4.5 Article

Frontiers in Climate Change Adaptation Science: Advancing Guidelines to Design Adaptation Pathways

Journal

CURRENT CLIMATE CHANGE REPORTS
Volume 6, Issue 4, Pages 166-177

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s40641-020-00166-8

Keywords

Adaptation to climate change; Incremental; Transformational; Maladaptation; Measures’ effectiveness

Funding

  1. French National Research Agency under the STORISK project [ANR-15-CE03- 0003]
  2. FORMAS
  3. BMBF
  4. BMWFW
  5. IFD
  6. MINECO
  7. ANR
  8. European Union [690462]
  9. ANR programme Investissements d'avenir [ANR-10-LABX-14-01]
  10. Ademe [20ESC0016]
  11. INSeaPTION project, ERA4CS
  12. ERA-NET
  13. JPI Climate

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of Review This paper discusses three scientific frontiers that need to be advanced in order to support decision-makers and practitioners in charge of operational decisions and action on the design and implementation of concrete adaptation policies and actions. These frontiers refer to going beyond the (1) incremental vs. transformational and (2) maladaptation vs. adaptation dichotomies and to advancing knowledge on (3) adaptation measures' effectiveness and roles in designing context-specific adaptation pathways. Recent Findings Dealing with adaptation to climate change on the ground often means answering three obvious but critical questions: what to do, where and when? These questions challenge the scientific community's capacity to link conceptual advances (e.g. on transformative adaptation) and ground-rooted needs across sectors and regions (on solutions, governance arrangements, etc.). We argue that the three abovementioned frontiers represent the most burning challenges to the Adaptation Science community to help addressing climate-related societal needs. We also demonstrate that they are intertwined as moving one frontier forward will facilitate moving the others forward.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available