How can governments engage in adaptation tracking? A protocol for assessing national adaptation policies

doi:10.21203/rs.3.pex-2399/v1

Method Article

How can governments engage in adaptation tracking? A protocol for assessing national adaptation policies

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.pex-2399/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

This protocol has been posted on Protocol Exchange, an open repository of community-contributed protocols sponsored by Nature Portfolio. These protocols are posted directly on the Protocol Exchange by authors and are made freely available to the scientific community for use and comment.

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest protocol version

A myriad of frameworks to track adaptation to climate change have been developed in recent years. They have been instrumental in advancing the conversation on assessing adaptation progress and effectiveness across national and global scales. Surprisingly, very little attention is given to how countries can leverage existing policies to engage in adaptation tracking. We developed a Protocol to assess the ability of national policies to deliver comprehensive, coherent, and robust information on adaptation, which would allow governments to leverage existing efforts for engaging in country-driven tracking processes. The Protocol establishes data collection and analytical steps, including document screening, data extraction, quality assurance, and coding rules to ensure consistent interpretation and comparability of results. We applied the Protocol in an assessment of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) of African countries. The resulting dataset represents the most comprehensive overview available to date on existing entry points for adaptation tracking for Africa. While this can help show progress in adaptation planning, the real challenge lies in generating evidence of adaptation effectiveness. This requires complementary assessments of how intentions and plans translate into actions or results on the ground, aspects which our Protocol does not cover.

adaptation

tracking

national

indicators

progress

effectiveness

Adaptation tracking focuses on measuring and assessing how people and ecosystems adapt to climate change across spatial scales and over time (Ford et al., 2013). The field has been fertile ground for scientists and practitioners since the establishment of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and the Global Stocktake (GST) in the Paris Agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). The GGA articulates a collective intent to enhance adaptive capacity, strengthen resilience, and reduce vulnerability to climate change. The GST represents a periodic review process that assess countries’ progress towards achieving the PA goals, including the GGA. The GST is expected to be carried out every five years, starting with 2023. Understanding how to measure progress towards the GGA is critical for the GST, but also for enhancing adaptation support and action at national and local levels.

Many approaches to track adaptation have been developed in response to the lack of standards for assessing adaptation progress and success. These include: use of indicators to measure institutional readiness, processes and outcomes (Brooks et al., 2013; Donatti et al., 2020; Michaelowa & Stadelmann, 2018); proximity-to-targets approaches that allow comparative assessments, while accounting for context-specificity (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019; Dupuis & Biesbroek, 2013); frameworks to combine standardized domains with context-specific, process and outcome-based indicators (Craft & Fisher, 2018); leveraging existing reporting frameworks and indicators, such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Huang, 2018); qualitative assessments of enabling environments (Njuguna et al., 2022, 2023; Smith et al., 2009); or scorecards to assess policy implementation (Brooks et al., 2013). Syntheses of existing approaches and frameworks reveal variations in scope, data collection methods, and resource requirements (Adaptation Committee, 2022; Ford et al., 2013; Lindsey, 2023; UNFCCC, 2021). The potential for leveraging existing national policies and information systems for adaptation tracking efforts remains unexplored. This has led to missed opportunities for reducing data burden and for promoting more bottom-up, country-driven processes for adaptation tracking.

This protocol fills this gap. It guides assessments of opportunities for leveraging existing national policies for future adaptation tracking processes. The protocol establishes that national policies can inform holistic, context-relevant and operational adaptation tracking efforts if they provide comprehensive, coherent, and robust information on adaptation (Figure 1).

Comprehensiveness. Adaptation progress and effectiveness is best understood through a contextualized assessment of core elements that capture the breadth of adaptation processes and outcomes occurring in and across countries, sectors, and systems (Berrang-Ford et al., 2019). These elements refer to climate hazards, systems at risk, goals, objectives, actions, and indicators. The elements are embedded in the adaptation policy cycle, which describes an iterative process of understanding the adaptation context, vision, strategies, and mechanisms to track results (Park et al., 2012). Applying this criterion in our assessment, we expect that policies provide information on the six elements that deliver a comprehensive understanding on adaptation (Figure 2). Hazards and systems at risk establish the adaptation rationale, while goals and objectives articulate desired visions for change or transformation, at national and sub-national/sectoral level. Adaptation actions lay out the strategy to address risks and achieve the desired vision. Indicators represents instruments for measuring progress and effects of adaptation efforts.

