A comprehensive review of climate adaptation in the United States: more than before, but less than needed
01 Mar 2013-Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change (Springer Netherlands)-Vol. 18, Iss: 3, pp 361-406
TL;DR: The authors reviewed existing and planned adaptation activities of federal, tribal, state, and local governments and the private sector in the United States (U.S.) to understand what types of adaptation activities are underway across different sectors and scales throughout the country.
Abstract: We reviewed existing and planned adaptation activities of federal, tribal, state, and local governments and the private sector in the United States (U.S.) to understand what types of adaptation activities are underway across different sectors and scales throughout the country. Primary sources of review included material officially submitted for consideration in the upcoming 2013 U.S. National Climate Assessment and supplemental peer-reviewed and grey literature. Although substantial adaptation planning is occurring in various sectors, levels of government, and the private sector, few measures have been implemented and even fewer have been evaluated. Most adaptation actions to date appear to be incremental changes, not the transformational changes that may be needed in certain cases to adapt to significant changes in climate. While there appear to be no one-size-fits-all adaptations, there are similarities in approaches across scales and sectors, including mainstreaming climate considerations into existing policies and plans, and pursuing no- and low-regrets strategies. Despite the positive momentum in recent years, barriers to implementation still impede action in all sectors and across scales. The most significant barriers include lack of funding, policy and institutional constraints, and difficulty in anticipating climate change given the current state of information on change. However, the practice of adaptation can advance through learning by doing, stakeholder engagements (including “listening sessions”), and sharing of best practices. Efforts to advance adaptation across the U.S. and globally will necessitate the reduction or elimination of barriers, the enhancement of information and best practice sharing mechanisms, and the creation of comprehensive adaptation evaluation metrics.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: This is the advice of a committee of leading American experts on risk characterisation, which recognises that involvement of all those with vested interests cannot ensure a rapid or consensus solution or preclude some groups `dropping out' and choosing the route of litigation.
Abstract: This is the advice of a committee of leading American experts, chaired by Harvey Fineberg from the Harvard School of Public Health. It represents the fifth report in a series, commissioned by the US National Research Council, that considers how society can understand and cope with decisions about risks. The Committee's remit was to provide advice on risk characterisation, defined by the Research Council as the translation of `the information in a risk assessment ... into a form usable by a risk manager, individual decision maker, or the public'. In this book, the Committee has responded to the challenge clearly and authoritatively, beginning with a profound re-definition of `risk characterisation' that forms the basis for all that follows. In the view of the Committee, risk characterisation is a process. It is a process which starts before quantitative analysis of the risks, because it includes defining what risks to assess, and how most appropriately to assess them. It is an iterative process, in which assumptions are challenged and re-worked, and new information may be incorporated. It is a process in which qualitative judgements contribute to the fuller understanding of the problem; where quantitative scientific estimates, although important, contribute only a part. Most fundamentally, it is a process which, in a democratic society, needs to involve all those affected by the perceived problem and consequent decision. In the words of the Committee: `Experience shows that analyses, no matter how thorough, that do not address the decision-relevant questions, use reasonable assumptions, and meaningfully include the key affected parties can result in huge expenses and long delays and jeopardise the quality of understanding and the acceptability of the final decisions.' In other words, until or unless we expand our understanding of risk characterisation to include the process of defining the assessment itself, we are unlikely to make progress in gaining public acceptance for major decisions on health or environmental issues. For those without sufficient time to read the book, the ten-page summary provides a succinct overview of the Committee's advice, complete with bullet points and emboldened key phrases. However, the main body of the book (and particularly Appendix A, which discusses a number of case studies) is well worth scanning for its well-reasoned and well-structured discussion of the issues and the suggested way forward. Nor is the Committee lost in an `academic ivory tower'. It recognises that involvement of all those with vested interests cannot ensure a rapid or consensus solution or preclude some groups `dropping out' and choosing the route of litigation. It also recognises that allowing a `voice' for a wide range of interest groups can be time