in aMountainous Region: Case Study Switzerland.ENV/EPOC/GS/FD/RD(2004)3/FINAL,OECD, Paris, 16 pp.

Scheffer, M., S. Carpenter, J.A. Foley, C. Folke and B. Walker, 2001: Cata-strophic shifts in ecosystems. Nature, 413, 591-596.

Schneider, S.H., W.E. Easterling and L.O. Mearns, 2000a: Adaptation sensitiv-ity to natural variability: agent assumptions and dynamic climate changes. Cli-matic Change, 45, 203-221.

Schneider, S.H., K. Kuntz-Duriseti and C. Azar, 2000b: Costing non-linearities,surprises, and irreversible events. Pacific and Asian Journal of Energy, 10,81-106.

Schröter, D., C. Polsky and A.G. Patt, 2005: Assessing vulnerabilities to the ef-fects of global change: an eight step approach. Mitigation and AdaptationStrategies for Global Change, 10, 573-595.

Scott, D., G. McBoyle and B. Mills, 2003: Climate change and the skiing in-dustry in southern Ontario (Canada): exploring the importance of snowmak-ing as a technical adaptation. Climate Res., 23, 171–181.

Scott, D., G. Wall and G. McBoyle, 2005: The evolution of the climate changeissue in the tourism sector. Tourism, Recreation and Climate Change,M. Halland J. Higham, Eds., Channelview Press, London, 44-60.

Scott, D., G. McBoyle and A. Minogue, 2007: Climate change and Quebec’s skiindustry. Global Environ. Chang., 17, 181-190.

Shaw, D., S. Shih, E.Y. Lin and Y. Kuo, 2000: A cost-benefit analysis of sea-level rise protection in Taiwan. Paper presented at the International Confer-ence on Global Economic Transformation after the Asian Economic Crisis.Chinese University of Hong-Kong and Pekin University, May 26-28, 2000,Hong-Kong.

Sheppard, S.R.J., 2005: Landscape visualisation and climate change: the poten-tial for influencing perceptions and behaviour. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 637-654.

Sheridan, S.C. and L.S. Kalkstein, 2004: Progress in heat watch warning systemtechnology. B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 85, 1931-1941.

Shrestha, M.L. and A.B. Shrestha, 2004: Recent Trends and Potential ClimateChange Impacts on Glacier Retreat/Glacier Lakes in Nepal and PotentialAdaptation Measures. ENV/EPOC/GF/SD/RD(2004)6/FINAL, OECD, Paris,23 pp.

Shukla, P.R., M. Kapshe and A. Garg, 2004:Development and Climate: Impactsand Adaptation for Infrastructure Assets in India.ENV/EPOC/GS/FD/RD(2004)3/FINAL,OECD, Paris, 38 pp.

Simms, A., D. Woodward and P. Kjell 2004: Cast Adrift: How the Rich are Leav-ing the Poor to Sink in a Warming World. New Economics Foundation, Lon-don, 21 pp.

Smit, B. and M.W. Skinner, 2002: Adaptation options in agriculture to climatechange: a typology.Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change,7, 85-114.

Smit, B. and J. Wandel, 2006: Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability.Global Environ. Chang., 16, 282-292.

Smit, B., O. Pilifosova, I. Burton, B. Challenger, S. Huq, R.J.T. Klein and G.Yohe, 2001: Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable devel-opment and equity. Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnera-bility. Contribution of the Working Group II to the Third Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, J.J. McCarthy, O.Canziani, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and K.S. White, Eds., Cambridge Univer-sity Press, Cambridge, 877-912.

Smith, J.B., 1997: Setting priorities for adapting to climate change. Global En-viron. Chang., 7, 251-264.

Smith, J.B. and D. Tirpak, 1989: The Potential Effects of Global Climate Changeon the United States. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, Dis-trict of Columbia, 401 pp.

Smith, J.B., A. Rahman, S. Haq and M.Q. Mirza, 1998: Considering adaptationto climate change in the sustainable development of Bangladesh. World BankReport, World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 103 pp.

Smith , J.B., S. Agrawala, P. Larsen and F. Gagnon-Lebrun, 2005: Climate analy-sis. Bridge Over Troubled Waters – Linking Climate Change and Develop-ment, S. Agrawala, Ed., OECD, Paris, 45-59.

Smoyer-Tomic, K.E. and D.G.C. Rainham, 2001: Beating the heat: developmentand evaluation of a Canadian hot weather health-response plan. Environmen-tal Health Perspectives, 109, 1241-1248.

Sperling, F. and F. Szekely, 2005: Disaster Risk Management in a ChangingClimate. Informal Discussion Paper prepared for the World Conference onDisaster Reduction on behalf of the Vulnerability and Adaptation ResourceGroup (VARG). Washington, District of Columbia, 42 pp.

