4.5 Article

What African countries perceive to be adaptation priorities: results from 20 countries in the Africa adaptation programme

期刊

CLIMATE AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 4, 期 4, 页码 265-274

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/17565529.2012.733676

关键词

climate change; Africa; prioritisation; adaptation; developing countries

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Climate change adaptation is widely acknowledged as an urgent need for African countries. However, African governments face considerable challenges in prioritising adaptation interventions and, in particular, aligning these adaptation interventions with existing national development priorities. This article focuses on the Africa Adaptation Programme (AAP) as a case study to investigate what African countries perceive to be priority adaptation interventions. The AAP provides support to 20 African countries to identify and implement priority adaptation interventions under five AAP outcomes. This is achieved using participatory and consensus-based consultation with a wide range of stakeholders across a range of sectors. We classified each adaptation intervention identified in AAP project documents based on the following categories: (1) soft versus hard, (2) scale, (3) sector, and (4) type of intervention. We found that AAP countries selected predominantly soft adaptation interventions covering multiple sectors at the national scale. Of note, development of human and financial capital at a national scale was prioritised over hard or soft interventions at a local scale (e. g. hard infrastructure and restoration of natural capital). This suggests that (1) stakeholders were concerned with risks associated with such interventions; (2) capacity was limited to make informed decisions; and/or (3) there was a lack of coordination to create a consensus on the interventions. Our study highlights the importance of creating an enabling environment for more informed adaptation decisions and practices in African countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据