Search

Nature-based solutions (NBS) have emerged as an important concept to build climate resilience in cities whilst providing a wide range of ecological, economic, and social co-benefits. With the ambition of increasing NBS uptake, diverse actors have been developing means to demonstrate and prove these benefits. However, the multifunctionality, the different types of benefits provided, and the context-specificity make it difficult to capture and communicate their overall value. In this paper, a value-based framework is presented that allows for structured navigation through these issues with the goal of identifying key values and engaging beneficiaries from the public, private, and civil society sector in the development of NBS. Applied methods such as focus groups, interviews, and surveys were used to assess different framework components and their interlinkages, as well as to test its applicability in urban planning. Results suggest that more specialized “hard facts” might be needed to actually attract larger investments of specific actors. However, the softer and more holistic approach could inspire and support the forming of alliances amongst a wider range of urban stakeholders and the prioritization of specific benefits for further assessment. Consequently, it is argued that both hard and soft approaches to nature valuation will be necessary to further promote and drive the uptake of NBS in cities.

We present the first systematic, global stocktake of the academic literature on human adaptation. We screen 48,316 documents and identify 1,682 articles that present empirical research documenting human efforts to reduce risk from climate change and associated hazards. Coding and synthesizing this literature highlights that the overall extent of adaptation across global regions and sectors is low. Adaptations are largely local and incremental rather than transformative. Behavioural adjustments by individuals and households are more prevalent than any other type of response, largely motivated by drought and precipitation variability. Local governments and civil society are engaging in risk reduction across all sectors and regions, particularly in response to flooding. Urban technological and infrastructural adaptations to flood risk are prevalent in Europe, while shifts in farming practices dominate reporting from Africa and Asia. Despite increasing evidence of adaptation responses, evidence that these responses are reducing risks (observed and projected) remains limited.

Assessing global progress on human adaptation to climate change is an urgent priority. Although the literature on adaptation to climate change is rapidly expanding, little is known about the actual extent of implementation. We systematically screened >48,000 articles using machine learning methods and a global network of 126 researchers. Our synthesis of the resulting 1,682 articles presents a systematic and comprehensive global stocktake of implemented human adaptation to climate change. Documented adaptations were largely fragmented, local and incremental, with limited evidence of transformational adaptation and negligible evidence of risk reduction outcomes. We identify eight priorities for global adaptation research: assess the effectiveness of adaptation responses, enhance the understanding of limits to adaptation, enable individuals and civil society to adapt, include missing places, scholars and scholarship, understand private sector responses, improve methods for synthesizing different forms of evidence, assess the adaptation at different temperature thresholds, and improve the inclusion of timescale and the dynamics of responses. Determining progress in adaptation to climate change is challenging, yet critical as climate change impacts increase. A stocktake of the scientific literature on implemented adaptation now shows that adaptation is mostly fragmented and incremental, with evidence lacking for its impact on reducing risk.

Diverse concepts have emerged in recent decades which (at least in their rhetoric) aim to instigate processes that make cities more resilient to climate change and support more sustainable urban development (Coaffee and Lee 2016; Hodson and Marvin 2017). With regards to urban water management, the Water-Sensitive City (WSC) is one such concept that promotes urban water planning to “protect, maintain and enhance the multiple benefits and services of the total urban water cycle that are highly valued by society” (Wong and Brown 2009, 674). The WSC, along with related integrated urban water management concepts have seen growing scholarly attention in recent years (see e.g. Fletcher et al. 2015). The emergence of such concepts reflects the growing demand for more sophisticated and integrated understanding and management of urban water systems. Such an ambitious model represents a broadening of the competencies and responsibilities of practitioners involved in water management and improved coordination with other urban sectors. Thus, such changes (must) typically coincide with changes amongst actors engaged directly or indirectly in water management, along with the prevailing institutional arrangements that govern their activities. Yet very little is known about processes of institutionalisation of such concepts within socio-technical regimes such as those that characterise urban water systems (Fuenfschilling and Truffer 2014). This paper aims to map processes of institutionalisation of concepts associated with the Water-Sensitive City amongst practitioners working in urban water management related fields in the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg. The research explores changes in the institutional arrangements between 1990 and 2020. References Coaffee, J., and P. Lee. 2016. Urban Resilience: Planning for Risk, Crisis and Uncertainty. Macmillan International Higher Education. Fletcher, T. D., W. Shuster, W. F. Hunt, R. Ashley, D. Butler, S. Arthur, S. Trowsdale, et al. 2015. ‘SUDS, LID, BMPs, WSUD and More – The Evolution and Application of Terminology Surrounding Urban Drainage’. Urban Water Journal 12 (7): 525–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2014.916314. Fuenfschilling, L., and B. Truffer. 2014. ‘The Structuration of Socio-Technical Regimes - Conceptual Foundations from Institutional Theory’. Research Policy 43 (4): 772–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.10.010. Hodson, M., and S. Marvin. 2017. ‘Intensifying or Transforming Sustainable Cities? Fragmented Logics of Urban Environmentalism’. Local Environment 22 (sup1): 8–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2017.1306498. Wong, T. H. F., and R. R. Brown. 2009. ‘The Water Sensitive City: Principles for Practice’. Water Science and Technology 60 (3): 673–82. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2009.436.