consuming and difficult to manage. However, the Committee argues: `While we are sensitive to concerns about cost and delay, we note that huge costs and delays have sometimes resulted when a risk situation was inadequately diagnosed, a problem misformulated, key interested and affected parties did not participate, or analysis proceeded unintegrated with deliberation. We believe that following [our] principles can reduce delays and costs as much as or more than it increases them.' So what are the Committee's principles? Getting the science right - any quantitative science that is undertaken must be of the highest standards. Getting the right science - this ensures that all the relevant risks are considered. Getting the right participation - this ensures that all those affected have a `voice' in the process. Getting the participation right - this ensures that the process is responsive to the needs of all the participants. Developing an accurate, balanced and informative synthesis - this should include a balanced understanding of the uncertainties in current knowledge, encompassing ignorance and indeterminacy as well as more quantifiable uncertainties. Again, in the words of the Committee: `These criteria are related. To be decision-relevant, risk characterisation must be accurate, balanced and informative. This requires getting the science right and getting the right science. Participation helps ask the right questions of the science, check the plausibility of assumptions, and ensure that any synthesis is both balanced and informative.' In order to set up an appropriate risk characterisation process, the Committee recommends that those responsible for it should `begin by developing a provisional diagnosis of the decision situation' in order to identify potential participants, allocate resources and structure the process. However, in doing so, they should `treat the diagnosis as tentative and remain open to change, always keeping in mind that their goal is a process that leads to a useful and credible risk characterization'. The Committee also stresses the need for those responsible for the process to `develop the capability to cope with attempts by some interested and affected parties to delay decision, and to develop a range of strategies for reaching closure'. This is likely to require the development of new skills and may require organisational changes `to improve communication across sub-units and to allow for the flexibility and judgement necessary to match the process to decision'. This balanced, reasoned and authoritative book is, in my opinion, a `must for all those involved in informing societal decision on risks.
620 citations
Arizona State University1, University of Alaska Fairbanks2, United States Environmental Protection Agency3, National Park Service4, Institute of Ecosystem Studies5, University of Oklahoma6, Ames Research Center7, University of Michigan8, California Department of Fish and Wildlife9, Yale University10, University of California, Santa Barbara11, Miami University12
TL;DR: In this paper, the impacts of climate change on US ecosystems were identified and the authors provided greater mechanistic understanding and geographic specificity for those impacts, including those that affect productivity of ecosystems or their ability to process chemical elements, while combined impacts of wildfire and insect outbreaks decrease forest productivity.
Abstract: Recent climate-change research largely confirms the impacts on US ecosystems identified in the 2009 National Climate Assessment and provides greater mechanistic understanding and geographic specificity for those impacts Pervasive climate-change impacts on ecosystems are those that affect productivity of ecosystems or their ability to process chemical elements Loss of sea ice, rapid warming, and higher organic inputs affect marine and lake productivity, while combined impacts of wildfire and insect outbreaks decrease forest productivity, mostly in the arid and semi-arid West Forests in wetter regions are more productive owing to warming Shifts in species ranges are so extensive that by 2100 they may alter biome composition across 5–20% of US land area Accelerated losses of nutrients from terrestrial ecosystems to receiving waters are caused by both winter warming and intensification of the hydrologic cycle Ecosystem feedbacks, especially those associated with release of carbon dioxide and methane rel
407 citations
Cites background from "A comprehensive review of climate a..."
...In response, federal and state natural resource management agencies have begun to integrate climatechange science into resource management plans and adaptation actions (Bierbaum et al. 2013)....
[...]
01 Jan 2014
TL;DR: The report summarizes the science of climate change and the impacts in the United States, now and in the future as discussed by the authors, and concludes that climate change is a major threat to the US.
Abstract: The report summarizes the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change in the United States, now and in the future.
332 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present an analysis of approaches for systematic review and research synthesis and examine their applicability in an adaptation context and highlight innovative applications of systematic approaches, with a focus on the unique challenges of integrating multiple data sources and formats in reviewing climate change adaptation policy and practice.