Steneck, R.S., M.H. Graham, B.J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J.M. Erlandson, J.A.Estes and M.J. Tegner, 2002: Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability,resilience and future. Environ. Conserv., 29, 436–459.

Sturgis, P. and N. Allum, 2004: Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficitmodel of public attitudes. Public Underst. Sci., 13, 55-74.

Sutherland, K., B. Smit, V. Wulf and T. Nakalevu, 2005: Vulnerability to cli-mate change and adaptive capacity in Samoa: the case of Saoluafata village.Tiempo, 54, 11-15.

Swiss Confederation, 2005: Switzerland’s Fourth National Communicationunder the UNFCCC. Swiss Agency for the Environment, Forests and Land-scape (SAEFL), Berne, 238 pp.

Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity Chapter 17

742

Page 27: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1

Sygna, L., 2005: Climate vulnerability in Cuba: the role of social networks. CIC-ERO Working Paper, 2005-01, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway, 12 pp.

Taylor, M., A. Chen, S. Rawlins, C. Heslop-Thomas, A. Amarakoon, W. Bailey,D. Chadee, S. Huntley, C. Rhoden and R. Stennett, 2006: Adapting to denguerisk – what to do?AIACC Working Paper No. 33, International START Sec-retariat, Washington, District of Columbia, 31 pp.

Thomas, D., H. Osbahr, C. Twyman, W.N. Adger and B. Hewitson, 2005: ADAP-TIVE: adaptation to climate change amongst natural resource-dependent so-cieties in the developing world: across the Southern African climate gradient.Technical Report 35, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Univer-sity of East Anglia, Norwich, 43 pp.

Thomas, D.S.G. and C. Twyman, 2005: Equity and justice in climate changeadaptation amongst natural-resource-dependent societies. Global Environ.Chang., 15, 115-124.

Tol, R.S.J., 1995: The damage costs of climate change: towards more compre-hensive calculations. Environ. Resour. Econ., 5, 353–374.

Tol, R.S.J., 2002: Estimates of the damage costs of climate change. Part 1:benchmark estimates. Environ. Resour.Econ., 21, 47–73.

Tol, R.S.J. and G.W. Yohe, 2007: The weakest link hypothesis for adaptive ca-pacity: An empirical test. Global Environ. Chang., 17, 218-227.

Tol, R.S.J., S. Fankhauser and J.B. Smith, 1998: The scope for adaptation to cli-mate change: what can we learn from the impact literature? Global Environ.Chang., 8, 109-123.

Tol, R.S.J., N. van der Grijp, A.A. Olsthoorn and P.E. van der Werff, 2003:Adapting to climate: A case study on riverine flood risks in the Netherlands.Risk Anal., 23, 575-583.

Tol, R.S.J, M. Bohn, T.E. Downing, M. Guillerminet, E. Hizsnyik, R. Kasper-son, K. Lonsdale, C. Mays, R.J. Nicholls, A.A. Olsthoorn, G. Pfeifle, M.Poumadere, F.L. Toth, N. Vafeidis, P.E. van der Werff and I.H. Yetkiner, 2006:Adaptation to five metres of sea level rise. J. Risk Res., 9, 467-482.

Toman, M., 2006: Values in the economics of climate change. EnvironmentalValues, 15, 365-379.

Tompkins, E., 2005: Planning for climate change in small islands: insights fromnational hurricane preparedness in the Cayman Islands. Global Environ.Chang., 15, 139-149.

Tompkins, E. L. and W.N. Adger, 2004: Does adaptive management of naturalresources enhance resilience to climate change? Ecology and Society 9, 10.[Available online at www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art10].

Tompkins, E.L. and W.N. Adger, 2005: Defining a response capacity for climatechange. Environ. Sci. Policy, 8, 562–571.

Tompkins, E., W.N. Adger and K. Brown, 2002: Institutional networks for in-clusive coastal management in Trinidad and Tobago. Environ. Plan. A, 34,1095-1111.

Tompkins, E.L., E. Boyd, S.A. Nicholson-Cole, K. Weatherhead, N.W. Arnelland W.N. Adger, 2005: Linking Adaptation Research and Practice. Report toDEFRA Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Cross-Regional ResearchProgramme, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, University of EastAnglia, Norwich, 119 pp.

Turner, B.L., R.E. Kasperson, P.A. Matson, J.J. McCarthy, R.W. Corell, L. Chris-tensen, N. Eckley, J.X. Kasperson, A. Luers, M.L. Martello, C. Polsky, A. Pul-sipher and A. Schiller, 2003: A framework for vulnerability analysis insustainability science. P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 100, 8074-8079.

US National Assessment, 2001: Climate Change Impacts on the United States:The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Report forthe US Global Change Research Program, Cambridge University Press, Cam-bridge, 620 pp.