Coherence. Adaptation success varies across interventions, spatial and temporal scales, and stakeholders’ normative views of success (Eriksen et al., 2021; Singh et al., 2021). Therefore, assessments of adaptation need to adequately capture the context in which adaptation unfolds, to provide meaningful insights on progress and effectiveness. This requires coherence between what the policy aims to measure, the implementation strategies, the policy goals and objectives, and the climate risks to be addressed. We assess coherence of information in national policies by exploring the extent to which elements of the adaptation cycle are integrated into coherent adaptation narratives (also defined in the literature as theories of change or transformation (Beauchamp & Józefiak, 2023; Berrang-Ford et al., 2019; Park et al., 2012) or adaptation pathways (Cradock-Henry et al., 2020; Wise et al., 2014). This involves exploring the extent to which assessments of hazards and systems at risk inform planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation processes; whether planning informs implementation and indicators design; and whether indicators measure activity implementation, objectives and goals and changes in hazard impacts. Our assessment of coherence is pragmatic and focuses on the internal coherence of adaptation policies; we document explicit linkages between sets of elements provided in the documents (text, tables, figures) (See Sect. Procedure and Supplementary Table S2). While such an approach is inherently subjective (Dupuis & Biesbroek, 2013), it provides a preliminary approximation of the extent to which policies can deliver meaningful information for tracking efforts.

Robustness. The adaptation literature addresses robustness primarily in relation to improved indicator design and data sources that allow capturing the plurality of adaptation dimensions and perspectives (Ford et al., 2013, p. 4; Ford & Berrang-Ford, 2016; Hallegatte & Engle, 2019; Klonschinski, 2021; UNEP, 2022), balancing between quantitative and qualitative assessment methods (Prabhakar et al., 2010), or capturing local contexts (Faulkner et al., 2015). Nonetheless, the application of this criterium in large-scale assessments has yet to be demonstrated. In our analysis, we assess robustness by exploring the extent to which NDCs and NAPs provide clear benchmarks to operationalize tracking. these include measurable and time-bound targets and indicators that meet SMART criteria, i.e., specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound (Bours et al., 2014; EvalCommunity, 2023). This allows us to move beyond mapping the presence/absence of elements across the adaptation cycle, to assessing the quality (or depth) of information, which can enable (or hinder) effective tracking efforts. Measurable and time-bound targets are critical for providing benchmarks to gauge progress in implementation and effectiveness (Christiansen et al., 2018). SMART indicators help to ensure feasibility of tracking. While many other indicator assessment lenses exist, SMART criteria are well-known in the adaptation and development programming community. They help to assess whether indicators provide sufficiently clear detail about what is being measured (specific); indication of how they will be counted, observed or analyzed (measurable); explicit reference to data sources that allows measurement (achievable); evidence of linkages with the adaptation context (relevance); and a clear time reference for achievement (time-bound).

The analytical framework for the Protocol – with the three criteria and six elements for adaptation tracking – draws on available science but is not exhaustive. It is designed to bridge theoretical discussions with practical application. Its utility rests in its applicability across countries and adaptation policies, as well as the potential to provide evidence of how adaptation is planned, aimed to be implemented, monitored and evaluated across contexts. This information holds value not only in the context of the GST, but also at national scales, as countries are developing or implementing national adaptation policies, programs, and projects and/or revising their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) for improved climate ambition. Its application can uncover opportunities on how countries can effectively engage in future adaptation planning and tracking efforts, by leveraging existing policies. While this can help show progress in adaptation planning, the real challenge lies in generating evidence of adaptation effectiveness. This requires complementary assessments of how intentions and plans translate into actions or results on the ground, aspects which our framework does not cover. Lastly, application of the framework can be challenged by the inconsistent use of concepts and terminology across countries and policy documents, as well as the inherent subjectivity that accompanies such analyses. This underscores the necessity for establishing clear protocols to transparently communicate research decisions and ensure consistent interpretation and comparability of results.

n/a

This protocol outlines the methods to assess entry points for governments to engage in country-driven adaptation tracking processes, by leveraging existing policy efforts. The steps described below and summarized in Figure 3 build on the analytical framework that informs the protocol (See Sect. Introduction)