Abstract: Recent controversy has led to calls for increased standardization and transparency in the methods used to synthesize climate change research. Though these debates have focused largely on the biophysical dimensions of climate change, human dimensions research is equally in need of improved methodological approaches for research synthesis. Systematic review approaches, and more recently realist review methods, have been used within the health sciences for decades to guide research synthesis. Despite this, penetration of these approaches into the social and environmental sciences has been limited. Here, we present an analysis of approaches for systematic review and research synthesis and examine their applicability in an adaptation context. Customized review frameworks informed by systematic approaches to research synthesis provide a conceptually appropriate and practical opportunity for increasing methodological transparency and rigor in synthesizing and tracking adaptation research. This review highlights innovative applications of systematic approaches, with a focus on the unique challenges of integrating multiple data sources and formats in reviewing climate change adaptation policy and practice. We present guidelines, key considerations, and recommendations for systematic review in the social sciences in general and adaptation research in particular. We conclude by calling for increased conceptual and methodological development of systematic review approaches to address the methodological challenges of synthesizing and tracking adaptation to climate change.
297 citations
Cites background from "A comprehensive review of climate a..."
...…approach, but lacked articulation of keywords or document selection (Shepherd et al. 2011; Clarke and Berry 2012; Wilby and Keenan 2012; Bierbaum et al. 2013; Morrison and Pickering 2013; Weinhofer and Busch 2013), or lacked an explicit or implied list of documents or detail on…...
[...]
...Other papers used some form of semi-systematic approach, but lacked articulation of keywords or document selection (Shepherd et al. 2011; Clarke and Berry 2012; Wilby and Keenan 2012; Bierbaum et al. 2013; Morrison and Pickering 2013; Weinhofer and Busch 2013), or lacked an explicit or implied list of documents or detail on inclusion/ exclusion criteria (Ford et al....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the institutional context of adaptation can implicitly or explicitly undermine one form of capacity with repercussions for the development of the other, and propose a simple heuristic to understand the four main ways these two capacities interact, leading to more or less desirable outcomes.
Abstract: There are two forms of capacity to adapt to global change: those associated with fundamental human development goals (generic capacity), and those necessary for managing and reducing specific climatic threats (specific). We argue that these two domains of capacity must be addressed explicitly, simultaneously and iteratively if climate change adaptation and sustainable development goals are to be attained. We propose a simple heuristic to understand the four main ways these two capacities interact, leading to more or less desirable outcomes. Drawing from three case studies of agricultural adaptation to climatic risk (Phoenix, AZ; Northeast Brazil; Chiapas, Mexico) we argue that the institutional context of adaptation can implicitly or explicitly undermine one form of capacity with repercussions for the development of the other. A better and more strategic balance of generic and specific capacities is needed if the promised synergies between sustainable development and adaptation are to be achieved.
285 citations
References
More filters
TL;DR: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social-ecological systems as mentioned in this paper, which emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales.
Abstract: The resilience perspective is increasingly used as an approach for understanding the dynamics of social–ecological systems. This article presents the origin of the resilience perspective and provides an overview of its development to date. With roots in one branch of ecology and the discovery of multiple basins of attraction in ecosystems in the 1960–1970s, it inspired social and environmental scientists to challenge the dominant stable equilibrium view. The resilience approach emphasizes non-linear dynamics, thresholds, uncertainty and surprise, how periods of gradual change interplay with periods of rapid change and how such dynamics interact across temporal and spatial scales. The history was dominated by empirical observations of ecosystem dynamics interpreted in mathematical models, developing into the adaptive management approach for responding to ecosystem change. Serious attempts to integrate the social dimension is currently taking place in resilience work reflected in the large numbers of sciences involved in explorative studies and new discoveries of linked social–ecological systems. Recent advances include understanding of social processes like, social learning and social memory, mental models and knowledge–system integration, visioning and scenario building, leadership, agents and actor groups, social networks, institutional and organizational inertia and change, adaptive capacity, transformability and systems of adaptive governance that allow for management of essential ecosystem services.