Valverde, L.J. and M.W. Andrews, 2006: Global Climate Change and ExtremeWeather: An Exploration of Scientific Uncertainty and the Economics of In-surance. Insurance Information Institute, New York, 51 pp.

Van Aalst, M.K. and M. Helmer, 2003: Preparedness for Climate Change: Astudy to assess the future impact of climatic changes upon the frequency and

severity of disasters and the implications for humanitarian response and pre-paredness. Red Cross / Red Crescent Centre on Climate Change and DisasterPreparedness, Hague, 14 pp.

van Vliet, A. and R. Leemans, 2006: Rapid species responses to changes in cli-mate require stringent climate protection targets. Avoiding Dangerous ClimateChange, H.J. Schellnhuber, W. Cramer, N Nakicenovic, T. Wigley and G.Yohe, Eds., Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 135-141.

Vergara, W., 2006: Adapting to Climate Change: Lessons learned, work inprogress, and proposed next steps for the World Bank in Latin America. WorldBank Latin America and Caribbean Region Sustainable Development, Work-ing Paper 25, World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 46 pp.

Weber, E.U., 2006: Experienced-based and description-based perceptions oflong-term risk: why global warming does not scare us (yet). Climatic Change,77, 103-120.

Wehbe, M., H. Eakin, R. Seiler, M. Vinocur, C. Afila and C. Marutto, 2006:Local perspectives on adaptation to climate change: lessons from Mexico andArgentina. AIACC Working Paper 39, International START Secretariat, Wash-ington, District of Columbia, 37 pp.

West, C. and M. Gawith, 2005: Measuring progress: preparing for climatechange through UKCIP. UK Climate Impacts Programme, Oxford, 72 pp.

Winkels, A. 2004: Migratory livelihoods in Vietnam: vulnerability and the roleof migrant livelihoods. PhD Thesis, School of Environmental Sciences, Uni-versity of East Anglia, Norwich, 239 pp.

Winters, A.P., R. Murgai, E. Sadoulet, A. De Janvry and G. Frisvold, 1998: Eco-nomic and welfare impacts of climate change on developing countries. Envi-ron. Resour. Econ., 12, 1-24.

Woodward, A., 2002: Epidemiology, environmental health and global change.Environmental Change, Climate and Health: Issues and Research Methods, P.Martens and A.J. McMichael, Eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,290-310.

World Bank, 2000: Cities, Seas, and Storms: Managing Change in Pacific IslandEconomies Volume IV: Adapting to Climate Change. World Bank, Washington,District of Columbia,118 pp.

World Bank, 2006: Clean Energy and Development: Towards an InvestmentFramework, Annex K. World Bank, Washington, District of Columbia, 157pp.

Yanda, P., S. Wandiga, R. Kangalawe, M. Opondo, D. Olago, A. Githeko, T.Downs, R. Kabumbuli, A. Opere, F. Githui, J. Kathuri, L. Olaka, E. Apindi, M.Marshall, L. Ogallo, P. Mugambi, E. Kirumira, R. Nanyunja, T. Baguma, R.Sigalla and P. Achola, 2006: Adaptation to Climate Change/Variability-In-duced Highland Malaria and Cholera in the Lake Victoria Region. AIACCWorking Paper 43, International START Secretariat, Washington, District ofColumbia, 37 pp.

Yates, D.N. and K.M. Street, 1998: An Assessment of Integrated Climate ChangeImpacts on the Agricultural Economy of Egypt. Climatic Change, 38, 261-287.

Yohe, G.W. and M.E. Schlesinger, 1998: Sea-level change: The expected eco-nomic cost of protection or abandonment in the United States. ClimaticChange, 38, 447-472.

Yohe, G. and R.S.J. Tol, 2002: Indicators for social and economic coping ca-pacity - moving toward a working definition of adaptive capacity. Global En-viron. Chang., 12, 25-40.

Yohe, G.W., J.E. Neumann, P. Marshall and H. Ameden, 1996: The economiccosts of sea level rise on US coastal properties. Climatic Change, 32, 387-410.

Ziervogel, G., 2004: Targeting seasonal climate forecasts for integration intohousehold level decisions: the case of smallholder farmers in Lesotho. Geogr.J., 170, 6-21.

Ziervogel, G., A. Nyong, B. Osman, C. Conde, S. Cortés and T. Downing, 2006:Climate Variability and Change: Implications for Household Food Security.AIACC Working Paper No. 20, International START Secretariat, Washington,District of Columbia, 34 pp.

Chapter 17 Assessment of adaptation practices, options, constraints and capacity

743

Page 28: Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options, constraintsandcapacity … … · Assessmentofadaptationpractices,options,constraintsandcapacity Chapter17 718 Executivesummary.....719 17.1