1. Protocol Scope

The Protocol guides data collection and analysis of the extent to which national policies provide

1) comprehensive information, to ensure a holistic understanding of adaptation

2) coherent information, to facilitate an understanding of adaptation that is relevant to context

3) robust information, to ensure operational tracking

2. Document selection

National policies of interest include publicly available National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of African countries publicly. NAPs and NDCs are important sources of information of a country’s intentions for adaptation enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), including vision, priorities, and progress. NDCs and NAPs address adaptation at different timeframes and serve distinct functions within countries. NAPs are thorough planning processes aimed at identifying and addressing medium- and long-term adaptation needs at multiple scales and across sectors. Adaptation components in NDCs serve as higher-level communication instruments that contain information on a country’s vulnerability to climate change and planned adaptation efforts and gaps. They also represent critical vehicles for low-income countries to communicate their support needs to the international community. They may also be considered as adaptation communications for reporting on adaptation progress and are expected to be revised every five years. Despite their largely normative content, they are the best available sources for comparable information on adaptation priorities and tracking systems across countries. National Communications (NCs) were excluded from the analysis, as our intention was to focus on forward-looking aspects of how countries plan to track adaptation.

We downloaded all African NDCs and NAPs available on the UNFCCC NDC Registry and NAP Central by 30 of September 2022 (Figure 4). The cut-off date was chosen to strike a balance between capturing recent adaptation policies and ensuring feasibility of data collection and analysis. By the established date, 53 NDCs and 15 NAPs had been published on the UNFCCC Registry and NAP Central, respectively. Newer documents published after the cut-off date, such as NAPs of Cabo Verde, Mozambique Niger, and Zambia, or updated NDCs of Egypt and Equatorial Guinea shall be included in a subsequent update of the database.

3. Initial document review

We conducted an initial manual screening of the documents to understand their structure and content. Specifically, we checked whether information on the three criteria (Figure 1) and six adaptation tracking elements (Figure 2) is generally available in these types of documents. This allowed us to assess the applicability of the framework to the document types of interest, but also to fine-tune definitions in the framework and establish data collection rules (next step).

4. Establishment of data collection rules

We defined clear guidelines to ensure data extraction consistency within the team. The structure of the guidance was informed by an existing extraction codebook for the systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021). Detailed guidelines used are explained in detail in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2. While key definitions had already been established in the framework informing the Protocol (see Sect.Introduction), this step was essential to refine these to ensure alignment with the content and language used in these documents. For instance, we broadened our initial definition of actions to include both on-the-ground initiatives and relevant policies and programs, recognizing that NDCs and NAPs place a heavy emphasis on planned adaptation, compared to groundwork initiatives. In addition, this step also enabled us to refine our approach to recording information on targets, which are typically set in relation to objectives, actions or indicators, rather than stand-alone elements.

5. Document sreening

Data extraction was carried out manually, by a team of three. Every team member screened a subset of documents (N=68), ensuring thorough coverage while maintaining a manageable workload. For documents in French and Spanish language documents, the data extracted were translated into English using open-source software (Google Translate). Given the nature of the information required, we extracted data in two different databases, as follows:

(i) the main database captures data on comprehensiveness and robustness of adaptation elements. Here, each observation (row) records information for one specific element in a specific document (i.e., NDC or NAP) of a country (Supplementary Table S1). A document may include multiple elements of the same type, such as several distinct hazards, systems at risk, goals, objectives, or indicators. Each unique element (i.e., action, indicator, etc.) is recorded individually in the database.

(ii) the secondary database captures data on coherence between adaptation elements for each document (NDC or NAP) in a specific country (Supplementary Table S2). Here, for each document (row) we recorded linkages between sets of elements (i.e.,between sets of actions and objectives; sets of actions and indicators, etc.). We did not document linkages at the level of each unique element (i.e., betweenan individual objective and an individual action), as such documents do not provide the needed granularity for such associations.

Data extracted was cross-checked by the team lead member, who randomly revisited source documents to validate and enhance the accuracy of the information extracted. In addition, the team convened regularly during the data extraction and coding phase to discuss and resolve any discrepancies in extraction and coding and ensure consistency.