4,899 citations
"A comprehensive review of climate a..." refers background in this paper
...…ecosystem and jurisdictional boundaries Institutional constraints Lack of institutional flexibility Nelson et al. 2007; Lee 1993; Folke 2006; NRC 2004; Garfin et al. 2012; Adger et al. 2009; McNeeley 2012; Brugger and Crimmins 2011; Simmonds 2011; USGS 2012; Marra et al. 2012;…...
[...]
...4.4 Institutional constraints Preparing for climate change requires flexible systems and approaches, such as adaptive management, (Folke 2006; Lee 1993; Nelson et al. 2007; NRC 2004)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, a review of adaptation of human communities to global changes, especially climate change, in the context of adaptive capacity and vulnerability is presented, focusing on scholarship that contributes to practical implementation of adaptations at the community scale.
Abstract: This paper reviews the concept of adaptation of human communities to global changes, especially climate change, in the context of adaptive capacity and vulnerability. It focuses on scholarship that contributes to practical implementation of adaptations at the community scale. In numerous social science fields, adaptations are considered as responses to risks associated with the interaction of environmental hazards and human vulnerability or adaptive capacity. In the climate change field, adaptation analyses have been undertaken for several distinct purposes. Impact assessments assume adaptations to estimate damages to longer term climate scenarios with and without adjustments. Evaluations of specified adaptation options aim to identify preferred measures. Vulnerability indices seek to provide relative vulnerability scores for countries, regions or communities. The main purpose of participatory vulnerability assessments is to identify adaptation strategies that are feasible and practical in communities. The distinctive features of adaptation analyses with this purpose are outlined, and common elements of this approach are described. Practical adaptation initiatives tend to focus on risks that are already problematic, climate is considered together with other environmental and social stresses, and adaptations are mostly integrated or mainstreamed into other resource management, disaster preparedness and sustainable development programs. r 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
4,612 citations
"A comprehensive review of climate a..." refers background in this paper
...Participatory approaches enable the design of adaptation processes with context-specific information (Fazey et al. 2010; Few et al. 2007; Preston et al. 2011; Smit and Wandel 2006), often by having community stakeholders and governing institutions work collectively to define the problem and identify adaptation strategies that are robust, while incorporating...
[...]
...…approaches enable the design of adaptation processes with context-specific information (Fazey et al. 2010; Few et al. 2007; Preston et al. 2011; Smit and Wandel 2006), often by having community stakeholders and governing institutions work collectively to define the problem and identify…...
[...]
01 Jul 2012
TL;DR: In this paper, a special report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) has been jointly coordinated by Working Groups I (WGI) and II (WGII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Abstract: This Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX) has been jointly coordinated by Working Groups I (WGI) and II (WGII) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The report focuses on the relationship between climate change and extreme weather and climate events, the impacts of such events, and the strategies to manage the associated risks. This Special Report, in particular, contributes to frame the challenge of dealing with extreme weather and climate events as an issue in decision making under uncertainty, analyzing response in the context of risk management. The report consists of nine chapters, covering risk management; observed and projected changes in extreme weather and climate events; exposure and vulnerability to as well as losses resulting from such events; adaptation options from the local to the international scale; the role of sustainable development in modulating risks; and insights from specific case studies. (LN)
4,126 citations
Book•
01 Jan 2012
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a case study for managing the risks from climate extremes and disasters at the local level and national systems for managing risks at the international level and integration across scales.
Abstract: Foreword Preface Summary for policymakers 1. Climate change: new dimensions in disaster risk, exposure, vulnerability and resilience 2. Determinants of risk: exposure and vulnerability 3. Changes in climate extremes and their impacts on the natural physical environment 4. Changes in impacts of climate extremes: human systems and ecosystems 5. Managing the risks from climate extremes at the local level 6. National systems for managing the risks from climate extremes and disasters 7. Managing the risks: international level and integration across scales 8. Toward a sustainable and resilient future 9. Case studies Annex I. Authors and expert reviewers Annex II. Glossary of terms Annex III. Acronyms Annex IV. List of major IPCC reports Index.
2,193 citations