TY - JOUR
T1 - Measuring the adaptation gap
T2 - A framework for evaluating climate hazards and opportunities in urban areas
AU - Chen, Chen
AU - Doherty, Meghan
AU - Coffee, Joyce
AU - Wong, Theodore
AU - Hellmann, Jessica
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd
PY - 2016/12/1
Y1 - 2016/12/1
N2 - Urban areas are increasingly seen as having distinct need for climate adaptation. Further, as resources are limited, it is essential to prioritize adaptation actions. At the municipal scale, we suggest that priorities be placed where there is a gap between adaption need and existing adaptation effort. Taking Seattle, USA, as an example, we present this gap in terms of four categories of adaptation options (no-regret, primary, secondary, and tertiary) for the three primary urban hazards—flooding, heat wave, and drought. To do so, we first establish current adaptation need by identifying and categorizing adaptation options. Next, we consider for each option the number of hazards addressed and benefit to and beyond climate adaptation, the projected magnitude of the hazards addressed, the projection's uncertainty, and the required scale and irreversibility of investment. Third, we assessed Seattle's current adaptation efforts by reviewing adaptation plans and related materials. Finally, we identify the distance or “gap” as the proportion of adaptation options not identified by existing adaptation plans. For Seattle, we categorized seven options as no-regret adaptation, five as primary, two as secondary, and three as tertiary. Each level's adaptation gap highlights significant opportunities to take steps to reduce climate risks in key areas.
AB - Urban areas are increasingly seen as having distinct need for climate adaptation. Further, as resources are limited, it is essential to prioritize adaptation actions. At the municipal scale, we suggest that priorities be placed where there is a gap between adaption need and existing adaptation effort. Taking Seattle, USA, as an example, we present this gap in terms of four categories of adaptation options (no-regret, primary, secondary, and tertiary) for the three primary urban hazards—flooding, heat wave, and drought. To do so, we first establish current adaptation need by identifying and categorizing adaptation options. Next, we consider for each option the number of hazards addressed and benefit to and beyond climate adaptation, the projected magnitude of the hazards addressed, the projection's uncertainty, and the required scale and irreversibility of investment. Third, we assessed Seattle's current adaptation efforts by reviewing adaptation plans and related materials. Finally, we identify the distance or “gap” as the proportion of adaptation options not identified by existing adaptation plans. For Seattle, we categorized seven options as no-regret adaptation, five as primary, two as secondary, and three as tertiary. Each level's adaptation gap highlights significant opportunities to take steps to reduce climate risks in key areas.
KW - Adaptation gap
KW - No-regret adaptation
KW - Resilience
KW - Uncertainty
KW - Urban adaptation
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84973926637&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84973926637&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.007
DO - 10.1016/j.envsci.2016.05.007
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84973926637
SN - 1462-9011
VL - 66
SP - 403
EP - 419
JO - Environmental Science and Policy
JF - Environmental Science and Policy
ER -