6. Coding

Coding categories and definitions (See Supplementary Table S3) are grounded in established adaptation frameworks, to ensure alignment with the current state of knowledge on adaptation. Specifically, hazard categories were developed based on the Sixth Assessment Report (AR6) of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) (IPCC, 2022b) and the International Disaster Database EM-DAT (CRED, 2009). Typology of systems at risk is aligned with IPCC AR6 (IPCC, 2022b). Sector categories are aligned to IPCC AR6 Working Group II (WGII) (IPCC, 2022a), the Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI) (Berrang-Ford et al., 2021) and observed patterns in the text. For indicators, typologies by tracking function is informed by the monitoring and evaluation literature (Makinen et al., 2018) and SMART criteria are based on established practice for designing and using performance indicators (Bours et al., 2014; Climate-Eval, 2015; EvalCommunity, 2023).

Coding was performed by the team lead and cross-checked by the other two members independently, to ensure accuracy and consistent interpretation. Discrepancies in coding among the three members were discussed and resolved through consensus. Ongoing communications among the team members helped to address ambiguities in coding guidelines and to ensure that all team members had a shared understanding of the criteria.

We used automatic text classification through keyword and expression matching to code information on sectors, hazards, and systems at risk. This was performed using the R programming tool. The code used for data coding is available at: https://github.com/andreeanowak/adaptation-tracking-africa. Text strings were compared to predefined keywords and phrases (See Supplementary Table S3) and assigned one of the sector codes developed from the literature (IPCC, 2022a; Lesnikowski et al., 2021). While keyword-based classification is straightforward, it may overlook important observations since it only considers the presence or absence of specific words in the text data. Ambiguity can arise from certain text data, where the same text can be interpreted in multiple ways or assigned to multiple categories based on different criteria. For instance, the observation regarding "agricultural area under efficient water management technologies" could be labeled as either "food and fiber" or "water and sanitation" sector. To enhance classification accuracy, we developed detailed search strings specific to the category of interest. Additionally, we used context and syntax analysis to identify sentence structures or phrases that characterize different categories of interest. This approach helped to clarify ambiguous text data and ensure correct categorization.

We manually categorized indicators using deductive content analysis. Indicators require nuanced understanding of the context and domain expertise and their typologies cannot be determined by simple key word searchers. Clear and comprehensive coding guidelines were essential to avoid ambiguity and ensure quality of the analysis. In addition, maintaining a detailed documentation of the coding process, including the rationale behind coding decisions and examples, was critical for maintaining consistency and for ensuring decision transparency for future replication efforts.

n/a

Activities related to the protocol development, document screening and data analysis were implemented between June 2022 and June 2023 (12 months)

The application of this Protocol led to the creation of a novel, pan-African dataset ot indertify on entry points for adaptation tracking across the continent. The dataset is accompanied by a journal article (in progress) presenting key results from the dataset. Insights from the dataset and the paper will be used to engage in conversations initiated by the Adaptation Committee on the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) and the Global Stocktake (GST) process, and to prepare inputs into the position of the African Group of Negotiators in relation to the GST. Publications based on the dataset are forthcoming. In addition, the Protocol is aimed to inform assessment of additional policy documents that can inform adaptation tracking, particularly National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) of countries on other continents.

Adaptation Committee. (2022). Synthesis report for the technical assessment component of the first global stocktake. UNFCCC. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/AC_SR_GST.pdf

Beauchamp, E., & Józefiak, I. (2023). Next Steps for Defining a Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning System for the Global Goal on Adaptation by COP 28. International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

Berrang-Ford, L., Biesbroek, R., Ford, J. D., Lesnikowski, A., Tanabe, A., Wang, F. M., Chen, C., Hsu, A., Hellmann, J. J., Pringle, P., Grecequet, M., Amado, J.-C., Huq, S., Lwasa, S., & Heymann, S. J. (2019). Tracking global climate change adaptation among governments. Nature Climate Change, 9(6), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-019-0490-0

Berrang-Ford, L., Siders, A. R., Lesnikowski, A., Fischer, A. P., Callaghan, M. W., Haddaway, N. R., Mach, K. J., Araos, M., Shah, M. A. R., Wannewitz, M., Doshi, D., Leiter, T., Matavel, C., Musah-Surugu, J. I., Wong-Parodi, G., Antwi-Agyei, P., Ajibade, I., Chauhan, N., Kakenmaster, W., … Abu, T. Z. (2021). A systematic global stocktake of evidence on human adaptation to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 11(11), 989–1000. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01170-y

Bours, D., McGinn, C., & Pringle, P. (2014). Selecting indicators for climate change adaptation programmin (Guidance for M&E of Climate Change Interventions). SEA Change Community of Practice and UKCIP. https://www.ukcip.org.uk/wp-content/PDFs/MandE-Guidance-Note2.pdf

Brooks, N., Anderson, S., Burton, I., Fisher, S., Rai, N., & Tellam, I. (2013). An operational framework for Tracking Adaptation and Measuring Development (TAMD).

Christiansen, L., Martinez, G., & Naswa, P. (2018). Adaptation metrics: Perspectives on measuring, aggregating and comparing adaptation results. UNEP DTU Partnership. https://resilientcities2018.iclei.org/wp-content/uploads/UDP_Perspectives-Adaptation-Metrics-WEB.pdf

Climate-Eval. (2015). Good Practice Study on Principles for Indicator Development, Selection, and Use in Climate Change Adaptation Monitoring and Evaluation. In The SAGE Dictionary of Social Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857020116.n88

Cradock-Henry, N. A., Blackett, P., Hall, M., Johnstone, P., Teixeira, E., & Wreford, A. (2020). Climate adaptation pathways for agriculture: Insights from a participatory process. Environmental Science & Policy, 107, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.02.020

Craft, B., & Fisher, S. (2018). Measuring the adaptation goal in the global stocktake of the Paris Agreement. Climate Policy, 18(9), 1203–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2018.1485546

CRED. (2009). General Classification | EM-DAT. https://www.emdat.be/classification

Donatti, C. I., Harvey, C. A., Hole, D., Panfil, S. N., & Schurman, H. (2020). Indicators to measure the climate change adaptation outcomes of ecosystem-based adaptation. Climatic Change, 158(3–4), 413–433. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-019-02565-9

Dupuis, J., & Biesbroek, R. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: The dependent variable problem in comparing and evaluating climate change adaptation policies. Global Environmental Change, 23(6), 1476–1487. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.022

Eriksen, S., Schipper, E. L. F., Scoville-Simonds, M., Vincent, K., Adam, H. N., Brooks, N., Harding, B., Khatri, D., Lenaerts, L., Liverman, D., Mills-Novoa, M., Mosberg, M., Movik, S., Muok, B., Nightingale, A., Ojha, H., Sygna, L., Taylor, M., Vogel, C., & West, J. J. (2021). Adaptation interventions and their effect on vulnerability in developing countries: Help, hindrance or irrelevance? World Development, 141, 105383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105383

EvalCommunity. (2023). SMART Indicators in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E)—EvalCommunity. SMART Indicators in Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E). https://www.evalcommunity.com/career-center/smart-indicators/

Faulkner, L., Ayers, J., & Huq, S. (2015). Meaningful Measurement for Community-Based Adaptation. New Directions for Evaluation, 2015(147), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.20133

Ford, J. D., & Berrang-Ford, L. (2016). The 4Cs of adaptation tracking: Consistency, comparability, comprehensiveness, coherency. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 21(6), 839–859. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-014-9627-7

Ford, J. D., Berrang-Ford, L., Lesnikowski, A., Barrera, M., & Heymann, S. J. (2013). How to Track Adaptation to Climate Change: A Typology of Approaches for National-Level Application. Ecology and Society, 18(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05732-180340

Hallegatte, S., & Engle, N. L. (2019). The search for the perfect indicator: Reflections on monitoring and evaluation of resilience for improved climate risk management. Climate Risk Management, 23, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CRM.2018.12.001

Huang, J. (2018). What Can the Paris Agreement’s Global Stocktake Learn from the Sustainable Development Goals? Carbon & Climate Law Review, 12(3), 218–228. https://doi.org/10.21552/cclr/2018/3/8

IPCC. (2022a). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)].(p. 3056). Cambridge University Press. https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg2/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FullReport.pdf

IPCC. (2022b). Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf

Klonschinski, A. (2021). Universal Metrics for Climate Change Adaptation Finance? A Cautionary Tale. Sustainability, 13(16), Article 16. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169428

Lesnikowski, A., Berrang-Ford, L., Siders, A. R., Haddaway, N., Biesbroek, R., Harper, S., Minx, J., Perez, E. C. de, Reckien, D., New, M., Singh, C., Thomas, A., Totin, E., Trisos, C., & Bavel, B. V. (2021). The Global Adaptation Mapping Initiative (GAMI): Part 3 – Coding protocol [Preprint]. Protocol Exchange. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.pex-1242/v1

Lindsey, C. (2023). Measuring adaptation and resilience: An annotated bibliography. https://casaclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CASA_Working-paper_Annotated-bibliography-of-adaptation-and-resilience-measurement.pdf

Makinen, K., Prutsch, A., Karali, E., Leitner, M., Voller, S., Lyytimaki, J., Pringle, P., & Vanneuville, W. (2018). Indicators for adaptation to climate change at national level—Lessons from emerging practice in Europe. ETC/CCA. https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-cca/products/etc-cca-reports/tp_3-2018

Michaelowa, A., & Stadelmann, M. (2018). Development of universal metrics for adaptation effectiveness. UDP Perspectives Series, 1(2018/1), Article 2018/1. https://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-159652

Njuguna, L., Biesbroek, R., Crane, T. A., Dewulf, A., & Tamás, P. (2023). Do government knowledge production and use systems matter for global climate change adaptation tracking? Insights from Eastern Africa. Regional Environmental Change, 23(3), 85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-023-02077-4

Njuguna, L., Biesbroek, R., Crane, T. A., Tamás, P., & Dewulf, A. (2022). Designing fit-for-context climate change adaptation tracking: Towards a framework for analyzing the institutional structures of knowledge production and use. Climate Risk Management, 35, 100401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2022.100401

Park, S. E., Marshall, N. A., Jakku, E., Dowd, A. M., Howden, S. M., Mendham, E., & Fleming, A. (2012). Informing adaptation responses to climate change through theories of transformation. Global Environmental Change, 22(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.10.003

Prabhakar, S. V. R. K., Kobashi, T., & Srinivasan, A. (2010). Monitoring Progress of Adaptation to Climate Change: The Use of Adaptation Metrics. Asian Journal of Environment and Disaster Management (AJEDM) - Focusing on Pro-Active Risk Reduction in Asia, 02, 435. https://doi.org/10.3850/S1793924011000848

Singh, C., Iyer, S., New, M. G., Few, R., Kuchimanchi, B., Segnon, A. C., & Morchain, D. (2021). Interrogating ‘effectiveness’ in climate change adaptation: 11 guiding principles for adaptation research and practice. Climate and Development, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1964937

Smith, J. B., Vogel, J. M., & III, J. E. C. (2009). An architecture for government action on adaptation to climate change. An editorial comment. Climatic Change, 95(1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9623-1

UNEP. (2022). Adaptation Gap Report 2022: Too Little, Too Slow – Climate adaptation failure puts world at risk. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). https://www.unep.org/adaptation-gap-report-2022

UNFCCC. (2021). Approaches to reviewing the overall progress made in achieving the global goal on adaptation.

Paris Agreement, 27 (2015). https://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/convention/application/pdf/english_paris_agreement.pdf

Wise, R. M., Fazey, I., Stafford Smith, M., Park, S. E., Eakin, H. C., Archer Van Garderen, E. R. M., & Campbell, B. (2014). Reconceptualising adaptation to climate change as part of pathways of change and response. Global Environmental Change, 28, 325–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.002

Document screening, data extraction, analysis, writing and dissemination of research data have been funded through the Accelerating Impact of CGIAR Climate Research for Africa (AICCRA) supported by a grant from the International Development Association (IDA) of the World Bank. The Project is implemented by The Alliance of Bioversity and CIAT and Partners.

Nowaketal2023SupplemenataryFile.docx
How can governments engage in adaptation tracking? A protocol for assessing national adaptation policies - Supplementary Tables

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest protocol version

How can governments engage in adaptation tracking? A protocol for assessing national adaptation policies

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Reagents

Equipment

Procedure

Troubleshooting

Time Taken

Anticipated Results

References

Acknowledgements

Supplementary Files

Associated Publications

Status:

Version 1

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

How can governments engage in adaptation tracking? A protocol for assessing national adaptation policies

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Reagents

Equipment

Procedure

Troubleshooting

Time Taken

Anticipated Results

References

Acknowledgements

Supplementary Files

Associated Publications

Status:

Version 1

Privacy Policy

Terms of Service

Manage Cookie Preferences